CPGB ML Say no to Borat, are they right to?

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Borat does not exaggerate certain backward elements of Central Asian culture ? he just makes stuff up. He plays on, perpetuates and deepens people?s ignorance, reinforcing imperialist stereotypes that date from the Soviet era, when imperialism sought to nullify the incredible achievements of socialism by presenting its builders as half-wits and by insinuating that social progress had been limited to the major Russian cities. In the movie, Borat expresses surprise that women in the US have the right to vote, the implication being that women in Kazakhstan cannot vote and are regarded as second-class citizens. It may surprise some people to know that women in the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic achieved suffrage on the same terms as men in 1920 ? eight years before it was achieved in Britain. Fifteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan still celebrates International Women?s Day as a public holiday. The US and Britain never have done.

[khad]

Zionist fuck, deserves to be shot.

Those of you who laughed at that film are unwittingly complicit in yet another dehumanizing humiliation inflicted upon the Roma people.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-415871/Borat-film-tricked-poor-village-actors.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-415871/Borat-film-tricked-poor-village-actors.html)


When Sacha Baron Cohen (http://explore.dailymail.co.uk/people/cohen_sacha_baron) wanted a village to represent the impoverished Kazakh home of his character Borat, he found the perfect place in Glod: a remote mountain outpost with no sewerage or running water and where locals eke out meagre livings peddling scrap iron or working patches of land.

...

So when a Hollywood film crew descended on a nearby run-down motel last September, with their flashy cars and expensive equipment, locals thought their lowly community might finally be getting some of the investment it so desperately needs. The crew was led by a man villagers describe as 'nice and friendly, if a bit weird and ugly', who they later learned was Baron Cohen. It is thought the producers chose the region because locals more closely resembled his comic creation than genuine Kazakhs.

The comedian insisted on travelling everywhere with bulky bodyguards, because, as one local said: 'He seemed to think there were crooks among us.'
While the rest of the crew based themselves in the motel, Baron Cohen stayed in a hotel in Sinaia, a nearby ski resort a world away from Glod's grinding poverty. He would come to the village every morning to do 'weird things', such as bringing animals inside the run-down homes, or have the village children filmed holding weapons.

Mr Tudorache, a deeply religious grandfather who lost his arm in an accident, was one of those who feels most humiliated. For one scene, a rubber sex toy in the shape of a fist was attached to the stump of his missing arm - but he had no idea what it was.

Only when The Mail on Sunday visited him did he find out. He said he was ashamed, confessing that he only agreed to be filmed because he hoped to top up his £70-a-month salary - although in the end he was paid just £3.

He invited us into his humble home and brought out the best food and drink his family had. Visibly disturbed, he said shakily: 'Someone from the council said these Americans need a man with no arm for some scenes. I said yes but I never imagined the whole country, or even the whole world, will see me in the cinemas ridiculed in this way. This is disgusting.

'Our region is very poor, and everyone is trying hard to get out of this misery. It is outrageous to exploit people's misfortune like this to laugh at them.
'We are now coming together and will try to hire a lawyer and take legal action for being cheated and exploited. We are simple folk and don't know anything about these things, but I have faith in God and justice.'

...

The village, like others in the Dambovita region of Romania, is populated mainly by gipsies who say they are discriminated against by the rest of the country.

Also the Palestinians:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090728/en_afp/entertainmentfilmbrunomideastpalestinian


BEIT SAHUR, West Bank (AFP) – A Palestinian man presented as a "terrorist" in Sacha Baron Cohen's new hit movie "Bruno" said on Tuesday he was not amused at the gay fashionista mockumentary and plans to sue.

Ayman Abu Aita said he intends to take the outrageous British comedian to court after a scene in the movie portrayed him as a leader of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, one of the main armed Palestinian groups.

"I am not a member of Al-Aqsa," said the 44-year-old Abu Aita, a member of a regional committee of Fatah, the ruling Palestinian party to which the militant group is loosely affiliated.

"It's a lie, the whole thing was a lie. We were betrayed by this guy when he said that he was a journalist," said Abu Aita, a Christian.

"We thought he was a foreign journalist and we hoped he would speak about our cause."

Abu Aita joins a long line of unwitting victims hoodwinked by the comedian, both during the filming of "Bruno" and his previous smash hit "Borat", which generated scores of lawsuits.

In "Bruno", Cohen poses as a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashion reporter who in one scene goes to interview a "terrorist" in his quest for fame.

"We thought: what could people see that they've never seen before on film," Cohen said on the Late Show with David Letterman recently. "And we thought one thing would be a comedian interviewing a terrorist." [note how he continues to call the Palestinian man a terrorist and refuses to confirm that it was all fiction]

[red cat]

I fully support CPGB(ML)'s decision. Borat mocks the culture of Kazakhstan in a way that is not acceptable to the Kazakhs, and is a typically cultural supremacist propaganda by the US.

[khad]

It may surprise some people to know that women in the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic achieved suffrage on the same terms as men in 1920 ? eight years before it was achieved in Britain. Fifteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan still celebrates International Women?s Day as a public holiday. The US and Britain never have done.
Also, I think there are more women than men studying on the university level in Kazakhstan. That Zionist Cohen is just showing his crass chauvinism against Israeli Zionists' traditional enemies such as the Roma (how dare they claim the Holocaust!!!!) and Muslims. It's so blatantly obvious that he'd single these groups out.

[Dimentio]

It says something about the power relations in the world which groups establishment reporters are allowed to "troll" and which groups they aren't allowed to "troll" (Borat is basically an IRL troll, as is Bruno).

[bricolage]

Also the Palestinians:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090728/en_afp/entertainmentfilmbrunomideastpalestinian

ZheYqoKtt60

[RadioRaheem84]

He's an elitist prick. He likes to come over to the States, poor Eastern European areas, and other places where he knows he's going to find fodder for his outrageous skits.

Bu of course, rich yuppie liberal love his stuff and think he's a comedic god.

[Robocommie]

Man, I never did quite like Baron Cohen because I never thought it was funny to just go around fucking with people like that, and that he thinks he's much more clever than he really is. I mean some of it was funny, but not much.

Reading about this shit though, and watching that clip, really pisses me off. It seems like Baron-Cohen is a real asshole.

[RadioRaheem84]

OFF TOPIC FOR A BIT:
I have to ask though and I hope people from the UK don't take offense to this, but what it up with a lot of your comics and their rather "cheeky" and condescending humor toward others? I never liked British comics or humor until I saw Mark Steel. But the others like Baron Cohen, Coogan, the chubby guy from The Office, and Eddie Izzard, it just seems like it screams of bourgeoisie humor, like you have to be a sarcastic elitist prick to enjoy the humor. Sometimes it looks like it stems from insecurity.

We Americans have a weird complex about ourselves when we compare ourselves to the UK because we think of ourselves as backwoods Nazis by comparison. Yet, when I read more of your tabloids, the rather whorish way comedians try to get a rise out the audience, the scandals involving the MPs, the Royal Family, socialites, etc. It seems like it's not so much the dandy nation it loves to portray on screen.

Yet it's such a selling point for foriegners when I speak to them. "Oh, the UK has more class and culture than America, blah, blah". It's as if they love the elitism, the class structure, more than they love the actual nation itself. It's always "classier" to see British films, listen to British music, go to London, etc.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Thats ok, because we British hate the dumbed down, no intelligence bullshit, oh and BTW you have will and grace and frasier both reek of eletism, also obviously we have more class your about 200 years old lol, infant, but having bourgesie/fuedalistic culture is a bad thing and i wish we didnt have it.

[Robocommie]

I don't mean to insult the British posters here, but it always strikes me that naked classist attitudes are quite prevalent in the UK, and openly tolerated to some fair extent.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

again the yanks cant really say much when it comes to national supremacy
GOD BLESS AMERIKA

[Raúl Duke]

Haha, It's a little funny because Americans are trying to be subtle about certain aspects of British culture they don't like while this particular British make weak one-line comebacks that actually has more reek of national chauvanism than the Americans' comments (not that does comments don't have a little element of that too, but the commenter themselves put the point across that they don't believe this is "essentialist aspect" to British people and are mostly making a cultural critique).


