|
Post by The Barber on Apr 16, 2018 3:10:20 GMT -5
Most voice work is done by various people of different races. Is it wrong for Phil Lamarr (black man) to voice Samaria Jack (Asian man)? What about all of the Asian actors voicing white people in China? Who cares?
Bill Mahar says it perfectly here:
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,423
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Apr 16, 2018 3:11:41 GMT -5
I mean they could have, I dunno, made a recurring character who actually has an Indian voice actor.
Apu, it's almost 30 years in, he's not going anywhere, not going to change. That doesn't mean there's nothing they could do to make the show better and more inclusive.
But telling people to piss off with their complaints is never the way to go, if anything this has brought more attention to it so there will be more negative attention.
|
|
Kyn
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,623
|
Post by Kyn on Apr 16, 2018 3:22:22 GMT -5
I mean they could have, I dunno, made a recurring character who actually has an Indian voice actor. Apu, it's almost 30 years in, he's not going anywhere, not going to change. (...) I don't know. Is there ANYTHING they can do to 'fix' the character at this point that would make people happy? Given the scrutiny that character is going to be under moving forward, they could decide he's more trouble than it's worth and kill him off. I'm not saying that's the correct way to deal with it. But it's an option available to them. Hell, they could kill him off and create a new Indian American recurring character who has an Indian voice actor, but that character would be under just as much scrutiny.
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Apr 16, 2018 3:28:25 GMT -5
I mean they could have, I dunno, made a recurring character who actually has an Indian voice actor. Apu, it's almost 30 years in, he's not going anywhere, not going to change. That doesn't mean there's nothing they could do to make the show better and more inclusive. But telling people to piss off with their complaints is never the way to go, if anything this has brought more attention to it so there will be more negative attention. It really isn’t a hard thing to do, and these things apply to not just Apu/Indian characters/people, but all ethnic groups/minorites. 1) Don’t have people not of the ethnicity voice the characters with an offensive stereotypical accent(using someone’s earlier example of Phil LaMarr voicing Samurai Jack, that’s ok because while yes he is doing an accent, he’s not using a racist stereotypical one, he’s not going, “Hi I’m Jack, I rove flied lice!” or such bullshit) And 2) When the series is set in a real world location(or even an analog of said locations), especially god damn America, do not only have one person of said ethnicity working in one of their ethnicity’s stereotyped professions! Basically I don’t think Apu would be as big of an issue if he didn’t have the stupid ass accent and there were other significant characters of Indian descent who weren’t working at convenience stores or driving cabs or being a customer service call center employee or whathaveyou.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,423
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Apr 16, 2018 3:37:56 GMT -5
I mean they could have, I dunno, made a recurring character who actually has an Indian voice actor. Apu, it's almost 30 years in, he's not going anywhere, not going to change. (...) I don't know. Is there ANYTHING they can do to 'fix' the character at this point that would make people happy? Given the scrutiny that character is going to be under moving forward, they could decide he's more trouble than it's worth and kill him off. I'm not saying that's the correct way to deal with it. But it's an option available to them. Maybe use him a little less. The actual character of Apu there's not much you can do. People would notice a change in voice actor etc. That's why I think having another Indian character would help, it's not like The Simpsons can't add new characters. It'd help if Apu, the convenience store clerk voiced by a white guy doing a "goodness gracious me" accent and his family, also all voiced by white people, weren't the only representation. Trying to explain my thoughts here, so might get some wording wrong. Basically, for 1995, is the portrayal of Apu a positive one? Yes. But if you're continuing to produce shows, you can't rest on what you did 23 years ago. The world does change, and if you're still producing content you have to adapt. If the Simpsons had stopped in 1995, then we could say "that wasn't perfect, but for the time it was good" However, this is 2018, so, assuming you were trying to give the character and his culture better than average treatment back in the day, you should still do it now. It'd be like in the mid 90s, having the same jokes from 1975, it just couldn't work and people would call you out for it. Edit: Just remembered, The Simpsons themselves literally called that kind of bullshit out when they had Krusty do the "Me So Solly" bit!
|
|
|
Post by hossfan on Apr 16, 2018 5:30:36 GMT -5
"Hey guys, what's going on?"
