"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
The problem with that is that The Simpsons whole schtick is exaggerations/crude stereotypes of characters. Dopey fat Americans/Lazy drunks/bitter spinsters etc etc
What we will end up with is all the funny characters being white and all the BAME ones being fun sponges that no one likes.
Why must a fun character be white? Or more likely yellow?
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
I didn't say the fun characters must be white/yellow, but as each character is a crude stereotype, if you make some characters accurate representations of demographics, they wont be as funny and will therefore be less popular in a comedy show.
They can be a crude stereotype who happens to be from a different demographic. When you're crudely stereotyping the demographic rather than the trait that character is portraying then that is where people object.
Homer is not a white stereotype any more than Lisa or Moe or Smithers (who was originally black) or Burns are. They're stereotypes of types of people. The fat oafish but good hearted father, the obnoxious woke child, the bartender, the sycophant (and gay), the greedy businessman. They could be any race. Apu is different.
So what is the new Apu going to be a sterotype of? Someone who owns a convenience store?!
An Indian who owns a convenience store yes. And if the writers go to far the actor voicing him can say so. Quite right too, what's the harm in that?
Most of Apu's storylines revolved around the convenience store not his ethnicity anyway so not sure why you find that outrageous.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
Nope, never intended to settle in 5 of them. Defined 'tours' in each country, no intention ever to settle.
Dictionary definition:
Immigrant = "a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country."
OK, Expat in 5 and immigrant in one, if you indeed intended to return to England from the other 5 and not just go on to one of the other ones and have no intention of returning to England.
First two as a child, father deployed with armed forces, next two as a diplomat representing the UK, next as a student, final first as a UN diplomat, then as an immigrant
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Life doesn't always run according to plans. Many people who plan to move temporarily for a job end up staying permanently, and many people who plan to move permanently end up moving back, or somewhere else.
While that's true, if I want to apply for a permanent visa, I'm back at the beginning of the queue.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Agreed.
However the Daily Mail crowd on the Costas would have kittens if they were referred to as immigrants rather than expats.
So?
If they're using the wrong word they're illiterate oafs. Doesn't mean expats do not exist. They're not expats though if they've moved permanently to the Costas.
I think we are in agreement.
The reasons why people use the wrong term could be explored in a 3,000 word essay.
So the Unwokies' outrage has gone from statues the existence of which they were unaware of historical figures of which they'd never heard, through a film which they'd never seen of a book they'd never read to a kids' cartoon they don't watch. It's almost like all that stuff is completely unconnected to what's going on in their panicked wee breasties.
It will surprise you, then, to learn that: I know the Winston Churchill statue, I have heard of Abraham Lincoln, I have seen the play Hamilton, I have read Harry Potter, and I have watched The Simpsons.
Other than that, a sterling comment
Harry Potter?
I knew your wife was young. I didn't think she was THAT young!
And so we reach 10 million confirmed virus cases worldwide just now (a mere almost three months later than confidently predicted by PB’s after-school statistics club).
A quarter of them, and a third of current ‘live‘ (not recovered, not died) cases are now in the USA. With an eighth in Brazil.
It’s going to be a while before US travellers are welcomed across the world.
"Given Trump’s championing of early re-opening, it should not be a hard task for the Democrats to pin blame on him for both the additional deaths and the job losses and bankruptcies that will follow a new round of restrictions"
Great header David. One thing I'd add to the quote above is that the cities in those swing states experiencing bad COVID figures right now are frustrated by GOP governors who are preventing them - at Trump's behest - from re-imposing lockdowns that meet local conditions. This, I think, not only reinforces the anti-Trump sentiment in cities and, importantly, their suburbs, but also will encourage across the slate anti-GOP voting. Expect this to seriously impact not just the presidential vote, but also the Senate and House votes in those states. And this sentiment of 'vote the bums out' across the slate will, I think, lead to a higher differential turnout against the GOP.
