The Black and White Minstrel Show only stopped airing in 1978. It used blackface until, what, the early or mid seventies? (Being 24 means I'm not sure and am going off a 30-second skim of Wikipedia)
Any show that used blackface today would quite rightly be lambasted. Similarly, Apu - who is based on a relatively lazy and stereotypical portrayal of South Asian immigrants into the USA - will likely go or be reimagined less offensively.
I'd like to pre-empt the Groundskeeper Willie/other stereotype argument, though. Obviously not all Scottish people are like him, and it's a blatant stereotype. But it's about marginalisation. Such stereotyping only reinforces negativity, as there is no previous mainstream depiction of South Asian culture.
I remember the Asian kids at my school having "Thank you, come again!" quoted at them pretty often, and it wasn't funny then. So... Yeah, might be time to revisit Apu.
The worst stereotyping I have seen this year is the Asian character in the film 'Downsizing' - it was pretty dreadful.
The trouble with Apu is that he is one of the rare Asian characters in mainstream TV comedy - at least the white characters are given a variety of stereotypes.
Might as well just kill off the entire show. It hasn't been relevant for 10? 15? years.
Every character on the show is a stereotype it's a cartoon - remember the "book of British smiles" or when Homer got kidnapped in Brazil? How about the Texan oil guy with the guns? Bumblebee man with the exaggerated Mexican accent? Cletus the stereotypical hick/yokel? Ned Flanders the holier than thou bible basher? Herman the military nut? They are all one note characters with a catch-phrase based on their stereotypes.
And worst of all you have, the obese, alcoholic, violent child abusing thug who happens to be a white guy and main character on the show named Homer.
There have been many individual main stories for this Indian stereotype - pretty progressive for a mainstream US show in the 90's and 2000's Then there are the actual storylines and character progression he has had-
-The problem of immigration and the issues he had to face with a media bias against him and the perceptions of the locals when a bill was introduced to remove him from the country - sharing his thoughts and feelings on religion in a very eloquent way and educating people on Hinduism with Lisa when she was looking for answers - the loss of his job and exploring how he would cope without a massive part of his life and the feeling of purpose he had lost - Having to deal with an arranged marriage and overbearing mother - having issues with conceiving a child and then conversely having to handle a huge number of children at once and the media circus that followed it - and what happened when the circus and support went away - Having an affair and temporarily losing everything and having to rekindle the relationship with his wife and children
Among others that escape my mind at the moment
But yeah focus on the silly accent. Pardon my French but bollocks to that.
Don't worry folks! It's not offensive because the old white men say so!
I never said it wasn't offensive, I pointed out that it is no more offensive than any other stereotype of the hundreds of them on the show so why single that one out? I also pointed out the entire premise that this character is only about his accent and an arranged marriage (which is what the documentary pointed out) is patently false bared out by the storylines the character has been central to that I mentioned.
Oh and I'm 33. Not that pointing out age or colour of skin adds anything to this debate.
Must be awful to be portrayed as a hard working businessman.
Of course. And don't forget that Benjamin "number Johnny five" Jabitya from Short Circuit was a hard working and skilled engineer.
Would you mind if I asked is it just the accent? Or the fact that it is voiced by a white man? or the use of Apu in the actual show? or all of the above that offends you McBobbin?
I can't defend the accent obviously, it's offensive - again though so are a lot of the exaggerated foreign accents that have been pointed out that don't get the same uproar and desire to be re-cast. Why not?
If it's because he is being voiced by a white man I would point to Dr Hibberd - an African American voiced by the white Harry Shearer, Lou the African American cop, Carl a Norwegian black man and the Mexican speaking Bumble bee man- Hank Azaria again, Bart a boy, voiced by the female Nancy Cartwright - I could go on. Are those examples not equally offensive? Again, where is the uproar - where are the recasts?
If it's the use of Apu from a character and storyline perspective please refer to my previous post which I think I have debunked although would be happy to talk about it more.
