Article - People Upset Over People Upset Over Simpson's Apu Character (1 Viewer)

[[scooter]]

Without wading through most of this:

- the character clearly caricatures prominent ethnic stereotypes.  This is unarguable.

- The US entertainment industry has long been rife with this kind of thing.

- there has been a history of where cultural differences were a source of humor and had a tone of good natured ribbing as opposed to intentional denigration.

- there has also been a history of cultural differences being a source of denigration and dehumanization.

I think some aspects of Apu’s character are denigrating and the character needs to be retired.

I'm a huge Simpsons fan, and there are plenty of Apu scenes that I have enjoyed over the years. But there are a couple things I keep coming back to:

1. There's a long history of Hollywood employing white actors as ethnic characters, most infamously with blackface, but also Mickey Rooney in "Breakfast at Tiffany's"
   
2. There's also a long history of using ethnic stereotypes for humor. The one that sticks out from my childhood is Long Duck Dong in "Sixteen Candles", which is absolutely horrifying to watch today
   
3. Finally -- and this one is less "historical" because it still happens a lot today -- there's a tendency among members of the dominant group (white people, men, Christians, straight, whatever) to explain to minorities why they're wrong to feel offended by something. I never really noticed it until the past couple years, and now I spot it everywhere and it really drives me crazy (for the record, I'm a straight white Jewish male)
   

Given all of that, I simply can't dismiss the people who find Apu offensive, or elevate my own feelings over theirs. I don't know if they need to retire the character, or rework it, but I think there should be some acknowledgment that what they've been doing for the past 30 years was wrong.

I think there are some valid points here. When I watch the early season episodes of The Simpsons, there are some jokes involving Apu that are a little cringy. But I think that is more to do with ignorance (and lazy writers) than bigotry, and more to do with the evolution of societal norms than any deliberate "punching down" (it has been 30 years, after all).

I think Apu has been a mostly positive influence for Indians (and Hindus), and I think most Indians would agree with that statement. I suspect that, if given the choice between "no more Apu" and "toned down Apu" (but still voiced by Hank Azaria), they'd choose the latter. Unfortunately, the vocal minority has created a heckler's veto and I'm afraid that it will result in Apu either being killed off, or turned into a background character whose voice sounds more like Kermit The Frog than the Apu we've known and loved for over 30 years.

 

[Henry Ford]

I never found this mean-spirited.  I get that others might.  of course many of those oth4ers are in the business of feeling outrage so that they can excoriate others for their insensitivity and then control those others through shame. they need and enjoy that control, that dominion.  They do not represent forward evolution, just the basest impulses we have long known, though they posture otherwise.  for others, perhaps they are helping me with my growth.

Many, I’m sure. Some are actually upset by the continued “Charlie Chan” style view of Indian people in this country and genuinely feel Apu represents that. I don’t personally feel that represents the depth of his character or story arc, but of course mine is not the only opinion that matters. And the voice, on its own, would be pretty bad. If some guy were doing that voice in a bar and Apu never existed, the owner wouldn’t be out of line asking the guy to shut up or leave. 

 

[tonydead]

Worry about yourself and dont watch if you have a problem with it.  It's easy for me to dismiss people who get excited about a cartoon character.  

 

[Henry Ford]

I think there are some valid points here. When I watch the early season episodes of The Simpsons, there are some jokes involving Apu that are a little cringy. But I think that is more to do with ignorance (and lazy writers) than bigotry, and more to do with the evolution of societal norms than any deliberate "punching down" (it has been 30 years, after all).

I think Apu has been a mostly positive influence for Indians (and Hindus), and I think most Indians would agree with that statement. I suspect that, if given the choice between "no more Apu" and "toned down Apu" (but still voiced by Hank Azaria), they'd choose the latter. Unfortunately, the vocal minority has created a heckler's veto and I'm afraid that it will result in Apu either being killed off, or turned into a background character whose voice sounds more like Kermit The Frog than the Apu we've known and loved for over 30 years.

Most punching down, I would argue, comes from ignorance. Racism usually comes from ignorance. 

