That you ignored what I said was the worst part of the character is why I’m done. Hopefully, the current position taken by the voice actor and show runners will change. With avid supporters like you, that outcome will probably take much longer than it should.
4 Likes
So we all agree that they were not trying to be racist. You are saying that it still was racist, despite the intent. Okay. Agreeing that it wasn’t there intent, what was racist then? Was it that he was an immigrant with an accent and owned a convenience store?
I think you people are confusing racist making fun of a non-racist character with a non-racist character being racist. But feel free to correct me, what exactly is unintentionally racist about Apu? How is Apu treated differently from the other Simpson’s characters?
I didn’t respond to that because, if you’d read my previous replies, I agree with it to some extent. The voice is the worst part, a more believable accent would have been great, regardless of the actor’s ethnic background. Just like having any foreign actor performing in a different accent, it’s really jarring when they’re no good at it (as an Irishman I’m all too familiar with this). The current position by Azaria is that he’s somewhat embarrassed by the voice, he’d have done things differently if this was starting today, and he’d happily stand down if people really wanted him to. There doesn’t seem to be a clamour of Indian American voices calling for him to stand down though, even Kondabolu who started this whole conversation doesn’t necessarily think he should stand down.
It sounds like you are saying is that what makes Apu racist is that there are not more South Asian characters, and so with only Apu and his family being the only easily named ones, that makes it racist? So don’t put in any sort of representation unless you can make it a much larger part?
What makes Apu funny isn’t that he is Indian. The stuff that makes Apu funny is the stuff that makes all of the Simpson’s characters funny. I’m not sure what show you were watching where the mere fact that he is an immigrant is funny. Apu is an immigrant. He does have an accent. He does own a convenience store, which is a common immigrant job. That’s pretty much it, and that isn’t insulting. That is an actual normal thing.
Your list is pretty short.
What I am saying is that context matters. And the context that this character inhabits both inside and outside the show is different than the context other characters inhabit.
You seem resistant to the idea that a character can be legitimately problematic even if the character’s creators did not set out to create an offensive or racist character.
6 Likes
Not at all. I completely agree a person can make an offensive or racist character without trying. It happens all of the time. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I thought otherwise.
And what I am saying is that you can’t seem to articulate what is racist. Sure, context matters. What’s the context that matters here? Racist people used Apu as a caricature for racist stereotypes, despite the fact that Apu is not a caricature beyond the fact that he is an immigrant, with an accent, that owns a convenience store. Speak in something other than innuendo, how exactly is Apu being a complex character who is an immigrant, with an accent, who owns a convenience racist? It is certainly racist to mock someone for being an immigrant, with an accent, who owns a convenience store, but it isn’t racist to be one. It’s actually a thing that some people are.
The actual, continuing impact on the lives of real people who grew up being taunted with “Thank you, come again!” whether or not that was the intent of Apu’s creators?
3 Likes
No. I don’t know what they were trying to be, so how could I (or you) agree to that? I quoted the article, which also did not say that.
I recommend you go straight to the source—the documentary—rather than look to me to summarize it for you (I haven’t seen the documentary). That way, you can respond directly to Kondabolu’s actual arguments.
Edit: To another poster, you wrote:
I disagree with you and think Brainspore’s on point, but again — I think you’d be better served responding to Kondabolu’s argument (which would mean actually listening to it first) rather than nitpicking the comments here.
3 Likes
What do you expect the show creators to do to stop racist from being racist by turning an innocent catch phrase into a racist taunt? You realize that the problem in this scenario are the racist who are being racist, right? You also realize that even if you wiped Apu from existence, those racist would continue to exist and just find another taunt, right? The Simpsons did not create racist. Racist used stuff from the Simpsons to be racist at people without their permission or consent. They had no control over that and no ability to stop them.
