Cultural learnings from Borat
There are so many targets for ridicule in “Borat: Cultural Learnings of American for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan,” but what is most interesting about the movie is not who the targets are, but whether the targets even know that they have been savaged in the first place, and how the objects of ridicule choose to react.
In case you’ve been so obsessed with election results to bother with the latest in pop culture, here’s a quick overview of “Borat”: English comedian Sacha Baron Cohen portrays Borat Sagdiyev, a TV reporter from Kazakhstan who describes with pride his nation’s virulent anti-Semitism, homophobia, and sexism, and indeed embraces those values as his own. He sets out to “the US and A” with his broken English to learn about our country, in the process acting much like a bull in a china shop — both literally and figuratively.
The movie goes into great detail about the culture of Kazakhstan — or rather, the Kazakhstan that Cohen creates. These fictional Kazakhis have TV and yet no toilets, automobiles, or modern social graces of any kind. They are essentially a third world nation with MTV.
Naturally, the real Kazakhstan, which sits atop one of the largest oil beds on the planet, took some exception to this. At first they protested Cohen’s portrayal and demanded that the movie be stopped, but subsequently got the joke. Cohen picked Kazakhstan mostly because most viewers would know practically nothing about the country, making it easier for the jokes to have traction. And the depictions were so over the top as to make it highly unlikely that anyone would take Cohen’s jokes seriously. As a result, Kazakhstan reversed course and invited Cohen, as Borat, to visit and learn about the country. It became good publicity for an otherwise unknown nation.
Individual Americans are often the butt of the joke in the movie as well, much as Jay Leno exposes the ignorance of the average citizen in his man-on-the-street interviews. Cohen cleverly gets a rodeo organizer to say that he’d like to see homosexuals hanged, and three college frat boys give the faux Kazakhstani a run for the money in being rampantly misogynist and racist. These are uncomfortable moments, and my crowded theatre was noticably quiet during these episodes. However, we are used to seeing our fellow citizens making asses of themselves on camera. We know that it does not reflect upon us as a country. And in fact, the movie seems to bring out much that is good about America. As boorish as some of the interviewees are, all of them are unfailingly friendly to Borat. The moments where the worst things are said are typically in an effort to find common ground with this foreign visitor.
However, don’t try to kiss or touch New Yorkers. That point is made abundantly clear early on.
And then there’s the anti-Semitism. Borat’s anti-Semitism transcends “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and charges into a la-la land where Jews are supernatural monsters. The movie pulls no punches, as viewers are quickly introduced to “The Running of the Jew,” which is just like Spain’s running of the bulls except the bulls are replaced by “Jews” with giant horned demonlike heads who chase after fleeing Kazakhis with claws and weapons, the female one laying a giant “Jew egg” that the village children gleefully destroy. It’s a ridiculous spectacle, and yet only an appetizer of things to come.
The pinnacle of the movie’s commentary on Jews comes when Borat stops at a bed and breakfast to sleep for the night, only to realize after he has booked a room that the owners, an adorable old couple, are Jewish. Instantly, Borat and his producer are convinced that the couple will try to kill them, refusing to eat any food for fear of poison. Their paranoia is so great that, upon seeing bugs in their room, the pair thinks the Jewish couple had changed their shape in order to kill them, and, after throwing money at the skittering insects, run pell-mell from the house in terror.
Jews are horned shape-shifting devils that lay eggs and murder non-Jews with abandon? It makes the viewer rub their eyes in disbelief. And yet, it’s so over-the-top that it makes sense. The movie isn’t reveling in anti-Semitism — it’s making fun of it. Borat’s anti-Semitism is Islamist anti-Semitism taken to the next level, where Cohen takes real-life accusations, such as the charge that Jews were behind 9/11 or that Jews use the blood of Muslim and Christian babies in their rituals, and raises them to parody. There’s a reason, after all, that the Anti-Defamation League hasn’t said a single word about “Borat.” They, after all, get the joke.
