Hirschberg also leaves out prime occasions on which M.I.A. attempted to exercise her spokesperson status—the aforementioned Tavis Smiley interview, for example, on which she used that same rhetoric of genocide (rhetoric which PBS ombudsman Michael Getler criticized Smiley for not challenging, since major human rights organizations haven’t adopted the term for Sri Lanka’s situation). As Getler noted, M.I.A. also argued against conflating the Tigers and Tamil civilians (the point Hirschberg got wrong). But she played fast and loose with details like the size of the Sri Lankan Army and the Tigers’ force.
Some would argue that such details are unimportant, and certainly, it’s hard to briefly and accurately characterize Sri Lanka. Still, in human rights reporting, detail and documentation are crucial; her inaccuracies were damaging, and also undermined her legitimate points. A couple of weeks after her appearance, the Sri Lankan official rebutting her on Smiley’s show defended the government by jabbing deftly at her inaccuracies, noting her failure to more clearly condemn the Tigers for crimes like child conscription, and suggesting that she stick to music. (Unlike Hirschberg, I don’t have nine pages: you can read Getler here.)
Instead of examples like these, which could shed light not only on M.I.A.’s effect on politics but also politics’ effect on M.I.A., the article focuses on (mis?)characterizing her lifestyle. She eats French fries? Likes olive bread? Lives in Brentwood? I don’t really care. I’m not compelled by the argument that her greatest political failure is claiming to care about people while being rich. And her monetizing artistic engagement of politics and violence is interesting, but without correctly situating that art in the context of Sri Lankan politics, the profile can’t talk substantively about that either. I’m interested in the material that shows her level of knowledge on the subject on which she claims to be a political authority. Relevant examples of her political statements abound, but Hirschberg gives us M.I.A. choosing to give birth in a hospital as an example of her not living up to a promise. Reading about Sri Lanka and talking about what she gets right and wrong would have been much harder work.
In the wake of publication, many people are talking about M.I.A’s series of reactions rather than whether the piece itself is good. She’s not always correct about Sri Lanka, but she’s absolutely right that the article is unfair. In the latest sally in the Hirschberg-M.I.A. back-and-forth, the musician scored some points by posting audio that runs counter to Hirschberg’s version of one of their meetings. But she also may be backing off being “the” voice of Tamils: her revenge track is called “I’m a Singer.” If M.I.A.’s letting go of her label, maybe Hirschberg should follow suit. This is a terrible piece of trivial journalism and not much more.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I wrote an article just as you describe -- taking MIA's statements from the Tavis Smiley Show as a launching pad to explore the conflict and put her statements in context last year in school. I thought about making an attempt to publish it but was very busy. I have to admit to some strong frustration about the fact that there is a perfectly good, serious and informative piece that is completely ignored while Hirschberg's fluff has generated a pointless and trivial discourse, just as you describe.
If you are curious about my piece, please do read it. I only wish I had written it post-conflict rather than in the final days. But hey, maybe the
NYT can fund me to update it, as one commenter suggests! http://bit.ly/dqes3K
#1 Posted by Deepthi, CJR on Thu 3 Jun 2010 at 02:57 PM
It's a slow cultural genocide - a process that predated the Tigers - something that The Times, Channel 4, countless observers and human rights experts have rightly been exposing. And your bone to pick with her, "costing her legitamate points" is that she used the word "concentration camps"?
You mean like Ellie Wiesel did when referring to Sri Lanka? Or how about Noam Chomsky? Arundhati Roy? Desmund Tutu perhaps?
Nothing you've put forward negates her views on genocide there.
Focus on the fact mass graves keep turning up there as we speak, than moronic attempts at condemning her pretty sound views.
#2 Posted by Stefanie, CJR on Thu 3 Jun 2010 at 06:44 PM
This article written in the Guardian at the time of the horrific mass killing of Tamils in 2009 says it all:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/13/sri-lanka-tamils-tigers
"The international community is dithering over the humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka because of its need to condemn rebel fighters..."
..."But if we want the crisis to stop, we've got to realise that there's no use condemning the Tigers and trying to save Tamils, because in the eyes of the Sri Lankan government, we seem to be one and the same. The hope of the civilians facing mortal harm and starvation in Sri Lanka is that the world will not watch in silence while their lives are destroyed – and will not be fooled by the constant carping about the ills of the Tigers as a justification for throwing every last grain of humanity out of the window."
