In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Banksy on the Simpsons

Jill

Does anyone watch the Simpsons anymore? Apparently some people do. I don’t. But thanks to The Whole of the Internet, I did see Banksy’s couch gag intro (via Videogum, among others):

Apologies to non-U.S. readers — the YouTube clip was pulled, and Hulu is the only source I can find for the video. Description:

The video opens with the usual “The Simpsons” cloud animation, but this time featuring a bird flying by carrying one of Banksy’s signature rats in its mouth. The animation overlooks the nuclear facility, and centers on two town hooligans cutting the head off of a statue of Springfield’s founder; the head lands on Ralph Wiggum, who drops his ice cream cone. The animation pans upward, past the “Lard Land Donuts” boy, to Springfield Elementary School where Bart Simpson is writing “I must not write all over the walls” all over the walls. Then it’s to the nuclear facility, where Homer walks out beneath the “Three Days Without an Accident” sign with radioactive material stuck to his uniform, and then arrives home to the Simpson abode. The usual mishaps (Bart skateboarding by, Lisa biking, Marge pulling the car into the garage — except this time she hits Homer) get the Simpson family onto the couch. Then the lights flicker, and the animation zooms out, and you see that the Simpsons are actually on a screen overlooking a sweatshop where dozens of female Asian workers are making Simpsons animation panels. The panels are handed off to a little barefoot boy in shabby clothes, who dips them in toxic chemicals before hanging them up to dry. Near the vat of toxic chemicals are stacks of human bones, being picked at by rats. Downstairs there are more workers pushing Simpson’s t-shirts around on racks, and below that there are even more workers throwing small animals (kittens? birds?) into some sort of shredder that expels stuffing, which is then put inside of Bart Simpson dolls, which are in turn placed into a wheelbarrow being hauled by a tired-looking panda bear. Next to the panda is a man boxing up the Simpsons merchandise in “Simpsons” boxes, sealing them by having the tongue of a dead dolphin lick the tape. The scene then shifts to a unicorn chained to the wall, its horn used to punch holes in Simpsons DVDs. It collapses from exhaustion, and the scene zooms out to the “20th Century Fox” logo rising above the prison-like sweatshop buildings.

55 thoughts on Banksy on the Simpsons

  1. This is basically what I said on the Columbus Day thread, but yeah, the working conditions of the people and animals who make our everyday products are absolutely horrible. We have it really good compared to them, and we never really even notice. That being said, it’s also important to keep in mind that remedying those conditions really doesn’t require us to make a substantial sacrifice. Our clothes might cost a bit more, but we wouldn’t really notice that either. Let’s make sure we don’t think of ourselves as at all self-sacrificial because we’re aware of these problems and want to fix them.

  3. One thing about “The Simpsons” is, they’re not afraid to give some hard shots to Fox. There probably have been a dozen or more through the years. They even got Rupert Murdoch in on the act.

    I think the show is a remarkable achievement, and it’s still funnier than “South Park” or “Family Guy.”

  4. The issue that I took with it is that it was hard to tell if it was meant as a joke. It’s clearly unfunny as a “couch gag.” I don’t imagine Banksy thinking this were a joke, but I wonder about the Simpsons’ staff – perhaps because I’m unfamiliar with their use of activism on the show prior to this event.

    Hypothetical Woman, are you in the US? If so, it should be streaming on hulu.

    1. I definitely don’t think it was meant as a joke, and I think the Simpsons creators are savvy enough to know exactly what Banksy was doing.

  5. I can’t help but wonder why now. I’m not complaining that it was done at all, but I can’t get past that initial question.

  6. It’s confusing. It’s dark, but it’s accurate. I mean, obviously there aren’t unicorns and pandas working alongside children, but if you see the exhaustion and the chemicals and the despair, it’s accurate.

    It reminds me of Radiohead’s depressing but accurate video “All I Need.” Which was done better, because the song reflects what you are viewing. This music and those images are jarring.

    So what are we to make of this? That the Simpsons feel trapped in their success, like it’s contingent on using this form of labor? Or that they don’t own the rights to their work, so they are protesting Fox’s merchandise being made in this way? Or they are aware of the larger global trend of using sweatshop work and extreme coercion so that western families can buy $4 tank tops?

