Good points, though even Azaria himself says he cringes today about the accent, and if they were to cast the character today they would probably use an Indian-American actor (as they have for recent new characters who were family members of Apu - not that I think this is a necessity, tying all actors down to their ethnic backgrounds is silly, especially in animation, but certainly more diversity is a good thing generally, just don’t make it some hard and fast rule). I think it’s fine to criticise certain aspects of the character, as long we don’t get carried away and lose sight of the greater context. Certain decisions were made back then that would not be made today, lets just make note of that and move on, not sure what else needs to be done here?
I realize you’re probably Just Asking Questions, but this has been addressed ad nauseam in this thread. I recommend going back and reading the previous posts.
Yet he still does it. He makes $300K+ per episode. It’s not like he needs the money at this point.
Racism is bad, but making rules against racism is also bad. Teach the controversy!
The character exists, he has the accent he has, would be weird to change it now. Some Indian-Americans think the character is at least somewhat racist, most don’t, at least not to the degree that many liberal white saviours do. If the entire character was a racist stereotype, unlike the sympathetic and fully realised character he actually is, then there’d be a good argument for retiring him, but he isn’t, so…
Even Kondabolu wasn’t calling for Azaria to be removed or the character to be axed, so not sure why you are.
There’s nothing inherently racist about an actor portraying a character of a different ethnicity. Rules enforcing ethnic membership as an employment criteria however are.
<raises hand sheepishly>
I said “Ah-boo.”
Ah so it’s fine because it’s not completely racist? Duly noted.
Ah, and here we go. It’s not racist, it’s overcompensating for white fragility! Yay! We’ve, come full circle.
I should mention that I haven’t seen the documentary, so I am missing the main input to this discussion. But as others pointed out, the reception of Apu among Indian Americans seems not to be consistent.
While trying to find out who Hari Kondabolu is, I found this interview:
I mean, if even Trevor Noah has a hard time to get on board with him, I guess Mr. Kondabolu’s reasoning isn’t that convincing.
I never said it was even partially racist, some Indian-Americans think it’s racist, some don’t. It’s not really for me or you to say which it is, outside of it being glaringly obvious (which, given the disparity in opinion amongst Indian-Americans, it clearly isn’t).
I guess the kind of self flagellation borne out of the new original sin of ‘white privilege’ among certain privileged liberal american white people can be viewed as a form of fragility, yes.
The fact that you took the effort to put this in scare quotes says all it needs to about your biases on the matter. Good day.
It’s clear from interview that Kondabolu’s problem isn’t with Apu in particular, but more the overall cultural landscape in which Apu was virtually the only Indian representative. He explicitly states that if the show had more Indian characters from the start, with varying and realistic backgrounds, he wouldn’t have a problem with Apu at all. Well guess what? That’s what we have today, a vastly more diverse cultural landscape, which is great, and only seems to be increasing (including other Indian characters in The Simpsons with diverse backgrounds - of course since apparently everyone stopped watching after season 12, maybe they don’t realise these exist?). There’s no need to enforce ethnic quotas in entertainment, the market has been more than willing to oblige all by itself.
Everyone keeps pointing at this New Yorker article without being able to articulate the argument is actually makes in their own words, and I think that’s mostly because that article is mostly innuendo. The New Yorker article’s entire argument is that while yes, this isn’t racist, wasn’t intended to be racist, and most certainly shows a complex character, some people unrelated to the show used it in a racist manner, and that’s annoying. True, that is annoying, but racist using a non-racist character doesn’t suddenly back it into racism.
In fact the article even turns around and points a finger at Herold and Kumar Go to White Castle as a show that does literally the same thing. An explicitly not racist movie showing not racist stuff gets used by racist people after the fact because it had people in it that were not white. Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle is not suddenly racist because people started calling south Asian guys “Kumar”, anymore than Ape is racist because racist started mocking his accent and the fact that he owns a convenience store.
The issue isn’t really “were the show’s creators intentionally trying to be hurtful and racist?” so much as “are the show’s creators giving due consideration to how the way this character has been portrayed has impacted (and continues to impact) the lives of real people?”
(I realize you’ve said that H&K is explicitly not racist but I feel this needs to be said.) It’s been a long, long time since I saw Harold and Kumar but there are some big differences here. First it’s that John Cho and Kal Penn are of Asian and South Asian heritage respectively. Second is that racism is an important part of the film – that is racism perpetrated against the titular characters; the many racists they encounter are the villains. Thirdly is that while, yes, there is some self-deprecating racism but this works because it’s self aware – they aren’t punching down and they are clearly mocking existing tropes. Kumar speaking in a faux Indian accent to make fun of his parents is funny. A white guy in brown face doing this would not be funny.