Well I guess we know where those grains ended up. They dithered. 50,000+ died. What exactly has M.I.A. got wrong again?
#3 Posted by Cody, CJR on Thu 3 Jun 2010 at 06:51 PM
CJR, Thank you for this review
#4 Posted by Arunan, CJR on Thu 3 Jun 2010 at 10:19 PM
Many reporting of Sri Lanka events in the West have been 'wrong' - or or they are simple 'inadequate'.
Is it because all the restrictions in getting the true picture, non interest or the vociferous supporters of both sides all over - yet the it is surprising a more 'perfect' reporting is yet to be seen in this era.
Many precedents are being set in the Sri Lanka-Tamil theater, hope more accurate reporting will come in te future, and also the MIA-NYT interview serves as an eye opener,
#5 Posted by Dexter, CJR on Thu 3 Jun 2010 at 11:16 PM
This debate is undoubtedly good for M.I.A. The controversy is generating so much publicity at a time when she is releasing a new album that it can only be good for her.
Anyone who read the Editor's Note in the NYT would realise that they have not retracted anything in the article but clarified that some comments were not in the order they were made and were not identified as such.
M.I.A.'s references to her father's former militancy and her use of images and symbols that recall the brutality of the LTTE (The rebel group Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam who were crushed by Sri Lankan government forces in May 2009) tend to cast a doubt on her own sympathies.
Genocide has been a rallying cry of many in the Tamil diaspora who sympathised with the rebels who would like to get back at the government that crushed them.
Few of them however, have stepped ashore in Sri Lanka recently, let alone the north or the east where most of the fighting was concentrated.
It is a fact that the actions of the government forces not only crushed the rebels but rescued nearly 300,000 people who were being held hostage by the rebels in the most deplorable conditions.
The fusion of the identity of the Tamils with that of the Tigers (rebels) was not of the Sri Lanka government's making. It was one which was assiduously cultivated by the Tigers to legitimize their claim to be the sole representatives of the Tamil people. It is for the same purpose that they eliminated any and all Tamils who held opposing views. This was perhaps the greatest tragedy of the war, that almost all Tamils who could have given democratic leadership were killed from intellectual to farmer; and the others had to hide.
Visits to Madhu, Vavuniya, Kilinochchi and Jaffna less than a week ago, made clear that life is beginning to return to a semblance of normalcy. Security throughout is tight, yet relaxed. Relaxed because the soldiers who stop to question you, do so politely and courteously. Many Tamil families have returned to Kilinochchi to live in makeshift dwellings, no doubt to stake a claim to their lands and to rebuild.
While a debate in the NYT makes for good reading, the people on the ground need help and understanding as they begin to rebuild their lives. This is an area where the Tamil diaspora could make a huge impact.
Will they?
#6 Posted by Panhinda, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 01:35 AM
Vasugi. IT is really sad that you have gone all out on a limb to back this Tamil Tiger apologist, MIA. Really doesn't put you in good company.
#7 Posted by A friend, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 04:31 AM
Vasugi,
You are so deluded. MIA went on PBS and claimed genocide was taking place in Sri Lanka in hopes of furthering the Tigers' cause of trying to force Sri Lanka into a lull in fighting so their cornered leaders can escape and take Sri Lanka back to years more of war. She belittled the word genocide to save a terrorist movement from defeat. Thank you for pointing out which side of the fence you and MIA sit on.
#8 Posted by Farook, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 04:36 AM
It would be good if readers would read the whole piece rather than picking and choosing sentences upon which to base their judgement of the author before commenting.
This is a critique of sloppy journalism about a celebrity with sloppy politics.
Additionally, incessant debates about whether it is/was genocide or not only serve to cloud a very simple narrative: in its ruthless pursuit of the LTTE, the Sri Lankan state willfully disregarded the lives of its own citizens; in its futile pursuit of an independent state, the LTTE leadership held hostage thousands of people whom it claimed to solely represent. As a result, thousands of people died. Is it really so difficult to accept this?