Maybe that is just my wishful thinking, but what I am picking up is a seething anger everywhere except the Trump base, and even there people are finding it ever harder to justify Trump. At some point, I think that dam will burst too.
My favorite and most useful Trump-supporting friend is an English Expat who will vote for the man come what may. It's very revealing however how he justifies this. His main themes currently are statues and the Seattle communists. Never mentions the virus, the economy, or international affairs of any kind.
You can tell the pickings are thin.
Surely if he can vote he is an immigrant not an expat.
Only Jonny Foreigner is a nasty immigrant. Plucky Brits are always noble Expats.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Bad and good? In that order.
No.
It's like the difference between borrow and lend, give or take, north or south. They are opposites.
Isn't good and bad an opposite?
Not that I can see immigrants and expats as diametrically opposed notions anyway.
Good and bad are opposites but I didn't like your connotation that I was implying such judgements for either.
They are diametrically opposed though. What is an expat? What is an immigrant? Do you know the difference?
there is no difference , an expat is just an immigrant in the country they move to and an emigrant of the country they moved from, it is your usual bollox made up rubbish so British unionists can try and feel superior, and not be classed as an immigrant.
That is one of the two differences yes. Perspective matters, an English expat in America is an immigrant in America from England. An English expat is not an immigrant in England.
Hence comparing it to the difference between borrow and lend: if I lend you £10 then you have borrowed £10 from me. You haven't lent £10 (though some people do use the word lend to mean borrow and it makes my teeth grate). Different words mean different things.
There is normally one other distinction as to which word is used.
Having been an expat in 6 countries and an immigrant in only one, I do think there is more than a semantic difference.
You were just an immigrant in 6 countries, stop kidding yourself.
There is a very real difference between someone - like @MaxPB - who goes off to work for a firm in Switzerland for a year or two, or sent on secondment to head up a project at an office in another country, and someone who is planning to move country permanently.
The US recognises this, and has non-immigrant visas (like the one I am on, and which have no path to permanent status), and immigrant ones (which do).
Precisely!
I was an expat when I was a child. I went to school overseas and we moved due to my dad's job and we were only ever on a temporary visa and always going to return. I returned coincidentally just before I started university which incidentally led to an almighty argument with my university which wanted to charge me overseas student fees. We had to prove we were only overseas temporarily and simply having returned to the UK wasn't all that was needed.
There is a difference between expat and immigrant.
An immigrant is someone who goes to live somewhere better?
No. An immigrant goes to live somewhere permanently. That's the difference. That some people use the wrong word doesn't change that the words have different meanings.
So someone who goes somewhere permanently but then leaves after a year is an immigrant, but someone who goes somewhere temporarily and stays for ten years isn’t?
If the first someone intended to stay permanently but changed their mind yes.
If the second someone intends to stay temporarily but the temporary stay gets extended (but remains temporary) yes.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
The problem with that is that The Simpsons whole schtick is exaggerations/crude stereotypes of characters. Dopey fat Americans/Lazy drunks/bitter spinsters etc etc
What we will end up with is all the funny characters being white and all the BAME ones being fun sponges that no one likes.
Why must a fun character be white? Or more likely yellow?
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
I didn't say the fun characters must be white/yellow, but as each character is a crude stereotype, if you make some characters accurate representations of demographics, they wont be as funny and will therefore be less popular in a comedy show.
They can be a crude stereotype who happens to be from a different demographic. When you're crudely stereotyping the demographic rather than the trait that character is portraying then that is where people object.
Homer is not a white stereotype any more than Lisa or Moe or Smithers (who was originally black) or Burns are. They're stereotypes of types of people. The fat oafish but good hearted father, the obnoxious woke child, the bartender, the sycophant (and gay), the greedy businessman. They could be any race. Apu is different.
So what is the new Apu going to be a sterotype of? Someone who owns a convenience store?!
An Indian who owns a convenience store yes. And if the writers go to far the actor voicing him can say so. Quite right too, what's the harm in that?