That’s not the fault of the movie. That’s just stupid white people using it as an excuse to be racist.
I think this is key. The H&K series is shining a light on racism and has some pretty powerful messages behind its stoner facade. Apu started as a character that basically recycled any number of racist tropes and now as people are coming out with well reasoned arguments and saying, “hey, that’s kind of racist you guys”. Instead of doing something about it or even acknowledging the concerns, the show runners are doubling down. That to me is the real crux of the problem.
You are just speaking in innuendo. After they have finished considering how racist have used a character of theirs in racist ways, what exactly should they do?
It’s weird, but no one can seem to directly confront what the problem is. The problem is that Apu represents a something that exists; South Asian convenience store owners with an accent. It’s okay to be that, and that does in fact exist in this world. The Simpsons doesn’t mock Apu for being what he is. He just is. Other people, outside of Simpsons mock Apu for being what he is, and apply it to all South Asians. Racist choosing to mock the entirely likable and sympathetic Apu for things not worthy of mockery isn’t something that the show has control over.
If racists are going to mocking and racist at a complex non-racist character, I’m not sure it is you want the show to do about it. Not have characters that can be mocked… so just a bunch of white dudes?
That some people want to focus on what they see as positive and ignore the worst issue with the character (who portrays him) isn’t surprising. I remember episodes where Apu hid his religion in an attempt to fit in, cheated on his wife, and did some really stereotypical “bad/clueless dad” bits after his children were born. That’s not admirable behavior.
There are always some people who support stereotypical portrayals of their own ethnic group, but it’s usually when they are done by members of the same group. They tend to argue that at least those actors and actresses have jobs and can support their families. With people who are not members of groups represented in the show doing the voice work, the same argument (weak as it was) can’t be made.
And Simpson’s didn’t also do this? I’m sorry, are we watching the same Simpsons? You didn’t ever catch any of the explicate anti-racist messages in Simpsons, and that they literally use Apu to do this? Apu is a complex character, but part of what Apu does is skewer racism. The only “doubling down” they have done is add more complexity to the character and move it even further away from being a caricature.
Again, exactly which part of Apu do you find racist? Being an immigrant working a job that immigrants are sometimes found working isn’t racist. People can certainly have a racist reaction to that fact, but simply existing as an immigrant with an accent isn’t racist.
It is human behavior though, and part of what makes him a realistic and well drawn character, very far from a stereotype. I didn’t say he was perfect, but in comparison to most of the other characters on the show he’s a paragon of virtue. The show in general is somewhat in the middle between the standard (terrible) clichéd sitcom/drama character arcs, where the characters learn and grow and become better people; and the more cynical Seinfeld credo that nobody should ever learn anything or grow as a person. Most episodes have pretty obvious moral lessons, and the characters generally learn them by the end, given the weird out-of-time quality to the universe they inhabit though, the stage is usually reset for the next episode (see the number of times Homer has screwed up with Marge and had to earn her trust back, after the 50th time this happens you realise it’s gotten a bit stale). It does give some space for the characters to grow though, without falling prey to gross sentimentality.
No, as I said way upthread there are plenty of examples of other Simpsons characters that haven’t been adopted as lazy stereotypes for an entire ethnicity.
Take African-American characters. You have Bleeding Gums Murphy and Lou and Carl and Dr. Hibbert and Judge Roy Snyder and others. While all of these characters embody some kind of cartoonish stereotypes, none have become the go-to shorthand for making fun of black people because
- There are many black characters both within the show and elsewhere on TV representing a much wider spectrum of character traits and experiences
- The mere fact that these characters are black is not supposed to be a major part of what makes them funny.
Nobody asks a black actor to “do the Carl Carlson voice!” because they think that’s what audiences have come to expect when they see a black person on screen.
That’s not the message I got from the article. Read this:
One of the more provocative moments comes when Kondabolu talks to Whoopi Goldberg about her collection of minstrel-era “negrobilia”—items produced during times of a more virulent, outward racism, when bugged-out eyes or thick lips stood in for the entirety of blackness. That these items were produced without the overt intent to offend shakes both Goldberg and Kondabolu. Like Apu, the objects weren’t consciously made to convey hatred or scorn; they were just the everyday representations of blackness that white people thought to produce. That this collapsing of an entire people into some exaggerated markers was achieved so effortlessly is what hurts the most. The people who did this didn’t even have to try.
The article’s not saying Apu’s portrayal “isn’t racist.” One of the documentary’s points, as conveyed in the article, is that a portrayal can still be racist and hurtful even if it was produced “without the overt intent to offend.”
