I have never understood the whole Apu thing. There are plenty of other stereotypes on the show. Ralph being one of the more offensive IMO. Is Apu just the starting point for more cartoon characters to be canceled?
https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/hank-azaria-simpsons-apu-apology-231842077.html
Here's the answer: the world is going insane. People are pointing fingers at each other calling each other "racist". Other people are scouring the world looking for something to cancel. It's the way it is and I don't see the insanity stopping any time soon.
God I hope it stops soon.
shareIt won't.
Last night, I read about an intended boycott of Home Depot, because they *refuse* to make political statements. It seems that because they didn't comment on Georgia's attempts to reduce voter fraud, they must be cancelled.
The intolerant left is very very good at swarming together like hornets and harassing people of good will with whom they disagree and scaring them into making illogical and factually incorrect statements, as long as they fit the racist leftist anti-American agenda. The right on the other hand just shrugs their shoulders and turns the other way.
The left is going to full insanity but *we're* the problem for not confronting them.
"Last night, I read about an intended boycott of Home Depot"
There's no such thing as 'Home Depot'.
There's "The Home Depot", though.
Last night, I read about an intended boycott of Home Depot, because they *refuse* to make political statements. It seems that because they didn't comment on Georgia's attempts to reduce voter fraud, they must be cancelled.
the methods they wish to restrict are methods widely preferred by the black demographic
As a black American, I find that offensive.
There is *nothing* in the Georgia voting laws that target anyone except people who want to vote fraudulently,
or are you suggesting without actually saying it that blacks are more likely to commit voter fraud or are somehow incapable of following voting laws and acquire an ID?
Explain how the melanin in our skin somehow is targeted by voting laws? Pure genius in law making apparently.
You're a typical white liberal looking to foment racial hatred. There are a lot more black conservatives than you want to believe and Latinos are moving more right. Loosing control?
And while you buck and winged all around the subject, you never said what and how specifically the laws affect only us.
Explain how the melanin in our skin somehow is targeted by voting laws? Pure genius in law making apparently.
You're a typical white liberal looking to foment racial hatred. There are a lot more black conservatives than you want to believe and Latinos are moving more right. Loosing control?I know what I am - so how can you hope to convince me you're right with such knee-jerk stabs in the dark?
And while you buck and winged all around the subject, you never said what and how specifically the laws affect only us.
You did not. At all. None of those generalities remotely reply to us.
I most assuredly did. We can take them point by point if you wish.
Assertion: Blacks in Georgia (and in the US as a whole, for that matter) have a lower voter-turnout than whites.
Assertion: Blacks in Georgia (and perhaps in the US as a whole, for all I know) are less likely than whites to possess the sort of ID the new voter law requires.
Assertion: the IDs that blacks already possessed are perfectly fine. They only became a "problem" once black voter turnout increased.
Feel free to disagree with any of the above assertions, but these are completely uncontroversial assertions. What you may not do, however, is pretend that I never presented them in the first place.
Assertion: Blacks in Georgia (and in the US as a whole, for that matter) have a lower voter-turnout than whites.
Assertion: Blacks in Georgia (and perhaps in the US as a whole, for all I know) are less likely than whites to possess the sort of ID the new voter law requires.
Assertion: the IDs that blacks already possessed are perfectly fine. They only became a "problem" once black voter turnout increased.
What you may not do, however, is pretend that I never presented them in the first place.
So what. Blacks are twice as likely to vote than Asians. Maybe you should turn your attention to Asian discrimination. I suspect you won't because if Asian voting rates increased, the normally more conservative Asian community might vote Republican.
So what? If anyone really believes voting is their civic duty and right, they will get an ID.
It's pretty simple and it's free.
The voting laws applies to all, including whites that might not have an ID. Show me the law that prevents blacks from acquiring an ID.
But you didn't.
You didn't show me the law that prevents blacks, Latinos, or Asians from voting or acquiring an ID. You are making a leap.
No one should vote without proper ID. No one.
If someone isn't motivated to acquire an ID, maybe they shouldn't vote.
Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat, otherwise Republicans might not mind them voting so much.
What if they don't see it as their duty? Most don't.
AND NO ONE DISAGREES WITH [voting with proper ID].
