'The Simpsons' under fire over concerns about racism

[Pup7]

Disney films, after release to theaters, are said to “go in the vault”. It’s an expression.

When they re-release them these days to DVD/BluRay, they say, “Hurry before it returns to the vault” or “the Disney vault”. So yes, it was in the vault for about 30 years, because of course video didn’t exist as a matter of rote until the late 1970s/early 1980s.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but since you’re not American, the cultural significance of “Song of the South” and what it stirred up might be lost on you.

When I say obscure, I don’t mean hard to find. I mean it wasn’t a Cinderella or another big name film. Comparatively, it was obscure.

As I am also from 1973, you and I would know the song. There’s a whole generation that doesn’t, or if they’ve heard it, they don’t know where it came from.

 

[LilyM]

Disney films, after release to theaters, are said to “go in the vault”. It’s an expression.

Don’t take this the wrong way, but since you’re not American, the cultural significance might be lost on you.

The cultural significance is hardly lost on me. We Australians have our own not dissimilarly problematic relations between Caucasian and Aboriginal Australians.

And since you clearly meant to imply obscurity with the phrase ‘in the vault’, well, I was simply begging to differ.

In relation to the Simpsons - you could say that milennials, born and raised largely since the Simpsons has.become a tired.and.spent-ish force - similarly aren’t that familiar with it. I’m sure.a lot of the Simpsons quotes I.could come.up with would.go unrecognised by my nieces and nephews.

 

[Pup7]

And since you clearly meant to imply obscurity with the phrase ‘in the vault’, well, I was simply begging to differ.

I actually didn’t, but believe what you will. I knew very well what I meant, and it was referencing the period between its release and its rerelease to video all those years later, where it got none of the press or attention that The Simpsons has had in a similar time period. It probably came on TV once, maybe twice, on The Wonderful World of Disney, but nowhere near the exposure this cartoon has had.

 

[Alex337]

It honestly didn’t seem terribly obscure? And I didn’t know what you meant I’m afraid.

Edit: I’m from '86 and Australia; I’d heard of it as a child.

 

[Pup7]

It honestly didn’t seem terribly obscure? And I didn’t know what you meant I’m afraid.

Which was why I clarified it. Disney talks about movies returning to the vault in so many TV advertisements here when they come out to video I didn’t think the expression was that odd.

Edit: I’m from '86 and Australia; I’d heard of it as a child.

Fantastic. Many have not.

It still doesn’t answer the question, which isn’t nor was it ever intended to be argumentative.

How did this show survive for so long unabated if it was offensive to so many?

Also - there’s a VERY good chance Song of the South WASN’T banned in Australia when they banned it here. I know for a long time you could get PAL and SECAM copies after the NTSCs had disappeared.

I regret not getting one.

 

[Alex337]

I admit I was mainly judging by the long list of “was not dubbed” “wasn’t on tv weekly” ect. Not the vault thing. And I believe I have answered your question a lot? I am on my phone so I may have missed something of you said something new.

 

[Alex337]

How did this show survive for so long unabated if it was offensive to so many?

It wasn’t unabated, you simply didn’t hear about it. The Simpsons have drawn tones of fire for years. Even this topic isn’t new, at least not to me; I heard it decades ago as I already said.

So your question seems to be why you hadn’t heard, or why the outcry wasn’t as public. Which has also already been explained with the Weinstein example.

 

[Pup7]

No, that’s not the same. Not to me. Sexual harassment and choosing how to get fame or roles aren’t the same as stereotyping. The stakes are a bit different, the situation is a bit different. Doesn’t negate the wrong of either.

Racism was talked about and pounced on - possibly rightfully so - with SOTS. It was a massive portrayal of long-held stereotypes for a lot of people. In a non-PC era, they stopped it. In an era so close on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement in the US, they banned it.

The Simpsons has been in the direct public eye of most of the world for 30 years and has grown up - reached old age for a show, actually - in the era of social media, and it’s still here. It’s apparently angered - again, possibly rightfully so even if I don’t think so, because I probably wouldn’t know - a lot of people. (I did find a reference to a 2001 controversy that apparently started in South Asia. Fair enough.) It’s still around. I’m curious as to how, and as I said, I don’t know that anyone knows that answer.

 

[Alex337]

I’m afraid I don’t know how you didn’t hear about this before now. From all my experience it has been around.

I also think the Weinstein thing is a fine example; sexual assault was spoken about back then to, as was already explained.