Thats ok, because we British hate the dumbed down, no intelligence bullshit, oh and BTW you have will and grace and frasier both reek of eletism, also obviously we have more class your about 200 years old lol, infant, but having bourgesie/fuedalistic culture is a bad thing and i wish we didnt have it.

[RadioRaheem84]

I wasn't trying to say that our humor is superior or anything. Besides, Frasier was mocking elitism not celebrating it like so many posh people do in the UK (segment of the society, not the whole of society). Point is, robbocommie is right, that type of stuff is nearly celebrated in your country's media while in the US it is seen as primarily based in a small urban groups and frowned upon by the general public (and even in the media). It's seeped in heavily in the last decade or so but it's still normally better to pretend to be humble on tv.

[manic expression]

That article on the village and the video with the Palestinian almost made me physically sick. F*cking disgusting.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

You didnt get the jokw i was playing by defending british snobbery to the hilt pretty much proving you right, then again, your not sophisticated enough to get British humor. HAHA :) joking i am

But seriously though, try only fools and horses, Porridge, Citizen smith, the royal 7family (prog about a british working class family), or any programme set in newcastle .

[Dimentio]

OFF TOPIC FOR A BIT:
I have to ask though and I hope people from the UK don't take offense to this, but what it up with a lot of your comics and their rather "cheeky" and condescending humor toward others? I never liked British comics or humor until I saw Mark Steel. But the others like Baron Cohen, Coogan, the chubby guy from The Office, and Eddie Izzard, it just seems like it screams of bourgeoisie humor, like you have to be a sarcastic elitist prick to enjoy the humor. Sometimes it looks like it stems from insecurity.

We Americans have a weird complex about ourselves when we compare ourselves to the UK because we think of ourselves as backwoods Nazis by comparison. Yet, when I read more of your tabloids, the rather whorish way comedians try to get a rise out the audience, the scandals involving the MPs, the Royal Family, socialites, etc. It seems like it's not so much the dandy nation it loves to portray on screen.

Yet it's such a selling point for foriegners when I speak to them. "Oh, the UK has more class and culture than America, blah, blah". It's as if they love the elitism, the class structure, more than they love the actual nation itself. It's always "classier" to see British films, listen to British music, go to London, etc.

The main difference is that British humour is meaner overally. When they swing it against someone, they swing it hard. American humour is very much about wrapping in conflicts in niceness (Friends, 2½ men, etc), while British humour is merciless. I think its a result from the loss of Empire, which in general made people more cynical - both for better and worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmxQbvDB9II&feature=related

To elaborate. American right-wingers in general sincerely believes that their ideology is making it better for "average working Joes", while British right-wingers more or less openly despise workers and want to see them disarmed and docile (the Tory party has been very much anti-gun). I think another big difference is that in the USA, it is not seen as nice as brag about your wealth unless you worked yourself up, while in Britain, people who start off as poor but work themselves up would not be as easily accepted amongst their peers. The British upper class and the British working class almost has two different cultures, but both are quite condescending and mean in their own ways.

There is also British humour which is slagging off the upper class, or at least the "wannabe upper class".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nd2YMp-Rf4

I think a lot of Americans would have a hard time comprehending the humour in this comedy...

[vyborg]

British humour is great. I like it a lot (especially Bremner, Bird and Fortune, they are absolyutely genius!).

Borat is pure crap. I cannot understand how someone can even think a film like this with even, and this is horrible, a rape in it

[Dimentio]

Yes, I'm ready to admit that British humour has degenerated during the 2000's.

[Spawn of Stalin]

As has already been said, he's basically a zionist, a racist, and most of all, a complete tosser.

Here's the full article if anyone is interested.

http://www.cpgb-ml.org/index.php?secName=proletarian&subName=display&art=1


Somehow, amidst the current backlash against ‘political correctness’ (which we would define as a bourgeois liberal obsession with matters of minimum political importance (such as the singing in schools of Baa, Baa, Black Sheep) combined with neglect for genuinely important matters (such as the ongoing economic discrimination against black people)), very few people seem to have noticed that Sacha Baron-Cohen’s Borat film (full title, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan) is thoroughly racist and offensive.

No, this is not ‘political correctness gone mad’. And we are not simply a bunch of stuffy old commies with no sense of humour (well maybe we are, but that’s beside the point!) Having a laugh at backward elements of people’s cultures is one thing; totally misrepresenting a country in Central Asia the size of western Europe, portraying it as a feudal backwater where jews are considered as devils, rape and bestiality are national pastimes and women cannot vote, is another.

As Erlan Idrissov, Kazakhstan’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, commented in an article for The Guardian, “While it is clearly not permissible in modern Britain to caricature certain ethnic groups or to ascribe racist or sexist views to them, it is apparently permissible to present the people of Kazakhstan as a bunch of rabid Jew-haters and serial sexual molesters.” (‘Offensive and unfair, Borat’s antics leave a nasty aftertaste’, 4 October 2006)

Borat does not exaggerate certain backward elements of Central Asian culture – he just makes stuff up. He plays on, perpetuates and deepens people’s ignorance, reinforcing imperialist stereotypes that date from the Soviet era, when imperialism sought to nullify the incredible achievements of socialism by presenting its builders as half-wits and by insinuating that social progress had been limited to the major Russian cities.

In the movie, Borat expresses surprise that women in the US have the right to vote, the implication being that women in Kazakhstan cannot vote and are regarded as second-class citizens. It may surprise some people to know that women in the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic achieved suffrage on the same terms as men in 1920 – eight years before it was achieved in Britain. Fifteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan still celebrates International Women’s Day as a public holiday. The US and Britain never have done.

Borat engages in numerous ridiculous anti-jewish monologues, and Kazakhs are portrayed as being systematically anti-jewish (a scene depicting a cultural event in Kazakhstan includes the townspeople performing ‘the running of the jew’). Yet anyone who has seriously studied 20th century history knows that jews were well-respected in the Soviet Union (indeed many leading Bolsheviks were of jewish origin) and that the October Revolution ended the horrific pogroms that were regularly conducted by the tsarist regime against them.

But such facts are not known to the general public. Also unknown to the general public is the fact that the US financed Hitler to a significant degree and that Britain encouraged his drive towards war with the Soviet Union; yet the British and US ruling classes were fully cognisant of what Hitler was doing to the German jews. The undertone of the whole film is a ‘first-world’ self-satisfaction that completely ignores the dirty role that has been played in the world by imperialism.

In point of fact, there is no significant anti-jewish sentiment in Kazakhstan. “Kazakhstan is … a secular state. Although the population is predominantly Muslim, we have many synagogues, not to mention churches of several denominations. Kazakhstan has a small but thriving Jewish community. The chief rabbi of Israel, John Metzger, has praised my country for its tradition of openness and tolerance [if only the same could be said of Israel!]. So indeed did Pope John Paul II during his visit in 2001.” (Erlan Idrissov, op cit)

It’s not surprising to learn that Baron-Cohen comes from a zionist background and that “he was involved with Habonim, a zionist youth movement”. (‘Sacha Baron Cohen: Our man from Kazakhstan’, The Guardian, 10 September 2006)

Over-exaggerating and falsifying anti-jewish sentiment is one of the principal means used by Israel and its apologists for generating support for the state of Israel and for derogating the plight of the Palestinians.

Furthermore, Baron-Cohen’s film comes at a time when the media and various government agencies are exhibiting public ‘concern’ over the increased crime levels that will allegedly be associated with an increase in immigration from Bulgaria and Rumania once they join the EU next year.

Take, for example, the following passage from The Sun: “It is feared ruthless gangsters … are ready to assault Britain … And the advance crime guard is already here — we also reported yesterday that four out of five cashpoint crimes here are down to Romanian ex-pats … Mobsters in the ex-Communist nation also offer babies for sale to desperate foreigners, smuggle heroin, manufacture amphetamines, sell counterfeit cigarettes and spirits and steal cars to order.” (‘Mafias ganging up on us in UK’, 2 November 2006)

The thinking reader will easily be able to detect the racist bias. As far as The Sun is concerned, there’s no need to mention Britain’s role in the global drugs trade, or to reflect on the fact that Brits are the most prolific human traffickers in history (American slave trade), or to point out the murder and theft that our government and multinationals conduct on a world scale. No, we Brits are pure, and we don’t want Johnny Foreigner coming over here and interfering with our race riots and our football hooliganism!