Either you are skimming instead of reading, or you're not that bright
Apu is offensive by today's standards because he was supposed to be a stereotype about how 7/11 employees (or 7/11-type stores) were only run Indians. It was akin to the stereotype back in the 1960s and 1970s, when TV ads, movies and shows made it a point of always showing Chinese people either owning laundromats or having some kind of special insight into laundering ("ancient Chinese secret, huh"?).
BTW, I agree that Ralph is the more offensive stereotype, but he gets a free pass because it's never been officially stated that he's mentally challenged. The show has always pussied out by pretending he's just the quirky weird kid. The show also makes sure to have him have his "moments of brilliance" as a red herring. This cowardice is why I'm on the complainer's side about Apu. If you're going to act superior about how you're an equal opportunity offender, fine, but then you lose that equal opportunity offender card when you keep covering your tracks about one of the characters, precisely because you're afraid of offending people with him.
Forget Ralph, Bumblebee Man is a much more one-dimensional and offensive ethnic stereotype, and he's voiced by the same guy who voiced Apu, Hank Azaria. But for whatever reason, cancel culture hasn't demanded he get purged from The Simpsons.
I imagine it’s because Bumblebee Man is used far less often so people forget he’s even there.
share" I agree that Ralph is the more offensive stereotype, "
Stereotypes aren't offensive, people are.
Also, what stereotype is Ralph in your opinion? He's just a 'dumb kid'.
Are you saying dumb kids don't exist, or the INCLUSION of them in a show offends.. someone? Who? Wouldn't the stupid kids be too stupid to be offended by something like that anyway? Wouldn't their parents already know their kids are stupid? WHO would it 'offend', even if it was offensive??
Apu 'offends indians' because a white guy is doing his voice (I think this is basically aural version of 'blackface', but I don't think there's anything wrong with 'blackface' per se - what 'white individual would be offended if a black guy were 'whiteface', for example? People get offended too easily, everything should be allowed; asian playing a white guy, black woman pretending to be an eskimo, indian acting as indian (err, two separate meanings), and a white guy playing a black or asian guy. WHYEVER would any of this not be allowed?).
Who does Ralph offend by being stupid? Are you saying stupid people shouldn't be shown in TV shows, although they definitely exist?
So much nonsense in your post.
Ralph is supposed to be "retarded." Not a dumb kid. Not slightly challenged. He is mentally retarded child/Special Needs. This was confirmed in one of the episodes when Chief Wiggum calls him "special."
What's offensive about Ralph is that rather than make him a funny character who happens to be retarded, the writers didn't make him funny at all but just play his behavior for cheap laughs, and for the types that used to laugh at kids like that.
For example, Edith Bunker, Gracie Allen, Ed Norton and Chrissy Snow were "retarded" but no one thinks of them that way because they actually said and did funny things that would've been funny no matter who said or did them.
With Ralph, the humor comes from the audience recognizing how kids from Special Ed acted and talked. For example, in the episode where Principal Skinner and Mrs. Krabbapel were caught in the closet, what was particularly funny about the long winded account that Ralph gave, where he also said that he saw the baby come out and it winked at him? Nothing other than this is how mentally challenged kids talk.
There are other things that Ralph does that fits age old stereotypes about Special Needs kids (eating paste, for example). If you're old enough to have seen or remembered them, there's no doubt that this is what he's supposed to be. Like I said in an earlier response, the show has been cute disguising what he is by occasionally having him do or say things to make him seem more quirky or even smarter. But a lot of the other stuff he says and does are based on old stereotypes about Special Needs kids.
I think my favorite Ralph moment was when he called Skinner's boss "Super Nintendo Chalmers".
I'm so ashamed.
EDIT: Ralph isn't special-ed - he's in regular education classes. His issue is that he's not particularly bright but more importantly is being raised by a couple of dunces. He's socially awkward and regressed emotionally. Ralph doesn't seem any more dim that his dad, who by the way, is police chief.