- Listen to people who have clearly and patiently articulated how the creation and ongoing use of this character has impacted their own lived experiences
- Take those people seriously
- Acknowledge some measure of responsibility for the decades-long impact of this character
- Retire the character maybe
6 Likes
I think it is pretty unlikely that I am going to go watch a documentary because the person on the other end of the internet discussion insists that their rebuttal is in in there, somewhere. If you want to respond directly to a point I made, feel free to. If you want to articulate Kondabulu’s argument, feel free. If his argument is too complex to articulate, I suppose I’ll just have to settle for not knowing.
So you are saying that the response to racist using a non-racist character in a taunting manner is for the makers of that character to listen to the pain that racist inflicted on others, and then kill that character? Who exactly are you punishing?
You realize that the racist in example are utterly untouched, right?
This in itself is poor reasoning. Just because people aren’t on board with a stance (or even a fact) doesn’t mean their point of view is justified.
5 Likes
Who exactly are we helping by keeping the character around?
Hank Azaria has been clear he’d be fine retiring the character, and frankly seems kind of embarrassed voicing him at this point. Any decent jokes Apu had to tell got played out decades ago. At this point it feels like the showrunners are keeping the character around out of spite.
5 Likes
That’s fine, but its hard to credibly argue against a documentary’s thesis when you refuse to watch the documentary.
And a summary of the thesis has been articulated above; you just don’t agree with it. Clearly, you will not be convinced otherwise. I won’t try to convince you of anything. Have a good one.
2 Likes
Despite the cringe of the character … the toilet paper joke still gets me giggling and really one of my deepest fears when I’m at somebody’s home for a party.
They are not helping or hurting anyone. Apu exists. Racist have used that non-racist character doing non-racist things to mock people. It can’t be undone, nor is it the fault of people writing the character that racist decided to be racist with it. Racist will continue use Apu catch phrase increasingly little with time as it fades from cultural memory. Responding 30 years later to racist being racist by erasing a character that isn’t racist won’t erase any racism.
It certainly would cement the non-racist Apu character as a racist icon though. I don’t need a PhD in memetics to know that this nearly forgotten character would be revived by racist after being erased and would get revived gleefully deified. I don’t think your plan to destroy Apu as a racist icon is going to work. I kind of think it is going to do the exact opposite.
Or maybe they just don’t like responding to racists being racist by erasing their character? Again, being an immigrant, having an accent, and working an a convenience store is not a racist stereotype. It’s a thing that some Americans are. The people who are being racist are the ones who are making fun of that and calling it shameful, not the people telling a non-racist story about those people.
You have not made a single positive argument what is racist with Apu. You only talk about how people have been hurt because racist have made fun of of them for sharing the singular trait of being South Asian with Apu. The problem is with racist making fun of people for being South Asian, not that the Simpsons has a recognizably immigrant character from South Asia. I agree that racist being racist at people is a problem. Erasing Apu 30 years later doesn’t impact the problem. The racist will still continue to exists. They will not be thwarted from making fun of people because the character was canned. The only thing that will have happened is that racist will have convinced a bunch of people to bug the Simpsons writers enough to make it so that there is one less South Asian immigrant on the show. Congratulations?
Rupert Murdoch masturbates to it.
Whether you think Apu should stay around or not there is no question that he is one of the biggest stereotypes in the show. The writers themselves acknowledged this back in 1996, when they included this gag:
So yes, Apu is absolutely a stereotype even by the standards of The Simpsons. If you can’t even concede that then you’re willfully blinding yourself and I’m done responding to you. Peace out.
6 Likes
Ben Kingsley might not be the best example of that otherwise-prevalent practice.
He made it big playing Gandhi. He doesn’t obscure his heritage outside of the name, that’s really something other people do, ultimately.
In fact, the way that people read him as a non-stereotype person actually shows how much stereotype is packed into Apu’s character.
It’s like comparing apex level talent like Sidney Poitier or Denzel Washington (real, hyper-talented, singular actor) with how black actors are too often slotted into pure-stereotype “Random Thug 3” acting roles.
The comparison only shows what we lose from the stereotyped version.