Most of Apu's storylines revolved around the convenience store not his ethnicity anyway so not sure why you find that outrageous.
I don't find it outrageous, I am just pointing out that the new Apu will be a crude stereotype of an Indian who runs a convenience store!
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
But we can live with it?
A less diverse cast? Sure, but then we'll get complaints about a lack of BAME characters
Hire from the relevant group if you can and it works. Otherwise don't.
There's a risk of overthinking this as well as becoming overstimulated by it.
The people overthinking it are those changing the status quo, the side you have taken
Why shouldn't the status quo change?
The status quo has changed throughout all of history. What's so divinely special with now that we draw the line here and no further?
The status quo was supposedly meant to change in order to move towards equality not segregation. I thought the goal was that skin colour would be less important, not more. I think we should all be able to mock each other, not put up safe spaces for some, whilst others are fair game.
Able to mock each other is not the same as being relaxed about the stereotypical lampooning of ethnic minorities.
Immigrants and expats are different words with different meanings.
Yes, that's an interesting point which people on both sides of the immigration debate should keep in mind. I knew many expats in Switzerland, people who came for the experience and the well-paid jobs but had little interest in local culture. (I thought they were missing out on a great experience but that's by the by.) The equivalent is a Polish builder who comes over for a few years, sends money home, and always intends to go back.
Some genuinely decide (from the start or later) to settle, and then became real immigrants. Swiss reservations about migrants mostly related to these - they were always relaxed about seasonal workers turning up and helping out with agriculture and tourism, and foreign experts were fine too, but a change in the permanent population was seen as a non-trivial issue. In Britain, by contrast, resentment mostly arises towards the temporary workers - "they're taking our jobs", "they don't even try to mix". People who make it clear they want to settle gradually become part of the landscape.
Where do you stand on things like Denmark enforcing the speaking of Danish?
I'd encourage it (free classes etc.) but not make it mandatory. Many of my English colleagues in Switzerland would have been appalled if they'd been made to learn German, and although I thought they were dolts (and in some cases arrogant dolts) about that (some only spoke minimal German after 20 years in Basel) they were generally doing good jobs, paying taxes and behaving themselves, so really it was just their loss. I feel much the same about the large subset of the Chinese community in Britain who don't engage at all - I think it's a great pity, but they're not really doing any harm.
Isn't Swiss German basically a different language to the German spoken in Germany?
"Swiss German" is basically High German, albeit spoken with a very strong accent, a bit like the difference between received pronounciation and a strong Scottish accent - sounding quite different, but in written form almost identical.
"Schwytzerdütsch" is much more different from High German. A bit like the difference between standard British English and the genuine "Scots" dialect, i.e. mostly unintelligable.
Surely Swiss German refers to Schwytzerdütsch? Everyone speaks Hochdeutsch with their own accent.
That might depend on the intention of the speaker. The English expression "Swiss German" might refer to "Schweizer Deutsch" or to "Schwytzerdütsch", which are clearly distinct from another. And I should probably add that there is a notable difference between merely speaking High German with a Swiss accent and speaking "Schweizer Deutsch". It really is kind of complicated, especially because so many people's identities are so strongly entangled with the language they are immersed in.
Schweizerdeutsch and Schwytzerdütsch are synonyms in my experience, and Wikipedia agrees.
Well, in my personal experience it's quite a wide spectrum. One should make at least one distinction into two seperate categories, like wiki does, but it makes quite some sense to make further distinctions, like the one I added - between "Schweizer Hochdeutsch" and "Hochdeutsch, spoken with a Swiss accent".
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
The problem with that is that The Simpsons whole schtick is exaggerations/crude stereotypes of characters. Dopey fat Americans/Lazy drunks/bitter spinsters etc etc
What we will end up with is all the funny characters being white and all the BAME ones being fun sponges that no one likes.
Why must a fun character be white? Or more likely yellow?