Everyone has the right to feel offended and I would never get in the way of that but I would be fascinated to know why Apu uniquely is so much more offensive. Also whilst I defend your right to be offended I would also defend the right of the creators to be offensive, particularly in the context of this show where every colour, creed and nationality gets lampooned without exception all of the time.
Must be awful to be portrayed as a hard working businessman.
Of course. And don't forget that Benjamin "number Johnny five" Jabitya from Short Circuit was a hard working and skilled engineer.
Would you mind if I asked is it just the accent? Or the fact that it is voiced by a white man? or the use of Apu in the actual show? or all of the above that offends you McBobbin?
I can't defend the accent obviously, it's offensive - again though so are a lot of the exaggerated foreign accents that have been pointed out that don't get the same uproar and desire to be re-cast. Why not?
If it's because he is being voiced by a white man I would point to Dr Hibberd - an African American voiced by the white Harry Shearer, Lou the African American cop, Carl a Norwegian black man and the Mexican speaking Bumble bee man- Hank Azaria again, Bart a boy, voiced by the female Nancy Cartwright - I could go on. Are those examples not equally offensive? Again, where is the uproar - where are the recasts?
If it's the use of Apu from a character and storyline perspective please refer to my previous post which I think I have debunked although would be happy to talk about it more.
Everyone has the right to feel offended and I would never get in the way of that but I would be fascinated to know why Apu uniquely is so much more offensive. Also whilst I defend your right to be offended I would also defend the right of the creators to be offensive, particularly in the context of this show where every colour, creed and nationality gets lampooned without exception all of the time.
I'm not particularly offended, but then again I'm shielded behind a spectacularly inappropriate sense of humour. I'm always amused on this site when nothing is ever sexist, racist or whatever according to people who have never be the subject of sexism or racism.
I'd say, watch the documentary "the problem with Apu" which ought to answer your queries.
Homer is a sterotypical fat bloke Mr Burns a sterotypical rich old man The Texan a sterotypical Texan.
Are they all gonna be removed as well lol
So here is a short piece Hari Kondabolu did for "Totally Biased." He did a longer documentary called "The Problem with Apu." I recommend watching both so you can understand his gripe.
Tired of people able to complain about a show they no longer watch because they like to get offended by everything on everyone's behalf and call it "PC gone mad" but they can't do a bloody Google search.
All of my posts today have been a rebuttal of the points made in that documentary - thought i'd addressed them all... maybe I missed something?
To your other point, I think for me, if I am offended by something I want robust questions and challenges from people with a different viewpoint as that is how I learn and grow. I'm happy to admit when i'm wrong as well.
I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that - my viewpoint on this particularly issue is clear - a character mocking a certain race in isolation is undoubtably racist - your johnny five example for instance I agree with you. But with this character I just don't see that the argument stacks up in the context of the show and the way the character is actually handled.
To me it is offence for offence's sake and I feel I have articulated why I think all that in my previous posts. That doesn't mean I think nothing is racist or sexist, although I can't speak for anyone else on this forum.
All of my posts today have been a rebuttal of the points made in that documentary - thought i'd addressed them all... maybe I missed something?
To your other point, I think for me, if I am offended by something I want robust questions and challenges from people with a different viewpoint as that is how I learn and grow. I'm happy to admit when i'm wrong as well.
I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that - my viewpoint on this particularly issue is clear - a character mocking a certain race in isolation is undoubtably racist - your johnny five example for instance I agree with you. But with this character I just don't see that the argument stacks up in the context of the show and the way the character is actually handled.
To me it is offence for offence's sake and I feel I have articulated why I think all that in my previous posts. That doesn't mean I think nothing is racist or sexist, although I can't speak for anyone else on this forum.
Thanks though I appreciate the reply.
Sorry I know I quoted you originally in my post but that was an error. My comments weren't really directed at you.
