Summer Wheat
Footballguy
I agree, as I stated earlier even though his accent is spot on they should keep Apu and replace him with an actual actor from India.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Article - People Upset Over People Upset Over Simpson's Apu Character (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
unckeyherb
Footballguy
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
I'm not sure if "The main characters lack a conscience, therefore it's okay to portray other characters as racist stereotypes" is a winning argument.
Not that I'm saying that Seinfeld was a bigoted show. I just think that it worked better when it exposed the ignorance of the main characters (e.g., when George was trying to make a "black friend" to prove he wasn't racist) than when it played up cheap stereotypes for laughs (e.g., Babu, the gay ribbon bullies).
unckeyherb
Footballguy
sorry, I misunderstood. I was reading that as though he should simply be replaced, full stop-not taking into account that he left. My bad.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Yes. That wasn't "Season 1" stuff. That's character rehabilitationd.
Also, Azaria hasn't won an Oscar, he got an Emmy for Apu, during the season that dealt with arranged marriage, and he was the only nominee in the category.
matttyl
Footballguy
Sorry, yes, Emmy (meant to type Emmy, fingers typed Oscar). Just meant to say he's won awards for the voice.
Season 1 they were just figuring out what this show was really going to be about. I'm not going to fault them for season 1 stuff now 30 years later.
MAC_32
Footballguy
If your goal is conversation then I will politely ask this one time and one time only - please do not twist my words. Next time it won't be polite.
The actual quote - 'The show was built around 4 people that lack a conscience and portrayed accordingly.' As you went onto correctly say its roots are in their ignorance. What they unintentionally did to Babu Bhat first in the cafe and then in the visa is exactly that - their ignorance got him into avoidable binds and their lack of conscience allowed them to just move on with their lives as if nothing happened despite effectively ruining his American dream.
Just like with Apu, I think anyone who looks at that character and immediately thinks racist stereotype is just looking for a reason to be offended. It's the show. It's satire. It's mocking them; not Babu.
Gustavo Fring
Footballguy
Tank you, come again.
[scooter]
Footballguy
The ignorance of the main characters does not justify the racist or bigoted stereotypes of other characters.
Babu (and his "Beddy bad man!" shtick) is little more than a cardboard stereotype written by lazy writers looking for a cheap joke. The fact that Jerry lacks a conscience does not mean that it's OK for the show to portray Babu in a borderline racist manner.
Babu and Apu are similar in that they are both ethnic minorities who are subjected to the ignorance of the main characters. However, there is a key difference: when Apu is mocked, the ultimate target is not Apu, but the people mocking him. (To quote @IvanKaramazov, "when Apu's immigrant status is used for comic effect, it's usually to mock American xenophobia, not immigrants.") But when Babu is mocked, there's no subtext or deeper meaning. We are meant to laugh at Babu's accent, nothing more. And that's where the show hits one of its rare sour notes, IMO.
In contrast, I thought Seinfeld did a pretty good job in the episode where George was desperate to find a black friend -- they could have easily gone down the Babu route and had stereotypical black characters who spoke jive, but they avoided that trope and ultimately made George's ignorance the butt of the joke.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I'm not personally, either, but I'm not going to begrudge someone from the ethnic group that was being stereotyped for doing so. If they made a sequel to Breakfast at Tiffany's about Mr. Yunioshi in which his character was deftly and wonderfully handled in a beautiful story of immigration and community building, but kept the same physical attributes and voice, I'd imagine it would upset some Asian people. Same with Uncle Remus. Origins can be a big deal.
matttyl
Footballguy
What from the origins of Apu's character was even in the same ballpark of being as horrible as Mr. Yunioshi? I'm no Simpson's connoisseur or anything, but they didn't really get into any characters outside of the main family in the first season, did they? He was introduced as a minority store owner. We later find out that he was only working there to pay off student loans from earning his Ph.D., and being valedictorian doing it.
What was so "offensive" about Apu? The stereotype of working in a quick-e-mart? His voice? His mannerisms?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Right. One of the things that makes The Simpsons so cool is the way that they gradually fleshed out so many side characters -- Apu, Skinner, Mrs. Krabappel, Flanders, Sideshow Bob, Krusty, Revered Lovejoy, and so on. They were all skeletal at best in at first, but by the time you get half a dozen seasons in all of those folks had had at least an episode or two that really belonged to them.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
Was hoping you'd have an answer, rather than "go listen to that guys answer." I'll see if I can find and watch it.
