Thanks for the compliment. It is appreciated. I hope you know that I consider you to be logical and thoughtful as well. Now, let me disagree with you.
I disagree that a stereotype needs repeated use to become problematic. Presenting a negative racial stereotype (unironically/un-satirically) means the presenter is associating derogatory or malicious characteristics to people of a certain race; and implying that these characteristics are typical among members of that race. They could imply this by, for example, not presenting anyone of that race who doesn't have those negative characteristics. (Or they could outright state it, obviously, but you rarely see that nowadays.)
In that case no mexican drug lord, mexican policeman, no italian lover, no italian mafia guy, no stereotype about a minority can ever be used in a negative light if there is no need for repeated use. And even to become a stereotype at all repeated use is absolutely necessary. Which also means that if it isn't used much and only a few people really know about it it isn't much of a stereotype
Note, I didn't mean that "repeated use" means that TFP can use it just once and be free in ALL cases. With repeated use I also mean that it is repeated all the time in media. If say the crooked casion indian were popping up constantly in series, games, books, etc. then that also is repeated use. While you were mentioning a few appearances in series those series were single spots of this stereotype occuring in a long time, but notice how very few here even knew about it. There needs to be some threshold to get noticed, either by being used extensively everywhere OR by being used extensively by one author or medium or company.
And in my opinion this doesn't look to be the case here, this isn't a pervasive well-known stereotype.
Uh, sorry. Are you really sure you wanted to say that, it would mean you dropped "stereotype" completely from the equation? I assume you still think minority race needs to be a limit. But even with minority race as the only limit you just excluded all minorities from being bad guys in a work of art. And that would mean only the white anglo-saxon race could be bad guy, which would mean a new stereotype. Especially in say asian states where the anglo-saxon race is the minority.
I for example know the simple fact that indians can operate casinos in those states and that is a method for them to generate some income. I didn't know it as a stereotype (other than that I would judge an indian operating/owning(yes owning) a casino as a plausible character). As the heads of TFP come from that area I am sure they have a good chance to know this as well. I can't judge if they just know that or know that it is perceived as a stereotype. They probably don't know much about it as they don't make a point about the guy not owning the casino.
I still think you are overjudging the importance of the fact that indians as individuums can't OWN a casino. Dictators don't own their countries (as there often is a constitution that tries to keep the illusion) but in fact they usually do.
No contest here. Even IF I came to a final conclusion that the story were unproblematic once it is out, it could make sense to adjust details if that still keeps the essence of the story.
You call it a trope, but it was something that I noticed watching lots of US series in my youth, so I'd say for me personally it reached the level of racial stereotype. In the sense that I got sensitive about its use and didn't like it when it was too obvious. I still cringe when I see the actor Anthony Anderson in one of his typical skits as the almost total idiot.