"I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that"
That is your problem right there. Your point of view is infinitely less valid than Hari's on this subject. Or a woman's on the subject of sexism. Just as your point of view on medicine is less valid than a doctor's.
All of my posts today have been a rebuttal of the points made in that documentary - thought i'd addressed them all... maybe I missed something?
To your other point, I think for me, if I am offended by something I want robust questions and challenges from people with a different viewpoint as that is how I learn and grow. I'm happy to admit when i'm wrong as well.
I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that - my viewpoint on this particularly issue is clear - a character mocking a certain race in isolation is undoubtably racist - your johnny five example for instance I agree with you. But with this character I just don't see that the argument stacks up in the context of the show and the way the character is actually handled.
To me it is offence for offence's sake and I feel I have articulated why I think all that in my previous posts. That doesn't mean I think nothing is racist or sexist, although I can't speak for anyone else on this forum.
Thanks though I appreciate the reply.
Sorry I know I quoted you originally in my post but that was an error. My comments weren't really directed at you.
"I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that"
That is your problem right there. Your point of view is infinitely less valid than Hari's on this subject. Or a woman's on the subject of sexism. Just as your point of view on medicine is less valid than a doctor's.
I don't see the logic in that. I have never been stabbed but can I not have a point of view on knife crime?
Edit to add; I'd also add that my point of view on a crime which is endemic in our society is just as valid as a victims - which may have more value, but validity and value are two different concepts.
All of my posts today have been a rebuttal of the points made in that documentary - thought i'd addressed them all... maybe I missed something?
To your other point, I think for me, if I am offended by something I want robust questions and challenges from people with a different viewpoint as that is how I learn and grow. I'm happy to admit when i'm wrong as well.
I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that - my viewpoint on this particularly issue is clear - a character mocking a certain race in isolation is undoubtably racist - your johnny five example for instance I agree with you. But with this character I just don't see that the argument stacks up in the context of the show and the way the character is actually handled.
To me it is offence for offence's sake and I feel I have articulated why I think all that in my previous posts. That doesn't mean I think nothing is racist or sexist, although I can't speak for anyone else on this forum.
Thanks though I appreciate the reply.
Sorry I know I quoted you originally in my post but that was an error. My comments weren't really directed at you.
"I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that"
That is your problem right there. Your point of view is infinitely less valid than Hari's on this subject. Or a woman's on the subject of sexism. Just as your point of view on medicine is less valid than a doctor's.
If you're subjected to prejudice on a regular basis it can wear you down - a lot of things are often hard to understand unless they happen to you.
All of my posts today have been a rebuttal of the points made in that documentary - thought i'd addressed them all... maybe I missed something?
To your other point, I think for me, if I am offended by something I want robust questions and challenges from people with a different viewpoint as that is how I learn and grow. I'm happy to admit when i'm wrong as well.
I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that - my viewpoint on this particularly issue is clear - a character mocking a certain race in isolation is undoubtably racist - your johnny five example for instance I agree with you. But with this character I just don't see that the argument stacks up in the context of the show and the way the character is actually handled.
To me it is offence for offence's sake and I feel I have articulated why I think all that in my previous posts. That doesn't mean I think nothing is racist or sexist, although I can't speak for anyone else on this forum.
Thanks though I appreciate the reply.
Sorry I know I quoted you originally in my post but that was an error. My comments weren't really directed at you.
"I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that"
That is your problem right there. Your point of view is infinitely less valid than Hari's on this subject. Or a woman's on the subject of sexism. Just as your point of view on medicine is less valid than a doctor's.
I don't see the logic in that. I have never been stabbed but can I not have a point of view on knife crime?
Edit to add; I'd also add that my point of view on a crime which is endemic in our society is just as valid as a victims - which may have more value, but validity and value are two different concepts.
The fact that you think you can have just as prominent a view on racism as the people subject to it is part of the problem. I kind of don't know what else to say. I think the psychological disconnect is too broad.