 

[Henry Ford]

Worry about yourself and dont watch if you have a problem with it.  It's easy for me to dismiss people who get excited about a cartoon character.  

Perhaps my old friend Jessica Rabbit can change your mind. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Apu is a successful small business owner, a family man, a devote man, a man who learned a new language showing only a bit of an accent, adopted to a new culture, and is tolerant of others. Are we upset that he retains a bit of an accent?

I know when I go to Spain or Germany I have an awkward accent.  Hell, if I went to Louisiana I would have a noticeable accent.  My Dutch nieces and nephew really love it when I butcher Dutch or French.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Perhaps my old friend Jessica Rabbit can change your mind. 

Jessica Rabbit or Holli Would?

 

[Summer Wheat]

Apu is arguably the smartest person on the show and  his accent is spot on.  I guess the only thing they could have done different is have an actor from India voice over Apu.

 

[Henry Ford]

Jessica Rabbit or Holli Would?

Oh, I bet she would, too. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

https://yarn.co/yarn-clip/c933e83b-0277-4c93-bddc-b8366b1f686a

 

[proteus126]

Apu is a successful small business owner, a family man, a devote man, a man who learned a new language showing only a bit of an accent, adopted to a new culture, and is tolerant of others. Are we upset that he retains a bit of an accent?

He's also a poster child for the benefits to the US of immigration.  Does anyone doubt that his children will be hugely positive contributors to our country?  The culture warriors need to take this into account before engineering his demise.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

He's also a poster child for the benefits to the US of immigration.  Does anyone doubt that his children will be hugely positive contributors to our country?  The culture warriors need to take this into account before engineering his demise.

I bet his kids win the school spelling bee, and also the geography bee.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

What happens when we realize that the phrase "trigger words", using a gun term euphemistically, traumatizes those who have experienced gun violence.  Please stop using this phrase as it is a trigger phrase for some.  Or, we could, I don't know, be a bit more tolerant of all.  The modern game of looking to experience hurt can be counterproductive. 

Apu is a celebration of diversity.  A success story and a counterpoint to Homers lack of success, except, of course, he too is a success as he has the love of a good woman.     

 

[zftcg]

Worry about yourself and dont watch if you have a problem with it.  It's easy for me to dismiss people who get excited about a cartoon character.  

That strikes me as an insufficient standard. The people who are upset about this aren't saying that watching it causes them physical pain, they're saying that it sends a message to the viewing public that it's OK to make fun of ethnic stereotypes. 

I think (hope?) we can all agree that if there were an African-American character (voiced by a white actor) with exaggerated oversized lips who spoke Ebonics, it would be pulled off the air faster than you can say "Amos 'n' Andy", and no one would be defending it by saying it was meant as a positive portrayal. So I guess the question is, where do we draw the line between acceptable and offensive?

 

[tonydead]

That strikes me as an insufficient standard. The people who are upset about this aren't saying that watching it causes them physical pain, they're saying that it sends a message to the viewing public that it's OK to make fun of ethnic stereotypes. 

I think (hope?) we can all agree that if there were an African-American character (voiced by a white actor) with exaggerated oversized lips who spoke Ebonics, it would be pulled off the air faster than you can say "Amos 'n' Andy", and no one would be defending it by saying it was meant as a positive portrayal. So I guess the question is, where do we draw the line between acceptable and offensive?

Dismissed. 

 

[Henry Ford]

What happens when we realize that the phrase "trigger words", using a gun term euphemistically, traumatizes those who have experienced gun violence.  please stop using this phrase as it is a trigger phrase for some.  Or, we could, I don't know, be a bit more tolerant of all.  The modern game of looking to experience hurt can be counterproductive. 

Apu is a celebration of diversity.  A success story and a counterpoint to Homers lack of success, except, of course, he too is a success as he has the love of a good woman.     

Yes, but he started as a blatant stereotype with a tremendously offensive voice. 
 

It’s hard for me sometimes to remember what The Simpsons originally was. It was not what it is now.  It was basically an animated Married With Children. Apu’s immigration status didn’t show up until seven years in, when the show had some kind of conscience and understanding of its place in the wider world and started fixing a lot of things. 

