We eat our young.

By way of background, Mathangi “Maya” Arulpragasam (Tamil: மாதங்கி ‘மாயா’ அருள்பிரகாசம்; born 18 July 1975), better known by her stage name M.I.A., is a British songwriter, record producer, singer, rapper, fashion designer, visual artist, political activist, and artist of Tamil Sri Lankan origin. She’s released two albums in the U.S.: Arular (2005) and Kala (2007). She’s been nominated for two Grammy awards and an Academy Award for her song on the soundtrack of the movie Slumdog Millionaire. She started her record label, N.E.E.T. in 2008, and she continues to make visual art, clothing, and videos. She’s releasing another (sort of eponymous) album soon–the date is now July 13, 2010.

The title of her first album (Arular) comes from the name her father adopted once he became a member of Eelam Revolutionary Organisation of Students (EROS), a political Tamil group that worked to establish an independent Tamil Eelam.

Born in Sri Lanka, M.I.A. and her family (sans papa) re-located to a council estate in London (via India) and lived as political refugees. She earned an art degree, and embarked upon a career as a fine artist (working in a graffiti-inspired style) and fashion designer. After a commission to provide art work for an album by Elastica, M.I.A. video-documented the band’s tour. According to one account, the awesome electroclash artist Peaches encouraged her to tinker around with music and she produced a demo tape with many of the songs that would later appear on Arular (M.I.A. has said she was tinkering around on a synthesiser during a vacation in the Caribbean). She promoted the first album with an exhausting festival tour, halted in 2006 by censorship efforts and U.S. visa issues. Before the release of her second album, Kala (named after her mother), M.I.A. did an interview with Pitchfork in which she addressed her frustration with media coverage of her art. She essentially hijacked the interview and directed it toward a preconceived argument.

If you read the interview–and it is compelling–she focuses on a few issues that are pretty important, and the tin ear of the interviewer is a little shocking. First, she focuses on the patriarchical approach of music journalists, whereby women’s successes are credited to their male collaborators. In M.I.A.’s case, she’s upset that Diplo is getting the press attention. She says,

And if I can’t get credit because I’m a female and everything’s going to boil down to ‘everything has to be shot out of a man,’ then I much rather it go to Switch, who did actually give me the time and actually listened to what I was saying and actually came to India and Trinidad and all these places, and actually spent time on me and actually cared about what I was doing, and actually cared about the situation I was in with not being able to get into the country and not having access to things or, you know, being able to direct this album in a totally innovative direction.

The second issue she zeros in on is the fact that she’s from Sri Lanka. For example, she says:

And I just find it a bit upsetting and kind of insulting that I can’t have any ideas on my own because I’m a female or that people from undeveloped countries can’t have ideas of their own unless it’s backed up by someone who’s blond-haired and blue-eyed.

The third, related issue is her experience as an immigrant. She makes the astute observation that much celebrated music (she notes hip-hop as an example) is the work of immigrants, but she argues they are typically third generation immigrants. As sociologists know, the third generation is a pretty interesting one–we typically find the loss of language and culture that accompanies the assimilationist tendency among second generation immigrants boomerangs into an attempt by third generation kids to recapture these traditions. In her mind, the fact that she managed to produce innovative music within her lifetime marks an achievement or difference with other immigrant styles. She says,

You know, hip-hop came out of having the right stuff, and you had to have a slavery and you had to have a war and you had to have all these things in order for Sean ‘Puffy’ Combs to be singing about fucking Bentleys. You had to have that journey. That takes a long time, and in America it took three generations for that to happen. And for me to come from a mud hut and to be here and shouting in front of a disco, it took me 15 years. And that’s all I represent. Everything boiled down is that, that’s all it is. If I get it back to Africa, this is what I’ve accomplished.

[Not to take away from her point, but it isn’t a fair summary of music history. Doing archival research for my book on Music Genres I discovered a fair number of examples of first-generation musical innovation, including a range of folks, from Cleveland polka players to Caribbean reggaeton artists.]