    It leaves so many questions open that the point, whatever it was, is lost.

  8. So what are we to make of this? That the Simpsons feel trapped in their success, like it’s contingent on using this form of labor?

    Something like that. They’ve made grim (but not this grim) jokes before about using Korean animators because it’s the only way they can bring in the show under budget. Maybe they feel guilty about the pay disparity.

  9. How original, “Hey I know what will really freak people out, let’s have bad things happen to baby animals!”

    It’s been done to death, and is about as clever as suggesting you show babies being butchered to shock an audience. Guess Banksy is a part of the group of people that say every other species young is fodder for abuse, but when it comes to human babies they’d be the first to pitch a fit. I mean, really, does someone literally have to re-do the scene with them throwing babies into a blender for them to get that harming defenseless creatures isn’t amusing or clever, it’s simply sick?

    1. Jackie, I think you’re badly misreading this. I think Banksy was criticizing environmental and animal abuse, not using it for shock value or entertainment.

  10. Rats, I missed the opening last night. Thanks for giving me the chance to see it.
    And Shah8- are you referring to piracy?

  13. shah8, I’d known that about anime (only the first one or two names in the animation credits tend to be Japanese, if that) but I thought manga were a little more hand-drawn?

  14. Ah. Makes sense. Bagel-san, I think it’s for publications like Jump and other manga magazines that have to be duplicated like umpteen times. The original manga is usually hand-drawn.

  15. Really not sure what to make of this as a statement. Banksy is a graffiti artist – a core element of his work is that it is generally unauthorized (I think there are some cases where individual building owners are cool with it, but it’s hardly something he puts through corporate or government processes). But I can’t imagine that anything aired on Fox as part of a Simpsons episode would be “unauthorized”, so that kind of disembowels the whole message for me. I mean, it’s somewhat subversive for them to acknowledge exploitative labour practices, but that alone is not exactly ground-breaking or transformative in nature, and in the context of an aired television show on a corporate network, I can’t see it as anything but fundamentally profit-oriented. Subversion seems a bit beside the point.

    Banksy linked the YouTube version of the video on his website too, and it’s amusing to see the takedown notice in that context. Again with the seeming pointlessness of collaborating with a corporation.

  16. I really liked it. And I accidentally watched an episode of the Simposns the other day on Hulu and…this is stark and forboding and very very clever. The unicorn at the end made me very uneasy, but it makes some interesting points about the quality of life behind the production of goods and products we come to enjoy.

  18. “How do you sleep at night, Matt Groening?”

    “On top of a pile of money, surrounded by many beautiful ladies.”

    If I got amnesia and somebody showed me mid-2000s Simpsons, I might be slightly amused. However, knowing what I know about its early-to-mid-90s run, it’s absolutely painful to watch. I think that their awareness that they’re running on guest-star-fueled autopilot for 12 years only makes it worse.

  19. Thanks to the digital shift, I no longer get the local station that carries The Simpsons without standing on one foot and holing a colander with a wire sticking out of it on my head…so I haven’t seen it in ages. I’ve long said, though, that it has historically been one of the most clever pieces of satire in modern television. The beauty of the show is that you really have to “get it” in order to get it. I imagine that this opening is in the same vein…not meant for shock, but a deft stab at the overlords (as they have often done in the past).

    P.S. Best reference ever? The Box of Soylent Green (Now with more girls!) that Homer is holding in the episode about Lisa’s future as President…

  20. Jill: Jackie, I think you’re badly misreading this.I think Banksy was criticizing environmental and animal abuse, not using it for shock value or entertainment.  

    There are ways to bring attention to animal abuse without displaying it. Do people need to see images of starving and abused children, to motivate them to give to UNICEF? Chances are unlikely, meanwhile the ASPCA still airs their ads showcasing graphic images of abused animals.

