There was an interesting story in The New York Times about Mongol, the Kazakh film about the life of Genghiz Khan. Of course, they cannot resist superfluous Borat references, so I didn’t read it at all. But more than a few bloggers said it was interesting, so I’ve posted the link here without further comment.
Except this. Is it possible to mention Kazakhstan in an American newspaper (or The Economist) without mentioning Borat?
I fear—quite deeply, mind you—the answer is “no.”
This post was written by...
Joshua Foust – author of 1801 posts on Registan.net.
Joshua Foust is a Fellow at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal: Selections from Registan.net. His research focuses primarily on Central and South Asia. Joshua is a correspondent for The Atlantic and a columnist for PBS Need to Know. Joshua appears regularly on the BBC World News, Aljazeera, and international public radio. Joshua is also a regular contributor to Foreign Policy’s AfPak Channel, and his writing has appeared in the New York Times, Reuters, and the Christian Science Monitor. Follow him on twitter: @joshuafoust
For information on reproducing this article, see our Terms of Use
{ 8 comments }
I don’t know why, since I haven’t seen any of the films nominated, but I was equally glad that neither the Russian entry [12] or the “other” Russian entry [Mongol] (Kazakhstan, Russia, Germany, etc etc were involved).
As for relating Borat to Kazakhstan, it’s like not mentioning Turkmenistan without mentioning Turkmenbashi or Orlando without mentioning Disneyworld: people are given what they expect.
I would add that irritating as the reference might be, Mongol is one context in which it is hardly superfluous to mention Borat. The film, while not made in direct reaction to the release of Borat, performs the function of readjusting the notion of Kazakh identity among outsiders.
The NYT writes to the lowest common denominator. In other words, they treat their readers like idiots. They feel Borat is a standard to which people can relate regardless how unrelated is really is.
I’ve never seen it, though. I can’t really say if it’s unrelated. I wouldn’t be surprised, however. The NYT isn’t about accuracy.
Peter is right; the mention of Borat here makes sense within the article. The mention in the title feels like overkill – but if it pulls in more readers for an article on Central Asia then I’m not going to complain.
As for treating readers like idiots: I’m all for it. It’s much easier for us to skip a few paragraphs of background than it is for somebody with no knowledge of Kazakhstan to figure out the backstory for herself.
There is that. But the question here is the validity of using Borat as a basis for their explanation. You can’t describe an Apple using a DOS computer.
It’s rather ironic to see this as a topic….especially from a blog writer who takes overt pride in having invented ‘Stomotologbashi’ and ‘Uncle Berdy’. Were these monikers created to make the topics/people more interesting, or just to show the whimsical side of his erudition? Perhaps the readership of this blog are also being ‘talked down to’…
It’s much easier for us to skip a few paragraphs of background than it is for somebody with no knowledge of Kazakhstan to figure out the backstory for herself.
The people who run The New York Times are chauvinists who attempt to publicize their supposed superiority by denigrating others.
In this case, they have insulted Kazakhs, but the NYT chauvinism is always the same.