ETA - found a little PBS bit about the film on youtube. Hari Kondabolu shows a Simpsons clip of Apu to his parents and asks them about it. They said they don't really relate to him, but his mother then said (when asked about a white man doing the voice) - "Hank Azaria is a talented guy. They paid him, he did it, and he did it good." Kinda goes against the idea of the voice being offensive, no?
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Okay. To begin with:
1. It is intentionally a voice of a white guy ala shock radio in the 90s impersonating an Indian guy in "step n fetch" or "Charlie Chan" style. The Simpsons didn't hire an Indian actor or person even with a British or Indian accent to play the character, or even have a convincing British or Indian accent done, they hired a white man to do, basically, an impersonation of a white man doing an Indian accent. It's seen by many as a vocal version of brownface. Which is offensive.
2. He was intentionally given a job of Kwik-E-Mart owner/operator because it is a stereotypical job for an Indian immigrant at that time.
matttyl
Footballguy
I touched on #1 in my ETA post just above yours. That video goes on to show that guy asking people on the street if they knew that Apu's voice is done by a white guy, and they were shocked to hear it. Leads you to believe those people thought the voice was being done by a non-white guy, right? Doesn't that go completely against the point?
#2 - is that offensive, for a convenience store owner/operator to be portrayed by an Asian? If so I guess we can't watch Pulp Fiction, Falling Down, American History X, Loaded Weapon, Fight Club, Rumble in the Bronx (starring Jackie Chan of all actors), Crash, Friday, Training Day, Gilmore Girls, How I met your mother, and many others. Just because it's a "stereotype" doesn't mean it's either wrong or offensive. You know that I'm an insurance agent. When I go to CE classes, it's a room full of white men. "Insurance agents", are accurately stereotyped as white guys, at least until these recent State Farm commercials with Aaron Rodgers - because more often than not, that's what they are.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Slight tangent: there have been several prominent characters on The Simpsons who never got fleshed out (at least through the first ~20 years of the show) -- they never got a backstory, never got a dedicated plot, etc. I don't think it's a coincidence that the three most prominent African-American Springfieldians (Dr. Hibbert, Carl Carlson, and Lou the cop) were all on that list of undeveloped characters. IMO, there were two reasons for this: 1) because the show was staffed with primarily white writers and producers, they felt unqualified to write deeper storylines involving African-Americans; and 2) the producers and writers were sensitive to the possibility of offending black viewers, so they toned down those characters.
In that context, I can understand why people might ask "Why didn't they do the same with Apu?"
Nonetheless, I'm glad they didn't relegate Apu to background status, because he turned into one of the top-5 non-Simpson characters on the show.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I'll be happy to watch the video when I can and give you my thoughts on it. Are there any people in the video of Indian or East Asian descent who say they found the portrayal offensive?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I agree on all counts. Unfortunately, black characters appearing in a predominately "white" show are always going to be especially problematic because of our unique history, and I don't mind not having a prominent black character for that reason. I get it.
That said, the show would have been poorer without Apu in it. I'm glad they have a "first generation immigrant" character who plays a significant role.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Lionel Hutz: Now, Mr. Nahasapeemapetilon, if that is your real name, is it true you have never forgotten anything?
Apu: No sir. In fact, I can recite pi to 40,000 places. The last digit is 1.
Homer: Mmmmm... pie.
Apu: No sir. In fact, I can recite pi to 40,000 places. The last digit is 1.
Homer: Mmmmm... pie.
IC FBGCav
Footballguy
What this guys comedy special "homecoming king"
https://www.google.com/search?q=hasan+homecoming+king&oq=hassan+homec&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.7699j0j7&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
It might be a little off topic but it is impactful.
https://www.google.com/search?q=hasan+homecoming+king&oq=hassan+homec&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.7699j0j7&client=ms-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
It might be a little off topic but it is impactful.
I like Apu. Even if he offends some people, I don’t think he should be killed off. I believe it’s wrong to murder foreigners just because they talk funny, but maybe that’s just me.
matttyl
Footballguy
Ironically, no. Again, the video that I liked to is a PBS interview with the writer of “The problem with Apu”, not the film itself (which if I can find, and find the time for I’ll try and watch). His mother even joked with him after he showed her a clip of Apu on his phone that he looked like Apu a little bit. Then she was asked specifically about the voice being done by a white guy, and she called it “good.” So I’m not really sure where any offense is.
