Airbrushing history: Why we shouldn't edit un-PC programmes from the past

A couple of months ago we learned that millennials find Friends sexist and homophobic; now we hear that Apu in The Simpsons is a racist stereotype. Here I examine whether these accusations are true (or at least partially true), and whether anything should be done about it

The issues for the two programmes are slightly different; Friends ran from 1994 to 2004 (plus about a decade of reruns on E4), whereas The Simpsons first aired in 1989 and is still running. So if it turns out that Friends was sexist and homophobic, there's not a great deal that the writers can do about that now. Whereas if The Simpsons is racist, upcoming episodes can be altered.

So, are the accusations true?

"10 Friends storylines that are problematic for millennials" 

Friends is filled with jokes about Chandler having a "gay quality", Ross's ex wife being/becoming a lesbian, Chandler's embarrassment at his dad being a drag queen, and there are plenty of laughs when the characters have anything approaching a homosexual experience. So I can understand why people seeing it for the first time today could be shocked. It was immensely popular in the 90s and 2000s, but it was a product of its time; these things were funny then, and suitable for a mainstream prime-time audience. But are things really that different today? The shocked millennials tweeting their horror would have us believe we have moved from this mentality, but I'm not convinced that we have. We're kidding ourselves if we think that this stuff isn't still rife. If a man's ex wife turned out to be a lesbian, the man's guy friends would (after the initial heartbreak) quite probably make jokes about it and imply he was less of a man because of it. Similarly, I think many men today would be truly embarrassed to have a father who is a drag queen. One of the Friends episodes singled out by these shocked millennials' tweets was where Ross objects to Rachel getting a (good-looking) male nanny to care for their baby; Ross was very much against the idea; he suggested that the nanny must be gay and said that he didn't want a man looking after his baby. This mentality towards males in childcaring roles is still very commonplace, particularly among men. So I would say that any sexism and homophobia which is shown in Friends is still very much present in our present-day society.

Perhaps I am making lots of unsubstantiated assertions here? I admit I don't have any research to hand which justifies my claims, but I'm pretty sure I'm right. If I am right, then perhaps the problem with Friends as viewed by millennials is not that it depicts views which are no longer commonplace, but rather, that it was a mainstream comedy? After all, there is a wide variety of bigots out there, but that doesn't mean we should be making prime-time comedies about them. This sort of argument has more bite to it (but isn't really touched upon in any of the tweets I have seen). The sexist and homophobic attitudes shown in Friends may still be commonplace, but they are no longer acceptable for a prime time sitcom, particularly where such opinions are expressed by the loveable lead characters.

But it's been 14 years since the show finished  and as I said at the outset, there's not really a great deal that can be done now to improve or erase the homophobia and sexism. If (as the shocked millennials' tweets suggest) the show is riddled with such jokes, then removing them would leave very little story line intact. There'd be nothing left. If (as I suggest) the homophobic jokes account for a small percentage of all the screen time, then the jokes could be removed, leaving Netflix viewers with a PC airbrushed version of the show. But should this really be done? I think not.

There are many shows, books, movies and stand up routines which were products of their time, and are unacceptable to present day sensibilities. Love Thy Neighbour, Mind Your Language, Till Death Do Us Part, and The Black and White Minstrel Show are all shows which were very popular in their time but which, frankly, seem pretty racist to present day audiences. Even Fawlty Towers which was voted best British comedy of all time has the occasional racist slur. But removing all racist or otherwise inappropriate jokes would be not just unnecessary, but wrong. Few TV shows can truly stand the test of time (although racist slurs notwithstanding, I think Fawlty Towers fares pretty well after nearly 50 years), but airbrushing out the bits we don't like is a flawed and problematic way to approach our history. Let shows be judged for what they are: if they are racist, sexist and homophobic (or otherwise bigoted) then what could possibly be gained by deleting or altering the scenes we dislike? George Santayana said "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it", and whilst I doubt that millennials would become racist, sexist or homophobic simply in virtue of not having seen such 'jokes' in old sitcoms, there is something to be said for leaving our history intact. We do not (yet) live in an Orwellian society where the past is doctored to fit our current sensibilities; if Friends was sexist and homophobic, then so be it. It can stand as a testament to what was funny in the 1990s. Those of us old enough to have watched Friends when it first aired can take a long hard look at ourselves and whether we have moved with the times, or whether such jokes are still funny. And in watching Friends, the millennials can see us for what we were (and maybe still are); but only if the episodes remain intact.

It's tempting to think that previous generations were bigoted and unenlightened, and that we in present day are the very pinnacle of equality and political correctness, but we (and that includes those tweeting millennials!) are products of our time. In another 20 years, there'll be another generation horrified at what passed for mainstream TV shows in 2018.

I am not suggesting that these sitcoms should be screened on TV so that someone might accidentally happen upon them on a Sunday afternoon, but Netflix and YouTube are different from TV. I'm not a Netflix customer, but I think I'm right in saying that for the most part, people watch what they have specifically searched for. Just as with YouTube, if someone searches for Friends or Love Thy Neighbour, they should be able to see it in its entirety, warts 'n' all. But given that sitcoms (and probably most cultural entertainment or artefacts) are products of their time, then if one does not want to be offended by sexist, racist or homophobic 'jokes', then don't go searching for sitcoms of yesteryear. So although Friends does contain some sexism and homophobia, it should be left as it is on Netflix, even if that means ruffling the feathers of millennials.

But now let's consider The Simpsons. Apu is an Indian character with a heavy accent, numerous children, and who runs a corner shop; he's basically a walking stereotype, and it's not difficult to work out why some may find that racially insensitive or offensive. Previous Simpsons episodes should remain intact, as per the above argument for Friends, but deciding what to do with future episodes is tricky, although the cartoon shows no sign that it intends to change the character of Apu., and the response has been fairly dismissive. One of the issues is that, like many cartoons, each episode of the Simpsons is a standalone story; one could watch the episodes in any order and not realise they were all mixed up, because there are few, if any, continuities between episodes; the characters don't age or change relationships, meaning that if Apu did suddenly change his accent or get a less stereotypical job it might seem odd... but a slight oddness with a change of a character wouldn't be all that detrimental to the programme. There is surely a sweet spot between completely altering the show, and soldiering on with a racist stereotype because that's how it was written 30 years ago. It wouldn't require immense changes to the character to make him less stereotypical, and it could help to ensure that the cartoon continues to be popular among all communities. Because if a show doesn't move with the times, it is terminally ill.