'The Simpsons' under fire over concerns about racism

[Pup7]

I’m sorry, I misunderstood when you quoted only one section and answered as though that was all I had said. I’m glad you knew the rest of my argument but remain unsure why you chose to ignore it at the time.

Now, in terms of “why this character now”; why not? This isn’t actually a new thing. People have been talking about that character for a long time. They got around to making a video about it now, that’s all. I suspect that is in part because it is now easier to make and disseminate such videos due to mass communication, but you would need to ask the maker for the specifics.

So; why should we not listen to minorities about what kinds of portrayals of their group they find offensive?

The italics are my point. It’s only important now because they got around to making a video about it?

Song of the South was banned in the US in the 1980s (almost ironic, since the author of the children’s stories it was based on, Joel Chandler Harris, was a black man who wrote the lines of Uncle Remus and Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear in the vernacular in the original stories, which the Disney portrayal was pretty true to). It was massive news. It was hammered for portraying stereotypes, even though the written Uncle Remus stories were written in the exact same way, and Br’er Rabbit was a metaphorical/symbolic character meant to be positive.

That was well before social media and the ability to make videos as easily as we can today. People decided it was offensive, they spoke out against it, and it was literally banned.

As I said, if the controversy has been stirring for years about Apu, why was it not publicized until 2017 (which is when the video was made, and when I first remembered hearing about this)? That is what people struggle with - not that people are offended, but that the conversation seems to always be “it’s been an issue for years” - but it seems to suddenly go mainstream and most didn’t see it coming until it hit.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

So; why should we not listen to minorities about what kinds of portrayals of their group they find offensive?

Because AS a minority, I can tell you they don’t speak for all of us. In fact, the loudest voices are often unrepresentative. You need to STOP associating us in terms of a single monolith.

You do realise I was speaking about racial minorities, right?

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

I’m sorry, I misunderstood when you quoted only one section and answered as though that was all I had said. I’m glad you knew the rest of my argument but remain unsure why you chose to ignore it at the time.

Now, in terms of “why this character now”; why not? This isn’t actually a new thing. People have been talking about that character for a long time. They got around to making a video about it now, that’s all. I suspect that is in part because it is now easier to make and disseminate such videos due to mass communication, but you would need to ask the maker for the specifics.

So; why should we not listen to minorities about what kinds of portrayals of their group they find offensive?

The italics are my point. It’s only important now because they got around to making a video about it?

Song of the South was banned in the US in the 1980s (almost ironic, since the author of the children’s stories it was based on, Joel Chandler Harris, was a black man who wrote the lines of Uncle Remus and Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear in the vernacular in the original stories, which the Disney portrayal was pretty true to). It was massive news. It was hammered for portraying stereotypes, even though the written Uncle Remus stories were written in the exact same way, and Br’er Rabbit was a metaphorical/symbolic character meant to be positive.

That was well before social media and the ability to make videos as easily as we can today. People decided it was offensive, they spoke out against it, and it was literally banned.

As I said, if the controversy has been stirring for years about Apu, why was it not publicized until 2017 (which is when the video was made, and when I first remembered hearing about this)? That is what people struggle with - not that people are offended, but that the conversation seems to always be “it’s been an issue for years” - but it seems to suddenly go mainstream and most didn’t see it coming until it hit.

I would say that is because it has been going on for years. I know I encountered it decades ago. Perhaps you simply didn’t?

 

[Seeksadvice]

People will complain about anything and everything. I am unimpressed by the cup and pillow.

 

[Pup7]

Decades ago? So say twenty years ago, when it was in its heyday?

I can’t say I ever heard of Apu causing an issue back then. He’s been on it since 1990.

 

[Alex337]

Decades ago? So say twenty years ago, when it was in its heyday?

I can’t say I ever heard of Apu causing an issue back then. He’s been on it since 1990.

That’s okay, I certainly heard about it.

 

[Pup7]

That doesn’t impart you with some sort of privilege or higher level knowledge. It means you heard about it. It also doesn’t really answer when you heard about it.

I’ve attempted to Google the issue. There’s no hard mentioning of when this controversy started, short of last year. Even typing it into Google yields this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I’m interested as to when it started, and when it was first mentioned. Because living in the US, I’d never heard about it before the end of last year. It’s a valid question and an equally valid curiosity.

 

[Alex337]

You implied it was never spoken about, but it was and you just never heard about it. It’s making more waves now because of the video, which is great as it opens up the discussion.

So, I believe I asked earlier but what’s wrong with minorities opening a discussion on what they view as problematic? Is there a timbre limit before they’re suddenly not allowed to raise it?

 

[Pup7]

You implied it was never spoken about, but it was and you just never heard about it. It’s making more waves now because of the video, which is great as it opens up the discussion.

When? Cite something for me. I’m serious. I’m implying nothing - I’ve asked several times for a reference.

So, I believe I asked earlier but what’s wrong with minorities opening a discussion on what they view as problematic? Is there a timbre limit before they’re suddenly not allowed to raise it?

People can always say what they want, and will. But they should also expect a response.

No one said they weren’t allowed - not once, didn’t imply it, didn’t even think it.

According to Wiki, and for what it’s worth, the character first drew public fire in 2007. So eleven years ago. Having read what it was about, I do believe I vaguely remember it.

 

[Alex337]

I would say the googled attempts to show that it’s new is implying but it’s okay to disagree.

 

[LilyM]

Rhubarb:

The difference here is that no white person has ever had to deal with there being no positive images of people like them in the movies or on TV. They never had to deal with people confusing “white people” with the stereotype the media portrays. That’s why it doesn’t sting us when we’re lampooned for our race. Because it so rarely happens. And if you count up the decades, it almost never happens.

Curious question.