 

[zftcg]

I think there are some valid points here. When I watch the early season episodes of The Simpsons, there are some jokes involving Apu that are a little cringy. But I think that is more to do with ignorance (and lazy writers) than bigotry, and more to do with the evolution of societal norms than any deliberate "punching down" (it has been 30 years, after all).

I agree that most of the plotlines around Apu have been pretty good -- nuanced and not just spotlighting his differences for a cheap laugh. My issues are inherent to the character.

I think Apu has been a mostly positive influence for Indians (and Hindus), and I think most Indians would agree with that statement. I suspect that, if given the choice between "no more Apu" and "toned down Apu" (but still voiced by Hank Azaria), they'd choose the latter. Unfortunately, the vocal minority has created a heckler's veto and I'm afraid that it will result in Apu either being killed off, or turned into a background character whose voice sounds more like Kermit The Frog than the Apu we've known and loved for over 30 years.

First of all, I don't know anything about your background, but I find it presumptuous for non-Indians to speak on their behalf. Also, I know that "heckler's veto" is just an expression, and you're saying that the (presumed) minority who are offended are going to have more influence than the slient majority, but that term still bothers me a lot, because it minimizes the genuine offense that those people feel. If I tell a joke to 100 people and 20 of them are offended while the other 80 either like it or indifferent, I don't think it's a simple math equation to say 80>20 = not offensive. If what those 20 people are saying is a reasonable concern, I think I have an obligation to take those into account. And I think that's particularly true if they are members of a historically disenfranchised minority, and if my joke was tied into the discrimination they have faced in the past (even if mine wasn't as offensive as those earlier examples.)

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Yes, but he started as a blatant stereotype with a tremendously offensive voice. 
 

It’s hard for me sometimes to remember what The Simpsons originally was. It was not what it is now.  It was basically an animated Married With Children. Apu’s immigration status didn’t show up until seven years in, when the show had some kind of conscience and understanding of its place in the wider world and started fixing a lot of things. 

What was that stereotype?  That Indians are successful small business owners, family men, devote, literate and nearly fluent in a foreign tongue? 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yes, but he started as a blatant stereotype with a tremendously offensive voice. 
 

It’s hard for me sometimes to remember what The Simpsons originally was. It was not what it is now.  It was basically an animated Married With Children. Apu’s immigration status didn’t show up until seven years in, when the show had some kind of conscience and understanding of its place in the wider world and started fixing a lot of things. 

This is wildly wrong and probably explains a big chunk of our disagreement on this.  The Simpsons is not only not similar to Married With Children, it's the polar opposite of Married With Children.  The only thing those two programs have in common is that they aired on the same network and launched around the same time.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Color me unsurprised that cartooning, involves starkly drawn characters. 

In the future will there be no cartoons, no comics, no lampooning, no caricatures?  Good bye Lennie Bruce, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Larry David.  Goodbye intellectual mirrors who help us look at ourselves, laugh at ourselves, take ourselves a bit less seriously.

 

[Summer Wheat]

That strikes me as an insufficient standard. The people who are upset about this aren't saying that watching it causes them physical pain, they're saying that it sends a message to the viewing public that it's OK to make fun of ethnic stereotypes. 

I think (hope?) we can all agree that if there were an African-American character (voiced by a white actor) with exaggerated oversized lips who spoke Ebonics, it would be pulled off the air faster than you can say "Amos 'n' Andy", and no one would be defending it by saying it was meant as a positive portrayal. So I guess the question is, where do we draw the line between acceptable and offensive?

My MIL is Hispanic and she laughs loves the Simpson and laughs at Homer and how stupid he is. In my job I don`t know any white people who act like Homer.   It is a TV show. 

 

[zftcg]

This is wildly wrong and probably explains a big chunk of our disagreement on this.  The Simpsons is not only not similar to Married With Children, it's the polar opposite of Married With Children.  The only thing those two programs have in common is that they aired on the same network and launched around the same time.