The purpose of this type of tirade in the media (which is repeated in the broad-sheets, albeit in a slightly more veiled fashion) is to divide the working class, to scapegoat immigrants for the ills of society and thereby to absolve the capitalist system.

The Borat movie plays into the hands of those who seek to divide the working class by promoting race and national prejudice. We call on British workers to reject this crass racism and work to build working-class unity, without which we will never be free from the chains of capital.

[Wanted Man]

Some British humour is clever and subtle, at other times it's pretty crude. In many cases, it's both at the same time. Americans should not be ashamed of their culture or their humour, they're fine. America has a lot of great working-class cultural heritage, that is unfortunately often co-opted at home, and ignored abroad.

I don't understand Anglophilia. I appreciate a lot about Britain and its culture, but I don't get the sheer obsession with it. I study English, and some classmates have adopted ridiculously posh British accents. Those are going to be utterly unhelpful when talking to most ordinary English-speaking people, both in England and other countries.

[bailey_187]

I'm not going to lie, when this movie come out when i was 14/15, i found it funny. I hadnt given it a thought since. Now i feel pretty bad.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Oh, come the fuck on everyone. How about all of you watch Cohen's biography or try reading anything of his background. If you have then you'll realize that he has a real political background with being an activist towards racial problems & equality. His movies are not meant to make fun of the people he plays as, but rather to open people up that he meets in his movies to see where exactly they feel when confronted with people like foreigners, gays, prostitutes, etc. Hell, this is the guy who got RON PAUL, the guy who claimed he was SO FOR GAY RIGHTS, & got him to go on a screaming rampage by calling "Bruno" a queer god knows how many times. His movies are meant to show people the true racism, the true phobias that are still very well around in this country. So, no offence to those who know what I'm talking about, but to the others, fuck off & get a background check on things before you go on a hate rampage about it. In other words, stop being right-wingers!

[Little Bobby Hutton]

He is a zionist i hope he dies of cancer

[khad]

Oh, come the fuck on everyone. How about all of you watch Cohen's biography or try reading anything of his background. If you have then you'll realize that he has a real political background with being an activist towards racial problems & equality. His movies are not meant to make fun of the people he plays as, but rather to open people up that he meets in his movies to see where exactly they feel when confronted with people like foreigners, gays, prostitutes, etc. Hell, this is the guy who got RON PAUL, the guy who claimed he was SO FOR GAY RIGHTS, & got him to go on a screaming rampage by calling "Bruno" a queer god knows how many times. His movies are meant to show people the true racism, the true phobias that are still very well around in this country. So, no offence to those who know what I'm talking about, but to the others, fuck off & get a background check on things before you go on a hate rampage about it. In other words, stop being right-wingers!
He does this at the expense of truly devoiced and disempowered people--Palestinians, Roma, and people from Central Asia.

It's western chauvinism at its worst. You can poke fun at reactionaries without accusing ACTUAL oppressed people of being sister-fucking anti-semites, you know. I mean, did you even stop to think?

Sorry to say it, but it's unseemly on your part to accuse people here of being right wing baselessly. Cut that shit out.

[Glenn Beck]

Some British humour is clever and subtle, at other times it's pretty crude. In many cases, it's both at the same time. Americans should not be ashamed of their culture or their humour, they're fine. America has a lot of great working-class cultural heritage, that is unfortunately often co-opted at home, and ignored abroad.

I don't understand Anglophilia. I appreciate a lot about Britain and its culture, but I don't get the sheer obsession with it. I study English, and some classmates have adopted ridiculously posh British accents. Those are going to be utterly unhelpful when talking to most ordinary English-speaking people, both in England and other countries. I dunno, British humor tends to be either self-effacing or at least extremely self-conscious and insecure, and I find that hilarious. We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you :D

[The Idler]

Its supposed to be a satire of American attitudes and polite intolerance to the exaggerated Borat/Bruno stereotype characters.

[khad]

Its supposed to be a satire of American attitudes and polite intolerance to the exaggerated Borat/Bruno stereotype characters.
It's all fun and games until you exploit someone like a dirty bourgeoisie racist.

[Comrade B]

Anyone that actually thinks that Borat is an accurate representation of South Western Asians is an idiot... I don't think there are really that many people that stupid... and those that are are being mocked in Borat...

[khad]

Anyone that actually thinks that Borat is an accurate representation of South Western Asians is an idiot... I don't think there are really that many people that stupid... and those that are are being mocked in Borat...
When there's so little representation of CENTRAL Asians in the Western media, what gets shown becomes popular perception. Maybe they are "idiots" who don't know that Kazakhstan is in CENTRAL and not Southwest Asia, but this bullshit only serves to reinforce their idiocy. Taking a libertarian position on the public and media education is just a cop out for a leftist. Let's just be honest about how many people are willing to overlook the exploitation and slander against ACTUAL oppressed people simply because this Zionist tickles their jollies.

It's all OK if he makes arrogant first worlders laugh, right?

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

I don't think it matters what the CPGB ML say about anything, especially not about 3 years after a film was released...

[Glenn Beck]

It's all OK if he makes arrogant first worlders laugh, right? This is really what it all boils down to. Fuck em if they can't take a joke, right? But watch the outrage when someone makes an off-color joke that hits a little closer to home.

[Comrade B]

When there's so little representation of CENTRAL Asians in the Western media, what gets shown becomes popular perception. Maybe they are "idiots" who don't know that Kazakhstan is in CENTRAL and not Southwest Asia, but this bullshit only serves to reinforce their idiocy.
Oh man, you sure got me... Central Asia, shit, I must be dumb as fuck. Thanks for that, truly a key point to my statement there. Jesus Christ man, you are attacking me for not realizing how north Kazakhstan is... Well, after re-looking at the map to my right, I now see the light. What a win for you.


Taking a libertarian position on the public and media education is just a cop out for a leftist.
Where did you get that in my argument? I was saying I don't think most people are that fucking stupid.

Let's just be honest about how many people are willing to overlook the exploitation and slander against ACTUAL oppressed people simply because this Zionist tickles their jollies.
I am pretty sure the purpose of the movie Bruno was to criticize homophobia in the west. That was a good political message.
The purpose of Borat was to mock American nationalism, among other western cultural crap. Sure, there was some shit that was offensive in it, I didn't laugh at that... but I think we have better things to be hating than Sasha Baron Cohen.


It's all OK if he makes arrogant first worlders laugh, right?
I really don't see where you got that in what I said...

[khad]

I am pretty sure the purpose of the movie Bruno was to criticize homophobia in the west. That was a good political message.
The purpose of Borat was to mock American nationalism, among other western cultural crap. Sure, there was some shit that was offensive in it, I didn't laugh at that... but I think we have better things to be hating than Sasha Baron Cohen.
And here I thought Marxists cared about the process of production and labor. Read:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/cpgb-ml-say-t131545/index.html?p=1700006#post1700006

[Comrade B]

I missed that. That is pretty fucked up. It is exploiting people, pretty fucking disgusting.

I have to say though, you have put me in a position where I am not inclined to agree with you after your response to my post. Maybe you should try being a little more polite with your posts if you are trying to convince people of something.

[Palingenisis]

Zionist fuck, deserves to be shot.



Comrade when I first saw that I thought you were being over the top...Not any more.

[Dimentio]

One wonders if Sacha B Cohen's role as the voice of king Julien XIII also is an example of condescending racism...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x3W6hutEj8&feature=related

[The Idler]

Against the advice of human rights organisations, Ukraine banned Borat and Bruno, the latter for its depiction of "homosexual scenes, sadism and asocial behaviour that could harm public morals". Borat was banned in Russia for its scenes of naked men wrestling and potential to offend religion. Borat was also criticised as anti-American specifically the "Red States" by right-wing reviewers in the US. Under these circumstances leftists should be offering critical support against conservative government censorship.