All of my posts today have been a rebuttal of the points made in that documentary - thought i'd addressed them all... maybe I missed something?
To your other point, I think for me, if I am offended by something I want robust questions and challenges from people with a different viewpoint as that is how I learn and grow. I'm happy to admit when i'm wrong as well.
I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that - my viewpoint on this particularly issue is clear - a character mocking a certain race in isolation is undoubtably racist - your johnny five example for instance I agree with you. But with this character I just don't see that the argument stacks up in the context of the show and the way the character is actually handled.
To me it is offence for offence's sake and I feel I have articulated why I think all that in my previous posts. That doesn't mean I think nothing is racist or sexist, although I can't speak for anyone else on this forum.
Thanks though I appreciate the reply.
Sorry I know I quoted you originally in my post but that was an error. My comments weren't really directed at you.
"I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that"
That is your problem right there. Your point of view is infinitely less valid than Hari's on this subject. Or a woman's on the subject of sexism. Just as your point of view on medicine is less valid than a doctor's.
Hari's point of view is his. I doubt he has been appointed to speak on behalf of Indian Americans. Mrs Baldy has box sets of every edition of it ain't half hot mum. The rotter.
All of my posts today have been a rebuttal of the points made in that documentary - thought i'd addressed them all... maybe I missed something?
To your other point, I think for me, if I am offended by something I want robust questions and challenges from people with a different viewpoint as that is how I learn and grow. I'm happy to admit when i'm wrong as well.
I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that - my viewpoint on this particularly issue is clear - a character mocking a certain race in isolation is undoubtably racist - your johnny five example for instance I agree with you. But with this character I just don't see that the argument stacks up in the context of the show and the way the character is actually handled.
To me it is offence for offence's sake and I feel I have articulated why I think all that in my previous posts. That doesn't mean I think nothing is racist or sexist, although I can't speak for anyone else on this forum.
Thanks though I appreciate the reply.
Sorry I know I quoted you originally in my post but that was an error. My comments weren't really directed at you.
"I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that"
That is your problem right there. Your point of view is infinitely less valid than Hari's on this subject. Or a woman's on the subject of sexism. Just as your point of view on medicine is less valid than a doctor's.
Hari's point of view is his. I doubt he has been appointed to speak on behalf of Indian Americans. Mrs Baldy has box sets of every edition of it ain't half hot mum. The rotter.
And if you watch the documentary Hari Kondabolu talks about how he likes The Simpsons and grew up on The Simpsons. He also talks to a lot of other South Asian people in entertainment about it.
It might be a matter of semantics and i'm sorry you disagree but I feel that a problem like racism or sexism will never be solved whilst we have a "my opinion is more important than yours" attitude. We all live in this society, its a societal problem. It will be solved when people stop compartmentalising everyone into - well you can have a view that nobody is allowed to question or critique, but you can't because you haven't lived it.
If you are trying to solve a problem that affects a particular minority and then don't involve them in the solution I'd hazard a guess it probably won't work well.
The worst thing you can say to someone is 'I understand' about a problem that you don't really understand. It's guarantees to piss someone off.
If you are trying to solve a problem that affects a particular minority and then don't involve them in the solution I'd hazard a guess it probably won't work well.
The worst thing you can say to someone is 'I understand' about a problem that you don't really understand. It's guarantees to piss someone off.
That's not what I said though is it? I said my opinion is just a valid because everyone in society has a role to play in combatting racism. How can you have dialogue if you don't challenge viewpoints?
I'm not dismissing anyone else's opinion i'm debating it. Why am I not allowed to have one? Not one person has counter-argued any of my points about the character, the storylines or the other examples of different races/sexes voicing characters that I outlined in my first two or three posts. All i'm having to defend is my right to have an opinion, rather than what my actual opinion is. Why is that?