#9 Posted by vivek, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 11:55 AM
So now it is about killing of Tamils should be called 'genocide' or not? Damn.
The fact is the Sri-lankan Gov has so far showed no concern about killing of Tamils in thousands, still thousands of people are homeless, let alone the people who have recently been evicted from home, but for more than 3 decades, the SL military has evicted people from their land/home. ie Palali area in Jaffna.
Sinhalese colonization is taking place in full swing in Tamil dominated area while keeping Tamil displaced people in the 'concentration camps'. You see buddhist temple all over the place where Tamil Tigers were in control before. No place for the forcefully evicted people, but no problem to build buddhist temple.
For me it is a genocidal war against Tamils. Let us wait till UN declare as it is. Until then you keep on quetion those who call it 'genocide'
#10 Posted by Jeeva, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 12:14 PM
Thank you for this excellent critique of MIA and journalism on Sri Lanka, Vasugi. To read about Sri Lanka and directly address its often misguiding political authorities are indeed hard tasks. To add to what vivek says, the question of genocide, fence-sitting, and name-calling only further exacerbate and polarize a very complex and enduring political problem that civilians in Sri Lanka have faced and continue to face. I want to thank you for being critical of this difficult condition and for doing it so eloquently in this piece. I only wish certain individuals commenting so thoughtlessly and rashly above would follow your cue.
#11 Posted by Kageru, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 12:14 PM
I am for one of those many in the 'diaspora' that was reluctant to embrace the term 'genocide' of Tamils - yet the new reports coming out makes me ?
But it is the Sri Lankan govt. and their supporters who primarily want to brand all in the diaspora as LTTE sympathizers and or supporters, for GoSL's own inability to be fully convinced of their 'victory' and continue to put out this claim that 'genocide' is a 'tactic' being used by 'diaspora.'
Now looking at the pace on which Rajapaksa bros and their supporters handle rehabilitation their IIFA tool in image building etc. suggests that the GoSL is very much on a path of a 'war of attrition' against Tamil society at large, if not, OK a long jump to 'genocide'.
If not how will one explain this report in www.asianews.it?
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Vanni,-northern-Sri-Lanka,-where-war-has-never-ended-18558.html
Isn't the bros and their supporters let the way the lives of the returnees be in so disarray only for a 'slow' deterioration and annihilation?
Rajapaksa bros and supporters carried out the war they did, and saw every bit of 'good' for the country to have eliminated one way or the other the number of people who were under LTTE rule for more than a decade in Vanni.
It is very evident the humanitarian operations were and are still being curtailed.
Scholars such as Prof. Francis Bolyle and Prof. Martin Shaw have written on 'rolling' genocide and how Tamil claims could become applicable there.
It was former US Sec. State Madeleine Albright who first distinguished the Sudanese campaign in Darfur from the 'volcanic' genocide in Rwanda and to be that of 'rolling' genocide.
Perhaps anther scholar could be more be a bale to see how Sri Lanka's treatment of Tamils may fall within a new category by taking a look at the past 62 years.
I thank Vasugi G and MIA for their stands. (may be for Lynn Hirschberg-NYT for dropping the ball on this matter, and the resulting limelight)
And one has to note that members of the Tamil diaspora who rose against the the diaspora in the past during the hey days of LTTE to voice against the LTTE, have earned every bit of credibility to candidly observe their findings, and their remarks cannot be simply put aside as being pro extremist any more.
#12 Posted by Earakan, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 12:32 PM
When journalists who ought to know better perpetuate the idea that being rich while caring about poverty and injustice in the world somehow makes one a hypocrite (a trope epitomized by the epithet "limousine liberal" as hurled by conservatives) then they're doing as much damage to those causes as Pop Stars who's politics may or may not be sort of questionable.
M.I.A. should certainly be taken to task for the problematic aspects of her position but she still deserves some credit for the simple reason that we wouldn't even be having a conversation about this issue if she had pioneered the idea of a truly trans-national Global Pop music that takes presents the idea of a global consciousness as its starting point. Most people who listen to her won't follow the specifics are her political stances anyway, but they will get the sense, from her music, that we should care about people in the Third World, not just out of some vague humanitarian good-will (or "charity") but because we actually share their culture. This seems to me like an actually radical and positive development. Also, she's still a hell of a lot better (musically and otherwise) than Lady Gaga who's idea of controversy and radicalism extends primarily to the act of not wearing pants in public..
