'The Simpsons' under fire over concerns about racism

[Alex337]

It will never end. Political Correctness is more akin to a disease if anything. It just grows and festers.

I’m still not sure what’s so bad about listening to people of Indian descent when they say a portrayal is offensive?

Put another way, if your criteria for purchasing a car, or any other product or service depends upon the proportionate representation of all races and ethnicities, you are a fool. When I purchase a car, I personally don’t even think about the races of those who built it. I don’t care if it was built by black people, white people or purple people as long as the design and build quality are superior.

By the way, pretty much every character on the Simpsons was stereotyped, including Bart as a troublemaking boy, Lisa as an intelligent and creative girl, Homer as a clueless white man/father, Ned Flanders as a credulous Christian, etc., etc. that even includes the stereotyping of clowns, news anchors, scientists, business executives, police chiefs, you name it.

Why are you not advocating on behalf of white heterosexual males who were poorly misrepresented by Homer? Or scientists? Or black doctors? Or mayors and police chiefs? Or boys, in general?

I swear this society has lost any sense of humour and ability to laugh at its own foibles that it may have once had. How is that for a stereotype?

I’m not advocating on behalf of those other groups listed because those groups have not come forward and told me that the depiction is offensive; as I mentioned earlier it isn’t up to people outside of the minority to determine what is and is not an offensive representation. I’m simply listening to what folks in that minority have said and saying that maybe we should consider it.

In terms of buying products I think a better example may be culturally relevant materials. In Australia we have had a problem with non-Indigenous people creating “Indigenous art”; I wouldn’t buy art made by those folks as it is co-opting an important part of another person’s culture and the minority in question has pointed out it is offensive. On the other hand I would be fine with buying a pair of hakama made by a non-Japanese person because Japan has made it rather clear that they approve of foreign folks using their cultural dress. I hope that makes sense?

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Or more realistically; it is better to use a person from the minority being represented than to rely on white people doing impressions.

This is a cartoon show that has been around for 30 years and cannot hire a separate actor to voice every single character on the show. That’s not how cartoon shows work from a practical standpoint. If one had to go hire a voice actor that matched the race, ethnicity, age, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. of every separate character on a cartoon show with an entire townfull of characters, I can see this getting to be a budget problem really fast.

In addition, the viewing audience does not see the voice actor, so it is not a case of someone having to be made up to look like an ethnic character when actual ethnic actors are available.

Also, when it is a case of an actor of a certain race or ethnicity playing the role of a person who in real life was white (e.g. Hamilton) or has been traditionally played by a white person (e.g. most of Shakespeare’s roles) we get the exact opposite argument - that roles should be open to all.

Can’t have it both ways, and given that this show has been running for 30 years now with Apu as a regular character, it’s a bit late to start making a fuss. I guarantee that if the show hadn’t been such a huge success, we would never hear about this.

I see you are misrepresenting what I said I said it would be better to use minority folks to represent minority people. There are plenty of minority characters in the Simpsons roster that have overlap, and the occasional guest voice isn’t bad (considering how rarely some characters come up these days they may as well be guests).

It’s never too late to get better. Society has changed and we’re understanding race differently now. Media needs to update as well.

This is a question of a minority group saying very clearly that the portrayal is problematic and wanting to open a dialogue about how to make it better. I’m not sure why folks are getting so triggered about it?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I see you are misrepresenting what I said I said it would be better to use minority folks to represent minority people. There are plenty of minority characters in the Simpsons roster that have overlap, and the occasional guest voice isn’t bad (considering how rarely some characters come up these days they may as well be guests).

This is a question of a minority group saying very clearly that the portrayal is problematic and wanting to open a dialogue about how to make it better. I’m not sure why folks are getting so triggered about it?