That oversimplifies things a bit. Both shows (along with Roseanne) were part of a late '80s/early '90s trend of "anti-family" shows that were a reaction to the idyllic shows that had traditionally appeared on TV, from Leave It to Beaver to The Brady Bunch to The Cosby Show. Yes, there was always a heart at the center of it (though the same was true of MWC; it's not as if Al or Peg ever cheated on each other) but it was clearly meant to showcase a dysfunctional family.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If Hank Azaria is uncomfortable with this well then I respect his act of conscience.   

 

[Snorkelson]

I'm a huge Simpsons fan, and there are plenty of Apu scenes that I have enjoyed over the years. But there are a couple things I keep coming back to:

1. There's a long history of Hollywood employing white actors as ethnic characters, most infamously with blackface, but also Mickey Rooney in "Breakfast at Tiffany's"
   
2. There's also a long history of using ethnic stereotypes for humor. The one that sticks out from my childhood is Long Duck Dong in "Sixteen Candles", which is absolutely horrifying to watch today
   
3. Finally -- and this one is less "historical" because it still happens a lot today -- there's a tendency among members of the dominant group (white people, men, Christians, straight, whatever) to explain to minorities why they're wrong to feel offended by something. I never really noticed it until the past couple years, and now I spot it everywhere and it really drives me crazy (for the record, I'm a straight white Jewish male)
   

Given all of that, I simply can't dismiss the people who find Apu offensive, or elevate my own feelings over theirs. I don't know if they need to retire the character, or rework it, but I think there should be some acknowledgment that what they've been doing for the past 30 years was wrong.

I first thought “rework the character,” basically swap him and dr nick and suddenly Springfield has a legit surgeon and dr nick could run the quik e mart, something he’s more qualified for. Then I thought “what is dr nick? He’s got an accent too. And is it just as bad to make apu a doctor because that’s another stereotype?” I’m not the best with this stuff. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

In Season 1, The Simpsons was just . . . weird.  It's still basically an extended Tracy Ullman sketch at this point, and I don't mean that in a positive way.  I have a hard time sitting through Season 1 episodes.  But in Season 2, the show starts finding its niche.  That's when you start to see more of a satirical focus and the kind of densely-layered humor that made the golden years of the series so great.  From that point through Season 10 or so, The Simpsons was one of the most intelligent and brilliantly-written shows in television history.  

I don't have anything against Married With Children -- that's a funny show too that holds up surprisingly well in syndication.  But it's jokes never operate on anything beyond the humor of an adolescent boy.  

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I know this, I was not offended by Lionel Hutz.

 

[zftcg]

I first thought “rework the character,” basically swap him and dr nick and suddenly Springfield has a legit surgeon and dr nick could run the quik e mart, something he’s more qualified for. Then I thought “what is dr nick? He’s got an accent too. And is it just as bad to make apu a doctor because that’s another stereotype?” I’m not the best with this stuff. 

Yeah, I'm not creative enough to come up with a solution either. Also, I haven't watched the show in years*, so I have no idea how the characters have evolved.

By the way, I know one of the go-to responses in situations like this is for people to say, "What about ___. Shouldn't I also be offended by that?" And it occurred to me that in the case of Cletus the redneck, the answer is yes. That one is actually way more offensive and indulges in way more negative stereotypes. I don't know if he still appears, but if so they should kill off that character stat.

* Technically, that's not true. I started rewatching the show from the beginning last year with my nine-year-old, who loves it. But we're only up to like Season 6 and I haven't seen any of the more recent episodes over the past 15-20 years.

 

[zftcg]

In Season 1, The Simpsons was just . . . weird.  It's still basically an extended Tracy Ullman sketch at this point, and I don't mean that in a positive way.  I have a hard time sitting through Season 1 episodes.  But in Season 2, the show starts finding its niche.  That's when you start to see more of a satirical focus and the kind of densely-layered humor that made the golden years of the series so great.  From that point through Season 10 or so, The Simpsons was one of the most intelligent and brilliantly-written shows in television history.  

I don't have anything against Married With Children -- that's a funny show too that holds up surprisingly well in syndication.  But it's jokes never operate on anything beyond the humor of an adolescent boy.  