[Wanted Man]

Against the advice of human rights organisations, Ukraine banned Borat and Bruno, the latter for its depiction of "homosexual scenes, sadism and asocial behaviour that could harm public morals". Borat was banned in Russia for its scenes of naked men wrestling and potential to offend religion. Borat was also criticised as anti-American specifically the "Red States" by right-wing reviewers in the US. Under these circumstances leftists should be offering critical support against conservative government censorship.

Why?

[Palingenisis]

Against the advice of human rights organisations, Ukraine banned Borat and Bruno, the latter for its depiction of "homosexual scenes, sadism and asocial behaviour that could harm public morals". Borat was banned in Russia for its scenes of naked men wrestling and potential to offend religion. Borat was also criticised as anti-American specifically the "Red States" by right-wing reviewers in the US. Under these circumstances leftists should be offering critical support against conservative government censorship.

Why?

If I was gay I would be offended by his protrayal of gays as decadent, superfical, pompous morons.

[The Idler]

Why?

If I was gay I would be offended by his protrayal of gays as decadent, superfical, pompous morons.
If you were gay in Ukraine you wouldn't be allowed to watch Bruno so you needn't worry about being offended.

[Robocommie]

Oh, come the fuck on everyone. How about all of you watch Cohen's biography or try reading anything of his background. If you have then you'll realize that he has a real political background with being an activist towards racial problems & equality. His movies are not meant to make fun of the people he plays as, but rather to open people up that he meets in his movies to see where exactly they feel when confronted with people like foreigners, gays, prostitutes, etc. Hell, this is the guy who got RON PAUL, the guy who claimed he was SO FOR GAY RIGHTS, & got him to go on a screaming rampage by calling "Bruno" a queer god knows how many times. His movies are meant to show people the true racism, the true phobias that are still very well around in this country. So, no offence to those who know what I'm talking about, but to the others, fuck off & get a background check on things before you go on a hate rampage about it. In other words, stop being right-wingers!

You know man, I would normally be on your side in this, but what do you have to say in regards to the article Khad posted about how humiliated and demeaned the people of the town of Glod felt?

Baron-Cohen called them whores and animal fuckers, strapped a dildo to a man's arm when he had no idea what it was, demeaned them and their dirt-poor village, and then paid them shit wages - 3 fucking pounds sterling?

It's a disgrace, man.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Meh, I laughed.

[khad]

I missed that. That is pretty fucked up. It is exploiting people, pretty fucking disgusting.

I have to say though, you have put me in a position where I am not inclined to agree with you after your response to my post. Maybe you should try being a little more polite with your posts if you are trying to convince people of something.
Well, I assumed that you read it, since it was the first response in the thread.


Against the advice of human rights organisations, Ukraine banned Borat and Bruno, the latter for its depiction of "homosexual scenes, sadism and asocial behaviour that could harm public morals". Borat was banned in Russia for its scenes of naked men wrestling and potential to offend religion.

Under these circumstances leftists should be offering critical support against conservative government censorship.
What a great example of misdirected liberalism. It was officially not allowed in theaters in Russia primarily due to its potential to incite ethnic hatred. Because, you know, there are actual Muslims in Russia from the Caucasus and Central Asia who face REAL discrimination and violence.

What a concept. I support this decision 100%.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

you should agree with whoever is right, regardless of the way they said something or their attitude towards you
If marx was a pedophile id still think marxism was the right poilitical system

[Wanted Man]

If you were gay in Ukraine you wouldn't be allowed to watch Bruno so you needn't worry about being offended.

So?

(Sorry about the one-word posts in this thread, but I'm really failing to grasp the point here)

[The Idler]

So?

(Sorry about the one-word posts in this thread, but I'm really failing to grasp the point here)
Leftists should defend absolute freedom of speech (i.e. opposition to state censorship) no matter who is offended.

[khad]

Leftists should defend absolute freedom of speech no matter who is offended.
The rights of immigrants facing violence trump your liberal libertarian free speech rights. Western "human rights" organizations are less than worthless.

[Wolf Larson]

He's an elitist prick. He likes to come over to the States, poor Eastern European areas, and other places where he knows he's going to find fodder for his outrageous skits.

Bu of course, rich yuppie liberal love his stuff and think he's a comedic god.

We need to start a [rhetorically] militant anti liberal faction. Purge the liberals from our ranks [without violence of course]. I'm always jumping the gun on this though , I have liberal paranoia ;) These days, with Obama, I feel like we've all turned into liberals. This isn't just my imagination. It's real dammit! I cant breath! GARRR! I gotta get out of here! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irNKHSbKqL8&feature=related

[Palingenisis]

Leftists should defend absolute freedom of speech (i.e. opposition to state censorship) no matter who is offended.

Are you serious?

So in an actual case of civil war you would happily allow counter-revolutionaires spread their flith?

Do you not understand that the situation is class against class? Kill or be killed? What planet are you living on?

[Palingenisis]

Leftists should defend absolute freedom of speech (i.e. opposition to state censorship) no matter who is offended.

This isnt a debate about who is more nice....This about a struggle for power...Do you have any idea what things are like when the gloves come off even slightly?

You are a liberal and not a socialist.

[Palingenisis]

The rights of immigrants facing violence trump your liberal libertarian free speech rights. Western "human rights" organizations are less than worthless.

Talk about saying the obvious...Unfortunately some "comrade" cant see the obvious.

[RadioRaheem84]

I dunno, British humor tends to be either self-effacing or at least extremely self-conscious and insecure, and I find that hilarious. We're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you
I've noticed this too. Why do they always portray Brits as so severely insecure? John Cleese made a parody of Superman as a Brit and he grew up totally insecure and self-effacing.

Is there something about the British upper crust culture that I don't know about? I've met several posh Brits at my college and while they were rather snobbish, you could tell they were really insecure. It was just obvious. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/biggrin.gif

[scarletghoul]

British comedy seems to involve laughing at people more than laughing with them, unlike in America when a lot of comedy is just someone saying a joke for us to laugh with him. Perhaps thats a reflection of the snobbiness and/or insecurity in our culture, that we just want to laugh at those less fortunate rather than lowering ourselves to their level by laughing with them. I dunno

[RadioRaheem84]

British comedy seems to involve laughing at people more than laughing with them, unlike in America when a lot of comedy is just someone saying a joke for us to laugh with him. Perhaps thats a reflection of the snobbiness and/or insecurity in our culture, that we just want to laugh at those less fortunate rather than lowering ourselves to their level by laughing with them. I dunno

Maybe. We're taught to win the room over and gain friends/contacts, not enemies.

Where does that insecurity come from though? I remember when my gf was stopped in an airport at Heathrow and the lady checking her bag asked her her age and she responded, 25. The lady looked peeved and joked "you don't look older than 16". My gf thought that was kind of weird to say, and felt it was coming out of insecurity. Not to mention watching Bridget Jones and other British films that just have these extremely insecure characters in them.

[RadioRaheem84]

Some British humour is clever and subtle, at other times it's pretty crude. In many cases, it's both at the same time. Americans should not be ashamed of their culture or their humour, they're fine. America has a lot of great working-class cultural heritage, that is unfortunately often co-opted at home, and ignored abroad.

I don't understand Anglophilia. I appreciate a lot about Britain and its culture, but I don't get the sheer obsession with it. I study English, and some classmates have adopted ridiculously posh British accents. Those are going to be utterly unhelpful when talking to most ordinary English-speaking people, both in England and other countries.

Anglophilia is really ridiculous among the international students I dealt with in school. Many of them came from posh backgrounds in the third world and would complain about American being crass and vulgar day and night, and how the UK was so posh and it's culture didn't allow for people with sandals to walk into a restaurant or something trivial. I really think they just liked the way class culture is really envident and enforced there where as in the US it is less so. They hated the fact that many people didn't know their class.

This is a good discussion though. I've always wanted to talk about how the media enforces class through humor. Borat is really one example of how elitst comedians get away with mocking others in the effort of "improving" race relations.

[brigadista]

the insecurity comes from loss of empire

[Die Rote Fahne]

Are you serious?

So in an actual case of civil war you would happily allow counter-revolutionaires spread their flith?

Do you not understand that the situation is class against class? Kill or be killed? What planet are you living on?