I’m not “misrepresenting” anything here. You’re just making the same point again, claiming I misunderstood you.
I didn’t. Your concern is impractical.
My saying this doesn’t mean I’m “triggered” by it. I’m stating a fact.
The people getting all wound up about the voice of a cartoon character are getting triggered. Maybe you are getting triggered too, since you are making the same point over and over again despite some very good arguments by several people as to why you are off the mark.
Have a nice weekend, I’m hitting the “mute” button now.

 

[Alex337]

The question is what kind of recognition they should receive.

Generally, people who get offended simply for the sake of being offended, should be met with contempt. Any other form of recognition will only encourage them.

But these folks aren’t “getting offended for the sake of getting offended”, they’re upset over a racist portrayal that relies on racial stereotypes and has not ever sought to work with them to portray their people in a manner that works for all. Minorities need to be able to tell folks when something is an offensive portrayal.

I think they’ve missed the entire nuance on of the show, i.e. stereotyping to mock stereotyping.

The arts are an open marketplace. What’s to stop these offended parties from creating their own show? Given the awful direction that The Simpsons has taken after Season 8, I, for one, would welcome it.

Not necessarily. They are simply saying that this case missed the mark. Every comedian misses the mark sometimes, especially when we’re dealing with a joke that was formulated 30 years ago. Look back at some of the comedy routines from the 80s and they get a bit cringe inducing; and that’s okay, society changes and we listen to folks.

Alex337:

I’m intrigued, do you also support the use of blackface? After all that would avoid identity politics too.

I do. In the last decade or so a major movie was made using whiteface. That didn’t bother me nor most people. So blackface is fine too.

That’s not really how racism works. Whiteface was used to mock the old racist attitude. Following that up with still more of the old racist attitude misses the point.

I didn’t hear that there was ever any pushback for the young lady’s performance.

I rather hope it wasn’t a dark enough pancake to be obvious and people just thought she was tanned. And I don’t mean to be mean when I say this; but just because you didn’t hear it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. Folks often feel uncomfortable voicing these things, after all when they do just look at this thread for the kind of reception they get.

 

[PetraG]

The Simpsons are politically incorrect? The show finds cheap humor in stereotypes and goes to the same well over and over and over?

Oh, gosh, say it isn’t so.

Why the Apu Simpsons Controversy Bothers Me as an Indian American | National Review

It’s absurd to blame Apu for racial slights Indians have experienced in America.

www.nationalreview.com

“Don’t Have a Cow, Man…”

It is ridiculous to say that the Simpson’s created stereotypes instead of milkng them for a laugh.

 

[Alex337]

Cecilia_Dympna:

You’ve managed to get this discussion on abortion. Really?

The rationale behind abortion existing as a faux “right” is essentially the same one that drives the concocted set of supposed injustices behind the current push for social change.

It isn’t based upon anyone’s actual well-being, but on the abandonment of any legitimate sense of the common good replaced by personal affront and narcissistic pandering. The only reason it is effective is because a sufficient number of vociferous individuals have lost any reasonable sense of morality and purposeful existence.

… did you compare abortion to people being upset about a racist cartoon? Wow.

 

[PetraG]

The rationale behind abortion existing as a faux “right” is essentially the same one that drives the concocted set of supposed injustices behind the current push for social change.

It isn’t based upon anyone’s actual well-being, but on the abandonment of any legitimate sense of the common good replaced by personal affront and narcissistic pandering. The only reason it is effective is because a sufficient number of vociferous individuals have lost any reasonable sense of morality and purposeful existence.

This is a thin excuse for de-railing a thread by trying to pull the “abortion is more serious” card.

 

[Alex337]

Except this isn’t racism. It’s a running joke that is funny and it just goes to show that no matter how left-wing and cool you think you are, the SJW crybullies will come for you anyways.