  21. As just about everyone has pointed out, this is hardly the first time they’ve skewered Fox. Through a combo of it being a reliable cash cow and the fact that just about everyone acknowledges that the show is waaaaay past its prime and nearly as influential as it was int eh glory days of the 90s, I’m sure the attitude of Fox PTB was close to not giving a shit. I mean, for crying out loud the college professors who lectured on how subversive the Simpsons were in the 90s are well on their way to retirement.

  22. Austin Nedved:That being said, it’s also important to keep in mind that remedying those conditions really doesn’t require us to make a substantial sacrifice.Our clothes might cost a bit more, but we wouldn’t really notice that either.

    I’m happy to hear someone say this. I’d like to add that the difference in pricing becomes less of an issue when we learn that we don’t need so bloody much stuff in the first place. 🙂

  23. Do people need to see images of starving and abused children, to motivate them to give to UNICEF?

    Yes?

  25. Hmmmm. I’m not sure how I feel about this.

    On one hand, I’m glad it’s drawing (pun intended!) attention to where our “fun” products come from.

    On the other hand, I can’t imagine it’s all doom and gloom over there. I mean, some people have mentioned that outsourcing animation is a big “problem” in anime. But a problem for who? You may lament that the Koreans get stuck with all the boring/cheap in-between work, but on the other hand, people have mused that it’s laying the foundation for some awesome animation to come out of Korea, overtaking Japan.

    If you look at Yen Press–they bring over Korean comics and hire Korean artists–the Twilight manga and the Maximum Ride manga both have Korean artists.

    I mean, at what point is it exploitation and at what point is it an awesome opportunity?

  26. Austin Nedved: That being said, it’s also important to keep in mind that remedying those conditions really doesn’t require us to make a substantial sacrifice.Our clothes might cost a bit more, but we wouldn’t really notice that either.

    Are you kidding? How classist. There are increasing numbers of parents in my city and yours who can barely afford to buy their kids school supplies. When my mother left an abusive marriage, before no-fault divorce laws, and moved into social housing, she cried that winter because my brother got a hole in his winter boots and she literally had zero wiggle room in her budget – in the end, she stretched our food budget and we had a couple of weeks of eating sparingly. If the cost of consumer goods went up tomorrow, the most vulnerable people in our society would be the first to suffer. Of course it’s not acceptable to exploit people for cheap goods, but unless we ease the burden of the poor at the exact same moment, raising the price of commodities will only create more victims.

    I continue to be shocked at the level of privilege-blindness on this progressive site.

  27. “Do people need to see images of starving and abused children, to motivate them to give to UNICEF?”

    Isn’t it true that people respond to images and personal stories more than they respond to statistics though? When St. Judes mails out solicitations for donations, they always include a picture and a story of a specific child. People are probably more likely to put a check in the mail for “Emily” than for a number.

  29. “it’s also important to keep in mind that remedying those conditions really doesn’t require us to make a substantial sacrifice. Our clothes might cost a bit more, but we wouldn’t really notice that either.”

    I think that sentiment is a bit disgusting and its one that I hear from a lot of Americans, especially liberals. This idea that you can be socially and ethically responsible without actually having to change your lifestyle or political decisions is delusional.

    If by “us” you mean working people, then remedying those conditions, that is, stopping: low wages, poor hours, hazardous settings, little to no health/safety regulations, no employee control, no/limited work age requirements….. does require sacrifice. It requires sacrifice by workers and their families who are being exploited to organize and fight back against those who seek to exploit and oppress . Fighting back includes: striking, unionizing, sabotage, sit-ins, factory take-overs and (for the more mild) appealing to legal entities among other things.

    Americans today have an 8hour work day and safety regulations because of the direct action undertaken by workers in the early 20th century. Direct actions including those I listed above were used by American workers to achieve better working and living conditions. And yes, they were hurt and sometimes killed for it. Police were called to subdue protests, to break strikes, people were hired by bosses to beat, harass, intimidate and harm workers who dared demand better pay or safer conditions.

    If by “us” you are referring to Americans and other First Worlders (British, Canadians, etc.) who are currently benefiting from third-world exploitation, well than, sacrifice is still necessary because the solutions are not simple.

    If we are serious about creating a more ethical world, about combating the systems that allow exploitative and oppressive conditions, then we are going to have to address power and privilege. This means challenging how wealth is made, accumulated and distributed.