But the issue journalists have focused so much upon is her father’s participation in the so-called “terrorist” attempts to free the Tamil people from a genocide enacted against them by the Sri Lankan government. M.I.A. has sought to make it clear that she was raised without her father’s presence, and that it was only later and through a general engagement with the politics of poverty that she came to engage with the Tamil cause. (In this video with Tavis Smiley, she makes an excellent point about the conflation of “Tamil Tiger” (read: terrorists) and Tamil people (read: civilians). Such a conflation is often useful when seeking to perpetuate a genocide.) [I should also note that she has said her father actually works for the Sri Lankan government and has claimed an affiliation with the Tigers only to “talk crap about” M.I.A.]

The point she makes again and again is the value of art as a way to fight the politics of invisibility. And she means, as I’ve tried to point out above, the invisibility of women, of Africans, and of immigrants and the poor.

Her antagonism of the press certainly issues from these concerns. The Village Voice fed the flames in early 2009 by challenging the New York Times for not providing responsible coverage of the aid ship “Mercy Mission to Vanni”, which was blocked by the Sri Lankan government. From the Voice:

one hopes the New York Times, say, might actually write a story about this, clearing up the counter-allegations and perhaps using some of its vaunted access to inquire as to why the government won’t let aid through…instead of taking another set of chintzy, ad-hominem allegations.

Although there’s been a recent stir–which I’ll get to in a minute–M.I.A. has long faced challenges to her authenticity. She’s not “Tamil enough” because she became a refugee as a child and only returned in her adulthood. She’s not “poor enough” to speak for the poor. While such challenges have largely been confined to comments on Pitchfork pages and music blogs, the NYT Magazine has seen fit to publish them, in the form of a feature piece on the artist by journalist Lynn Hirschberg. In the piece, Hirschberg’s theme is M.I.A.’s hypocracies. Let me give you a few examples:

1. Three days later, her son, Ikhyd (pronounced I-kid) Edgar Arular Bronf­man, was born. His father is Maya’s fiancé, Ben Bronfman, son of the Warner Music Group chief executive and Seagram’s heir Edgar Bronfman Jr. In one of many contradictions that seem to provide the narrative for Maya’s life and art, Ikhyd was not, as she had repeatedly announced he would be, born at home in a pool of water. As usual, she wanted to transform her personal life into a political statement. “You gotta embrace the pain, embrace the struggle,” she proclaimed weeks before Ikhyd was born. “And my giving birth is nothing when I think about all the people in Sri Lanka that have to give birth in a concentration camp.”

In fact, the baby was delivered at Cedars-Sinai hospital. The artist claims this was driven by the wishes of her Bronfman’s parents. Nevertheless, clearly, M.I.A. is a hypocrite. (?!?) You give me a dollar for every woman in America who wanted a natural childbirth but ultimately decided to deliver in a hospital using pain medication, and I’ll be able to retire. And while we’re on the topic…hasn’t the history of 20th century contentious politics shown all of us that the personal is political? Since when it is even possible to conceive of a “transformation” of the personal into the political? I mean, sweet minty jesus, we’re living in an age of “Ethical Consumerism.” Our water bottles and our dependence on fossil fuels and our fixation on reality TV–these are all personal, political issues, and widely seen as such. The Natural Childbirth movement started in the 1940s, and is now seen as not only a legitimate political and philosophical stance but one legitimated by personal dispositions toward medicine and childcare. And it isn’t a “contradiction” when we drive our car to the store, or buy a water bottle, it’s a compromise.

In the next paragraph, we hear M.I.A. detail the death threats made against her and the baby. She described the concern and warnings she’s received from her record company, her husband and his family. Then, the author writes,

2. Maya’s tirade, typical in the way it moved from the political to the personal and back again, was interrupted by a waiter, who offered her a variety of rolls. She chose the olive bread.

Oh. Olive bread. She must be exaggerating the seriousness of these death threats if she eats olive bread.

3. Even though her father was not a Tiger, she also used tigers on her Web site and her album artwork and she favored tiger-striped clothing. This was not an accident. By the time her first album came out, the Tamil cause was mostly synonymous with the cause of the Tamil Tigers. Maya, committed to the cause, allied herself with the group despite its consistent use of terror tactics, which included systematic massacres of Sinhalese villagers.

So her father was not a Tiger, and most Tamils are not Tigers, but M.I.A. is “allied with the cause” because she invokes the group using images, and this “alliance” makes her a terrorist. Hum. That’s…well, that’s stupid.