But not everyone gets it. Russia is refusing to screen the movie, for fear that it might offend delicate Russian sensibilities. And yet such censorship is as sure to fail as Islamist efforts to censor cartoons depicting Mohammed. Of course the frat boys in the movie are upset over how they were depicted. And so is the town of Glod in Romania, which served as the fictional Kazakhstanian town Borat hailed from. But they are taking out their displeasure the tried-and-true American way: through lawsuits.
In the end, Kazakhstanis wind up looking more enlightened than American frat boys. Maybe that was the joke that Cohen was aiming to tell all along.
James N. Markels is an attorney and a regular columnist for Brainwash.
24 Comments - add your own
David Stark — November 13, 2006 at 12:25 pm
The ADL did make a statement a month before the US release of Borat.
http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Mise_00/4898_00.htm
James N. Markels — November 13, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Huh, it didn’t come up in my search of ADL’s archives. Thank you for that.
You know I'm right... — November 14, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Reviving old style Jewish Borst Belt Humor…shades’s of Henny Youngman—the originator of the infamous Polish Joke…well-to-do urban sophisticates making fun of the people they feel superior too…
Luke Lea — November 14, 2006 at 8:02 pm
Not having seen the film yet here in Chattanooga, I can only say that based on ADL’s description it makes me feel uneasy. Anti-anti-Semitism can easily turn into anti-Gentilism, especially when the “sophisticated” humor targets stereotypically “unsophisticated” rubes who are depicted with barely disguised contempt.
Though Sasha Cohen may not know it, there is almost no anti-Semitism in red state America nowadays. Let’s keep it that way.
In the Midwest — November 15, 2006 at 9:35 am
I know Michigan is a blue state, but anti-Semitism is rampant in my area (Somewhat near Dearboune) to the point where I am uncomfortable using my Jewish last name. There’s even anti-Jew (and by anti-Jew I don’t mean anti-Israel–which there are, but that is off-topic) bumper stickers. I even had one date react in an almost Borat way when he found out my heritage is Jewish.
James N. Markels — November 17, 2006 at 9:16 am
Interesting comments from Sacha Cohen: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1990387.ece
David — November 17, 2006 at 12:13 pm
What with the Republicans losing the HOuse and Senate, I’d expect a neo-con rat like YOU to skip the AFF and join the DLC Democrats. They believe in the same Israel First foreign policy, and urban sophisticate social values.
James N. Markels — November 17, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Split government is a good thing. Not like I voted, of course. The choice between Allen (your hard-on fantasy candidate) and Webb (anti-trade schlub) was too much for me to bear. And no, I’m no neo-con. Not even close. I’m a libertarian. Let me spell that for you: l-i-b-e-r-t-a-r-i-a-n. Look it up sometime when you’ve bought yourself a brain. Thanks.
Fred — November 18, 2006 at 11:15 am
Cohen’s claims to some sort of scathing expose on America’s latent anti-semitism - or whatever it is his press agent is now telling him to say that he’s been up to - is, essentially, a load. At it’s not even a new one.
Let me see if I can play this game: You remember that Saturday Night Live skit, the one where Julian Bond tells Garrett Morris that the old belief that light-skinned blacks are more intelligent than dark-skinned blacks because they have a greater component of white ancestry is simply the product of white bigotry. Morris nods in enthusiastic agreement. But it does contain a grain of truth, Bond claims. Morris nods, but seems a bit confused. The REAL reason, says Bond, is that blacks descended from light-skinned African tribes have always been much more intelligent than those descended from dark-skinned tribes. To which, Garrett Morris (MUCH darker than cafe au lait Julian Bond) replies, “Say Whaaat?”
Now, is this making fun of white racism, or is it making fun of skin-tone racism among blacks, or is it making fun of black denial of differences in academic performance between blacks and whites, or is it more subtly making fun of whites who are so racist as to laugh at blacks caught up in their own racial condumdrum? Uh, whichever seems most progressive.