    If people think that won’t require sacrifice within First World Countries, than I really don’t believe they’re serious about minimizing suffering or creating ethical systems.

  30. @ Kung fu lola.
    I just wrote a long response to Austin, but from a very different view than yourself.

    But your position is even stranger. Your basically saying because we have poor and exploited people here in the States, we should continue to exploit poor people in other countries…so as to minimize suffering? Also, by Austin trying to suggest that we address third-world oppression by ensuring living wages, he is in fact being a classist and showing privilege.

    wow.

    How about class solidarity? Honestly, changing the system that allows exploitive conditions overseas does require changing the same system that allows exploitation at home. So yes, the poor and working class in America need to fight as much as those in similar conditions overseas. Turning our backs on each other is not the solution.

  31. That is not what I said. I specifically said that it is not okay to exploit others. My comment was not intended to propose a new way of life; I was just trying to get through to someone who is blind to their class privilege. Breaking down privilege isn’t something that can be done in one internet comment. If Austin can’t acknowledge the immediate, close-to-home impact that raising prices would have on vulnerable people down the street, zie is sure as hell not going to take the next step of acknowledging the long-term consequences of and hypothetical solutions to the suffering of oppressed people living on the bottom rungs of society in developing countries. That’s not a moral failing; it’s just how the human brain works. Someone will get emotional over the thought of a terminally ill child in their neighbourhood with more speed and intensity, than if they are presented with impersonal numbers and statistics about genocides happening miles away. In order to truly change “the system”, the first thing that must be done is to change our thinking. Thought modes change quickly when someone has an epiphany, but epiphanies are internally generated. New modes of thought which come from an external source are learned. Learning is a much slower process.

  32. Haley-
    I think kung fu lola was referring to the idea that raising the price of consumer goods would only have a small affect on people. And, um, no. This doesn’t work without some kind of safety net for people who are struggling financially.

    I agree with you that the solution is not to just give up labor rights. But I think it is important to consider the universal affects of our activism.

  33. kung fu lola:
    I continue to be shocked at the level of privilege-blindness on this progressive site.  

    I continue to be annoyed by the I-am-shocked-and-disappointed comments that this site gets. Yes, progressives can be ignorant or selfish or cruel in some ways, no, Feministe does not screen its readers for their perfect awareness of intersecting oppressions. As indicated by the fact that your comment got through despite the use of blindness as a metaphor.

  34. It is classist and privileged to suggest that paying more for goods and services won’t require a sacrifice. I’m not sure how many people comprehend being really poor, or the panic and despair over something like (as kung fu lola pointed out) a hole in a winter boot. An increase in the price of goods and services does require sacrifice for the lower and working class, and sometimes it requires doing without necessities.

    The poor and exploited in third world countries shouldn’t remain in horrible and unsafe working conditions. Any solutions, however, will have to take into account the realities of the underprivileged here in first world/developing nations. A lot of upper/middle class liberals/progressives are unaware of their class privilege.

  35. Medea:
    no, Feministe does not screen its readers for their perfect awareness of intersecting oppressions.As indicated by the fact that your comment got through despite the use of blindness as a metaphor.  

    “Blind” means “not able to see”. It does not mean “inferior”, or “stupid”. Someone can be blind without being disabled; such as when they have a cloth over their eyes, or are in the dark. I try not to use ableist language, but hobbling English by hysterically layering negative meanings over neutral terms is silly.

  36. This thread is now a couple days old, so I don’t know if anyone will read this but I feel compelled to add just a couple more things.

    Firstly, I don’t think American lives are inherently special or worth more than the lives of people in other geographical areas. When I talk about poor/working class people, I mean just that, a CLASS of poor and/or working people. This is not restricted by borders.

    While I hate Reaganomics, there is some truth to be said about the “trickle down theory”. Granted a trickle is not enough, nor ethical, but none-the-less, the poor still benefit from living in an incredibly wealthy nation….despite that wealth being grossly distributed. In America, food is relatively cheap, especially compared to other Industrial nations…its not the price of food and clothing that is keeping people poor; Its low wages, its debt, its the cost of healthcare, daycare, transportation . Its corporate capitalism; profits being funneled upwards to a small minority of people accumulating a massive amount of wealth. Wealth that is created but not possessed by working class people.