That had always been my memory, but when I rewatched the first season with my son, I was surprised at how well some of those episodes held up. Yes, overall the show got much better and less uneven as it hit its stride in the next few seasons, but I'd put episodes like Bart the Daredevil, Crepes of Wrath and Bart the General up there with just about anything that came after. (As those examples show, that was the biggest difference; S1 featured Bart way more, but in later seasons the focus shifted to Homer).

And yes, the sophistication of the Simpsons humor has always been in another galaxy compared to the lowbrow MWC (which isn't to say it was a terrible show; it definitely had its moments, and in its own way was very influential).

 

[Workhorse]

Color me unsurprised that cartooning, involves starkly drawn characters. 

In the future will there be no cartoons, no comics, no lampooning, no caricatures?  Good bye Lennie Bruce, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Larry David.  Goodbye intellectual mirrors who help us look at ourselves, laugh at ourselves, take ourselves a bit less seriously.

I tend to agree with this viewpoint for the most part. However, how would we all feel if Eddie Murphy was still doing standup bits like his homophobic stuff in Delirious? Because even Eddie has expressed regret for doing that material and that it makes him cringe these days. Comedy evolves based on social norms.

 

[dgreen]

By the way, I know one of the go-to responses in situations like this is for people to say, "What about ___. Shouldn't I also be offended by that?" And it occurred to me that in the case of Cletus the redneck, the answer is yes.

The answer isn’t yes or no. I don’t think “should be offended” makes sense. You’re either offended or you’re not. I don’t know that someone “should” be either one. Be whatever you are. 
 

Having said that, I personally see value in not being offended. I think if someone can get to a place where things like this don’t offend them, that’s a good thing. I see more positives from that. What are the positives of being offended? Why “should” someone be offended? 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I tend to agree with this viewpoint for the most part. However, how would we all feel if Eddie Murphy was still doing standup bits like his homophobic stuff in Delirious? Because even Eddie has expressed regret for doing that material and that it makes him cringe these days. Comedy evolves based on social norms.

I agree there is a line between mocking and lampooning, and that when it is crossed it can be cruel.  I agree that line lies in shifting sands and is not the same for all.  I like best the stuff that holds a mirror up to my face and makes me laugh at myself and helps me understand the humanity in others.  I remain a work in progress though I suspect I will die an unfinished work, neglected in the end

 

[zftcg]

I tend to agree with this viewpoint for the most part. However, how would we all feel if Eddie Murphy was still doing standup bits like his homophobic stuff in Delirious? Because even Eddie has expressed regret for doing that material and that it makes him cringe these days. Comedy evolves based on social norms.

This is something I've been wrestling with. Yeah, Murphy's homophobia, or the racism of Long Duck Dong, or the sexism of, well, pretty much every teen sex comedy made in the '70s and '80s, is so cringeworthy to someone watching it today that it makes it almost impossible to enjoy. Apu is not at that level (in part because, as many have pointed out, he's a far more drawn-out, three-dimensional character). As a white dude, I don't experience that same level of cringiness. But I also recognize that some people do, and I'm not comfortable simply dismissing their concerns.

 

[zftcg]

Color me unsurprised that cartooning, involves starkly drawn characters. 

In the future will there be no cartoons, no comics, no lampooning, no caricatures?  Good bye Lennie Bruce, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Larry David.  Goodbye intellectual mirrors who help us look at ourselves, laugh at ourselves, take ourselves a bit less seriously.

The problem with slippery slope arguments is that once you use them in one context, you're pretty much obligated to use them in every situation.

 

[dgreen]

I tend to agree with this viewpoint for the most part. However, how would we all feel if Eddie Murphy was still doing standup bits like his homophobic stuff in Delirious? Because even Eddie has expressed regret for doing that material and that it makes him cringe these days. Comedy evolves based on social norms.

There’s still comedy out there like that. Sometimes the point of the comedy is simply in being extreme and exploring the uncomfortableness of hearing what you heard. But maybe that wasn’t Eddie’s intent. Probably wasn’t. And if he feels bad, it’s probably a good indication that it wasn’t. But there is some modern stuff with extreme content still. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The problem with slippery slope arguments is that once you use them in one context, you're pretty much obligated to use them in every situation.