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
I didn't say the fun characters must be white/yellow, but as each character is a crude stereotype, if you make some characters accurate representations of demographics, they wont be as funny and will therefore be less popular in a comedy show.
They can be a crude stereotype who happens to be from a different demographic. When you're crudely stereotyping the demographic rather than the trait that character is portraying then that is where people object.
Homer is not a white stereotype any more than Lisa or Moe or Smithers (who was originally black) or Burns are. They're stereotypes of types of people. The fat oafish but good hearted father, the obnoxious woke child, the bartender, the sycophant (and gay), the greedy businessman. They could be any race. Apu is different.
So what is the new Apu going to be a sterotype of? Someone who owns a convenience store?!
An Indian who owns a convenience store yes. And if the writers go to far the actor voicing him can say so. Quite right too, what's the harm in that?
Most of Apu's storylines revolved around the convenience store not his ethnicity anyway so not sure why you find that outrageous.
Genuine question: what was your objection to Apu as a character? Was it that he was an Indian who owned a convenience store (which I agree is something of a stereotype)? Or something in addition to that?
I had no objection.
Recently many Indians did because they found how they were getting portrayed offensive - and The Simpsons rightly aren't in the business of trying to offend their fans so they are adapting. It's just good business sense not to offend your customers.
Times have changed over the past thirty years. Why shouldn't The Simpsons change with them?
You've drifted onto the right side of history again, I see.
Your entire theory of the grand march of woke down the ages is based on gaps in your historical knowledge. During the latter part of the 19th century, following the events of the Morant Bay uprising, British society became increasingly more racist and ethnocentric, lead by figures like Dickens, Carlyle, and the theories of Darwin. I am not applauding this trend, but I am recognising it. Societal trends, as history has shown, are more likely to be cyclical than one-way, and if we keep this in mind, we're more likely to be sensible and tolerant, and aim for genuine kindness and the betterment of humanity, rather than jumping on a bandwagon racing toward dribbling vegan obsolescence.
Of course it's not linear. That's a perfectly valid point.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
The problem with that is that The Simpsons whole schtick is exaggerations/crude stereotypes of characters. Dopey fat Americans/Lazy drunks/bitter spinsters etc etc
What we will end up with is all the funny characters being white and all the BAME ones being fun sponges that no one likes.
Why must a fun character be white? Or more likely yellow?
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
I didn't say the fun characters must be white/yellow, but as each character is a crude stereotype, if you make some characters accurate representations of demographics, they wont be as funny and will therefore be less popular in a comedy show.
They can be a crude stereotype who happens to be from a different demographic. When you're crudely stereotyping the demographic rather than the trait that character is portraying then that is where people object.
Homer is not a white stereotype any more than Lisa or Moe or Smithers (who was originally black) or Burns are. They're stereotypes of types of people. The fat oafish but good hearted father, the obnoxious woke child, the bartender, the sycophant (and gay), the greedy businessman. They could be any race. Apu is different.
So what is the new Apu going to be a sterotype of? Someone who owns a convenience store?!
An Indian who owns a convenience store yes. And if the writers go to far the actor voicing him can say so. Quite right too, what's the harm in that?
Most of Apu's storylines revolved around the convenience store not his ethnicity anyway so not sure why you find that outrageous.
I don't find it outrageous, I am just pointing out that the new Apu will be a crude stereotype of an Indian who runs a convenience store!
Indeed as he always was!
But with an actor who is capable and able to say "I don't feel comfortable with this scene, I think it can be improved by doing this ..."
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
The problem with that is that The Simpsons whole schtick is exaggerations/crude stereotypes of characters. Dopey fat Americans/Lazy drunks/bitter spinsters etc etc
What we will end up with is all the funny characters being white and all the BAME ones being fun sponges that no one likes.
Why must a fun character be white? Or more likely yellow?
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
I didn't say the fun characters must be white/yellow, but as each character is a crude stereotype, if you make some characters accurate representations of demographics, they wont be as funny and will therefore be less popular in a comedy show.