    That is a systematic problem. It won’t be remedied without radical changes in view, action and class consciousness, which sadly, most Americans working or otherwise completely lack.

    Also, this:
    “Any solutions, however, will have to take into account the realities of the underprivileged here in first world/developing nations.”

    Why? As Americans, maybe thats our hope, right; that we won’t be left in the dust should the people of the third-world nations or global south actually succeed in giving the boot to state and corporate oppression and exploitation. But the exploited in third world countries don’t owe us anything. Its my hope, once again, that we can act in solidarity with each other as a class across all borders. But at the same time, I think a lot of Americans: poor, working, middle, upper, professional, rich, etc. would rather engage in social reforms at home and maybe donate money to overseas charities rather than actually making the sacrifice of challenging the economic system that both benefits Americans and creates the exploitation and oppression of people everywhere (including said Americans).

  37. Blind is a ridiculously ableist term and you’re a bad person for continuing to use it.

    Hysterical ain’t to awesome either, and using it probably makes you a misogynist.

  38. Blind is a ridiculously ableist term and you’re a bad person for continuing to use it.

    Bad,
    –adjective
    1. not good in any manner or degree.

    Origin: 1250–1300; ME badde, perh. akin to OE bæddel hermaphrodite, bædling womanish man
    So sexist.

  39. For the millionth time: comments don’t necessarily “get through” our moderation approval as we do not have the system set so that we have to approve every single comment on this site.

    kung fu lola, hysterical? Hobbling? Really?

    Tom Foolery, can you not poke fun at someone for finding a term hurtful, please?

    For goodness sakes, people. Exercise a bit of common consideration.

  40. kung fu lola: I try not to use ableist language, but hobbling English by hysterically layering negative meanings over neutral terms is silly.

    You followed up a critique about your use of a blindness metaphor with a reference to hobbling and hysteria? And also blamed people for seeing negativity in something that you think is neutral when talking about their experiences?

    I am not going to make new arguments here, because there are many accessible ones. Here are the posts at FWD/Forward’s in the language category as a great starting point. I especially recommend On Language, Again (which contains rebuttal arguments), Disability is not your analogy (on the effects of appropriation of PWDs’ experiences), A brief PSA on language (statement on the importance of pushback against ableist language), and their Ablist Word Profile series (targeted arguments and contexts for specific words and phrases).

  41. Are you really asking why we need to consider the poor/working class while discussing exploitation of labor in developing nations? Simply because people make asinine comments like “it won’t require much sacrifice for Americans to pay more for things they buy.” Comments like this suggest that all Americans are living comfortably, and that’s just not true.

    Some Americans are already struggling to buy food, medicine, and keep a roof over their heads. As someone pointed out above, some families can’t even afford school supplies for their children to attend school. Some Americans aren’t taking medication they need because they can’t afford it. Some Americans don’t have homes.

    “But the exploited in third world countries don’t owe us anything.”
    And…..?

    Slightly off topic- isn’t blind an academic term used when describing privilege? I’ve read it in many places, and I understand why someone wouldn’t see why using it in an appropriate context is ableist.
    Is saying that someone ‘can’t see’ their privilege really better than saying someone is ‘blind’ to their privilege?

  43. I should have said that remedying the problem of horrible working conditions in other countries will not require your average voter to make an actual sacrifice. I have no doubt that a relatively small minority of impoverished people will be negatively impacted by having to pay more for clothing, but my point was, enhancing working conditions in impoverished countries will not require a powerful class of people to make an actual sacrifice. In a democracy, the most powerful class of people is the middle class. Once again, improving working conditions in other countries will not really require the average person (i.e. the middle class) to give anything up.

    What this will do is make poor people across the world equally poor. Poor people in the US are far better off than the extremely destitute individuals who make clothes in third world countries. Improving their working conditions would mean that the poor in our countries would be more poor, but workers in third world countries would be less poor. All it would mean is that everyone who is poor across the world is equally so. As I said, this requires virtually zero sacrifice on the part of your average person. And since we live in a democracy, the middle class the most powerful class of people.

