Sacha Baron Cohen is a racist

Liberals love Sacha Baron Cohen, because he exposed the absurdity of Republicans. Yet, they say nothing about his racism and their complicity in it. Satire doesn’t excuse routinely portraying negative stereotypes. It actually affects people. For example, Kazakh students in the US and UK were mocked because of Borat. Kazakhs have no representation at all in the west. Frankly, Cohen’s intentions do not matter. The consequences are indubitable: Borat made life worse for many Kazakhs in the west.

Furthermore, Cohen’s horrible film, The Dictator, buys into lazy and trite stereotypes that arab dictators are “maniacs.” Anyone who reads history will know that Gaddafi is not a simpleton. For most of his life, he was an intelligent and charismatic leader who saved the Libyan economy. Yet, westerners have no knowledge of this fact. All they know is that he’s a “horny maniac,” because Libyans have no standing in the west.

Satire loses its edge when the target is powerless. Libyans and Kazahks have no social capital in the west. James Franco’s film, The Interview, is horrible for similar reasons. North Koreans are only presented as fat, ugly maniacs or brain-washed goons. Unsurprisingly, Cohen mocked Kim Jong Il’s death at an awards ceremony, dressed as Gaddafi. Unlike Republicans, none of these people have a standing to be ridiculed. Cohen, for the sake of pointing out his country’s racism, will drip himself in racist portrayals that negatively affect these people. Shock value is his game, and it’s more important than Kazahks and Libyans.

Liberals will now jump on me, and they will scream that they knew Borat and The Dictator did not attempt to portray real Libyans and Kazahks. Certainly, most of you noticed, because it’s pretty obvious. Nonetheless, do you know anything about Kazahkstan? Or Libya? Have you read Gaddafi’s political treatises? Have you read about his contributions to Libya’s economy? Do you know that you’ve probably asked offensive questions to people of color? Probably not. Your ignorance is cut from the same cloth that makes Republicans look ridiculous in Borat. Borat, The Dictator, and Cohen’s recent show are praised for “showing America’s true colors,” but honestly it should be titled “only exposing Republicans.” Cohen is noticeably softer on liberals; they consume his products, after all. Yet, liberals are the ones who ask me every year whether I’m from North or South Korea. Liberals like Bill Maher make islamophobic comments all the time. Liberals are not fundamentally distinct from Republicans. They both want capitalism. They both want to impose sanctions on North Korea. They both supported the Iraq War. They both supported the Prison Industrial Complex and the racist war on drugs. The list goes on. This is the deeper problem in America — and in all western nations. The entire country is racist (ignorant), and their victims are voiceless. Borat only strengthens that ignorance. Socio-political analyst Ghada Chehade has written about this as well. 

A liberal might interrupt me now, and point out that except for Borat, Cohen’s other films ridicule “maniacal” dictators. Isn’t that better? Not really. Kim Jong Un, for example, is always portrayed as “irrational.” But, every political expert will tell you the opposite. We don’t need to coddle up to Kim Jong Un to portray the man accurately.  Yet, why does the west give him zero representation other than negative stereotypes? Why do they keep the population ignorant on US involvement in North Korea’s current state? Or Gaddafi’s achievements as a leader? North Korea has tried to denuclearize before, yet George W. Bush sabotaged sensible deals made with Bill Clinton. He then declared North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil along with Iran and Iraq, the latter of which he destroyed. Obama racked up the tension by carrying out provocative military drills near its border, which included simulating assassination and B52 bombers capable of dropping nukes. Furthermore, Obama invaded Libya, which gave up its nuclear weapons. None of these facts are ever mentioned by the mainstream media. Instead, North Korea is just portrayed as an irraitonal actor. What kind of role do you think these negaitve stereotypes play in the larger narrative?

