'The Simpsons' under fire over concerns about racism

[DeniseNY]

Ok, so people can be open to discussion. But that doesn’t mean they have to agree with, or take the action that the other group would like done.

 

[Alex337]

Ok, so people can be open to discussion. But that doesn’t mean they have to agree with, or take the action that the other group would like done.

Indeed. But dismissing the discussion out of hand, as has been the suggestion by many here, is what I’ve been saying isn’t helpful.

 

[HarryStotle]

No, I mean if you really want to get into a heavy discussion of eugenics, stolen children, and the slaughter of indigenous people in order to somehow try to score a point by trying to “disprove” my “claim” of my ethnicity then that is on you. I wouldn’t do so if I were you because it’s somewhat hideous.

Provided you are willing to actually look at the political affiliations of those who extolled eugenics, the stealing of children and the slaughter of indigenous people, and not merely assign blame to “whites as a race,” a discussion on that topic might be constructive.

Unfortunately, those who point to such “hideous” things are, often and at the same time, unwilling to acknowledge that a far worse “slaughter” of innocent human beings is occurring right under our noses in far more hideous numbers, just by different agents with different victims.

I suppose the potential to “identify” with the victim group makes all the difference, which is perplexing given that we were all indigenous to our mother’s wombs before breathing the air in the land we now inhabit, indigenously or otherwise. Conveniently, we seem to be able to invoke selective memories when “identifying” with particular victim groups and not others.

I’ll put my head down now, in preparation to receive the incoming assaults in response to my derailing of the thread once more,

 

[Alex337]

@DeniseNY - for clarification I’ve included some quotes below in terms of how some have decided to approach the topic. It is this approach I disagree with. I don’t think everyone should think the same, or that people shouldn’t be allowed to speak, or anything of the like. I do think that mocking people for raising a topic isn’t helpful and that engaging with minorities on these topics is important.

I removed the names from the quotes so as not to annoy folks with notification pings, but if you want you can easily search the topic.

The correct response to nonsense like this is mockery. Responding to it as if it were a legitimate concern, and not the hysterical reaction of overgrown children, will not get you anywhere.

Yep. Escalation or doubling down also is a great response. The people who make these kind complaints need to know they have no power.

What “they” prefer should be ignored and treated as irrelevant. Taking “them” seriously is what got us into this PC mess to begin with.

The identitarian view of society and politics will only further divide and isolate.

 

[blackforest]

It’s unavailable for streaming on Netflix, at least here, but here is his interview with Trevor Noah.

He likely wouldn’t have made a stink about Apu had more Indian characters been represented on T.V. That lack of representation could have happened for a number of reasons, but Apu is the convenient scapegoat. ETA: His case should have been against the bigger picture - how under-represented Indians have been in Hollywood.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

No, I mean if you really want to get into a heavy discussion of eugenics, stolen children, and the slaughter of indigenous people in order to somehow try to score a point by trying to “disprove” my “claim” of my ethnicity then that is on you. I wouldn’t do so if I were you because it’s somewhat hideous.

Provided you are willing to actually look at the political affiliations of those who extolled eugenics, the stealing of children and the slaughter of indigenous people, and not merely assign blame to “whites as a race,” a discussion on that topic might be constructive.

Unfortunately, those who point to such “hideous” things are, often and at the same time, unwilling to acknowledge that a far worse “slaughter” of innocent human beings is occurring right under our noses in far more hideous numbers, just by different agents with different victims.

I suppose the potential to “identify” with the victim group makes all the difference, which is perplexing given that we were all indigenous to our mother’s wombs before breathing the air in the land we now inhabit, indigenously or otherwise. Conveniently, we seem to be able to invoke selective memories when “identifying” with particular victim groups and not others.

I’ll put my head down now, in preparation to receive the incoming assaults in response to my derailing of the thread once more,

I don’t recall bringing up “whites as a race”, do you? I said it would be in poor taste to try to argue about the Stolen Generation to attempt to disprove someone’s heritage. And it would be.

And did you really just try to drag this discussion into a talk on abortion again? Because that is still not the topic.

 

[DeniseNY]

Thank you, but I read the thread.

 

[Alex337]

Awesome In that case I hope I answered your question?

 

[DeniseNY]

I don’t know. So you would be ok with people saying they are bothered with Hank Azaria continuing to do the voice of Apu, but for the Simpsons writers and producers to just say "yeah ok we hear you, but we’re making a point about stereotypes and we’re not changing anything. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut’.