    The point I’m trying to make is that those of us who are not poor by US standards should not act as though we’re making a sacrifice. We’re asking a marginalized class of people to make a sacrifice in the name of helping an even more marginalized class of people, we’re not the ones making a substantial sacrifice. I think it’s important for us to remember that.

  44. enhancing working conditions in impoverished countries will not require a powerful class of people to make an actual sacrifice. In a democracy, the most powerful class of people is the middle class. Once again, improving working conditions in other countries will not really require the average person (i.e. the middle class) to give anything up.
    I agree that the middle class, financially stable Americans wouldn’t be making a huge sacrifice by paying more, but I’m not sure how everyone would end up equally poor. If prices go up, the middle/upper class will presumably keep buying and adjust their spending to match their new budget. The lower/working class won’t be able to keep buying, because they will end up priced out of the market. If we’re talking about designer handbags…well whatever. But if we are talking about basics like food, clothing, and necessary supplies, that’s a problem.

    We’re asking a marginalized class of people to make a sacrifice in the name of helping an even more marginalized class of people
    This sacrifice could mean going without basic necessities. I understand that you’re pointing out that the financially secure won’t have to make that kind of sacrifice, but I don’t understand why it’s okay to ask marginalized people to go without basic goods in the name of social justice.

  45. This sacrifice could mean going without basic necessities. I understand that you’re pointing out that the financially secure won’t have to make that kind of sacrifice, but I don’t understand why it’s okay to ask marginalized people to go without basic goods in the name of social justice.

    Right now, we basically have two classes of poor people: the first class lives in the US, and while they are poor, they are much better off than the impoverished people in third world countries who produce our clothing. Remedying the working conditions of those in the third world would make them less impoverished, while making the poor in the US slightly more poor.

    I think that doing this would be a good idea, but it is very important for us middle-class Americans to keep in mind that this requires nothing of us. As I said, we’re asking the somewhat poor to make a financial sacrifice in the name of the extremely poor. This is pragmatism on our part, not heroism. Let’s not forget that.

  46. Miss S: Slightly off topic- isn’t blind an academic term used when describing privilege?   

    No.

    Let’s not make this thread another referendum on ableism in language. On topic from now on.

  48. Chally: For the millionth time: comments don’t necessarily “get through” our moderation approval as we do not have the system set so that we have to approve every single comment on this site.  (Quote this comment?)

    II am aware of that–it was part of my point. Feministe doesn’t screen its readers (or only to some extent, on some threads, etc), so it’s unsurprising that one would find comments that are classist. I wasn’t complaining about moderation policy at all.

  49. Anyone who expects perfect politick all the time is at the wrong site. This one is created, written by, and moderated by fallible, imperfect human beings. If you’re looking for a forum in which to always be right, my suggestion is to build your own venue.

  50. “Are you really asking why we need to consider the poor/working class while discussing exploitation of labor in developing nations?

    NO. wow. no
    look: The people who are being exploited in developing/(ed) nations are the poor and working class, and I am saying that class consciousness is about realizing that the poor/working have more in common with each other, regardless of geography, than they do with a neighbor who is their boss or wealthy business person.

    Oh, and F**k the American middle class. lol.

    And to hell with anyone in it or above who says that the poor ought to make sacrifices like not eating or having shelter.

  51. Haley- My question was directed at Austin.

    And to hell with anyone in it or above who says that the poor ought to make sacrifices like not eating or having shelter.

    Agreed.

  52. @haley, appreciating many of the points you raise — especially about the sacrifices of working-class people meaning organizing to fight back, informed by class consciousness.

    I gotta say, what bothers me about the Banksy piece is that it shows Korean workers as 100% downtrodded, 0% resisting. This is a common and dangerous trope (particularly, I think, in Western media depicting East Asian societies, which also tend to paint them as somewhat robotic and submissive) that erases the agency of workers, and places all the responsibility/power with ‘consumers’ and their ‘choices.’ (Buy sweatshop-free, etc.)

Comments are currently closed.