Clinton,

I read, and what I read is that Khazaks are offended. Why is ultimately of course their business, and you are right to say that I may only speculate as to their motives for feeling that way.

But they do feel that way. They are angry. They aren't in on the joke.

If I was in a bar and my mates were taking the micky out of someone and that someone was obviously finding their approach offensive, I would stick up for the guy on the receiving end. That's what's happening here. Sorry to spoil your fun.

LH

I totally see your point, but reading it back I find it to be quite little-hawk-centric (not "eccentric", though I'm sure that one could easily be justified at a later date).

Of course you're not offended, it's not grossly caricaturing you. You aren't a khazak.

One of the reasons that the gollywog and other black cartoon characters, figures and figurines from the early 20th century and before were considered racist, was that they caricatured black people "according to racial characteristics". There were subtle differences, but as a rule, they had that in common.

Caricatures of others tended not to focus on racial characteristics, but on clearer distinguishing features that made the individual being caricatured unique.

Borat is a blanket caricature, not just of Khazaks, but of Arabs, middle easterners, and central asians.

It is without a doubt a racial caricature.

Ali G was better as he was a caricature of a fairly laughable attitude that really does exist in the UK. I have met people as stupid as him with the same deluded sense of their own hipness, who dress like him and contrive the same accent that he contrives in all seriousness.

The austrian fashion journalist has equal value for obvious reasons. (the clip above gives an example).

But Borat is not recognizable to me as anything other than a weak racial slur.