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 16, 2018 5:50:54 GMT -5
Wake me up when The PC Thugs get kicked out of power and we can go back to watching stuff without them coming in and demanding we feel guilty for doing so. Shall we change Injun Joe to Victorian Joseph while we're at it? Or how's about we have Popeye no longer be a sailor because he smokes a corncob pipe? And how could we possibly live with ourselves if we allow The Flintstones to continue on with domesticating and using Dinosaurs as labor animals? So, by "PC Thugs" we know that's just referring to the actual Indian Americans who made this an issue decades ago, with one bringing it up again recently in the form of a documentary, right? The population of people who consider themselves actually impacted by this voiced displeasure with it, but, hey, we can write them off because "thugs"? This is what perpetually irks me about these conversations, once the "lol SJWs!" choir tunes up; it's this perception that the only people talking about or voicing complaints about these things are probably white middle class-or-higher Americans (read: people who have little reason to be personally/directly offended by things they see on TV), and not people from the actual smaller and/or marginalized communities that are impacted directly by a given depiction. That's not to say all Indian-Americans feel the same way, obviously, but that's where this originated from, and when this "debate" (using the term loosely) is run off the tracks by the "PC police!" wailing and gnashing of teeth, those originators of the point in question seem to get erased, as if they don't matter because instead what's important is constructing a strawman debate opponent who looks like a quinoa eating student from an elite coastal university (who, let's remember, are still basically kids, regardless, so...congratulations on debating them?). This may not be a person's intent when making those arguments, but what else do we think it's accomplishing? One doesn't have to even agree with that group's stance on a matter like this one, but one may do so without blithely dismissing that group's point as so much "you just want to WHITE KNIGHT and feel good about yourself!" wankery. ...I won't get into the irony of using the term "thugs" in a discussion about a Hindu character.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,523
|
Post by FinalGwen on Apr 16, 2018 5:56:56 GMT -5
That's not the argument though. The argument is that we have a variety/surplus of 'average Americans' on The Simpsons, and indeed western media in general. thousands of them. Likewise, with cops, if you don't like Chief Wiggum, you can look at Lou and Eddie on The Simpsons, or you can go and watch Brooklyn Nine-Nine, or any other number of shows starring cops. Scottish people, old people, even school principals... They're not rare to find. The point the documentary made was that there basically wasn't any representation in the media at that time for Indian Americans, and that one scrap that they got was a stereotype voiced by a white guy doing an impression of an impression (...) This whole situation suggests that every other tv show who didn't include an Indian American character got it right, because the (apparently) only show that did is now getting blowback for it. If the Simpsons could see the future 20 years ago, there would have been no Apu. No Indian American representation. Because why bother including characters from diverse backgrounds when other shows don't, if you're just going to be called racist for it decades later? Speaking broadly, not just about the Simpsons, it's insane that it's not enough to try to be inclusive and show people from all spectrums of life in creative work; you have to do it in a way that doesn't offend anyone now, and won't offend anyone 20 years in the future when cultural attitudes will have changed in ways you can't possibly foresee. People's intentions aren't taken into consideration, it doesn't matter if the mistake you made was innocent. If you f*** up, by god you will pay, and no apology will be sufficient. Again, this isn't something that was perfectly fine and dandy 20 years ago, it was offensive back then too. Same as many things from our recent cultural history the difference is that that now, perhaps for the first time in history, marginalised people complaining about things actually have a voice that can be heard thanks to the internet and social media. The Simpsons creators should have known it was shitty when Azaria first did his racist impression. As far as "No apology will be sufficient" goes please point me to where they've tried to apologise in any way, shape or form to try and bring about some harmony, rather than attacking anyone who points out the issues? (While I'm here, does anyone remember the episode where Lisa was called a 'PC thug' despite being entirely correct about her critical analysis of a beloved cultural figure/property?)
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Apr 16, 2018 6:14:59 GMT -5
Wake me up when The PC Thugs get kicked out of power and we can go back to watching stuff without them coming in and demanding we feel guilty for doing so. Shall we change Injun Joe to Victorian Joseph while we're at it? Or how's about we have Popeye no longer be a sailor because he smokes a corncob pipe? And how could we possibly live with ourselves if we allow The Flintstones to continue on with domesticating and using Dinosaurs as labor animals? You want me to be honest? I wouldn’t have any issues if they just flat out retired Apu. If that makes me a “PC Thug, then I’m about that PC Thug Life, baby.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Apr 16, 2018 6:17:27 GMT -5
Apu is one of the more intelligent and hardworking characters on the show. f***ing babies. I dunno what he's like now im only going by classic simpsons. No he isn’t. He’s a terrible, god awful store manager.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Apr 16, 2018 6:21:01 GMT -5
That's not the argument though. The argument is that we have a variety/surplus of 'average Americans' on The Simpsons, and indeed western media in general. thousands of them. Likewise, with cops, if you don't like Chief Wiggum, you can look at Lou and Eddie on The Simpsons, or you can go and watch Brooklyn Nine-Nine, or any other number of shows starring cops. Scottish people, old people, even school principals... They're not rare to find. The point the documentary made was that there basically wasn't any representation in the media at that time for Indian Americans, and that one scrap that they got was a stereotype voiced by a white guy doing an impression of an impression (...) This whole situation suggests that every other tv show who didn't include an Indian American character got it right, because the (apparently) only show that did is now getting blowback for it. If the Simpsons could see the future 20 years ago, there would have been no Apu. No Indian American representation. Because why bother including characters from diverse backgrounds when other shows don't, if you're just going to be called racist for it decades later? Speaking broadly, not just about the Simpsons, it's insane that it's not enough to try to be inclusive and show people from all spectrums of life in creative work; you have to do it in a way that doesn't offend anyone now, and won't offend anyone 20 years in the future when cultural attitudes will have changed in ways you can't possibly foresee. People's intentions aren't taken into consideration, it doesn't matter if the mistake you made was innocent. If you f*** up, by god you will pay, and no apology will be sufficient. It’s not hard to be funny without being offensive or willfully ignorant. If someone can’t write a genuinely funny character without falling back on a dated stereotype, then they’re not a very good writer to begin with. And as Owen pointed, out, the show runners didn’t apologize. So no, their response here isn’t sufficient. They’re taking the Channel Awesome route. Never go full Channel Awesome.