I’ll be more inclined to buy Cohen’s argument that his comedy is really about exposing prejudices when he reveals that he created another of his comic alter egos, Ali G., a doltish British Muslim, to expose latent anti-Islamic sentiments among those Jewish fans so crass as to laugh at the Ali G.’s buffonery. Now that would be a news story.
David — November 18, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Mr. Merkel: “I’m no neo-con. Not even close. I’m a libertarian. Let me spell that for you: l-i-b-e-r….”
Among the positions that YOU share with the Clinton style DLC Democrats that control the Democrat Party are the following: 1) An Israel-First foreign policy, 2) Alan Greenspan style monetary economics of exporting US inflation at the barrel of a gun, 3) the “war on terror” which is the war to protect oligarchic US client states cooperative with our oil interests and tolerant of Israel’s persecution of it’s Arab minority, 4) welfare for multi-national corporations financed by the WTO and the Export Import Bank.
I’m thinking that you’re at the AFF because the Progressive Policy Institute rejected you for being too overtly anti-American and pro-gay marriage.
Of course, I’d hardly expect a person with the crass arrogance to claim that Sasha Cohen has anything on his mind but putting the GOLD in his pocket by exploiting old “Borsht Belt” ethnic stereotypes of other ethnics that wealthy urban Jews consider to be socially beneath them.
If the pickings get thin over at the AFF, I hear that the DLC is holding a cocktail party next week for out-of-work “Libertarians” of your ilk.
James N. Markels — November 19, 2006 at 9:21 pm
Okay, David. Please cite to my writings for evidence of the “positions” you claim I have. Considering how much I write, even just here at AFF, if I really have those “positions,” this should be a simple exercise. If you’re lying, it will be impossible. Want to just save yourself the trouble and admit you’re lying?
And naturally, you couldn’t bear to comment without a nice little anti-Semitic comment. If you ever met Borat, he’d have you lustily singing “let’s throw the Jews down the well” in 30 seconds, while advocating hanging gay people and lamenting the right of women and blacks to vote. And then thirty days later you’d be suing him for “tricking” him. Methinks you’re just jealous that Borat acts more tolerant than you.
David — November 20, 2006 at 12:09 am
Mr. Merkel” “…naturally, you couldn’t bear to comment without a nice little anti-Semitic comment.”
Oh my! Doesn’t the pot like to call the kettle black? YOU are the one claiming that Borat’s “humor” is something morally uplifting. It’s really just old style Jewish Borsht Belt humor with a racist tinge designed to appeal to well-to-do Jews at the expense of people they consider vulnerable. This same Henny Youngman style “Borsht Belt” humor used to target blacks and gays BTW. YOu are defending it, because in fact, you agree with the racial stereotypes Borat uses as the basis of his “humor”.
Mr. “Merkel”: “Please cite to my writings for evidence of the “positions” you claim I have.”
Well if it squaks like a DUCK, it’s probably a DUCK. But here’s your chance to clear the air and prove that you are really a libertarian! Please disavow the any US foreign policy that favors the State of Israel over the interests of the USA: the WTO, the Export Import Bank & NAFTA; Alan Greenspan’s management of the FED; and the continued occupation of Iraq by the USA.
Mr. “Merkel”: If you ever met Borat, he’d have you lustily singing “let’s throw the Jews down the well” in 30 seconds, while advocating hanging gay people and lamenting the right of women and blacks to vote.
Well, I guess I’d like to see you cite any evidence from my blog or anything I’ve said or written that advocates anything like that. On the other hand, we know you like Jewish racist humor of the Borat variety.
Oh, yeah.
James N. Markels — November 20, 2006 at 11:31 am
And what part of “Borat” targets blacks and gays? Have you even seen the movie? Obviously not, because otherwise you’d know that the movie is countered racial stereotypes in the same manner as it countered anti-Semitism.