So far those “bullies” have made a video where they stated their points and explained that they would like something done. Meanwhile this thread has shouted it down, cried that it was racist itself, said that all dissent should be mocked, and compared it to abortion. I’m afraid that it seems folks are rather triggered over this event XD

Well people don’t have a problem casting a black guy as James Bond. Would the reaction be the same if a white guy was cast as Shaka zulu

I’ve seen this, or something akin to this comment, a lot so I figure I’ll answer this one and folks can extrapolate outwards. Now bearing in mind that I’m not an expert. But essentially there are very few characters of colour in media, this is unfortunate. Minority characters are, unsurprisingly, a minority. So changing a minority character to a non-minority group is worse than changing a non-minority character to be a minority.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

I see you are misrepresenting what I said I said it would be better to use minority folks to represent minority people. There are plenty of minority characters in the Simpsons roster that have overlap, and the occasional guest voice isn’t bad (considering how rarely some characters come up these days they may as well be guests).

This is a question of a minority group saying very clearly that the portrayal is problematic and wanting to open a dialogue about how to make it better. I’m not sure why folks are getting so triggered about it?

I’m not “misrepresenting” anything here. You’re just making the same point again, claiming I misunderstood you.
I didn’t. Your concern is impractical.
My saying this doesn’t mean I’m “triggered” by it. I’m stating a fact.
The people getting all wound up about the voice of a cartoon character are getting triggered. Maybe you are getting triggered too, since you are making the same point over and over again despite some very good arguments by several people as to why you are off the mark.
Have a nice weekend, I’m hitting the “mute” button now.

Friend, I get to determine what I said, especially when I can quote it. I hope you enjoy your safe space away from my upsetting comments.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

That’s ridiculous if we’re supposed to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Either we need to be color blind or we don’t.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

And I don’t mean to be mean when I say this; but just because you didn’t hear it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

That’s also possible…
I can say this theater group tried to be sensitive to issues of diversity, and to be as true to the original script with the actors they had to work with.

I guess I just find it interesting–the issue if an actor can portray a character if different race? It used to be dine in Hollywood all the time, and sometimes it was a sensitive portrayal and sometimes cringeworthy.

I’ve seen whiteface portrayals that made me crack up laughing, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a non-comedic whiteface…

 

[LilyM]

Alex337:

And I don’t mean to be mean when I say this; but just because you didn’t hear it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

That’s also possible…
I can say this theater group tried to be sensitive to issues of diversity, and to be as true to the original script with the actors they had to work with.

I guess I just find it interesting–the issue if an actor can portray a character if different race? It used to be dine in Hollywood all the time, and sometimes it was a sensitive portrayal and sometimes cringeworthy.

I’ve seen whiteface portrayals that made me crack up laughing, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a non-comedic whiteface…

Indeed. One of the most well-known ‘Native American’ actors back in the day, Iron Eyes Cody, turned out according to his sister to have actually been Italian-American.

 

[Alex337]

That’s ridiculous if we’re supposed to judge people on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. Either we need to be color blind or we don’t.

“Colour blind” is an old theory of how to deal with race, I learned about this when doing my teaching degree many a year ago It’s actually really interesting, while it had its heart in the right place it doesn’t quite work. Its better to acknowledge and celebrate cultural diversity, otherwise “colour blind” approaches tend towards white washing and ignoring problems that aren’t problems among white folks.

Alex337:

And I don’t mean to be mean when I say this; but just because you didn’t hear it doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

That’s also possible…
I can say this theater group tried to be sensitive to issues of diversity, and to be as true to the original script with the actors they had to work with.

I guess I just find it interesting–the issue if an actor can portray a character if different race? It used to be dine in Hollywood all the time, and sometimes it was a sensitive portrayal and sometimes cringeworthy.

I’ve seen whiteface portrayals that made me crack up laughing, but I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a non-comedic whiteface…

I should mention now that I’m from Australia and blackface minstrels and whatnot weren’t really a “thing” over here, so we still have people do blackface on occasion because it wasn’t until rather recently that we kind of noticed that in other countries it held the kind of baggage it does. So I am largely working off an academic understanding of US cultural practices, but I am a drama teacher so I hope that helps in terms of the theatrical history

Adapting a script when you don’t have people who fit all the roles, either due to race or gender, is incredibly hard. It sounds like this troop did very well but the skin darkening is slightly iffy and may not have been needed.