|
|
Kyn
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,623
|
Post by Kyn on Apr 16, 2018 6:21:37 GMT -5
(...)Speaking broadly, not just about the Simpsons, it's insane that it's not enough to try to be inclusive and show people from all spectrums of life in creative work; you have to do it in a way that doesn't offend anyone now, and won't offend anyone 20 years in the future when cultural attitudes will have changed in ways you can't possibly foresee. People's intentions aren't taken into consideration, it doesn't matter if the mistake you made was innocent. If you f*** up, by god you will pay, and no apology will be sufficient. Again, this isn't something that was perfectly fine and dandy 20 years ago, it was offensive back then too. Same as many things from our recent cultural history the difference is that that now, perhaps for the first time in history, marginalised people complaining about things actually have a voice that can be heard thanks to the internet and social media. The Simpsons creators should have known it was shitty when Azaria first did his racist impression. As far as "No apology will be sufficient" goes please point me to where they've tried to apologise in any way, shape or form to try and bring about some harmony, rather than attacking anyone who points out the issues? (While I'm here, does anyone remember the episode where Lisa was called a 'PC thug' despite being entirely correct about her critical analysis of a beloved cultural figure/property?) The section where I mentioned no apology being enough was the section I began by saying I was speaking broadly now, about society in general, not the Simpsons specifically. You've asked me to point to something I never said existed. It's funny (interesting, not ha-ha) the way people will read something and assign a totally different meaning to it than what those words mean. It's also funny (in the same way) the way people watch the same show and see different things. I'd always thought of Apu as an intelligent, hardworking family man who was a bit of a foil to the stupidity of Homer. Other people saw a racist caricature. I'm not saying either side is right, just that it's interesting the different ways people interpret the same media.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Apr 16, 2018 6:27:19 GMT -5
Again, this isn't something that was perfectly fine and dandy 20 years ago, it was offensive back then too. Same as many things from our recent cultural history the difference is that that now, perhaps for the first time in history, marginalised people complaining about things actually have a voice that can be heard thanks to the internet and social media. The Simpsons creators should have known it was shitty when Azaria first did his racist impression. As far as "No apology will be sufficient" goes please point me to where they've tried to apologise in any way, shape or form to try and bring about some harmony, rather than attacking anyone who points out the issues? (While I'm here, does anyone remember the episode where Lisa was called a 'PC thug' despite being entirely correct about her critical analysis of a beloved cultural figure/property?) The section where I mentioned no apology being enough was the section I began by saying I was speaking broadly now, about society in general, not the Simpsons specifically. You've asked me to point to something I never said existed. It's funny (interesting, not ha-ha) the way people will read something and assign a totally different meaning to it than what those words mean. It's also funny (in the same way) the way people watch the same show and see different things. I'd always thought of Apu as an intelligent, hardworking family man who was a bit of a foil to the stupidity of Homer. Other people saw a racist caricature. I'm not saying either side is right, just that it's interesting the different ways people interpret the same media. I’m sorry, but I just can’t see any convincing argument for a character who willingly cuts corners and knowingly sells expired products to his consumers as a foil for anyone. It doesn’t matter to me if everyone else in Springfield is messed up. The faults of the rest the town aren’t enough for Apu to come off totally smelling like roses in comparison, he’s still not an admirable character. So I do understand why Kondabolu is so pissed off.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Apr 16, 2018 6:35:32 GMT -5
I'm not saying either side is right, just that it's interesting the different ways people interpret the same media. Which is precisely why listening to the marginalised groups directly is so important (not saying you aren't in that group because I have no idea what race you are). If you look at the Simpsons writing staff over the last thirty years, you are not going to find many racial minorities. During the 'classic' era, as far as I'm aware, every single one of them was white (Conan O'Brien, Oakley and Weinstein, Swartzwelder...), and I'm not sure whether any of them have been any other race since. Me, a white person, saw Apu as a harmless stereotype. What Indian characters are there that exist on television? How many of them can actually even be identified as 'Indian' rather than 'West Asian?' Raj from Big Bang Theory... a bunch of nameless medical staff, who in TV and movies are frequently cast as West Asian... For God's sake even