4. [This one’s my favorite] In the press, Maya was labeled a terrorist sympathizer by some; others charged her with being unsophisticated about the politics of Sri Lanka. “People in exile tend to be more nationalistic,” Kadirgamar said. “And Maya took a very simplistic explanation of the problems between Sri Lanka’s Sinhalese government and the Tamils. It’s very unfair when you condemn one side of this conflict. The Tigers were killing people, and the government was killing people. It was a brutal war, and M.I.A. had a role in putting the Tigers on the map. She doesn’t seem to know the complexity of what these groups do.” But many of her fans didn’t listen too closely to her lyrics, concentrating instead on the beat, the newness of the sound and her own multiculti, many-layered appeal.

Kadirgamar works at the Sri Lanka Democracy Forum. He thinks M.I.A.’s understanding of politics is nationalistic because she’s in exile, and he thinks this nationalism causes M.I.A. to depict the genocide/war issue rather simplistically. The author makes no comment on this, then adds an additional critique of M.I.A.’s audience–they don’t listen to the lyrics, anyhow. No evidence is provided to support either claim. No lyrics are presented. No artwork described. No audience members interviewed. Even though the consequence of this narrative is to depict an artist as a terrorist sympathizer and her fans as dupes. Putting aside for a moment the shoddy journalistic chops at play, I think we can all agree that the burden of proof should be higher when one spends several thousand words in the Paper of Record to suggest an artist is a terrorist sympathiser. Also, I think you might be moved to document the massive appeal of her music, more than just attributing it to sensationalism and “innovation.” Without a careful attention to craft and intention, we’re left with the same cypher we get out of almost all news accounts of political dissenters–they’re style and no substance, they’re naive and uneducated, they’re driven by blinding religious commitments…none of these really illuminate the world we live in; they mainly serve to reassert the status quo, in a relatively violent dismissal of those who think differently.

Just in case you think M.I.A. was exaggerating the tendency of the press to credit men with women’s achievements, here’s one:

5. Like Madonna, Maya is not a trained musician but instead a brilliant editor, able to pick and choose and bend the talents of others to fit her goals.

Now she’s a terrorist and a thief and opportunist.

Also reaching back to the Pitchfork interview, let’s see how the journalist treats the Diplo collaboration:

Diplo said, “I made her sing.” He was a producer of her first album as well as “Paper Planes” and was also Maya’s boyfriend for several years. “Maya is a big pop star now, and pop stars sing,” he said. “For me, making this record wasn’t easy. In the past, we were a team. But Maya wanted to show us how much she didn’t need us. In the end, Maya is postmodern: she can’t really make music or art that well, but she’s better than anyone at putting crazy ideas into motion. She knows how to manipulate, how to withhold, how to get what she wants.”

Great, now she’s a shrew. “Manipulative bitch” is the sentiment here. No comment is made on Diplo’s comments.

So now we get to the heart of the matter; here’s the hypocrisy, as Hirschberg sees it:

What Maya wants is nearly impossible to achieve: she wants to balance outrageous political statements with a luxe lifestyle; to be supersuccessful yet remain controversial; for style to merge with substance. “If you want to be huge, you have to give up a lot,” Michelle Jubelirer, Maya’s longtime lawyer, told me. “Maya vacillates between wanting to be huge and maintaining her artistic integrity. That’s her dilemma.”

To any of you that read music criticism, this sort of sentiment should be old hat. Was it really all that long ago when the last round of “Bob Dylan is a plagiarist and a sell out” happened?

M.I.A. has claimed that it was a set up–that the author’s intention before writing the piece was to trap her into admitting her own privilege. Because the article included a mention of M.I.A. eating a “truffle-flavored french fry,” some have taken to describing the incident as “Trufflegate.” After an accusatory twitter post, M.I.A. posted an audio clip from the interview on her website, one which demonstrated the journalist had misquoted the artist in order to misrepresent the reasons why she lent her support to the Tamil people. The editor at the Magazine published a note, clarifying that two parts of the interview had been combined into a single statement. M.I.A. next posted a song (“I’m a Singer”) about the incident on her blog (“Lies equals power equals politics. I’m a singer. I never said anything else. I never lied to you.”). Although I can’t find evidence of it now, the word was the M.I.A. posted Hirschberg’s phone number on the internet.  Hirschberg has responded to the incident in The New York Observer, calling it “infuriating and not surprising.” “It’s a fairly unethical thing to do,” she said, “but I don’t think it’s surprising. She’s a provocateur, and provocateurs want to be provocative.”  New York Magazine got into the fray, siding with Hirschberg.