"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters." - Rosa Luxemburg

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Jack Dee is the greatest British comedian ever

"This is a british passport, you dont show it to security officials you slap them aside with it, out of my way johnny forigner"

What are my reasons for visiting Imperialism OK

HAHA his skit on kendal mint cake is fucking great too. :)

[manic expression]

"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters." - Rosa Luxemburg
And freedom of that sort is not always desirable. In fact, it can be fatal. Do you wish to enable the distinct destruction of freedom and progress by blindly giving everyone the opportunity to do so? In the end, which do you value more, an abstract concept or the well-being of millions?

Plus, it's just as reasonable to argue that opposition against progress is not freedom at all.

[khad]

"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters." - Rosa Luxemburg
So Teabaggers are the true force of freedom? Yeehaw! :lol:

[Glenn Beck]

"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters." - Rosa Luxemburg

Uh lets see what do I have in this here bag of rejoinders...hmm... here's a one liner consisting of a quote without any context

oh god where did I leave my argument I knew I packed something substantial in here that has something to do with the actual point being discussed

Oh well I guess I'll just post the one-liner, nobody will notice the difference

[Robocommie]

And freedom of that sort is not always desirable. In fact, it can be fatal. Do you wish to enable the distinct destruction of freedom and progress by blindly giving everyone the opportunity to do so? In the end, which do you value more, an abstract concept or the well-being of millions?

This kind of talk tends to seriously worry me, because it's the exact same kind of logic used by fascists to curtail civil liberties and haul Left-wingers off to prison camps.

The minute we start justifying the curtailing of civil rights of an unpopular group, no matter how much they deserve it, we set a precedent for the exact same thing to happen later to another clique or group just because they've become politically or socially unpopular.

[Palingenisis]

So Teabaggers are the true force of freedom? Yeehaw! :lol:

I find this talk of abstract freedom de-contextualized from the actual world around us which is one of the struggle between classes completely joining up with the idealolgy of the ruling one.

"we note the fact that the so called rights of man, the droits de l'homme as distinct from the droits du citoyen, are nothing but the rights of a member of civil society, i.e., the rights of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community."

Karl Marx 1844.

[Robocommie]

You are a liberal and not a socialist.

You know, I'm actually not in support of complete, unquestioned free speech at all costs myself, but I read people saying this on Revleft all the damn time and I really think it's lame and presumptuous. If there is ONE thing I have learned in my time on Revleft is that there is very, very little ideological purity in the radical left and I have yet to find one person here whom I agree with 100% of the time - and yet every time some people run into someone whose opinion they disagree with, they boldly denounce them as NOT socialist and in fact a liberal!

It's ridiculous. There's multiple ways of looking at things within the broad appellation that is Socialism, and nobody here is the Commissar for Socialist Thought, capable of marking down which is proper and which is heresy.

[Palingenisis]

This kind of talk tends to seriously worry me, because it's the exact same kind of logic used by fascists to curtail civil liberties and haul Left-wingers off to prison camps.
.

Fascism is the iron fist of the dictatorship of capital beneath the velvet of "democracy"..So surely we must be the steel punch of the working class when needs be? You are seeing things in a "moral" and not a "political" light.

Sometimes its kill or be killed.

[khad]

and yet every time some people run into someone whose opinion they disagree with, they boldly denounce them as NOT socialist and in fact a liberal!
What they really mean is that the person in question is expressing views from an idealist and not a materialist viewpoint. It often plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie.

In this instance, it is absolutely madness to release a film that has the potential to incite violence both by and against already oppressed immigrants. That's an example of bourgeois free speech rights trampling on the human rights of the oppressed.

[Palingenisis]

What they really mean is that the person in question is expressing views from an idealist and not a materialist viewpoint. It often plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie.

In this instance, it is absolutely madness to release a film that has the potential to incite violence both by and against already oppressed immigrants. That's an example of bourgeois free speech rights trampling on the human rights of the oppressed.

Bourgeois free speech rights go out the window when the rule of capitalist economic relations are seriously chalenged.

[RadioRaheem84]

Yes, it's true. The ruling class always use idealistic rhetoric to win the working class. Christopher Hitchens has literally turned into an idealistic liberal bourgeoisie pundit by dropping the Marxist materialist perspective in favor of being a total liberal tool.

[Robocommie]

What they really mean is that the person in question is expressing views from an idealist and not a materialist viewpoint. It often plays into the hands of the bourgeoisie.

In this instance, it is absolutely madness to release a film that has the potential to incite violence both by and against already oppressed immigrants. That's an example of bourgeois free speech rights trampling on the human rights of the oppressed.

Okay, I can sort of see where you're coming from. Like I said, free speech at all costs is not my thing and I've found myself in many an argument over it in the past. But where do we draw the line? Is it purely where the issue becomes one of idealism and not materialism? Meaning that speech should be free except where it's demonstrated to be doing harm?

[Palingenisis]

Yes, it's true. The ruling class always use idealistic rhetoric to win the working class. Christopher Hitchens has literally turned into an idealistic liberal bourgeoisie pundit by dropping the Marxist materialist perspective in favor of being a total liberal tool.

The fundamental issue comrade is power..Who has it? Us or them?

Thats the way that they understand it as witnessed by history.

[Robocommie]

Fascism is the iron fist of the dictatorship of capital beneath the velvet of "democracy"..So surely we must be the steel punch of the working class when needs be? You are seeing things in a "moral" and not a "political" light.

Sometimes its kill or be killed.

Well, yeah, and I'm not going to apologize for seeing things in a moral light. I'm a Socialist because I'm sick and tired of seeing the human race suffer in the endless variety of ways it can all for the benefit of a select few.

Seriously, sometimes there will be a need for a violence, but it's really important to be able to recognize the need for restraint and moderation, and avoid self-aggrandizing rhetoric like "steely fist of the proletariat."

[La Comédie Noire]

In this instance, it is absolutely madness to release a film that has the potential to incite violence both by and against already oppressed immigrants. That's an example of bourgeois free speech rights trampling on the human rights of the oppressed.Do you really think it has the potential to incite violence? Has media done this before in Russia? (I'm seriously asking, I'm not disagreeing with you.)

American Humor is about suppressed anger and being extremely petty about things. Like Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm. It's also about the facade of politeness we put on, I was once told people in Europe will just straight up tell you you're doing something wrong while American's will find a way to sugar coat it. It really shows in how much we censor our media.

[khad]

Do you really think it has the potential to incite violence? Has media done this before in Russia? (I'm seriously asking, I'm not disagreeing with you.)
Throw protests from Muslims together with Russian Neo-Nazi gangs. Do the math.
http://robert-lindsay.blogspot.com/2007/08/russian-neo-nazi-beheading-video.html

It'll make the Danish cartoon controversy look like a walk in the park.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy)

[Wanted Man]

Leftists should defend absolute freedom of speech (i.e. opposition to state censorship) no matter who is offended.

Why? Why is this "absolute", why is this a priority?

I don't think this should be "absolutely" defended at all. Where I live, the sale of "Mein Kampf" is banned. Perhaps the left should stop what it's doing at the moment and start mobilising against this "state censorship" because of the need for "absolute freedom of speech".

The reality is that the ideas of "freedom of speech", "human rights", etc. within capitalism are selectively applied justifications for bourgeois class rule. "Freedoms" and "rights" within capitalism have a class content; surely this can be seen clearly by the dominant position of corporate power in the "free press". Does this need to be spelled out? As if everyone who doubts the "absoluteness" of this is some horrible person who wants to censor everything.

Oh by the way, whenever "rights" come up, I can't help but post this video (the part after 4 minutes is relevant here):

hWiBt-pqp0E

[manic expression]

This kind of talk tends to seriously worry me, because it's the exact same kind of logic used by fascists to curtail civil liberties and haul Left-wingers off to prison camps.