Apu's wife was voiced by a f***ing white person. This area of the world is so invisible to the media that in the US, the word 'Asian' only refers to East Asians, despite Asia being an insanely diverse area culturally and racially and being the biggest continent for land mass. Think about it. Most of Russia is in Asia. If you've ever seen any Malaysian movies or met any Malaysian people, their ethnic makeup is like a combination of different elements of all of Asia and the Pacific Islands. The black character tropes were being parodied at least as early as the 90s (Not Another Teen Movie; 'I'm token black guy. I'm just here to say dayummmm) but Indian characters aren't even prevalent enough to get satirised in such a way now, nearly twenty years on. And part of the reason it's so important to listen to these marginalised groups - I'm a white man, and I was aware of all the above at least. I'm sure I have barely even scratched the surface, and maybe haven't even touched on what the most problematic areas are for this group.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Apr 16, 2018 6:38:03 GMT -5
That’s the one thing I can suggest to people whenever the “why do people find this offensive?” question. LISTEN. There’s usually a good reason as to why other people consider the thing you find harmless to be so problematic.
|
|
Kyn
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,623
|
Post by Kyn on Apr 16, 2018 6:38:33 GMT -5
It’s not hard to be funny without being offensive or willfully ignorant. If someone can’t write a genuinely funny character without falling back on a dated stereotype, then they’re not a very good writer to begin with. Agreed, but I wasn't referring to wilful ignorance, I was referring to when innocently not knowing something leads to a mistake. (I.e this brouhaha taught me Indian Americans owning stores is a stereotype in America, which I didn't know before). (I can't think of a good example right now that doesn't bring it back to the goddamn Simpsons when I was just speaking generally, but I hope you see what I mean. There is a difference between intentional racism that people commit repeatedly because they find humour in it, or racism caused by someone not knowing something was a racist stereotype, learning from the mistake and not doing it again. Apu may well be the former, but again, I was trying to speak in general terms and not about this specific situation).
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Apr 16, 2018 6:39:58 GMT -5
So she's become what they've done to Brian on Family Guy? She's worse. Like, never in a billion years would Al Jean consider killing her off. In seriousness, even Seth is aware what a douche Brian has become and lately has toned down his involvement. Jean has tripled down on Lisa. One would hope the Simpsons wouldn’t air an episode where an eight year old girl (and a pop culture icon) is killed off. That’d be hella dark.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Apr 16, 2018 6:40:49 GMT -5
Sorry to double post. I'm not saying that's the correct way to deal with it. But it's an option available to them. Hell, they could kill him off and create a new Indian American recurring character who has an Indian voice actor, but that character would be under just as much scrutiny. Yes, the character would have the same level of scrutiny but be way less problematic because an Indian person voices them. The issue here isn't that nothing should ever be criticised. It's about whether that criticism is justified. To use your example. Apu is an Indian character written by a white person, animated by white people (except a lot of the nuts and bolts stuff they at least used to do in Korea), directed by a white person, invented by white people, produced by white people and with an audience that is overwhelmingly white. If just one of those is changed to 'Indian person' then the scrutiny is less of a problem.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Apr 16, 2018 6:42:43 GMT -5
It’s not hard to be funny without being offensive or willfully ignorant. If someone can’t write a genuinely funny character without falling back on a dated stereotype, then they’re not a very good writer to begin with. Agreed, but I wasn't referring to wilful ignorance, I was referring to when innocently not knowing something leads to a mistake. (I.e this brouhaha taught me Indian Americans owning stores is a stereotype in America, which I didn't know before). (I can't think of a good example right now that doesn't bring it back to the goddamn Simpsons when I was just speaking generally, but I hope you see what I mean. There is a difference between intentional racism that people commit repeatedly because they find humour in it, or racism caused by someone not knowing something was a racist stereotype, learning from the mistake and not doing it again. Apu may well be the former, but again, I was trying to speak in general terms and not about this specific situation). I feel Apu started out as the latter, but Lisa and Marge staring sheepishly at the camera not knowing how to handle it wasn’t the way to go. People are bothered by it because they’re coming off like they want to ignore the negative impact Apu has had on some people, as the documentary made clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2018 6:48:48 GMT -5
I prefer to be called a Greasy Thug.
|
|