I never have favored Israel over America; I support free trade, so I support the WTO and NAFTA because they limit barriers to trade, and would end the Ex-Im Bank; I would optimally do away with the Federal Reserve Bank (not happening) but think that Greenspan did a pretty good job of it; and I think that pulling out completely from Iraq right now would be a worse poison than the alternative. I’ve been open about my disagreements with fellow libertarians about Iraq, and certainly there is no Iraq litmus test for me to be a libertarian. The rest is completely consistent with libertarianism, although not so much for your view of what libertarianism ought to be, based on your delusions about what you think freedom is. For you, it’s not freedom if a single non-white is allowed to immigrate into the country.
Your anti-Semitism and disdain for minorities has been amply demonstrated by your posts. All you care about is the white middle-class, as if they are the “populist majority.” They aren’t, but then against we already know you haven’t the foggiest idea as to what populism really is anyway.
I like all sorts of humor. But I find the humor in “Borat” to be quite useful since it exposes the hysterical racists like yourself for the world to mock. Hell, you still don’t get how your viscerally anti-Semitic reaction was compelled by “Borat” in the first place. But then again, you never were too good at understanding when the joke was on you.
David — November 20, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Mr. “Merkel” says: “I never have favored Israel over America…I support free trade, so I support the WTO and NAFTA because they limit barriers to trade, and would end the Ex-Im Bank; I would optimally do away with the Federal Reserve Bank (not happening) but think that Greenspan did a pretty good job of it; and I think that pulling out completely from Iraq right now would be a worse poison than the alternative…there is no Iraq litmus test for me to be a libertarian. The rest is completely consistent with libertarianism…”
Well, it would be diffult for you to prove that support the USA over Israel. In fact, it would be difficult for you to find much in which you disagree with Bill Kristol on any issue of any consequense with regard to “free trade” or foreign policy. What’s ironic is that you can’t find much in which you differ from Hillary Clinton either. Neo-Con,Neo Liberal, what’s the difference? Libertarian? Well who knows what you mean by that?
Mr. Merkel: “Your anti-Semitism and disdain for minorities has been amply demonstrated by your posts. All you care about is the white middle-class, as if they are the “populist majority.”
Oh pooh! YOu can’t find any comment that proves my distain for minorities can you? On the other hand, can you explain YOUR distain white middle class, and “populism” which is about opposition to political and economic oligarchy?
Mr. Merkel: “I find the humor in “Borat” to be quite useful since it exposes the hysterical racists like yourself for the world to mock.”
Claiming that Sasha Cohen has a mission of exposing prejudice is like the murderer of his father and mother throwing himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan.
Never mind the fact that you cannot find any overtly antisemitic comment that I have made. It is interesting how you use the accusation of “anti-semitism” much the same way Leftists and Liberals use “racist”…in the 70’s, the liberal line was that anyone who opposes racial quotas or forced busing is “racist”…just as YOU claim that anyone who doesn’t appreciate the so-called “message” of “Borat” is “anti-semitic”.
The fact that you would borrow the same illogical line of argumentation as leftists and liberals proves, of course, a that you are hiding your own prejudices and attitudes behind a meaningless rhetorical distraction.
James N. Markels — November 20, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Don’t you get tired of being continually bitch-slapped by Roach and me?
I mean, all you do is sit there and make ludicrious assertions with absolutely no basis in fact (such as claiming that Bill Kristol and Hillary Clinton have libertarian foreign policy positions — really, what kind of idiot claim is THAT?). When you don’t like what someone says, which is nigh everyone because you’re the only person dumb enough around here to be a proto-fascist, you just call them a neo-con, Jew, or other epithet, as if that were all that would be necessary to prove your point. That’s all you’ve got.
Hoe: “YOu can’t find any comment that proves my distain for minorities can you?”