They can be a crude stereotype who happens to be from a different demographic. When you're crudely stereotyping the demographic rather than the trait that character is portraying then that is where people object.
Homer is not a white stereotype any more than Lisa or Moe or Smithers (who was originally black) or Burns are. They're stereotypes of types of people. The fat oafish but good hearted father, the obnoxious woke child, the bartender, the sycophant (and gay), the greedy businessman. They could be any race. Apu is different.
So what is the new Apu going to be a sterotype of? Someone who owns a convenience store?!
An Indian who owns a convenience store yes. And if the writers go to far the actor voicing him can say so. Quite right too, what's the harm in that?
Most of Apu's storylines revolved around the convenience store not his ethnicity anyway so not sure why you find that outrageous.
I don't find it outrageous, I am just pointing out that the new Apu will be a crude stereotype of an Indian who runs a convenience store!
Indeed as he always was!
But with an actor who is capable and able to say "I don't feel comfortable with this scene, I think it can be improved by doing this ..."
What's wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with it, it's just no different to how it was anyway
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
It's more an illustration of the Wokeists' irremediable stupidity. The job of an actor is - by definition - to pretend to be something they are not, not to actually be that thing.
That's why film studios don't cast actual crime-fighting vigilante billionaires to play Batman, or mass-murdering psychopaths to play the Joker, they get an actor who can convince us that they are that character using their skill and talent.
Here's a proposal. Let's allow businesses and creators to make their own decisions in this area. They are well placed to do it.
Except that those businesses and creators were making their own decisions for decades - for over 30 years they ran The Simpsons as they pleased and created one of the most successful programmes in TV history. This decision is the result of political pressure, not artistic inspiration - not important in the grand scheme of things, but another droplet gradually wearing away the soft sandstone of reason and liberty.
An observation and a question for you -
The embrace of the diversity and equality agenda appears to have coincided with a golden age of TV drama.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
It's more an illustration of the Wokeists' irremediable stupidity. The job of an actor is - by definition - to pretend to be something they are not, not to actually be that thing.
That's why film studios don't cast actual crime-fighting vigilante billionaires to play Batman, or mass-murdering psychopaths to play the Joker, they get an actor who can convince us that they are that character using their skill and talent.
Here's a proposal. Let's allow businesses and creators to make their own decisions in this area. They are well placed to do it.
Except that those businesses and creators were making their own decisions for decades - for over 30 years they ran The Simpsons as they pleased and created one of the most successful programmes in TV history. This decision is the result of political pressure, not artistic inspiration - not important in the grand scheme of things, but another droplet gradually wearing away the soft sandstone of reason and liberty.
An observation and a question for you -
The embrace of the diversity and equality agenda appears to have coincided with a golden age of TV drama.
"US animated comedy series The Simpsons will no longer use white actors for the voices of characters from other ethnic backgrounds, the show's producers say."
Yes, I saw that. Is it another scandalous caving in to the Wokerati that makes one fear for the future of all we hold dear?
Well, as most of the time it's the same person doing several characters it will mean a less diverse cast
Who cares whether it is one person doing all the voices as long as they are good at it and can make it sound real/believable. It has surely come to it when the complaints are about cartoons now. White people should be up in arms at being portrayed as thickos like Homer. It is called satire and these woke halfwits have a humour bypass. Time we had mandatory national service and get them in the infantry for a minimum 2 years, instead of poncing about at school pretending they are all there.
The main thing for me is that nowadays it is difficult to tell a white English persons voice from that of a Black or Asian English person from the same region, so as we have become more homogenised it should matter less which colour skin the voice actor has, but it seems to matter more
The issue with Apu is he isn't simply from Springfield who happens to be Indian. His background is an intrinsic part of the character being portrayed and has often been a crude stereotype which has caused offense where it probably wasn't the intention (again drawing a distinction between The Simpsons and South Park). An Indian actor playing Apu can portray the character differently to how Hank Azaria can. An Indian actor can get a script and suggest a rewrite of certain parts ... and the show is deliberately trying to be open to that.