Some might claim that it’s just “benign ignorance.” If so, why is this “benign ignorance” allowed and sustained by those who know better? Leon Panetta, former secretary of defense under Barack Obama, has openly talked about many of the things I mentinoed above: North Korea is not irrational, there is a complicated history between US and NK, and etc. William Perry, former secretary of defense under Bill Clinton, is even more sympathetic to North Korea — and he’s talked about this openly too. The US military is clearly aware of the things I have pointed out above. Yet, why aren’t these voices as emphasized as the negative steretypes? Why was Hussein suddenly demonized, despite US presidents like Reagan praising him as “great leader” in the past? Why is Gaddafi now a joke? All in all, one should be wary of ridiculing dictators who have no social capital in their country.  We should be learning more about the other. Without prior knowledge, satire becomes a blank canvas for racism and xenophobia.

Are Trump supporters morally inferior? Are Asians savages?

What does it mean to be morally superior? I think people usually mean that they hold good moral beliefs – for leftists, it could be supporting gay marriage, universal healthcare, the wrongness of islamophobia, and so on. Now if these were truly moral, then that would mean the leftist possess certain moral beliefs that Trump supporter do not.

Okay. Let’s suppose this is true. How does it make the leftist more moral? Holding certain moral beliefs doesn’t necessarily make one a more moral person, because it doesn’t guarantee the practice of moral actions based on those beliefs. A Trump supporter could hold certain truly good moral beliefs that the leftist doesn’t – for example, the leftist could be a terrible friend and the Trump supporter could possess the belief that one ought to be kind to her friends and acts according to that belief.

Now, let’s not only suppose that the leftist holds certain moral beliefs that Trump supporters do not, but also that the leftist holds more good beliefs and practices ethical actions more often than Trump supporters. That would surely make one a more ethical person, but how does that make one morally superior? It would make one a good person, because the leftist would practice moral actions more often. But, how does being a good person or performing good actions more frequently put someone in a different status or rank?

There is a moral theory that fits this kind of reasoning and it’s called the theory of Desert –one deserves more well-being if he or she is a virtuous person. This mode of thought isn’t very counter-intuitive, since we already judge others based on their virtue. For instance, if one could save Hitler or Gandhi, the answer is pretty clear. Gandhi is more virtuous; thus, he deserves more well-being. So, it isn’t controversial or strange for people to use this reasoning to condemn Trump supporters.

What bothers me is that many leftists are moral relativists – or at least they claim to be so. If one were truly a moral relativist, how can one rank a person’s virtue? How can you say that the culture of Trump supporters is inferior to that of left-wing millennial’s? If one truly believes that Trump supporters are morally inferior, then one has to subscribe to a kind of ethical framework that allows such a system of ranking. Moral relativism cannot say which culture is morally superior to another. If one truly wishes to hold onto the belief that Trump supporters are morally inferior, then one must be prepared to abandon moral relativism. This would mean opening up for discussion whether Islamic culture or Asian culture is morally inferior to Western culture. This would mean opening up for discussion the objectivity of ethics, and many things millennials hate.

I’m not a moral relativist, yet I detest discussions like, “Is Western culture superior to Islamic culture or Asian culture?” I think this kind of discussion very often carves up space for racism and bigotry. Nevertheless, I cannot see how being a moral relativist makes it any better. It just makes one avoid the discussion and hold onto an incoherent ethical framework. Gandhi is clearly more virtuous than Hitler, and I have to be able to ask the same of cultures.

I tried to appease my conscience by gazing at these cultures from an impersonal standpoint. Then, I saw that all cultures have had their periods of fortune – they all had their Golden Ages when the arts, the sciences, and philosophy proliferated. Some cultures are not able to live up to their potential due to misfortune, imperialism, and other complications. The impersonal gaze allows me to see that affluent cultures – the West – commit such horrible crimes that gay marriage and women’s suffrage appear as meager improvements. The impersonal gaze shows me how difficult it is to say which is better than the other as a whole. How can you quantify goods and atrocities?

I am glad that I cannot deem Islamic or Asian culture as inferior, but I did not get to this conclusion merrilly. By giving up moral relativism, I had to reason with the assumption that it is possible for a culture to be morally inferior. Ethics is hard, and critical thinking is unsettling. However, if one wishes to include truths or logical coherence in their ethical or epistemological frameworks, then one must bite the bullet. As Immanuel Kant once said, one must be afflicted by the restlessness of reason.