Sure I can. Look back on your comments on immigration, where minority immigrants receive a particularly rude evaluation from yourself. No place for those brown-skins and towel-heads in your White America, no-sirree. As for the anti-Semitism, you just called me a “Jew” on Roach’s blog as if it were an epithet! QED. I’m not Jewish, of course, but you already knew that. You just like calling people “Jews” because it’s the worst insult you can muster in your crib. And it’s not the first time you accused me of being a “Jew” as part of an epithet-laden tirade, remember. And more of your anti-Semitism: http://www.affbrainwash.com/chrisroach/archives/021195.php
Hoe: “On the other hand, can you explain YOUR distain white middle class, and ‘populism’ which is about opposition to political and economic oligarchy?”
I have no “distain” for the white middle class. Happen to be a member. My problem with populism is that “populists” never seem to understand what it means, and when presented with the actual definition of populism, those self-described “populists” are shocked to learn that it is nothing more than a rhetorical device to give the illusion of support for one’s positions. They are especially shocked to learn that “populism” has nothing to do with hating Jews, keeping women and blacks in their place, locking up homosexuals, and throwing non-white immigrants out of the country. If there is a more damning criticism of populism than the fact that its so-called adherents are too intellectually stunted to understand what populism really means, I’ve not heard it.
And now, I will repost here what Chris Roach posted on his blog to you. Please consider this to be coming from me as well, in regards to your posting anywhere on Brainwash:
“In my heart, I know you’re not too educated and may have a screw loose.
“Seriously, you are not welcome here. I have induldged you for too long.
“You are annoying. You are kind of dull and boring and repetitive and prone to the kind of conspiracy thinking that gets people locked up in mental institutions. As for Markels, I suppose he threw an ad hominem your way, but I don’t really care, because I think you’re a moron and contribute very little to this website by commenting, and you have repeatedly insulted him and others without being provoked in any way.
“I’ve banned some but not all of your IPs, and I’m asking you to follow the principles of voluntary association and good manners and simply leave voluntarily. Go to gun shows or pentecostal churches or some other place where you’ll fit in, but don’t come here. This is a website for educated people, who understand the difference between a sound argument and sophistry. It is not a mouth-piece for the Republican Party. I have nothing to do with AFF other than posting this blog, and I simply write whatever I want and am subject to no editorial control, no money, no direction, and no influence of any kind other than whatever sound and persuasive things people write in these comments.
“Now I realize a powerless loser sometimes feels the need to lash out on other people’s blogs and say silly things and make insults he’d never have the courage (and ill manners) to do face-to-face, but this is not your shrink’s office nor a playground. It’s a blog dedicated to serious discussion of current affairs–you have nothign to contribute to such discussions.
“Get some meds and stay off this site. I’ve asked politely; I’ve tried to use technology to stop you, now I am simply telling you to. Your employer and then the local police will be my next stops, idiot.
“No need to respond. Your pseudo-apology is pseudo-accepted in advance.”
online backgammon — November 22, 2006 at 2:55 pm
11/22/2006 9:55:09 PM
online backgammon
Denzel — November 22, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Hello moder!
online backgammon — November 23, 2006 at 7:27 am
11/23/2006 2:27:17 PM
online backgammon
online backgammon — November 23, 2006 at 7:41 am
11/23/2006 2:41:49 PM
online backgammon
online backgammon — November 23, 2006 at 4:26 pm
11/23/2006 11:26:56 PM
online backgammon
Buy Content — December 9, 2006 at 12:59 am
12/8/2006 11:59:18 PM
Buy Content
Buy Content — December 9, 2006 at 8:35 am
12/9/2006 7:35:17 AM
Buy Content
Buy Content — December 9, 2006 at 9:40 am
12/9/2006 8:40:12 AM
Buy Content
Buy Content — December 9, 2006 at 9:55 am
12/9/2006 8:55:16 AM
Buy Content