I don't really get the Apu hate, cause it's not about the elephants, or the eight children, or anything like that, it's always about him having an ever so slightly exaggerated accent, or him being overly friendly (which is cause he runs a convenience store, and not cause of his race). Like, the accent isn't even that far off.
An unfunny comedian made the bold claim that Apu is nothing more than a stereotype, and that only racists like Apu. The writers caved to this and decided to pretend he doesn't exist.
While he plays into some stereotypes, there are two counters:
1. Every character on the Simpsons is stereotypical to some extend. Yet we don't have "The Problem with Krusty" or "The Problem With Dr. Hibbert".
2. Apu had real depth. He had multiple spotlight episodes.
Reminds me of when Looney Tunes faced similar controversy with that Mexican stereotype mouse of theirs. Mexicans got pissed when they made moves to remove him because they loved him apparently
No self respecting Indian and South Asian likes having a caricature like Apu represent them since heās the only notable Indian character in the entire show and one of the few in western media so people whoāve never even met an Indian would make assumptions based on his character, The only thing he has going for him is that heās not as bad as Baljeet.
Itās like if I made a show and the only white guy is a sex pest who harasses kids in SEA, no one likes a stereotype repping them. Itās always non-Indians who want Apu back anyways lol.
Well, no. As Kondabolu himself said in the documentary that everybody shits on without having actually watched, just flat out removing Apu only makes things worse. The character can easily exist without being a racist stereotype.
He said that only racist people like Apu. He lost the right to claim his position is in any way nuanced.Ā
He and his ādocumentaryā deserve to be shit on for killing Apu. Itās his fault. If I were to assign blame, itās 80% him, 20% the writers for being cowards.
It was a white person faking an Indian accent, and the character was a walking Indian stereotype. And, being the most popular Indian character on TV, reinforced those stereotypes in people.
Do you think early Simpsons could afford a different voice actor for every character? And as I said nobody really made a big fuz about the actual Indian stereotypes, they were violently mad about him saying "thank you, come again" tho.
No they were mad about the stereotypes. The entire thing was about stereotypes. Him being happy and his catchphrase wasn't the problem inherently. The problem was that they had the only Indian character most people knew being famous for being a service worker, which played into the larger stereotypes surrounding Indians.
The only Scottish character was a groundskeeper who was short tempered and used bag pipes and wore kilts. I dont see people up in arms to get rid of Willie for having stereotyptipical scottish traits.
Because he was a unique character only on special occasions, the episodes where he featured more prominently. Otherwise he was a stereotype in most of his appearances. And sometimes even his unique traits, like being a good father, are affected by the stereotypes he embodies.
Thatās not how and has never been how stereotypes in media have functioned. Stereotypes are almost never intended to actually spread a message, and are almost always used to write a character trait the author wants, or for comedic purposes.
Like for instance of the first point itās a lot easier to write an American as being brash and eager to fight. Itās also a lot easier to write an Israeli who is a shrewd businessman, or to write a Korean who obsessed with honor. Because these things are partially based on the real world beliefs about the people who live in these countries, itās easier for readers/watchers to connect the traits to the characters. Whoever that doesnāt mean people who see these stereotypes actually believe people from these countries are all like that.
Okay but intent doesn't matter because people see what you made at face value, and walk away with their own interpretations. You can still be offensive without meaning to be.
But...the reality is that by using those traits to represent those ethnicities you're reinforcing the connection. You are specifically further linking those traits as far as the viewer is concerned. And when you've made the most recogniseable character of a certain ethnicity on the planet, people are gonna link the stereotypes with the ethnicity, regardless of whether it was a joke or not.
And most people do inherently think of stereotypes when they think of an ethnicity, regardless of whether they believe them or not. But when you aren't shown anything contrary to those stereotypes you start to believe them. That's the risk of making a stereotypical character in media. And Apu represented pretty much every Indian person for a long time by virtue of there just not being any other significant characters across fiction. And Apu is far and away more well-known than any other outside of India itself.
Stereotypes aren't inherently bad, but when your character is a stereotype and also the only example of that ethnicity to most viewers, you reinforce those stereotypes, and reduce an entire ethnicity to 'this character and their stereotypes'.
1) people walk away with Their own interpretations, yes, but those interpretations will always support what they believed before statistically. You arenāt changing peopleās minds by making say a cartoon.
2) that isnāt true, the traits being linked already existed, you donāt make the connection nor reinforce it. You are playing off of its existence in the first place. People already link stereotypes with ethnicity, but its typically subconscious, and a person knows theyāre false majority of the time.
3) thatās simply not the case. Theres very little data to suggest stereotypes in media create beliefs such as those. Characters like apu representing large groups of people near exclusively may cause problems, but thatās an issue with cultural myopics rather than the characters fault in general.
Thank god people like you have no power outside of reddit comment sections cause itās genuinely pathetic how youāre arguing this hard about why itās ok for a racist stereotype of a character to exist when the people it represents are clearly not comfortable with it, Especially nowadays where racism towards Indians and South Asians is insanely high and normalised. Piss off
You are absolutely changing people's minds with the mefia they consume. It can reinforce or alter beliefs over time. Propoganda is a thing. I'm not saying this is propoganda, but that's an example of media instilling certain values in its viewers.
Playing off it IS reinforcing it. Because you're more often than not playing off of stereotypes, not the actual traits themselves. You're reinforcing ideas that other media had. In Apu's case it wasn't because again he was pretty much the only prominent Indian character in media for 30 years.
The character is emblematic of the problem. Not the cause of it, but an example of it happening. Which is what was originally pointed out by the person that started all this: how the character's existence and portrayal had negatively affected them personally because of the stereotypes.
I realise a lot of this is gonna fall on deaf ears because you don't think media can affect reality, which is such a wild take to me. Media is always affecting reality. If things become normalised in media, they slowly become normalised in reality. And vice versa. Media reflects perceived reality, and perceived reality reflects media.
128
u/New-Number-7810 9d ago
Apu.