I understand the racist allegation, but many accused the character Alf Garnett and the program “till death us do part” as racist, sexist and everything ‘ist”. The writer explained that the views of the character were so clearly ridiculous it made him and his views stupid therefore attacked racism not supported it by highlighting this. He also added something along the lines that “if you don’t like the program, turn it off”.
Sometimes you have to take a step back and review in your mind what you have seen and heard when watching a program or a play, and indeed what you read in a book. So often an author etc is looking for a response and asking a question.
Taking one character out of a context is quite ridiculous.
I am not an avid watcher of the program, but I have watched enough to know that Abu is a lovely character who challenges perceptions whilst adopting most of them. Clever in my opinion, very well written, and engages with people at all levels.
The show has probably done more to bring barriers down and offended no one other than those looking to be offended.
It might be a matter of semantics and i'm sorry you disagree but I feel that a problem like racism or sexism will never be solved whilst we have a "my opinion is more important than yours" attitude. We all live in this society, its a societal problem. It will be solved when people stop compartmentalising everyone into - well you can have a view that nobody is allowed to question or critique, but you can't because you haven't lived it.
So many strawmen, such little time.
1) No one said you couldn't have an opinion, that's a fallacy. 2) This is faux outrage, just as it's faux questioning of "well I just want to understand" when it's really "well I don't agree with you and I'm going to find new ways to say that until I grind you down, then BLAME YOU FOR RACISM BEING PERSISTANT IN OUR SOCIETY." 3) I'm not saying my opinion matters more than yours, I'm saying yours doesn't matter as much as someone with direct experience of the issue. At no point have I even given my own opinion, I have just directed you to a primary source whose voice matters in this.
Think of it this way, since you can't grasp what privilege is. You're a journalist. A fire starts and you're reporting on it. Now, do you want to go talk to a fireman, or someone who has heard about this fire, and heard about a lot of other fires, but never actually seen one?
There is nothing more privileged and arrogant to think "I've never actually fought a fire, but I know a lot about fires."
I think the point in this instance is that kids were using impressions of Apu to belittle and mock other children and this had become commonplace. If your satire on racial stereotyping becomes a weapon for racism then it has stopped working.
Comments
Mr Burns a sterotypical rich old man
The Texan a sterotypical Texan.
Are they all gonna be removed as well lol
The trouble with Apu is that he is one of the rare Asian characters in mainstream TV comedy - at least the white characters are given a variety of stereotypes.
Culture is always on the move...
Every character on the show is a stereotype it's a cartoon - remember the "book of British smiles" or when Homer got kidnapped in Brazil? How about the Texan oil guy with the guns? Bumblebee man with the exaggerated Mexican accent? Cletus the stereotypical hick/yokel? Ned Flanders the holier than thou bible basher? Herman the military nut? They are all one note characters with a catch-phrase based on their stereotypes.
And worst of all you have, the obese, alcoholic, violent child abusing thug who happens to be a white guy and main character on the show named Homer.
There have been many individual main stories for this Indian stereotype - pretty progressive for a mainstream US show in the 90's and 2000's Then there are the actual storylines and character progression he has had-
-The problem of immigration and the issues he had to face with a media bias against him and the perceptions of the locals when a bill was introduced to remove him from the country
- sharing his thoughts and feelings on religion in a very eloquent way and educating people on Hinduism with Lisa when she was looking for answers
- the loss of his job and exploring how he would cope without a massive part of his life and the feeling of purpose he had lost
- Having to deal with an arranged marriage and overbearing mother
- having issues with conceiving a child and then conversely having to handle a huge number of children at once and the media circus that followed it - and what happened when the circus and support went away
- Having an affair and temporarily losing everything and having to rekindle the relationship with his wife and children
Among others that escape my mind at the moment
But yeah focus on the silly accent. Pardon my French but bollocks to that.
Oh and I'm 33. Not that pointing out age or colour of skin adds anything to this debate.
