To Woke, or not to Woke. Mr. Apu on the Simpsons.

Post Reply New Topic

Let's not forget that the stereotype isn't working at Kwik-e-Mart type shops, it's owning them, and convenience stores have a relatively low cost of entry for recent immigrants. This is a great example of looking for racism that doesn't necessarily exist and then shoehorning it in to buttress a worldview, regardless of the facts.

There is a major shortage of manual labour across the western world due to COVID as white people don't want to do the following jobs
cleaning
road work
24 hr convenience workers
security
fruit picking

I could list more, but basically physically demanding or dirty or dangerous jobs that don't pay well. The employers really have no choice.

Indians and Arabs and some south east Asians work in 24hr convenience stores as it's a niche area where there is a constant demand for workers but because it's dangerous and long hours you have to be constantly vigilant. A lot of migrants with poor English skills this is one of the options open to them. A number of my wife's distant relatives started working after migrating did their tour of duty in petrol stations and 7-11s.

The Apu meme is funny but for the Indian people who do this job there is an element of physical exhaustion, boredom and the ever present threat of being held up at gun point. Indians never made up their own stereotypes. That leaves only one group who make fun of them. it's really not rocket science. Do you really think Matt Greonig went consulted with the Indian community before creating Apu....hardly

From that perspective I agree with Kondabalu, Greonig was using racism to make money of what Indians have to go through in North America.

Oh please, don't test my intelligence

I don't believe that was Groening's motivation----to exploit east Indian folks through Apu.

I believe he was offering a slice of real life, plus comedy, with the character. There are many people of east Indian and Arab extraction who work (and own) convenience stores, and certainly risk their lives doing so.

What do you want Groening to do----not have anybody from any other ethnic group work at the convenience store?

In the beginning of the thread, you said:


Have you watched the Simpsons since making this comment to form a clear, educated opinion on the topic?

Also, even if creators’ motivations are okay, it doesn’t mean that their content is. People make all sorts of blunders through ignorance. Further, what was once acceptable might not be now.

No, I haven't----but I've had other people talk about the character.

I've always said----if a bunch of Indian people write letters objecting to the character, then if I'm Groening, I might take the character off the show. They are the ultimate arbiters.

Normally, I wouldn’t state opinions on characters in shows (and their potential problems) if I haven’t actually watched the show…

Many people, including Indians, have. Having grown up with the show, I think removing Apu was the right choice. Years ago, my brother and I talked about how problematic this subplot was. The stereotyping is just not appropriate IMO.

I don't believe in stereotyping at all.....

We don't actually know Groening's motivation for making Apu the way he was. Perhaps he was stereotyping----perhaps he actually knew somebody with Apu's characteristics. The ultimate arbiter are the east Indians who would write the letters objecting to the character.

If somebody presented me, in a show, as a stereotypical Jew and autistic person, I don't know how I would react. It would depend upon many factors. I do believe people should have the ability to laugh at one's self.

If I'm presented as a sleazy shyster lawyer, I certainly wouldn't like it. But if I'm presented as being a slight nebbish who likes to "info-dump", then I might just laugh at it.

Yiddish theater was one big stereotype. But Jewish immigrants loved it. At times, Jewish people were discriminated against in the United States almost as much as black people were discriminated against.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 02 Sep 2022, 6:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1. It doesn’t matter what Groening’s motivation was as I’ve already stated.

2. Once again, people, including Indians, complained about this character.

3. I don’t know why you are defending Apu when you’ve never watched the show. It’s really odd. To effectively debate a topic, you should be familiar with it, especially with the source material.

4. None of this really matters because the decision has already been made.

It actually doesn't matter all that much to me....

I'm making the point that the nature of comedy sometimes involves stereotyping. The intention isn't always to denigrate the ethnic group. If an Indian comedian stereotyped Americans or Jews, I would probably just laugh it off.

That’s nice, I guess. I question the talent of comedians who must rely on stereotyping and old tropes rather than fresh material. It seems sort of lazy and...not funny. When I observe routines like that, I’m more inclined to roll my eyes than laugh.

Also, it doesn’t necessarily matter if a person’s intentions are okay. People can hurt others through sheer ignorance.

As has already been mentioned in this thread, some did find the depiction of Apu degrading.

For instance:

All right...like you said, it was decided to take the character out. I have no objection to this; and it would be absurd if I had an objection.

I don't really have a stake in whether Apu stays or goes.

It was more like I was making a point about comedy in general. Much of stand-up comedy involves mockery. This mockery takes many forms---including stereotyping. It can be through physical comedy----or it could be in the form of puns and jokes. Or in the reenactment of conversations.

I'm not a particular fan of stand-up comedy, by the way. I believe it sometimes goes too far in the direction of mockery. I sometimes have a hard time sitting through it. But mockery is the nature of the art form. It's "low comedy"----but people find an "escape" through "low comedy," though I don't.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 02 Sep 2022, 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I prefer comedians who employ storytelling.

There’s a lot of variation depending on the comedian. They aren’t all the same.

Why would I believe that all comedians are the same?

The Marx Brothers used quite a bit of mockery----but the overall level of their comedy was high. And they believed strongly in inclusivity.

Abbott and Costello, to me, had an extremely low level of comedy. But certain people found escape through them.

At a hotel my son and I stayed at a few years ago, we had to walk down a long hallway to get to the elevator, and the whole way there we could hear a third-rate comedian performing in a small theater. He sucked. He kept on talking about “chicks.” We had a good laugh at how bad he was, so that was something.

It sounded like a routine he could’ve taken from a bad comedian from the 80s/early 90s.

Maybe that’s what he did.

Last edited by TwilightPrincess on 02 Sep 2022, 7:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You ought to see the "Wild and Crazy Guys" sketch which was presented on Saturday Night Live about 1977.

It's extremely low comedy---but it's so "over the top" that I don't find it objectionable. It is a mockery of guys who spend their lives trying to "pick up chicks."