It's not closing things down it's trying to engage more. If Apu just happened to be Indian but it wasn't really relevant to his character then that would be a different matter perhaps but it's not the case.
The problem with that is that The Simpsons whole schtick is exaggerations/crude stereotypes of characters. Dopey fat Americans/Lazy drunks/bitter spinsters etc etc
What we will end up with is all the funny characters being white and all the BAME ones being fun sponges that no one likes.
Why must a fun character be white? Or more likely yellow?
Why must the bitter spinster be white? Why not a black bitter spinster? Why not a black lazy drunk? Indeed Carl started off as a black bar fly and colleague of Homer's before he was developed into a big character in his own right.
There is no harm with a social characteristic being exaggerated within a minority character. When you're simply doing a lazy Indian stereotype though that's not as funny now as it was thirty years ago.
I didn't say the fun characters must be white/yellow, but as each character is a crude stereotype, if you make some characters accurate representations of demographics, they wont be as funny and will therefore be less popular in a comedy show.
They can be a crude stereotype who happens to be from a different demographic. When you're crudely stereotyping the demographic rather than the trait that character is portraying then that is where people object.
Homer is not a white stereotype any more than Lisa or Moe or Smithers (who was originally black) or Burns are. They're stereotypes of types of people. The fat oafish but good hearted father, the obnoxious woke child, the bartender, the sycophant (and gay), the greedy businessman. They could be any race. Apu is different.
So what is the new Apu going to be a sterotype of? Someone who owns a convenience store?!
An Indian who owns a convenience store yes. And if the writers go to far the actor voicing him can say so. Quite right too, what's the harm in that?
Most of Apu's storylines revolved around the convenience store not his ethnicity anyway so not sure why you find that outrageous.
Genuine question: what was your objection to Apu as a character? Was it that he was an Indian who owned a convenience store (which I agree is something of a stereotype)? Or something in addition to that?
I had no objection.
Recently many Indians did because they found how they were getting portrayed offensive - and The Simpsons rightly aren't in the business of trying to offend their fans so they are adapting. It's just good business sense not to offend your customers.
Times have changed over the past thirty years. Why shouldn't The Simpsons change with them?
But you said before you saw him as "lazy"?
This isn't a gotcha. I am just a bit mystified by your stance, which seems incoherent. That may be my fault
No I didn't. Some others objected to him as lazy. I understood their objection.
I'm reminded from this argument of an early Big Bang Theory scene where Penny goes out to a party with Raj upsetting Leonard.
Howard: So you're just going to sit around here and mope while Penny is out with Doctor Apu from the Kwik-e-Mart? Leonard: It's not a date, and that's racist. Howard: It can't be racist, he's a beloved character on the Simpsons."
"The more we learn about the coronavirus, the more we realize it’s not just a respiratory infection. The virus can ravage many of the body’s major organ systems, including the brain and central nervous system."
Actually, this whole passage from 1984 is superbly prescient.
Orewell is describing Shouty Woman in the video below
"He was a man of about thirty, with a muscular throat and a large, mobile mouth. His head was thrown back a little, and because of the angle at which he was sitting, his spectacles caught the light and presented to Winston two blank discs instead of eyes. What was slightly horrible, was that from the stream of sound that poured out of his mouth it was almost impossible to distinguish a single word."
"Just once Winston caught a phrase-’complete and final elimination of Goldsteinism’- jerked out very rapidly and, as it seemed, all in one piece, like a line of type cast solid. For the rest it was just a noise, a quackquack-quacking. And yet, though you could not actually hear what the man was saying, you could not be in any doubt about its general nature. He might be denouncing Goldstein and demanding sterner measures against thought- criminals and saboteurs, he might be fulminating against the atrocities of the Eurasian army, he might be praising Big Brother or the heroes on the Malabar front-it made no difference. Whatever it was, you could be certain that every word of it was pure orthodoxy, pure INGSOC"
Oh that IS original and thought provoking - a bit of Orwell.