Why do you think this whole thing hasn’t been offensive to anyone else of any race for 30 years?

What? Just because people haven’t been open about saying they were offended doesn’t mean they weren’t.

 

[Pup7]

Didn’t I only ask for someone’s opinion?

It came up in 2007. (Edit - or at least that’s the earliest mention I can find, and that’s on Wiki, so taking that with a grain of salt might be advisable.) Nothing was done. Why?

There are multiple characters that could draw fire. Why not to this extent before now?

 

[blackforest]

Couldn’t the same be said for The Simpsons?

 

[LilyM]

Didn’t I only ask for someone’s opinion?

It came up in 2007. (Edit - or at least that’s the earliest mention I can find, and that’s on Wiki, so taking that with a grain of salt might be advisable.) Nothing was done. Why?

There are multiple characters that could draw fire. Why not to this extent before now?

Because people don’t always feel immediately empowered to talk about what they find offensive? Because thry don’t always feel.confident that people will listen if they do?

Harvey Weinstein was a Hollywood fixture for decades and probably had been doing whay he did to women for as long. Look at the reasons why they only started speaking up now and you might understand.

 

[Pup7]

Look at the reasons why they only started speaking up now and you might understand.

I can’t fathom that either. I just can’t.

Because thry don’t always feel.confident that people will listen if they do?

But it DID come up, people did talk about it.

As I said, in the early 1980s, Song of the South was successfully banned over racist stereotypes. People spoke, and others listened, and the movie was yanked to the point that many don’t even know it ever existed.

Why not in this case? What stopped that from happening back in 2007?

There’s nothing pointed about the question, and I don’t even know if any of us know the answer. It’s interesting that it didn’t happen here, but thirty-plus years ago, a movie from I think the late 1950s/early 1960s was completely banned.

 

[Alex337]

Couldn’t the same be said for The Simpsons?

That was the joke…

 

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Look at the reasons why they only started speaking up now and you might understand.

I can’t fathom that either. I just can’t.

Because thry don’t always feel.confident that people will listen if they do?

But it DID come up, people did talk about it.

As I said, in the early 1980s, Song of the South was successfully banned over racist stereotypes. People spoke, and others listened, and the movie was yanked to the point that many don’t even know it ever existed.

Why not in this case? What stopped that from happening back in 2007?

There’s nothing pointed about the question, and I don’t even know if any of us know the answer. It’s interesting that it didn’t happen here, but thirty-plus years ago, a movie from I think the late 1950s/early 1960s was completely banned.

I think you’re not quite following through with my analogy.

Women were sucessfully raising awareness of the sexually harrassing behaviour of powerful men 20 years ago when Weinstein started on his path.

When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke I recall debate about whether, given his power comparative to hers, it could.truly be said to be a consensual relationship rather than straight-up workplace harassment. Hence he felt the need to lie about it - and his presidency itself was in some.danger. To quote your words people spoke and.others listened.

So - Weinstein’s victims, who were aware of all this, waited until last year to speak up. As I said, victims, and the offended, can see examplea.of successful action and still feel powerless to do the same for themselves. It’s part of being a minority or a victim - you get brainwashed into not speaking out.

 

[Alex337]

And it took decades for that film to be banned. Sometimes it just takes time. Examples have already been given so I won’t rehash that

 

[Pup7]

But I get the analogy. I said I don’t fathom the whole situation.

I told you - I don’t understand a chunk of the whole Hollywood thing. Many of those women were willing participants in my book - sleeping with someone for a job is a choice. Being sexually harassed is not and is a different situation entirely.

I got the analogy completely. But I don’t see this as entirely the same because of differing factors.

And it took decades for that film to be banned. Sometimes it just takes time. Examples have already been given so I won’t rehash that

That wasn’t the point, and you know it.

The film was released in the 1950s. It went into the vault. It was obscure even when it was released initially. When it was released on video, it ended up banned, in the non-PC climate of the 1980s. In VERY short order it disappeared into complete oblivion.

It wasn’t in general circulation in those interim years.

It wasn’t on television every week.

It wasn’t a hit sitcom that won multiple awards.

It didn’t go into syndication in I can’t enumerate how many countries over a 30 year period.

It wasn’t dubbed in who knows how many languages.

It didn’t create an immediately recognized icon in its main character.

It was an obscure movie based on a Civil War era children’s collection written by a black author. It hit the shelves and it seemed to immediately disappear.

That was my point.

 

[LilyM]

But I get the analogy. I said I don’t fathom the whole situation.

I told you - I don’t understand a chunk of the whole Hollywood thing. Many of those women were willing participants in my book - sleeping with someone for a job is a choice. Being sexually harassed is not and is a different situation entirely.

I got the analogy completely. But I don’t see this as entirely the same because of differing factors.

Alex337:

And it took decades for that film to be banned. Sometimes it just takes time. Examples have already been given so I won’t rehash that

That wasn’t the point, and you know it.

The film was released in the 1950s. It went into the vault. It was obscure even when it was released initially. When it was released on video, it ended up banned, in the non-PC climate of the 1980s. In VERY short order it disappeared into complete oblivion.

It wasn’t in general circulation in those interim years.

It wasn’t on television every week.

It wasn’t a hit sitcom that won multiple awards.

It didn’t go into syndication in I can’t enumerate how many countries over a 30 year period.

It wasn’t dubbed in who knows how many languages.

It didn’t create an immediately recognized icon in its main character.

It was an obscure movie based on a Civil War era children’s collection written by a black author. It hit the shelves and it seemed to immediately disappear.

That was my point.

So obscure that as a child.born in 1973 in Australia I remember seeing it. Hardly speaks to it being “in the vault”. And most people of my generation and previous would.doubtless have their memories jogged by the song 'Zip-a-dee doo-dah", no?