The minute we start justifying the curtailing of civil rights of an unpopular group, no matter how much they deserve it, we set a precedent for the exact same thing to happen later to another clique or group just because they've become politically or socially unpopular.
I understand that, it worries me too, but only because revolutions are serious matters. We (as revolutionaries, or revolutionaries-in-training, in my case) differentiate ourselves from reactionaries through our means and our ends. Our means are just, for we apply suppression only under the principle of the right to self-defense (fascists, on the other hand, burn down government buildings and blame it on other people). Our ends are just, for obvious reasons to everyone here. If we stay true to these principles, we cannot be labeled as anything other than progressive.

I didn't say that suppression was something to be taken lightly, I think it should be the last resort, and avoided whenever possible. But allowing reactionaries clear opportunities to set up their coup de grace "because of freedom" is self-defeating.

Remember, it's "by any means necessary", not "by any means desired".

By the way, on edit, adhering to "kill or be killed" is not in opposition to morality. If you ask me, our struggle is ethical if it is correct, and correct if it is ethical.

[Outinleftfield]

Borat was very revealing. It shows the ignorance of Americans because real people in the movie actually took his character seriously and don't realize they are being fooled. At the rodeo he talks about how "gays are executed in Kazakhstan"(not true as far as I know) and the guy there says that that's what he'd like to see happen in the US. That shows how bigoted some Americans are and that they just don't talk about it openly, just with people they perceive as holding the same opinion. Another revealing thing is how he could talk openly in a gun shop about wanting a gun for jew and how he could talk openly about a number of other things most people in this country would see as bigoted or backwards and people either agreed or they at least didn't act outraged. This shows how some people are willing to accept things usually rejected as bigotry or backwardness in the name of multiculturalism (or possibly other reasons i.e. "politeness" or commericialism(the gun shop owner probably didnt care just as long as he got a gun sold)) instead of speaking out.

Of course if you watch it thinking the whole point of it is to exaggerate and criticize the cultures of eastern europe or muslims you're going to think it's bigoted or at least very stupid. But that's not the main point. The movie's main point was how ignorant many Americans are, how bigoted many Americans are, and how accomodating other Americans are to bigoted, ignorant people.

EDIT:

I noticed a lot of comments on free speech but couldn't decide what to quote. Here's my take.

If we try to put limits on speech because some of it is reactionary then someone will have to be given the right to decide what that is. Humans are not perfect and do make mistakes so even a perfectly dedicated revolutionary might wind up banning non-reactionary, progressive speech. And then that's not even a guarantee. We could easily get corrupt people in power who twist meanings and arguments to throw good people in jail. You wind up with Stalins. Even when this power is taken to a less extreme extent i.e. banning expressions of prejudice or support for fascism it can be used against progressives. Civil rights supporters in Europe have sometimes been taken to court over alleged racism against whites just for pointing out white privilege. Any power given to the state to help the working class can be turned around and used as a weapon against it.

Another problem is preference falsification. Speech can be enforced against but thoughts can't, so we shouldn't even make it illegal for people to openly support fascism. If we do that then all those people will just keep their opinions secret. The problem with this is that a large part of the population, even a majority could hold fascist opinions even in a communist country and nobody would know because everyone would be lying to each other about their opinions. Then, suddenly something happens and one person comes out about how they really feel prompting more and more people to come out and in just a short time you get fascism. Timur Kuran talks about preference falsification and how a sudden break away from preference falsification is behind most revolutions in "Private Truths, Public Lies".

Its much better for people to talk about how they really feel openly so their opinions can be confronted and dealt with. We shouldn't even shun fascists as evil. We should try to educate them and show them why what they believe in would lead to evil things. A society where true public opinion is suppressed is like an individual who suppresses his true feelings, eventually the bottled up feelings explode.

[Dimentio]

Yes, that is a way to see it. But why go to a Roma village in Romania and practically fool the population there into making asses out of themselves?

[manic expression]

I don't know Outinleftfield, I see where you're coming from, but making fun of working-class Americans because no one ever taught them the geography and history of central Asia doesn't sit very well with me, either. Sure, there's something to be said for satirizing the lack of world knowledge in the US, but it's not like those people asked to be ignorant about Kazakhstan. Making fun of college graduates who think Sweden is Switzerland might be one thing, but laughing at people who never had access to a decent education? I don't know, it rubs me the wrong way.

But I might be able to get over that, I guess. What I can't get over is lying to oppressed and impoverished people, humiliating them in front of millions, paying them nothing for it and then lying to the media about who they are. That village in Romania just wants to live with a little dignity...to see someone make money off of publicly spitting on them is despicable. Personally, I'm ashamed that I ever laughed at Cohen's nonsense.

[danyboy27]

i think its pretty legit condemn this, and its also pretty legit to condemn many anti-semitics movies made by nazi germany, but i strongly oppose to any form of ban regarding video and audio material, regardless how rude and offensive they are.

Action can and should be taken to minimize the amount of profit and publicity the author will gain, but banning the media itself is, i think, a bad idea.

[Robocommie]

I think Outinleftfield made a very eloquent defense of the importance of free speech, but I'm also with manic expression about the Romanian village. To me, free speech isn't even an issue when it comes to Glod, the way Cohen treated those people is fucking disgraceful.

[Guerrilla22]

Against the advice of human rights organisations, Ukraine banned Borat and Bruno, the latter for its depiction of "homosexual scenes, sadism and asocial behaviour that could harm public morals". Borat was banned in Russia for its scenes of naked men wrestling and potential to offend religion. Borat was also criticised as anti-American specifically the "Red States" by right-wing reviewers in the US. Under these circumstances leftists should be offering critical support against conservative government censorship.

One would think human rights organizations would have something better to do than to defend hollywood movies. I'm not going to defend something as racist and as moronic as Borat. If certain countries decided to ban mein kampf I'm not going to jump in and defend the writings of Hitler simply out of the principle of anti-censorship.


We shouldn't even shun fascists as evil. We should try to educate them

Yes if only the victims of the holocaust would have thought of this. Sit down and talk with the fascists and reason with them, surely that would have worked.

[danyboy27]

One would think human rights organizations would have something better to do than to defend hollywood movies. I'm not going to defend something as racist and as moronic as Borat. If certain countries decided to ban mein kampf I'm not going to jump in and defend the writings of Hitler simply out of the principle of anti-censorship.

and if it would be Das capital, from Marx?

[Guerrilla22]

and if it would be Das capital, from Marx?

Obviously that would be different. I'm saying we simply shouldn't jump to defend material that is racist in nature simply out the principle of anti-censorship. If certain countries want to ban Borat then good riddance, society isn't going to be at a loss because of it.

[#FF0000]

Uh yeah this isn't even about free speech at all are you guys stupid?

Lets put it in a way some of you would understand.

Imagine there is a new kid at school! And he's from a foreign country! And he doesn't speak english very well.

Is it fucked up to pull some humiliating prank on him? Then put it on youtube? Or make tons and tons of cash off of the video?

Yeah.

[Little Bobby Hutton]

The worst thing about the Bruno film apart from the fact he tries to make Gay men look like shallow, moronic, immoral idiots, is the way he ridiculles the palestinians and blatantly exploits the genocidal hegemony the west and zionist isreal are carrying out.

I fucking hate that zionist piece of shit.

[Outinleftfield]

I don't know Outinleftfield, I see where you're coming from, but making fun of working-class Americans because no one ever taught them the geography and history of central Asia doesn't sit very well with me, either. Sure, there's something to be said for satirizing the lack of world knowledge in the US, but it's not like those people asked to be ignorant about Kazakhstan. Making fun of college graduates who think Sweden is Switzerland might be one thing, but laughing at people who never had access to a decent education? I don't know, it rubs me the wrong way.

Its not just workers though. This guy fooled a Senator into thinking he was really from Kazakhstan. He should've known better. That part really made me laugh. Everyone knows that its not just Americans who have no internet access (which in this day and age is really the only excuse for not knowing these things) that don't know these things. In high school there was a student who thought Connecticut was a city in Massachusetts.


But I might be able to get over that, I guess. What I can't get over is lying to oppressed and impoverished people, humiliating them in front of millions, paying them nothing for it and then lying to the media about who they are. That village in Romania just wants to live with a little dignity...to see someone make money off of publicly spitting on them is despicable. Personally, I'm ashamed that I ever laughed at Cohen's nonsense.

