This is a question and i'm not trying to dunk on the tweet
I thought the main reason why those were bad because it mocked black people and they were the target of the ridicule, and while Cohen uses a similar technique in Borat he is targeting Americans as part of his satire, not Kazakhs.
I saw a criticism in vein of "People he can mock by making them think Kazakhs are actually like this would also believe that there is a country called Loftristan and its people act like that" and i can accept that, but comparison to blackface makes almost zero sense to me.
I think it toes a line. I fall on the side of it being good satire, but it's also not really my place to judge, since I'm not Kazakh.
I am going to guess that the person who made the tweet is also not Kazakh and has not really asked Kazakhs how they feel, so they are also not really the right person to make the judgement.
I know there was some criticism of the character from the Kazakhstan government, but I don't really trust them to make that decision, either. So....I guess I'm just not helpful.
From what i remember, back in the day, where i am from Kazakh embassy officials were called in for a morning show the day of the release for opinions and they said "Well it's making fun of people like you so i should ask you for your opinion"
In order to mock Americans, Cohen has to set up a deliberately over the top caricature of someone from a "backwards" culture. It's what lends weight to the comedy of getting Americans to agree with the crazy shit that the Borat character says.
Also, it's funny. And white libs who want to pretend like it isn't need to get the sticks out of their asses and stop with the performative wokeness.
Just something to comment, I think it's kinda bad whenever there's no Americans to satirize. Like when he filmed the parts in that Romanian(?) village? There was no real satire there, the whole joke was "look how backwards my village is"
In general, this satire doesn't work for everyone, and some people think satirical racism is never okay, and others will fail to grasp the satire and unironically approve of it. You gotta be prepared to take heat in all sides if you make something like this. And tbh, I feel he could have made up a country and every bit would have still worked, so I agree on that
I think there is a significant amount of viewers who don't pick up on the satire and just think Borat's character itself is funny. Or they do pick up on some of the idiocy around him, but don't really care or think it's as funny (where for us that's the main focal point).
Cohen's type of satire isn't going to resonate with a lot of people who see it as him being racist for a joke, which is never acceptable to them, even if the "primary" joke is not the racism. It's like the (completely valid) take that cumtown needs to stop using the n-word (or even the phrase "the n-word") or similar content as joke material, since it just crosses a line that doesn't need to be crossed. (Though nobody asked) I disagree with this taken but I do think it's totally valid, and that "well it's just a joke/satire" is a flimsy defense.
On a semi-related note, the original-tweeter wrote a book called "Twitter and Tear Gas" that's pretty decent (it's available for free online). She has been a part of OWS, Arab Spring, and Zapatista protests over the past couple decades, and talks about the influences social media has had on each one. A lot of us are terminally online, so maybe it's less interesting to most, but I also think a lot of us aren't actually involved with any sort of direct action (IRL or with online support). Anyway, I'd call her a good-lib, but expect some bland takes about Hong Kong and that sort of thing if you follow her.
Someone on here made the same point on Friday. It's a good point.
Especially if you buy the Zizek line that ironic criticism is always coopted.
My experience of Borat in a reactionary family is that the joke isn't "wow, look at how dumb and racist America is for falling for this obvious joke stereotype", it's "MAI WIAFE!"
It's been a while since I saw the first Borat and I haven't seen the second one, but iirc most of it just treated Kazakhstan as a generic "third-world" country rather than making any points about Kazakhstan specifically. There was definitely an attempt to satirise Western views about the Global South, but I'm not convinced it was a particularly successful attempt, especially since the film kind of meandered too much to really have any clear messages (which I suppose is inevitable when you're filming so much unscripted stuff).
I guess another issue is that it's probably somewhat annoying for Kazakhs that one of the very few times there was any attempt to depict their culture in Western media, it was a ridiculous caricature. I don't think it would have hurt to have just made up a country instead.
However, I don't think comparisons to blackface are ever really very helpful. Blackface has a pretty unique history, and the arguments people make against blackface don't look anything like the arguments they make against Borat, which kind of suggests they aren't similar situations. And let's not legitimise the "iF yOu RePlAcE tHe WoRd BlAcK wItH tHe WoRd CoNsErVaTiVe" garbage.
Fwiw, as a gay guy I really disliked Bruno. A lot of it wasn't even particularly over-the-top or absurdist, it was just portraying exactly what huge numbers of straight people think about us. I mean, when there is so much political discourse over whether it's acceptable for LGBT people to be parents, the idea of a straight guy going round pretending to be a gay dad who neglects his kid, treats it like a status symbol and puts it into sexual situations is just... well, I don't really get where the humour is supposed to be. The whole reason why there is a controversy about same-sex parenting is because loads of people expect that it results in precisely those things.
Cohen’s “Kazakhstan” specifically satirizes the scarcity, anti-Semitism, and ultra-nationalism of post-soviet nations.
I like the movies, forewarning that I am just a white American, but to me the objects of ridicule are the Americans around him. The viewers that may use his character to espouse opinions of Kazakhstan are people who were already hopelessly racist to begin with. To me it's like trying to blame violent video games for violent kids - the kids who act out tend to actually just have the predisposition for it regardless of the video games they play. Not to say it isn't worth avoiding validating those viewers, but I think they're in the minority. As far as I understand it, it's a Jewish man mocking anti-Semitic culture, which doesn't bother me much. My partner is the opposite and is one of the people who doesn't think being racist as a joke is ever funny, which is reasonable too.
Borat is extremely obvious racist toward kazaks. How is this even a topic lol
Most of the qanon people would believe loftristan, but maybe not someone like Giuliani or other gov officials.
I do not think it’s blackface and I’d argue that suggestion on its own is problematic. But his portrayal does betray a priority on who to communicate with and who to consider respectfully when creating the story.