And so in this matter I share my viewpoint but do not advocate it for others.  I mildly disagree with Hank Azarias decision and the rationale therefore, but I respect his decision as an act of conscience of a good man, perhaps with flaws but a good man, working his way through a changing and confusing world.  I know Hank Azaria will find other ways to make me laugh, like Brockmire.  Boy howdy the discussions we could have about that show., but not here on this board.

 

[Workhorse]

There’s still comedy out there like that. Sometimes the point of the comedy is simply in being extreme and exploring the uncomfortableness of hearing what you heard. But maybe that wasn’t Eddie’s intent. Probably wasn’t. And if he feels bad, it’s probably a good indication that it wasn’t. But there is some modern stuff with extreme content still. 

Agreed. My issue with that level of boundary pushing is that it’s easy to get lazy and just use that for shock value instead of being smart and turning those uncomfortable moments into something unexpected. For much of his career, Louis CK did that far better than most, for example. However, based on what we now know about Louis, lots of that same material doesn’t hold up well at all and is now borderline unlistenable.  

 

[zftcg]

The answer isn’t yes or no. I don’t think “should be offended” makes sense. You’re either offended or you’re not. I don’t know that someone “should” be either one. Be whatever you are. 

Fair point (again, how could I disagree with my favorite football player?) I didn't mean to imply that everyone "should" be offended. I was just using short-hand to say there is as much, if not more, potential to be offended by Cletus as by Apu. And I think in both cases they are poking fun at things that were considered far less objectionable at the time they were created.

One of the reasons this whole situation is complicated is that many of us have uncritically found humor in Apu over the past 30 years, so in some ways saying the character is problematic is an indictment of us as much as it is of Matt Groening. I think it's unfair to hold people to today's standards for things they did in a different time, so whatever I think of Apu, I'm certainly not going to condemn anyone for having laughed at him 30 years ago. But I also think it's incumbent on all of us to constantly question our pre-existing beliefs, and not just assume that because something was considered OK at one point, that means it's always OK.

Having said that, I personally see value in not being offended. I think if someone can get to a place where things like this don’t offend them, that’s a good thing. I see more positives from that. What are the positives of being offended?

On the one hand, you're absolutely right that people will react however they react, and you can't force anyone to feel a certain way. On the other hand, if you believe that racism toward Indian-Americans, or immigrants, or whoever is a problem, and if you also believe that Apu in some small way contributes to that problem, then there is absolutely a positive in being offended and doing something about it.

I think one of the disconnects here is that the people who don't have a problem with Apu put it in personal terms: individuals are offended by the portrayal, it makes them mad, etc. If that's all it is, then it's fine to say, "If it offends you, don't watch it." 

My understanding is that the people who find Apu offensive -- and again, I'm not one of them; I feel at most a mild discomfort watching the character, and it's nowhere near enough to put me off the show -- are saying that it's not about their personal feelings, it's about the message it sends to the viewing public, and the tacit endorsement of racism. If your problem with Apu is that school bullies imitate him while tormenting an Indian-American kid, then you'll find the recommendation to not watch it to be woefully insufficient.

 

[Henry Ford]

What was that stereotype?  That Indians are successful small business owners, family men, devote, literate and nearly fluent in a foreign tongue? 

Yes, obviously.  Glad you noticed. 

 

[Workhorse]

I remain a work in progress though I suspect I will die an unfinished work, neglected in the end

That's the spirit. In fact, the very essence of comedy. 

 

[Henry Ford]

This is wildly wrong and probably explains a big chunk of our disagreement on this.  The Simpsons is not only not similar to Married With Children, it's the polar opposite of Married With Children.  The only thing those two programs have in common is that they aired on the same network and launched around the same time.

It is very different now. It wasn’t when it started.  

In Season 1, The Simpsons was just . . . weird.  It's still basically an extended Tracy Ullman sketch at this point, and I don't mean that in a positive way.  I have a hard time sitting through Season 1 episodes.  But in Season 2, the show starts finding its niche.  That's when you start to see more of a satirical focus and the kind of densely-layered humor that made the golden years of the series so great.  From that point through Season 10 or so, The Simpsons was one of the most intelligent and brilliantly-written shows in television history.  