 

[Alex337]

I don’t know. So you would be ok with people saying they are bothered with Hank Azaria continuing to do the voice of Apu, but for the Simpsons writers and producers to just say "yeah ok we hear you, but we’re making a point about stereotypes and we’re not changing anything. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut’.

In the end it’s their creative product, so sure. It would be great for them to enter the discussion and explain their thought process, that’d be really good.

 

[HarryStotle]

And did you really just try to drag this discussion into a talk on abortion again? Because that is still not the topic.

Perhaps not, but it does add perspective to the topic, if anyone is actually interested in seeing this discussion placed into perspective.

I suppose discussing the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome will also merely derail the thread?

That pretty much leaves restricting all discussion to the feelings of the offended as the only way forward.

Don’t wonder, then, why some will decide to mock that restriction on discussion.

 

[DeniseNY]

And if they choose to not address the critics and just continue to do their own thing?

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

And did you really just try to drag this discussion into a talk on abortion again? Because that is still not the topic.

Perhaps not, but it does add perspective to the topic, if anyone is actually interested in seeing this discussion placed into perspective.

I suppose discussing the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome will also merely derail the thread?

That pretty much leaves restricting all discussion to the feelings of the offended as the only way forward.

Don’t wonder, then, why some will decide to mock that restriction on discussion.

I don’t think it does to be honest. Folks can consider many things important. Being concerned with one matter of race doesn’t negate a person’s ability to have thoughts of abortion, or on world hunger, or on war, or on many other important topics.

You seem to be trying to cry foul on being asked not to derail the topic. If you want to discuss abortions I’m sure there are many threads on this forum to do so, but I don’t see how it relates to the Simpsons.

 

[Alex337]

And if they choose to not address the critics and just continue to do their own thing?

Well it would seem that boat sailed as they have addressed the criticism. But hypothetically if they didn’t that’s fine too, it’s a missed opportunity but not a huge one as the topic will always be about to be addressed and many people who aren’t the creators have the chance to engage with it.

 

[Pup7]

So you would be ok with people saying they are bothered with Hank Azaria continuing to do the voice of Apu, but for the Simpsons writers and producers to just say "yeah ok we hear you, but we’re making a point about stereotypes and we’re not changing anything. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut’.

I don’t know if you know it or not, but that’s almost exactly what’s happened in this case. The whole show is satire and a sea of stereotypes, actually, but that wasn’t what the response was about.

It would be great for them to enter the discussion and explain their thought process, that’d be really good.

Did the group who is in opposition to this character contact the creators and say, “hey, we are an Indian group who finds Apu offensive, and we’d like to talk about why”? If they did, and got nothing, that’s on Groenig (or Fox or whomever controls the rights these days). If they didn’t they shouldn’t be surprised when they get a very Simpsons-like response.

 

[DeniseNY]

Yes, but I was not sure if Alex337 had a problem with it or not.

 

[Alex337]

DeniseNY:

So you would be ok with people saying they are bothered with Hank Azaria continuing to do the voice of Apu, but for the Simpsons writers and producers to just say "yeah ok we hear you, but we’re making a point about stereotypes and we’re not changing anything. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut’.

I don’t know if you know it or not, but that’s almost exactly what’s happened in this case.

It would be great for them to enter the discussion and explain their thought process, that’d be really good.

Did the group who is in opposition to this character contact the creators and say, “hey, we are an Indian group who finds Apu offensive, and we’d like to talk about why”? If they did, and got nothing, that’s on Groenig (or Fox or whomever controls the rights these days). If they didn’t they shouldn’t be surprised when they get a very Simpsons-like response.

I’m not sure. But to be honest I don’t know if dismissive is really very Simpsons-like? I will admit again that I haven’t watched the Simpsons in a few years (not due to controversy, just moved away from it), but they used to seem to engage with discussion more. From all I’ve heard the creator was disappointed with how the staff handled it, which seems fair; it could have been dealt with better in my opinion.

 

[Pup7]

As I said, if the group didn’t approach the writers first, they shouldn’t be surprised by the smart answer. Because that’s how you start dialogue.

I’m guessing the creator holds no rights other than royalties? Because it doesn’t sound like he approves scripts.

 

[Alex337]

As I said, if the group didn’t approach the writers first, they shouldn’t be surprised by the smart answer. Because that’s how you start dialogue.

That’s the thing; to me at least it didn’t seem like a “smart answer”. Of course humour is subjective but it just seemed rather flat and disengaged to me.

 

[Pup7]

It was very pointed and yet subtle. It was indeed a “smart” answer in the “kiddo mouthing off” sense of the word. Very Bart Simpson, I thought.