How about a bit of Turgenev:
"So ... you were convinced of all this and decided not to do anything serious yourselves." "And decided not to do anything serious," Bazarov repeated grimly. ... "But to confine yourselves to abuse?" "To confine ourselves to abuse." "And that is called nihilism?" "And that is called nihilism," Bazarov repeated again, this time with marked insolence.
Actually, this whole passage from 1984 is superbly prescient.
Orewell is describing Shouty Woman in the video below
"He was a man of about thirty, with a muscular throat and a large, mobile mouth. His head was thrown back a little, and because of the angle at which he was sitting, his spectacles caught the light and presented to Winston two blank discs instead of eyes. What was slightly horrible, was that from the stream of sound that poured out of his mouth it was almost impossible to distinguish a single word."
"Just once Winston caught a phrase-’complete and final elimination of Goldsteinism’- jerked out very rapidly and, as it seemed, all in one piece, like a line of type cast solid. For the rest it was just a noise, a quackquack-quacking. And yet, though you could not actually hear what the man was saying, you could not be in any doubt about its general nature. He might be denouncing Goldstein and demanding sterner measures against thought- criminals and saboteurs, he might be fulminating against the atrocities of the Eurasian army, he might be praising Big Brother or the heroes on the Malabar front-it made no difference. Whatever it was, you could be certain that every word of it was pure orthodoxy, pure INGSOC"
Oh that IS original and thought provoking - a bit of Orwell.
How about a bit of Turgenev:
"So ... you were convinced of all this and decided not to do anything serious yourselves." "And decided not to do anything serious," Bazarov repeated grimly. ... "But to confine yourselves to abuse?" "To confine ourselves to abuse." "And that is called nihilism?" "And that is called nihilism," Bazarov repeated again, this time with marked insolence.
Comments
Most of Apu's storylines revolved around the convenience store not his ethnicity anyway so not sure why you find that outrageous.
The reasons why people use the wrong term could be explored in a 3,000 word essay.
Another day, perhaps.
I knew your wife was young. I didn't think she was THAT young!
Watching a youtube video where in the NW USA they are considering that MATHS is racist and has been culturally appropriated
Maths is racist????
The world is literally going mad
A quarter of them, and a third of current ‘live‘ (not recovered, not died) cases are now in the USA. With an eighth in Brazil.
It’s going to be a while before US travellers are welcomed across the world.
If the second someone intends to stay temporarily but the temporary stay gets extended (but remains temporary) yes.
Recently many Indians did because they found how they were getting portrayed offensive - and The Simpsons rightly aren't in the business of trying to offend their fans so they are adapting. It's just good business sense not to offend your customers.
Times have changed over the past thirty years. Why shouldn't The Simpsons change with them?
Crossover!
But with an actor who is capable and able to say "I don't feel comfortable with this scene, I think it can be improved by doing this ..."
What's wrong with that?
The embrace of the diversity and equality agenda appears to have coincided with a golden age of TV drama.
Could this be connected?
New Thread
I'm reminded from this argument of an early Big Bang Theory scene where Penny goes out to a party with Raj upsetting Leonard.
Howard: So you're just going to sit around here and mope while Penny is out with Doctor Apu from the Kwik-e-Mart?
Leonard: It's not a date, and that's racist.
Howard: It can't be racist, he's a beloved character on the Simpsons."
This thread is dead
"The more we learn about the coronavirus, the more we realize it’s not just a respiratory infection. The virus can ravage many of the body’s major organ systems, including the brain and central nervous system."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/opinion/coronavirus-brain-damage-dementia.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Who is the saddest one of all?"
We all know the answer to that one.
So its not the existence of slavery which people are concerned about but who owns the slaves.