I don't have anything against Married With Children -- that's a funny show too that holds up surprisingly well in syndication.  But it's jokes never operate on anything beyond the humor of an adolescent boy.  

Right.  Season 1 was kind of problematic. And juvenile.  When did you think I meant by “when it started”? Because it sounds like you think Season 2 which makes no sense. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

When did you think I meant by “when it started”? Because it sounds like you think Season 2 which makes no sense. 

I took "when it started" to mean "early in the series."  In the context of a show that's been running continuously for over 30 years, that sounded to me like the first handful of seasons.  Thanks for clarifying.

If we agree that Season 1 is an outlier and that things change dramatically for the better from Season 2 on, then we're sort of done on this particular point.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

It is very different now. It wasn’t when it started.  

Right.  Season 1 was kind of problematic. And juvenile.  When did you think I meant by “when it started”? Because it sounds like you think Season 2 which makes no sense. 

For me it started as a bizarre comic strip in our law school newspaper.  Poorly drawn, often completely missing, but sometimes a bit funny. It was probably the only comic stripe they could afford, or maybe the comic paid the paper to be in it.  Life in Hell was the name of the comic strip, if I recall.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Yes, obviously.  Glad you noticed. 

Oh I noticed.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Should Seinfeld episodes with Babu be pulled from syndication?

 

[Henry Ford]

Should Seinfeld episodes with Babu be pulled from syndication?

All Seinfeld episodes should be pulled from syndication, but I have no idea who Babu is.  Thank you for asking.

 

[Henry Ford]

I took "when it started" to mean "early in the series."  In the context of a show that's been running continuously for over 30 years, that sounded to me like the first handful of seasons.  Thanks for clarifying.

If we agree that Season 1 is an outlier and that things change dramatically for the better from Season 2 on, then we're sort of done on this particular point.

I think every character that appeared in Season 1 has undergone a tremendous shift since then in order to make the series something worthwhile and fantastic.  But they all started pretty cringe-y.

 

[unckeyherb]

Does anyone care about the crazed, slightly barbaric bare-chested groundkeeper willy who can barely be understood and always needs liquid courage before wrestling a mountain lion or tackling a vomit puddle?  Or the clearly inferior minded, latin-american accented huckster, Dr Nick Riviera who is borderline illegally practicing "medicine"?  How about the stereotypical self loathing jew, Krusty?  Or the also stereotypical fat, drunk and stupid, white American male that is Homer Simpson?

Of course not, because these are funny caricatures that make fun of stereotypes without malice.  No one truly believes that the writers or voice actors have disdain for Indians or Latin Americans or white men, do they?  

Its like people have to find something to be angry about or take issue with.  

What a dumb time to be alive.

ETA: I also wanted to point out that while I don't see any of these characters as being offensive, if someone DOES take offense, then they should stop watching.  The answer shouldn't be that the show should write out the character.  To make a point, whether for comedy or anything else, the risk of offending someone is 100%.  This just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[matttyl]

All Seinfeld episodes should be pulled from syndication, but I have no idea who Babu is.  Thank you for asking.

Is it bad that I read this with the Apu voice in my head?

So because of this I did a little reading about the Apu character, thank you wikipedia:

Apu is actually a doctor, with a PHD in computer science.  He was also first in his class (of 7 million) and can recite Pi to 40,000 decimal places. 

As for the voice itself, Azaria won an Oscar in 1998 for it specifically, and has won two others since for various voice-overs including that of Apu. 

 

[zftcg]

Should Seinfeld episodes with Babu be pulled from syndication?

Nah, but I don't think that character has aged particularly well.

Speaking of being pulled from syndication, when I started watching the show from the beginning with my son, he noticed that Season 3 started off with Episode 2, and asked what happened to No. 1. I wasn't sure, so I looked it up. Ohhhhh ...

 

[MAC_32]

Should Seinfeld episodes with Babu be pulled from syndication?

Of course not. The show was built around 4 people that lack a conscience and portrayed accordingly.