Hari even said specifically that “there’s nothing wrong with being a convenience store owner” when talking about the character. That line kinda came out of nowhere in the interview, so it kinda caught me.
The only other people of Indian or East Asian decent in the video (aside from the interviewer) were a few folks about his age who he asks if they’d ever been called Apu or had that referenced towards them (very vague question) and they raised their hand. Later the Indian interviewer mentioned Apu’s “catchphrases” which another kid would apparently mockingly say to him, and to other Asian kids. Sounds like a case of an ahole kid and bullying rather than something I’d hold against the show.
Another thing that I had to chuckle at was Hari getting a bit of a response from the show (the clip with Lisa), and being more upset as a fan of the show for it rather than as an Indian-American. Seems odd that he’d be such a fan of the show to have said that after literally making a movie about (apparently) how offensive one of the characters is.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
You should see it. It’s not some one dimensional hit piece as you appear to think it is.
I haven't seen the documentary either, but my understanding is that he made it as a big fan of the show who was trying to reconcile his feelings for the show with his disappointment over the character of Apu.
Also, just from a purely aesthetic perspective, the Simpsons' response to the film was really lame. When I first heard about it, I thought maybe it was some kind of satirical reprise of the Itchy and Scratchy writers sticking Marge into an episode in "Itchy and Scratchy and Marge".
matttyl
Footballguy
Yes, that’s the response that he said he was more upset with an a fan than as an Indian American.
matttyl
Footballguy
3.5 out of 10 on IMDB? Not having high hopes for this. Where can I see it? Not on Netflix or amazon.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
rockaction
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
I’ll go back to the example I cited earlier: Let’s say your Indian friend told you that he hated the character because he was bullied as a kid by people imitating Apu’s accent. Would you accuse him of looking for a reason to be offended?
And no, I’m not saying The Simpsons bears any responsibility for what bullies do. I’m saying there seems to be a sentiment running through this thread of people who don’t themselves find Apu offensive and therefore can’t imagine why anyone else would. And I think we should all have more empathy for the perspectives that other people may bring to a situation, particularly if they’re from a group whose viewpoints have historically been marginalized.
Last edited by a moderator:
MAC_32
Footballguy
What you described would be a good teaching opportunity for bullies. Educating them on who Apu really is and how whatever they're doing to their Indian peer is laced in ignorance.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I get the point of the article that it's not about me and my feelings and saying to take others experiences in mind. But usually what I go back on is:
1. What is the intent of the content and the person behind it.
2. Cant you choose to not consume that content?
1. What is the intent of the content and the person behind it.
2. Cant you choose to not consume that content?
My point wasn’t about the bullies, it was about the person being bullied. In fact, leave the bullies aside for a second. What if your friend told you that, as an Indian immigrant, he found the character offensive. Would you tell him he was looking for a reason to be offended or would you understand that his background might give him a perspective on the issue that was different from yours?
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
This is fine, but some people do choose to take offense for pretty sketchy reasons. If somebody wants to explain rationally why X is offensive, I'm completely willing to hear them out. But they need to make a case based on reason and logic. If the end result is something like "This frays my nerves for reasons that you could never understand," that's fine and all, but I'm not going to give that position any credence or lose any sleep over it.
From what I've gathered from this thread, the arguments for Apu being problematic are that he has an accent (as do all first-generation immigrants, and as do many other characters on the show), he's voiced by a non-Indian actor (not relevant for voice acting), and he works in a stereotypical occupation for immigrants (true, but pretty benign as far as stereotypes go). Weighing against this position is the fact that his overall portrayal in the show is overwhelmingly positive. I understand the argument, or at least I think I do. It's just a poor argument.
As a non-Indian (who also hasn't seen the documentary), I can't give you a first-hand reason why they might find it offensive. In fact, as far as I can tell no one who's Indian has weighed in on this thread. And maybe the vast majority of Indians don't find it offensive; if that were the case, I'd respect that opinion as well.
My own personal reaction is that I agree the overall portrayal of him as a three-dimensional character is positive, and it's not even close to characters like Long Duc Dong or Mr. Yunioshi, who are so cringeworthy that their presence pretty much makes it impossible to enjoy their respective movies. To the extent that Apu does make me uncomfortable, I think it's mostly the historical echoes: a white actor playing an ethnic character with an exaggerated accent. There's also the fact that, if The Simpsons were being created today, they would almost certainly approach the character much differently.