I can't defend the accent obviously, it's offensive - again though so are a lot of the exaggerated foreign accents that have been pointed out that don't get the same uproar and desire to be re-cast. Why not?
If it's because he is being voiced by a white man I would point to Dr Hibberd - an African American voiced by the white Harry Shearer, Lou the African American cop, Carl a Norwegian black man and the Mexican speaking Bumble bee man- Hank Azaria again, Bart a boy, voiced by the female Nancy Cartwright - I could go on. Are those examples not equally offensive? Again, where is the uproar - where are the recasts?
If it's the use of Apu from a character and storyline perspective please refer to my previous post which I think I have debunked although would be happy to talk about it more.
Everyone has the right to feel offended and I would never get in the way of that but I would be fascinated to know why Apu uniquely is so much more offensive. Also whilst I defend your right to be offended I would also defend the right of the creators to be offensive, particularly in the context of this show where every colour, creed and nationality gets lampooned without exception all of the time.
I'd say, watch the documentary "the problem with Apu" which ought to answer your queries.
To your other point, I think for me, if I am offended by something I want robust questions and challenges from people with a different viewpoint as that is how I learn and grow. I'm happy to admit when i'm wrong as well.
I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that - my viewpoint on this particularly issue is clear - a character mocking a certain race in isolation is undoubtably racist - your johnny five example for instance I agree with you. But with this character I just don't see that the argument stacks up in the context of the show and the way the character is actually handled.
To me it is offence for offence's sake and I feel I have articulated why I think all that in my previous posts. That doesn't mean I think nothing is racist or sexist, although I can't speak for anyone else on this forum.
Thanks though I appreciate the reply.
"I've never been subject to racism or sexism but my point of view is no less valid for that"
That is your problem right there. Your point of view is infinitely less valid than Hari's on this subject. Or a woman's on the subject of sexism. Just as your point of view on medicine is less valid than a doctor's.
Edit to add; I'd also add that my point of view on a crime which is endemic in our society is just as valid as a victims - which may have more value, but validity and value are two different concepts.
Mrs Baldy has box sets of every edition of it ain't half hot mum. The rotter.
The worst thing you can say to someone is 'I understand' about a problem that you don't really understand. It's guarantees to piss someone off.
I'm not dismissing anyone else's opinion i'm debating it. Why am I not allowed to have one? Not one person has counter-argued any of my points about the character, the storylines or the other examples of different races/sexes voicing characters that I outlined in my first two or three posts. All i'm having to defend is my right to have an opinion, rather than what my actual opinion is. Why is that?
Sometimes you have to take a step back and review in your mind what you have seen and heard when watching a program or a play, and indeed what you read in a book. So often an author etc is looking for a response and asking a question.
Taking one character out of a context is quite ridiculous.
I am not an avid watcher of the program, but I have watched enough to know that Abu is a lovely character who challenges perceptions whilst adopting most of them. Clever in my opinion, very well written, and engages with people at all levels.
The show has probably done more to bring barriers down and offended no one other than those looking to be offended.
1) No one said you couldn't have an opinion, that's a fallacy.
2) This is faux outrage, just as it's faux questioning of "well I just want to understand" when it's really "well I don't agree with you and I'm going to find new ways to say that until I grind you down, then BLAME YOU FOR RACISM BEING PERSISTANT IN OUR SOCIETY."
3) I'm not saying my opinion matters more than yours, I'm saying yours doesn't matter as much as someone with direct experience of the issue. At no point have I even given my own opinion, I have just directed you to a primary source whose voice matters in this.
Think of it this way, since you can't grasp what privilege is. You're a journalist. A fire starts and you're reporting on it. Now, do you want to go talk to a fireman, or someone who has heard about this fire, and heard about a lot of other fires, but never actually seen one?
There is nothing more privileged and arrogant to think "I've never actually fought a fire, but I know a lot about fires."
If your satire on racial stereotyping becomes a weapon for racism then it has stopped working.