So... Everyone's outrage *****, on all sides just subsided over this or at least what they imagined "this" event supposedly represented.
Here's what's actually known:
Hari Kondabolu released a small documentary called
The Problem with Apu in 2017 expressing the affect Apu has had as a very visible Indian character on a show that's lasted over 3 decades on the wider culture but also on Indian-Americans like Kondabolu himself.
A producer of the Netflix Castlevania series, Adi Shankar, created a spec script contest which had ZERO connections to
The Simpsons to challenge writers to see if they could reimagine Apu’s character. He claimed to then take the winning submission from this contest to the Simpson's team. He then started saying
“I got some disheartening news back, that I’ve verified from multiple sources now: They’re going to drop the Apu character altogether,” said Shankar in an interview with IndieWire. “They aren’t going to make a big deal out of it, or anything like that, but they’ll drop him altogether just to avoid the controversy.”
Al Jean of the Simpsons eleven days ago then stated the obvious in a Tweet:
“Adi Shankar is not a producer on the Simpsons. I wish him the very best but he does not speak for our show. "
So... There's honestly no "there, there" hmmm? For anyone on any side of this "controversy".
It seems that if you had issues with Apu, or get where people like Kondabolu are coming from... Well it seems that Apu on an official level wasn't going to be "Maude Flandered".
If you were "outraged" by the "outrage"... Well, it seems that again... Apu wasn't likely being sent to the Phantom Zone.
I can see most sides to this represented by this tiny sample size of posters but I can't help but notice the irony of the usual suspects that always go into righteous indignation territory... BECAUSE they are offended by others, usually a not so powerful group (this isn't code for disenfranchisement BTW, I mean in terms of impactful numbers, though it's interesting the reactions you do get from some when certain groups simply use their freedom of speech to say anything on any subject... But I digress...) voicing some kind of issue or offense.
I think this image puts it well...
So... Lots just turn out to want to be what they caricature others as. How about this as a possibility... There's no theoretically morally and ethically perfect position on... Anything? Why is that not possible? I wouldn't want Apu gone either but that doesn't mean I don't at least try to really and truly grapple with the position of those that find him or characters like him, problematic for the affect on the wider culture the character has had. I'm also not for creators to get "attacked by the mob" (I mean... As much as these days that I can keep a straight face when people warn us about "free speech" being ended by the "mobs" out there ready to "lynch" the "politically incorrect". Tell actual victims of mob violence in the world, say in modern India, if the affluent creators of a TV show and the show itself being criticized is at all like being dragged from your car and beaten to death because of rumors spread via online that you must be a pedophile because you are from "outside" the provence... Cuz it's just not no matter what scary language one inserts into these stories. A person getting "lynched" online is generally, no actually in danger of having fellow citizens break into their home, abduct them and then in a public setting have a death sentence carried out upon them in brutal act of extrajudicial "justice". Can the online world have some negative affects on a person, fairly or unfairly? Of course, but can we admit that the way we use these terms, like lynch mob, is just adding charged words to a situation that in no way resembles the history of lynching in the U.S.) for creating that which they freely choose to... But that is almost never what the dynamic is with these cases. The government isn't actually shutting down the Simpsons if Apu isn't axed, and these entertainments are usually the product of large and powerful corporate entities who, sorry to burst any bubbles, actually aren't as a rule, fighters of some kind of pure free speech ideology. These are businesses that operate in the field that is not about "fairness" to any side of this story. The corporations are when it comes to these projects actually ALWAYS taking the audience into account in some fashion as they did long before the term SJW was a glimmer in the vocabulary of your average Young College Republican. In other words, if the owners of the Simpsons made a decision either way, it's THEM making the decision. Maybe that decision is in fact informed by those complaining... Or maybe that decision is made by listening to the Apu defenders out there. In any case... The government isn't making them do anything, this would be as it's always been, simply an illustration of the back and forth relationship with the producers of media (larger and small media companies and the creatives they hire to make these shows) and the consumers of media (the audience, duh...) and ask any writer in Hollywood, this is eternal and it's something anyone over the age of 24 in the business likely has always understood.
My question is though... Look at the lifespan of this "outrage". It's a bit of a perfect storm being it has a pop culture staple of close to 40 years at its center. Some of ya'll took time out to take this story serious enough to continue coming back here for days, even though as noted, there's not really any new information of substance that's come to light. The truth is nothing much has changed since the documentary came out.. But the last few days has seen the EMOTION of this story explode all over. As can be easily ascertained by going back to page one of this thread, this got people's "ire" roused, sure it's the 1,000th thing that's gotten us all angry or "frustrated" that vectored into the body politic via social media, but that intense reaction is one that revolves around anger at a group that is voicing it's opinion on something that engenders a counter reaction which when boiled down to it is often not of import or impact upon the latter group but then the initial "outrage" by the former group while perhaps well intentioned, isn't often (not always, true) an issue that is as concretely impactful to others as it is to them.
But the argument was had anyway, wasn't it? Even though as of this time, nothing has actually happened and likely isn't going to. If anything the more likely outcome we all know is going to happen is that the Simpsons will get canceled sooner than later and Apu will probably appear in some capacity from now until that finale is produced and I have no doubt Apu would appear in the last episode of the Simpsons. No what I also don't doubt... Al Jean, Hank Azaria and Adi Shankar probably are sleeping soundly tonight and would probably have a more honest, clearer, and less emotionally charged conversation about this than what has actually happened since the issue was thrust back into the spotlight online. They'll be fine... But how are we as a group, the daily denizens of online world? This was just another squall in the grand culture war storm. What did any of us get out of this conversation? Read through from the first page of this thread and it's easy to come to the conclusion of... Not much.
What I would at least like is that we are honest with each other about what these fights are
really about. Given that so far we've learned about no changes being made... It's clear to my mind that this is tangentially at best about most of the things brought up broadly on the web or specifically here on the Hype in regards to this story.