I agree its shitty that Sascha Baron Cohen lied to that village. Still you can't see that in the movie. In my opinion he should apologize to the village and make everyone there rich. However, this action behind the scene didn't change the appearance, quality, etc. of the film. I'm not going to pretend not to enjoy something just because of things I know about that went behind the scenes. I can condemn how Cohen treated those villagers and still enjoy the movie. Even the most evil people sometimes produce good things. My self finds it funny and for good reasons(the messages about the problems with American culture and society and honestly because of some of the slapstick humor). To choose not to find it funny because of something hidden, something not in the movie would be to suppress my self with my ego. A person's ego is not their real self. The ego is like a policeman in your head that keeps your real self from showing. Ego domination or self-repression helps capitalists and the state dominate our lives, because makes us more suspectible to control by the ideological state aparatus.

Knowing what went on has made it harder to enjoy the beginning of the movie. But hasn't effected my enjoyment of the rest of the movie.

[The Red Next Door]

Anglophilia is really ridiculous among the international students I dealt with in school. Many of them came from posh backgrounds in the third world and would complain about American being crass and vulgar day and night, and how the UK was so posh and it's culture didn't allow for people with sandals to walk into a restaurant or something trivial. I really think they just liked the way class culture is really envident and enforced there where as in the US it is less so. They hated the fact that many people didn't know their class.

This is a good discussion though. I've always wanted to talk about how the media enforces class through humor. Borat is really one example of how elitst comedians get away with mocking others in the effort of "improving" race relations.

What wrong with sandals? people's feet need to breath. Plus i don't mind looking at someone feet. :D

[The Red Next Door]

Fascism is the iron fist of the dictatorship of capital beneath the velvet of "democracy"..So surely we must be the steel punch of the working class when needs be? You are seeing things in a "moral" and not a "political" light.

Sometimes its kill or be killed.

But we are not talking about fascists, we are talking about some cheapo bourg comedian, who I had like before hearing about this.

[The Red Next Door]

Throw protests from Muslims together with Russian Neo-Nazi gangs. Do the math.
http://robert-lindsay.blogspot.com/2007/08/russian-neo-nazi-beheading-video.html

It'll make the Danish cartoon controversy look like a walk in the park.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy)

I can't find any words for this, I had to look away. This was JUST FUCK UP. FUCK UP I TELL YOU.

[RadioRaheem84]

I think that Baron Cohen represents that liberal sentimentality that's very Euro-centric and thinks of other cultures as backwards and in need of Western guidance. It's especially coming out of Northern Europe these days, as well as Southern Europe.

[Wanted Man]

I don't know Outinleftfield, I see where you're coming from, but making fun of working-class Americans because no one ever taught them the geography and history of central Asia doesn't sit very well with me, either. Sure, there's something to be said for satirizing the lack of world knowledge in the US, but it's not like those people asked to be ignorant about Kazakhstan. Making fun of college graduates who think Sweden is Switzerland might be one thing, but laughing at people who never had access to a decent education? I don't know, it rubs me the wrong way.

I think the whole "let's laugh at stupid Americans" thing is silly at any and all times. Asking an American about the capital of Switzerland or Slovenia is like asking a European about the capital of North Dakota or Iowa. In the latter case, I'm willing to bet that neither workers nor college professors would know or care, so why should Americans know or care about European trivia?

[Little Bobby Hutton]

Didnt this fuck say that the palestine isreal conflict was over millitant islam and not land, this is what leads to jewish people being wrongly and hideously treated, like in the palestinian doc on channel 4 the kids who are orphaned are scared of "The jews", it leads to ignorance and people supporting isreal because they think palestine hates all jews.

[danyboy27]

Uh yeah this isn't even about free speech at all are you guys stupid?

Lets put it in a way some of you would understand.

Imagine there is a new kid at school! And he's from a foreign country! And he doesn't speak english very well.

Is it fucked up to pull some humiliating prank on him? Then put it on youtube? Or make tons and tons of cash off of the video?

Yeah.
i understand what you mean, but i am still uncertain about banning stuff.

From an historical perspective, it would be ridiculous to ban former nazi and soviet propaganda movies, it would be ridiculous to ban stalin writting or even hitler writting.

howdo you decide what is acceptable and what is not?

[bailey_187]

Maybe it would still have been racist, but what if Ali G just made up a country to do the Borat thing in?

I mean, most people hadnt heard of Kazakstan before. For example there was a Kazakhstanian kid in my school, before it came out he was called "Russian Ali", after Borat come out everyone called him "Kazak Ali" (the country was added before Ali to distinguish him from other Ali's - a bit racist looking back now i guess)

I guess it would still be racist in some ways though to make up a country as it would still play on western chauvanistic views of "backward asians" etc.

[#FF0000]

howdo you decide what is acceptable and what is not?

It shouldn't be banned for the content but for how it went about getting that content.

Violence in movies isn't bad in and of itself. If they use special effects to make it look like someone got their head exploded or something then good for them, who cares.

But if they actually make someone's head explode it's kind of different.

Especially if they only pay them 3 euro for it.

The point is, on top of being incredibly insulting, it was also hugely unethical to take advantage of those people like that. They didn't agree to it and got humiliated. It's really more about slander and defamation and public humiliation than it is about censorship.

[danyboy27]

It shouldn't be banned for the content but for how it went about getting that content.

Violence in movies isn't bad in and of itself. If they use special effects to make it look like someone got their head exploded or something then good for them, who cares.

But if they actually make someone's head explode it's kind of different.

Especially if they only pay them 3 euro for it.

The point is, on top of being incredibly insulting, it was also hugely unethical to take advantage of those people like that. They didn't agree to it and got humiliated. It's really more about slander and defamation and public humiliation than it is about censorship.
i understand, but then again, there are ton of footages of how the nazi mutilated and killed jews, ton of video footages of war, crimes and other horrible nasty things that happened trought history.

we could also ban those things, but that would litteraly be a denial of what happened back then.

i agree that its un-hetical to let people make money out of it, but there are many way to curb and undermine the profit made out of this movie without banning it, for exemple stop movie theater from showing it.

[Die Rote Fahne]

And freedom of that sort is not always desirable. In fact, it can be fatal. Do you wish to enable the distinct destruction of freedom and progress by blindly giving everyone the opportunity to do so? In the end, which do you value more, an abstract concept or the well-being of millions?

Plus, it's just as reasonable to argue that opposition against progress is not freedom at all.

If your movement has strong support, why fear a minority in opposition?

You take away the freedom to dissent, then you take a necessary part of the idea of freedom and you allow for other "non-desirable" freedoms to be taken away.

[khad]

i understand what you mean, but i am still uncertain about banning stuff.
This is really a misunderstanding of the situation. The Russian government merely ruled that Borat could not be shown in theaters. There was no "ban," just a restriction, so the liberals need to stop whining. The Russian state has nowhere near that amount of power.


i agree that its un-hetical to let people make money out of it, but there are many way to curb and undermine the profit made out of this movie without banning it, for exemple stop movie theater from showing it.

That's what the Russian government did, so stop complaining.


If your movement has strong support, why fear a minority in opposition?

You take away the freedom to dissent, then you take a necessary part of the idea of freedom and you allow for other "non-desirable" freedoms to be taken away.
Yes, Muslim immigrants so DOMINATE Russian society that they have nothing to worry about with a Zionist fuck inciting hatred against them.

[manic expression]

If your movement has strong support, why fear a minority in opposition?
Because "strong support" didn't save the Communards from being butchered by Versailles, or Luxemburg from being shot and thrown in a canal. Because "strong support" doesn't stop a reactionary from pulling a trigger, from organizing a coup, from destroying socialism. Because politics doesn't revolve around "majorities" and "minorities", and anyone who knows history will tell you the same.

If anti-socialists are maneuvering into a position from which to launch an attack, are you going to sit there until they strike the first blow? The moral and pragmatic decision is to take action, to suppress those who are attempting to sabotage the march of progress. Anything less is self-defeating and immoral.


You take away the freedom to dissent, then you take a necessary part of the idea of freedom and you allow for other "non-desirable" freedoms to be taken away.
Freedom means, at least in part, the freedom to live in a peaceful and harmonious society, no? If that is the case, then freedom is unattainable without the revolution, and the revolution is unattainable without coercion and suppression. Why do you hate freedom?