But honestly, what offends me way more than Apu himself has been the response of the show, both the Groening quote from the article linked in the OP as well as the show's official "response" in last year's episode. Both strike me as incredibly dismissive and tone-deaf (eg, Lisa implying that Apu was once "inoffensive" and is now considered "politically incorrect"). By contrast, the quotes I've seen from Azaria strike me as far more nuanced, a guy who honestly intended no offense wrestling with the fact that reasonable people are nonetheless offended. There may not be easy answers, but he is at least engaging in it as a good-faith argument.
So I'm not going to tell anyone what they should think of Apu. But I do hope that people approach the question with empathy and consciousness of their own potential blind spots.
The Future Champs
Footballguy
Butting in on this conversation to say that I'd take his position at face value, I wouldn't reference Apu in the future in his presence, and I'd still support Apu remaining part of the Simpsons universe.
That's fair. Like I said, my point wasn't to say that people have to agree with those who find it offensive, just that they owe them empathy and the presumption of good faith.
Last edited by a moderator:
Holy crap I hadn't thought about that movie in years. I remember after seeing Cool World I gained even more appreciation for the brilliance of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Because the former looked like they had hired a sixth grader to figure out how to stitch together the live-action and animated scenes.
I've been thinking about this some more, and here's my attempt at a Grand Unified Theory of Apu. I'm not saying this is definitely accurate, nor am I saying it compels any action one way or another with the character. It's just my best guess at what's going on, and how we got here.IvanKaramazov said:
I think at the time Apu first appeared in the early '90s, I think it was fairly common to mine comedy out of broad stereotypes of lower-profile minorities. I don't think there's any way any show would have attempted to have an African-American version of Apu, but we were only a few years removed from Long Duck Dong, and it was the hey day of In Living Color's "Men on ..." sketch, where Damon and Keenan Ivory Wayans played flaming homosexuals. What all of those had in common was that they were not particularly subtle, and they were most definitely "punching down", in that they held the group's "otherness" out as something to be mocked. It was also punching down in the sense that the people portraying the characters were not themselves members of the group being parodied. Azaria was white, the Wayans Brothers were straigh, and while it is true that the actor who played Long Duck Dong was Asian, he was obviously a little-known actor playing a character written by a bunch of white people, so it's not like he had much agency.
We can debate which of those portrayals crossed a line, but I think we can all agree that if you were creating a show today, those types of broad stereotypes probably wouldn't fly. As I said earlier, I think the Lisa Simpson line implying that Apu was "once applauded and considered inoffensive and is now politically incorrect" was way too glib and self-serving coming from the show itself, but there was a degree of truth in it. Again, whether or not those kind of portrayals should have been considered offensive, they clearly weren't at the time, at least by most mainstream voices. But times, and comedic perspectives, have shifted.
So even if Apu was never as offensive as the other characters I mentioned, it was still basically from the same genre of broad ethnic stereotype. However, there were two key differences: First, The Simpsons didn't have the good sense to go off the air after 5-6 seasons like every other show in TV history, so it's still with us today. Second, the writers took advantage of that long time period to fill in his backstory in a way that was nuanced and sympathetic. In that sense, the plot lines they were writing for him in 1995 probably weren't that different from how a TV show would write a South Asian character today (say, Dinesh in Silicon Valley).
In other words, I think the people who are bothered by Apu go back to the "original sin" of how he was first conceived, which was probably due less to racism as to indifference and ignorance (I'm reminded of the joke, I think maybe from Spike Lee, about how Woody Allen had a magical camera that allowed him to film dozens of movies in NYC without ever managing to capture a single black person on film). The people who defend the character, meanwhile, point to his development as a three-dimensional, positive role model over the show's extended run. I'm not saying which of those perspectives should "win", but I think it's worthwhile to consider both.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
When the show started they had no idea if it would hit or last. Like all producers under such circumstances they used the talent available to them to play multiple voice roles. The little known Hank Azaria voiced many characters. It was efficient.
As for that character, it was no more or less sharply drawn than numerous others, at least to my memory though I confess to not being an aficionado of the show as are some.
I thought he was the driving force behind the B-Sharps, others disagree.
As for that character, it was no more or less sharply drawn than numerous others, at least to my memory though I confess to not being an aficionado of the show as are some.
I thought he was the driving force behind the B-Sharps, others disagree.
Right, I don't blame anyone for how the character originally came about, but I do think if the show were launching now they would do it differently.
B-Sharps went downhill the moment they got rid of Wiggum.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Baby on board, something something Burt Ward. This thing writes itself!