The trouble with blackface is that originally it was used purely to poke fun at and disseminate racist ideas about African Americans. Its where some standard tropes like the “mammy” character came about. So now any attempt to portray a black character through skin darkening has to contend with that bad history. It’s like trying to “reclaim” a symbol that has poor historical connotations.

Folks may attempt to use blackface in naivety to show an appreciation of a person of colour. But because of the historical trouble of it the act may miss the mark.

In terms of people of other races portraying others part of the problem there is more aimed at performances with a larger potential cast where giving the role to a white person made up to look differently is denying an acting opportunity to a person actually of that race.

 

[Alex337]

I know that @LilyM just posted about Iron Eyes Cody. This is a really interesting example that we would discuss in our theatre class. At the time Native American actors were rather hard to find, though not impossible. Could it have been better to cast an actual Native American? Was it better to have him than none at all?

It’s an interesting case and I don’t know where I stand on it. But the good thing is that today we have far more options. Actors from all around the globe are now able to work together far more easily than ever before. I feel we should take advantage of that.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Thanks for bringing that perspective.
Audition notices will often specify “petite, middle aged white woman”, or whatever demographic they are looking for…

 

[LilyM]

Thanks for bringing that perspective.
Audition notices will often specify “petite, middle aged white woman”, or whatever demographic they are looking for…

On the other hand, sometimes they just tap Scarlett Johanssen on the shoulder and say ‘hey, wanna play an.Asian character?’ - and similar reactions came up when she chose to do.so a little while back.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Hollywood is funny like that…

 

[LilyM]

I know that @LilyM just posted about Iron Eyes Cody. This is a really interesting example that we would discuss in our theatre class. At the time Native American actors were rather hard to find, though not impossible. Could it have been better to cast an actual Native American? Was it better to have him than none at all?

It’s an interesting case and I don’t know where I stand on it. But the good thing is that today we have far more options. Actors from all around the globe are now able to work together far more easily than ever before. I feel we should take advantage of that.

The difference is that Iron Eyes did claim to be Native American. Perhaps he was genuinely mistaken, and perhaps the claim did give him an advantage in getting roles.

 

[blackforest]

The Simpsons sprang as a reaction to the virtue policing (a.k.a. political correctness) that characterized the early 1990s. It inspired an entire genre of T.V. mocking the pressure to be politically correct and the perfect, attractive, middle-class American family of the 80s sit-coms. Examples include Roseanne and King of the Hill.

Historically, we’re undergoing a second wave of the political correctness movement, and I anticipate yet another Simpsons-eque cultural backlash.

For the record, my politics are so far to the Left that I’m surprised that a back-alley posse of Rosary-wielding CAFers hasn’t cyber-tarred and cyber-feathered me yet. I just loathe this neo-Puritanical nonsense of policing what people say and think, as though it were a replacement for authentic and meaningful social change.

Demonizing a 30-year-old T.V. character in a show that people no longer even watch isn’t going to change the underlying causes that led these Indian youth to be bullied. Laws, institutions, and attitudes change first. Language and culture follow. Trying to go vice-versa only engenders resentment and backlash.

 

[Alex337]

Perhaps, but folks can criticise a thing. And that’s all this video has done. Pointed out that the joke is old, hasn’t aged well, and falls prey to some racist problems. I don’t recall them issuing a list of demands but they do seem happy to talk about how it could be fixed.

And the problem there is that when folks try to change laws and institutions they get told they’re doing it backwards and need to work on the culture first, make it a grassroots campaign so that the laws will then match the culture or it will engender backlash. These folks have decided to air their problem with it and open a discussion; that seems a good way to approach a topic to me.