[khad]

Because "strong support" didn't save the Communards from being butchered by Versailles, or Luxemburg from being shot and thrown in a canal. Because "strong support" doesn't stop a reactionary from pulling a trigger, from organizing a coup, from destroying socialism. Because politics doesn't revolve around "majorities" and "minorities", and anyone who knows history will tell you the same.
The irony of a Luxemburgist parroting that idealist dogma is utter madness.

Let's all guess what Rosa Luxemburg would say if we brought her back from the dead.

[danyboy27]

This is really a misunderstanding of the situation. The Russian government merely ruled that Borat could not be shown in theaters. There was no "ban," just a restriction, so the liberals need to stop whining. The Russian state has nowhere near that amount of power.
.

i get it, but i am not a liberal...

[Revy]

Borat was offensive in several ways, I thought. The character itself existed before the film. I first saw him while watching the MTV Europe Music Awards (yes, we get to see that here too lol). It was so ridiculous to see someone claiming to be from Kazakhstan as a "joke" imply the country was full of pedophiles. And the movie was all about how Kazakhs hate Jews with a passion. See also his musical performance "Throw the Jew down the Well". I don't see how it's so great to make Kazakhs look like racist, sexist, homophobic, viciously anti-Semitic Nazis? Sure, Borat made a lot of people from America look ignorant but the way it portrayed the Kazakh people is so out of line.

[gorillafuck]

When I was 13 (somewhere around there) I thought Borat was funny, I'm ashamed of that. It really is racist filth. What he did to that Palestinian man and that Romani village are really, really sickening.

[Die Rote Fahne]

You people who condemn the right to dissent are no better than those who condemn any other rights.

The idea that you can take one MAJOR right away and not fall down the slippery slope of authoritarianism, is absurd.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There's no denying the man is funny. I don't have some deep-rooted politically charged guilt every time I laugh at one of his sketches. I don't feel it is my duty to judge comedy solely on its political value.

However, we should be aware that the likes of Cohen, with his money and his team of arseholes, are not 'gods', and are going to places like Kazakhstan and being somewhat condescending towards Kazakhs and their culture. I think that is our duty - not to stop laughing because his humour doesn't fit our ideological preferences, but simply to be aware of the man behind the comedy, and not to elevate Cohen the man to a deitified level, but to simply praise Cohen the comedian, if that is what floats your boat.

[Die Rote Fahne]

You people who condemn the right to dissent are no better than those who condemn any other rights.

The idea that you can take one MAJOR right away and not fall down the slippery slope of authoritarianism, is absurd.

I like how this, according to khad, is equal to me picking on immigrants.

No, I think anyone who does pick on immigrants, for being immigrants, should get a smack upside the head, but not by the state, by the immigrant.

[freepalestine]

ZheYqoKtt60
lets just hope sascha doesnt get hit by a bus...

[Outinleftfield]

I think the whole "let's laugh at stupid Americans" thing is silly at any and all times. Asking an American about the capital of Switzerland or Slovenia is like asking a European about the capital of North Dakota or Iowa. In the latter case, I'm willing to bet that neither workers nor college professors would know or care, so why should Americans know or care about European trivia?

But his behavior is so outrageous and yet they never suspect he's not for real.

Besides it's not that hard to learn every country in the world. I knew that since I was in Kindergarten(though they didn't go over it there I learned it at home looking at a computer atlas). It's really easy to memorize. Capitals on the other hand I don't remember every single capital offhand but I do know most of them.

That might have more to do with the focus of the educational system though. In Europe they probably spend more time on global geography and even more time on their own geography than Americans do on either global geography or American geography. For what ever reason the educational establishment in Europe considers a knowledge of world geography including country names and capitals to be more important the educational establishment in America does.

I think this reflects elite attitudes. America is the wealthiest, most powerful country in the world with a long held belief in "American exceptionalism" so America's elite have such inflated egos they don't care to know what's going on in the rest of the world and even don't care much about what's going on in other states or even outside their own homes. They're absorbed in their own wealth and materialism. I'm sure the European elite suffers from the same inflated self-image, but they're aware of American power and this humbles them enough that they consider knowing what's going on in the world (and in their own countries) to be more important than American elites do.

[Devrim]

I think the whole "let's laugh at stupid Americans" thing is silly at any and all times. Asking an American about the capital of Switzerland or Slovenia is like asking a European about the capital of North Dakota or Iowa. In the latter case, I'm willing to bet that neither workers nor college professors would know or care, so why should Americans know or care about European trivia?

I knew the capital of Iowa, but not North Dakota. I agree that there is something wrong with the whole "let's laugh at stupid Americans". I don't think that Americans are any stupider than anyone else. America is a very insular country where people aren't encouraged to look outside.

On the capitals thing, I once sat in a bar in the Czech Republic with some Americans arguing the same thing. Of course they knew their own country. Unfortunately for them some Czechs challenged them on this. We then split into three teams to write down the fifty states of America. The Czech team won, getting a very impressive 49. My team the other Europeans got what I considered a respectable 47. The America team, which also had the most members got a frankly disappointing 37.

Is it a measure of intelligence? No, not at all. I think it probably suggests something about a very insular culture though, where many people don't look beyond their own state even.

Devrim

[Barry Lyndon]

I am so glad that this issue was brought up in this post.

I hated Borat when it first came out in theatres back in high school.Being of part Arab descent, I probably felt more offended then others by his obvious vulgar stereotypical characterization of a Muslim man being sexist, filthy, backward, anti-Semitic, etc etc etc. And the fact that he takes a page from Micheal Moore in his method, but instead of embarassing the rich and powerful, he attacks the ignorant and weak working class pisses me off. When I told my classmates that I saw the movie as racist and classist, they blew me off like I was some sort of party pooper. I was horrified to see that across the board in newspapers and magazines, the movie got fawning reviews, lauding it as a masterpiece of satire. I mean, what did Cohen do, suck all their cocks??? I basically don't trust movie reviews at all, except as some sort of negative indicator- if the bourgeois reviewers really hate it, it might be good, but if they love it, stay away.

I knew about the story of the Gypsy villagers that he exploited, but it is only now that I found out about the Palestinian man being defamed in 'Bruno'. The thing that really angers me about Cohen is that in both cases he obviously went out of his way to defame these people and humiliate them for his own aggrandizment. I mean, it takes effort to go to some remote Rumanian village(where they are many miles away from any cinema and are unlikely to find out the truth-although they apparently did anyway). He actually must really despise the poor and oppressed to go to such lengths in order to denigrate them. He is not just a bad comedian, he is a bully and a sadist.

Edward Gibbon, in his masterpiece The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, noted that a telling sign that Rome was a decaying society was when its art and theatre became nothing but guady and sick sensationalism pandering to base instincts, posing unconvincingly as creativity(for instance, the Romans took Greek tragedies but had people actually get killed in them, or had little girls getting raped by jackasses as entertainment at halftime between gladiator fights). Borat is a similar sign of the decadence of rotting American capitalism- a vaudeville show of racist ministrely, kicking the poor in the teeth, exhibitionism, displaying of feces, and such, and the public laughs and applauds. And pays. And the engines of Capital whirr on.

[Robocommie]

(for instance, the Romans took Greek tragedies but had people actually get killed in them, or had little girls getting raped by jackasses as entertainment at halftime between gladiator fights)

Is that for real?

[Barry Lyndon]

Robocommie: Is that for real?Yeah, I swear I'm not making that up. I read it in this book called 'The way of the gladiator' by Daniel P. Mannix, which draws on accounts by Roman historians. The Romans actually had trainers, 'beastiarii', who not only trained wild animals to kill, but also to rape.
A empire in decline is not a pretty sight.

[Robocommie]

Yeah, I swear I'm not making that up. I read it in this book called 'The way of the gladiator' by Daniel P. Mannix, which draws on accounts by Roman historians. The Romans actually had trainers, 'beastiarii', who not only trained wild animals to kill, but also to rape.
A empire in decline is not a pretty sight.

Training an animal to rape, talk about a fucked up job description.