I watched the Simpsons episode in full; I read the NPR article, "The Simpsons To 'The Problem With Apu': Drop Dead;" and I listened to the latest Whiting Wongs episode called "He's Brown and Everyone's Yellow." I didn't see the documentary which is fine for my current purpose.
My responses were motivated by Jessica Gao's response because I feel she overlooked a few things from the episode. NPR certainly dropped the ball in their article. Below are my talking points that were ignored by Whiting Wongs and NPR.
The title is "No Good Read Goes Unpunished." In general, the simpsons are implying that offending people is part of entertainment. I disagree. I do get the point and I think it is a valid argument that could be made. I will not be addressing that argument.
Throughout the episode there are several allusions to this topic from both positive and negative points of view. As Gao mentioned, the simpsons tried to be South Park, and I agree they missed.
What punishment are the simpsons referring to? A punishment for past offenses? Or their current punishment after the airing of this show? Or even a future punishment to come?
Apu was in the show twice and both times was voiceless. That's interesting to note. I'm avoiding a interpretation because it could be interpreter many ways.
The Art of War
The Art of War is one of the most iconic war books ever written. It is philosophical and I would argue very much a source of Asian wisdom. Both Homer and Bart read The Art of War in this episode. The simpsons writers could have chosen any book to solve Bart and Homer's feud. Was the Art of War picked because of its mainstream popularity, or are they focusing in on the deception idea towards Apu? The topic of deception is a focal point in the first chapter of the Art of War.
This is a clever deeper meaning into Apu and apologizing, but the point is too ambiguous. Which viewers/characters are the simpons trying to deceive?
With No Apologies
With No Apologies is a memoir by Barry Goldwater. Goldwater was a senator who ran for President in 1964. He is famously remembered for opposing the civil rights movement in the 1960s.
This is a tasteless reference, surprisingly NPR and Ms. Gao missed it.
Lisa is reading this book prior to Marge coming into her room. This is a big foreshadow that the simpsons will not be apologizing. Using a book that represents an old racist white guy not apologizing... Well that does sounds a lot funnier now. Still, it is a very cheap shot. One people won't even notice. Seems odd. I'm sure someone is getting a big kick out of it.
Marge's Rewrite
We cannot rewrite all the wrongs of the past. As viewers we can accept or reject the works in the context of their time and place in history and or society.
Marge's book is boring because the characters are too perfect due to her attempt to make the story inoffensive.
The simpsons are addressing the larger issue of not offending anyone. This simpsons think there is always someone who will be offended, that's a fair point. Writers, comedians, and entertainers have to decide how many people they are whiling to offend to produce their performance/product.
Homer's Victory
Ironically, Homer becomes like Ned to win the war against Bart. This could be interpreted as a psuedo apology. Ned is boring and inoffensive. Homer becomes Ned. Homer beats Bart by being inoffensive. This is where South Park would have killed it. Stan or Kyle would have made a soliloquy about what they learned and it'd be funny
Conclusion
If you don't like the simpsons don't watch and don't talk about it.
What is the balance between
entertainment and offensiveness? How many liters of brown tears are
worth x amount of laughter?
I don't know the answer. People can and should be able to say whatever
they want. If you or I is offended we should judge the person
accordingly. In a show, such as the simpsons, we can ignore it if it is
too boring or too offensive. If the simpsons cannot find the correct
balance they will seize to be on TV in the future.
The simpsons have zero moral duty to its
viewers. The question is how many people are they willing to piss off vs please.
I noticed I wrote this 15 April 2018 but never posted it, so I'm adding it now as a comment. It is a response to a conversation with a friend regarding the topic of this post. I've revised the original writing mostly for grammatical and stylistic purposes (it was rushed and probably has a couple typos but I'm ready to be done with it):
ReplyDeleteI disagree that the only people belonging to a culture can make fun of that culture. You gave a fair reason to support, but I need more to be convinced. Ms. Gao admits that some Asian people will be offended when she makes jokes with a "broken" English accent, she doesn't have the right to make fun of the accent. That's a bad idea to me. Anyone can make fun of anyone if they are willing accept the consequences, aka free speech.
Here are a few Ms. Gao quotes from Whiting Wongs podcast, "the simpsons have run its course;" “I fucking hate them for doing this;” “This is a fuck you to people of color who are complaining;” “I carry experiential baggage;”
I can judge Ms. Gao comments. I read her tweets and I listened to a over 3 hours of her podcast. I watched the show. And I have a mind capable of critical thinking. If my friend thinks my take is "fucked up," that's fine. He also has a mind capable of critical thinking and forming opinions on my opinions, all without having experiencing my life.
Here is my biggest complaint from our conversation. I was criticized for calling Gao hypersensitive because that discredits her experiences (I'm paraphrasing). I would accept Ms. Gao and I's differences are based on our expereinces. And if I had her experiences, I'd act the same way. But that doesn't affect the hypersensitivity. Hypersensitivity is an adjective. There is no science or line we could draw. To change my mind I need to more logic, reasoning, or evidence to prove that having a judgement on someone's ideas can discredit their experiences? Everyone's experiences are as real and credited as anyone else.
I do believe certain groups can understand others groups better than the reversal. In general and on average, I believe women are capable of understand men better than men understand women. For people growing up in America, I believe people of color are more capable of understanding white people than the reversal too. Given those factors, if true, that isn't evidence that experiences take away people's ability to think critically and or show empathy for others.
I still think Ms. Gaois being hypersensitive because in the context of the whole show and conversation I consumed. Her reactions are 100% valid because of her experiences. Until proven otherwise, I don't see how disagreeing with opinions of others can discredit their experiences.
Back to the simpsons episode, I don’t see direct explicit attacks on people of color. I just see poor writing and weak humor.
Jimbo