My favorite Ralph line is "The doctor said I'd get fewer nosebleeds if I'd keep my finger out of there".
shareBut there are people talking like Apu! So why not portray them that way? Because there are Indians not talking like that? So what! And comedy thrives on stereotypes aka the norm. Otherwise comedy becomes drama. But SJW morons are can't see past that.
shareThere's also quite a few Indians who have written articles in defense of Apu (criticizing the sort of people that have elected to criticize Apu). It's actually kind of a shame that Apu took the brunt for all this bullshit.
shareApu is a lovable character with relatable personality with a steady job and family. He's a successful business owner with talent for singing and customer service.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with Apu or how he's portrayed.
During the hey day of the Simpsons which was the 1990's I thought that the show was one of the more even handed properties in terms of taking shots at people and groups. Nobody was safe. Then in the early 2000's the producers decided that they were going to tip the scales in a certain direction to protect some people and lampoon others. They can't do that and not have thinking people notice. The show has become an obvious half hour commercial for the DNC. As far as Ralph goes I just think he is naive and trusting as the day is long. Limited in intellect but don't consider him having learning disorders as he would not be in the same class as Lisa.
share
Well observed.
Satire is only funny when all sides are equally and thoroughly lampooned. Once they take one side or the other, it comes across as shrill and unfunny.
Very well stated yourself, strntz.
This is the reason I can't watch late-night TV talk shows anymore. They are no longer balanced in their attacks, it's all all-out bashing of the Republican Party.
It never even crossed my mind that anyone could think this amazing and actually very favorable portrayal of an indian enterpreneur is racist, until the whole mess began. For years, I just saw him as a lovable and fun character.
I mean, for something to be racist, wouldn't it have to be disparaging based on race? If you are simply portraying someone of a certain race, that's not racist.
I don't think Apu's race was ever used to make any racistic point, about indian people or otherwise (also, is 'indian' really a race, or is it just a location where someone happens to live?).
This world has been insane for a long time, but most people have turned blind eye to the 'raving lunatics' that have been talking about conspiracies, and just pushed their head into the sand instead of examining all the wild claims people like that have been making for decades.
Now the insanity is coming out into the light for everyone to see, and people are shocked at this 'sudden insanity' - the insanity has been there for a really, really long time, but the masses don't want to look at the uncomfortable truth, they rather lose themselves in comforting lies and illusions about the world.
Even in the 1950s, the world was already a lost cause, but people didn't see it easily, as it wasn't as obvious as in the modern times. It all depends on where you look and how well you familiarize yourself with what's going on and why, and how deep into the rabbit hole you are willing to go, especially when it comes to research and examination of facts and motivations.
I was done with 'The Simpons' quite awhile ago, though I enjoyed the show in pacing; however, the exit of Apu's voice actor was the last straw, as they say.
I'm a first-generation American, family from India, and I disliked the decision to recast the famous voice actor because of an SJW cry-mob.
Who cares if you're a first-generation American? So the generations of second and third generation Indian-Americans should put up and shut up to accommodate you?
share[deleted]
Most Indian-Americans disliked the decision. As a matter of fact Apu is a very popular character in India.
shareThe funny thing or ironic thing even is every character in that show is a stereotype.
It is basically one the core premises of the show
Best answer here! Maybe everyone except Marge.
shareI agree. Personally, I don't think I have ever met or watched a person in real life who acted at all like Marge. She's probably the most reasonable relatable character in the show. I like the show but I always related more to Marge than the other characters.
shareHomer is a lazy, stupid and inconsiderate slob.
Mr. Burns is evil incarnate.
Barney is a drunk.
Principal Skinner is a wimp.
Smithers is a sycophant.
Krusty is an axxhole.
Chief Wiggum is a moron.
Moe, Kirk van Houten, Groundskeeper Willie and Comic Book Guy are complete losers.
Mayor Quimby is corrupt.
Dr. Nick Rivera is incompetent and dishonest.
Apu is a small business owner and a dedicated family man. He is not the most honest merchant in the world (I seem to remember him changing the expiration date on the products he sells) but aside from that he is actually portrayed far more positively than the vast majority of the population of Springfield. Arguably only Ned Flanders and Dr. Hibbert are less flawed characters.
So now that we’ve established that Apu is NOT in fact portrayed negatively, what are we left with? That he is a stereotype? So what? That he speaks with an Indian accent? How else is he supposed to speak? That the actor voicing him was white? Who cares? What difference does it make? Would the idiot who started the anti-Apu movement find the character tolerable if he had been voiced by an actor of Indian origin?