#13 Posted by Elwyn Palmerton, CJR on Fri 4 Jun 2010 at 03:29 PM
MIA is a self appointed spokesperson for the Tamils. Ask Tamils in Sri Lanka about her and 95% will draw a blank. Yes, thousands of Tamils were held in camps after the war. They were initially driven from their homes by the LTTE and held as human shields until eventually they managed to flee to the safety zones manned by the military. Hundreds of Sinhalese soldiers lost their lives trying to save these Tamil civilians. When the war ended, the displaced could not be sent back to their homes until the 10000 or so LTTE cadres who were hiding among them were weeded out, identities of more than 250000 people verified, the sick and injured treated, and the roads demined. All these things have happened within a year of the war ending and civilian life is back to normal. These feats seem to be quite overlooked by the western media. As for MIA's claims of genocide: when her father visited Sri Lanka 2 years ago, fearing he would be killed by the LTTE, he sought protection from none other than the Sri Lanka defense secretary. He was given full protection for the duration of his visit. Besides, like 80% of the Sri Lankan Tamil population, her aunt lived in the south among the Sinhalese while the war was raging. Genocide should be made of sterner stuff, no?
#14 Posted by Ranger, CJR on Sat 5 Jun 2010 at 12:03 AM
Maya you Rock!!
Keep it going and don't be discouraged by these 2 cents comments. The bunch of them are just jelous of your success.
Who am I to judge about the war in Srilanka. There should be two sides to a conflict. the media only shows the government version ofthe conflict and sensor the rest coming from the Tamil side.
Maya is in a better position to see the conflict from within as a Tamil.
Cheers and all the best to you MIA.
#15 Posted by Ray, CJR on Sat 5 Jun 2010 at 03:35 PM
Like MIA cares! MIA is an amalgam of many things most of which most people do not understand. If one looks at MIA through their own limited lens they miss the big picture. And don't forget the NYT article is what it is. Just a magazine article. Not a thesis on MIA. They will come; later.
I am not young and consider myself a mature woman with an open mind. MIA's music energizes me her rage feeds me - and I find peace. The references to temple music which I never here anywhere else in pop music until MIA used them was brilliant and moving. A lot of people in comfy places cannot handle the truth of MIA's rage and sarcasm evident in her music and what she has to say.
If you have suffered, been marginalized in a white world, not accepted by those who have from "good families" and by your own community; and had to scratch your way to the dinner table for legitimacy - and been persistently refused - then you will understand MIA. If you have not observed the ravages of marginalization especially in the west, you won't get it.
I still think the NYT article was interesting. The amalgam of glamour, pop, wealthness and she downplayed the hard stuff. Still that was better than no article. I am pleased MIA has access to power now. She will not misuse it and she can have her baby anywhere she chooses. She does not have to explain herself. Different things about MIA were shed light on. But the truffled fries was clearly a manipulated piece of bullshit and MIA responded to it - the worst part of the article. Mostly the best part of the NYT article is the dialogue and comments that came out of it. Both on the NYT and even here and in other places which speaks for itself. I think unless you are an experienced specialist in pop culture with sensitivity to marginalized ethnicities - you will never fullly figure out MIA who is a contradiction of a lot of things - which is totally normal. I don't think MIA ever wanted to be analyzed and she will have the last laugh.
love her! M! I! A!
#16 Posted by Renuka, CJR on Sun 6 Jun 2010 at 02:48 PM
If you read any of the high school history books in USA, it talks about the civil war between minority ethnic Tamils and the majority Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan government. This article is doing revisionist history as though the war was between Tigers and Sri Lankan government only. I have followed this issue close enough to know that VV Ganeshananthan has an elitist Colombo centric view which is reflected in this article. M.I.A reflects majority Tamil view that reflects about 80% of Tamils. Hats off to MIA for being the spokesperson for the underdogs!!. Anyway thanks to VVG for exposing NYT article's inaccuracies in spite of her own inaccurate elitist views!
#17 Posted by Sammy, CJR on Tue 8 Jun 2010 at 09:58 AM