 

[Pup7]

I said I don’t think of the issues as the same. I can’t equate stereotyping or even racism with sexual harassment and what may have also been rape.

I’m sure in 2001 I missed it because at the time I was living in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where the Internet was still controlled by the Mutaawa and the news we saw was also controlled. I’m not a Simpsons fan as a rule, but I’m not oblivious, either, so I must have had more important things to worry about as far as I was concerned.

I literally have not heard of this this much until now. Now it’s all over the place.

 

[LilyM]

No, that’s not the same. Not to me. Sexual harassment and choosing how to get fame or roles aren’t the same as stereotyping. The stakes are a bit different, the situation is a bit different. Doesn’t negate the wrong of either.

Racism was talked about and pounced on - possibly rightfully so - with SOTS. It was a massive portrayal of long-held stereotypes for a lot of people. In a non-PC era, they stopped it. In an era so close on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement in the US, they banned it.

The Simpsons has been in the direct public eye of most of the world for 30 years and has grown up - reached old age for a show, actually - in the era of social media, and it’s still here. It’s apparently angered - again, possibly rightfully so even if I don’t think so, because I probably wouldn’t know - a lot of people. (I did find a reference to a 2001 controversy that apparently started in South Asia. Fair enough.) It’s still around. I’m curious as to how, and as I said, I don’t know that anyone knows that answer.

The very fact that, as you say, the stakes are different - and I think we can all agree SOTS is/was probably way more problematic than The Simpsons - itself easily explains the relatively slow action on the latter. Planks first, specks later.

 

[Pup7]

Probably. Still incredible that it has taken 30 years.

Matt Groenig’s response won’t win him awards, but it will likely help ratings. Surely this show has run its course…

 

[Alex337]

It’s the way of things. Sometimes you just miss something. shrugs

 

[Pup7]

There have been other popular culture things from my three years in Saudi that I missed - I can’t think of ones off the cuff at the moment, but that has indeed happened to me before. It’s probably hard to believe, but it was an informational black hole on a lot of things at that time. I vaguely remember the convenience store thing from 2007, but there’s far more buzz about this now. That must’ve fizzled pretty quick.

 

[Alex337]

There have been other popular culture things from my three years in Saudi that I missed - I can’t think of ones off the cuff at the moment, but that has indeed happened to me before. It’s probably hard to believe, but it was an informational black hole on a lot of things at that time. I vaguely remember the convenience store thing from 2007, but there’s far more buzz about this now. That must’ve fizzled pretty quick.

I guess maybe because a fully organised film about the topic? It catches the global conversation more?

 

[Pup7]

Likely. But it’s not as though expose-type (that’s ex-po-say, LOL) films like that hadn’t been made in the past on other stuff. It’s easier to do now, I’m sure, though, and probably a lot cheaper. Also quicker and easier to distribute.

 

[Arkansan]

But these folks aren’t “getting offended for the sake of getting offended”

Yes. They are.

Minorities need to be able to tell folks when something is an offensive portrayal.

No. The rest of us are not obliged to care about what emotionally fragile people think. If they can’t watch something without getting upset, then they should just not.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

But these folks aren’t “getting offended for the sake of getting offended”

Yes. They are.

Minorities need to be able to tell folks when something is an offensive portrayal.

No. The rest of us are not obliged to care about what emotionally fragile people think. If they can’t watch something without getting upset, then they should just not.

I’d say a racist portrayal isn’t “nothing” but you’re entitled to disagree. Also, I never said you need to care; just that the minority groups need to be able to voice their grievances. Luckily for them many people who are not you do care.

 

[MonteRCMS]

A good friend of mine is black. His accent is very British.

 

[HarryStotle]

I’d say a racist portrayal isn’t “nothing” but you’re entitled to disagree. Also, I never said you need to care; just that the minority groups need to be able to voice their grievances. Luckily for them many people who are not you do care.

“Many people” would be a gross overstatement if we had any confidence at all that ‘many’ was being defined as something other than “more than a few.”

Same thing with “racist.” The more that word becomes associated with silly outrages over innocuous stuff, the less effective the word will become when launched at anyone who happens to disagree with you over what constitutes “a racist portrayal.”

In the end, the sensible and truthful humans will remain standing, while the perpetually offended will evaporate into the mists of time as their superficial empathic appeal reaches the point of mental abuse while their lack of perspicacity becomes odiously obvious.