At the end of all this, what have we got? We’ve got a musical artist being accused of hypocrisies that issue from “our” sense of the right kind of blood to spill (real political artists don’t order truffle fries); from “our” sense that most successful women have a strong man doing the real work; and from “our” sense that terrorism shouldn’t be discussed in more nuanced terms, and never subject to parody. I have to admit, I think M.I.A. is on to something.



Filed under Uncategorized

10 responses to “We eat our young.

  1. Peter

    Here is the MeFi thread where I jumped in. I’m constantly amazed at how often the NYT gets that infuriating tone, when they do feature articles. It certainly is easier to embrace the cynical rather than to embrace the completeness w/contradictions intact of someone like MIA.

    I dig your post.

  2. freedomfries

    Whew, you said you were on it! Where to start? Oh, never mind. Exactly. OK, maybe two things: First, on Truffle-gate, the tastiest bit is that Maya’s recording (apparently) reveals that _Hirschberg_ orderded the damn frenchy-fied fries! (Hirschberg has cried uncle on this point.) Second, Hirschberg has a history of this sort of thing. There was her famous takedown of Mrs. Kurt Cobain way back in the innocent year of 1992…

  3. AlbiRacer

    File mine under “it’s not so complicated” – my inability to give much of a shit about any of the MIA “controversy” boils down to what seems most symptomatic of the current music/arts/culture moment: she is married to a Bronfman! Kind of hard to take the whole thing seriously when the financial freedom of old money backs it up. The choice bit from the NY Times profile: after buying their house in Silver Lake (Echo Park? whatever) they find that it is practically a commune, what with all their crazy hipster friends moving in. The solution? Buy another fucking house next door!

  4. I think the point is that we demand a weird purity from artists, from ‘political’ (or self-professed political) artists moreso; and from women artists moreso than that. And that the interview was, at the end of the day, a fuck-you snarkfest that did more to destructively simplify MIA’s world than to grapple with the interesting complexities of it. All of this almost regardless of what you think of MIA to begin with.

    And interesting to note the newly added editor’s note:

    The cover article in The Times Magazine on Sunday profiled the singer and political activist M.I.A. While discussing her efforts to draw attention to the civil war in her home country, Sri Lanka, she was quoted as saying: “I wasn’t trying to be like Bono. He’s not from Africa — I’m from there. I’m tired of pop stars who say, ‘Give peace a chance.’ I’d rather say, ‘Give war a chance.’ The whole point of going to the Grammys was to say, ‘Hey, 50,000 people are gonna die next month, and here’s your opportunity to help.’ And no one did.”

    While M.I.A. did make those remarks, she did not make the entire statement at the same point in the interview, or in the order in which it was presented.

    The part that begins, “The whole point of going to the Grammys,” up to the end of the quotation, actually came first. The part that begins, “I wasn’t trying to be like Bono,” and ends, “Give war a chance,” came later in the same interview. The article should have made clear that the two quotations came from different parts of the interview.

    You see, that’s what is called Bad Journalism.

  5. AlbiRacer

    @Peter – Fair enough on the tone of the piece – and I agree completely on the bad journalism charge for that kind of quote shifting. I couldn’t even make it through the full piece because I found it so dull, and I guess I see that as a (less offensive) form of bad journalism as well. Ultimately I think I’m just not that interested in the complexities of the whole thing, so I’ll go be grumpy about it on my own ;-). I’d rather read a piece in the Times magazine about the Tamil Tigers, not MIA’s agitprop about the whole thing.

    I listen to music for it being music (and, no, this is not a Clement Greenberg “purity” argument coming up); plenty of people I find uninteresting or annoying make music I like (although MIA isn’t one of them, I should admit). And, yeah, I do demand more “purity” from an artist who makes claims to being “political” – although I think I’d call it consistency, or the degree to which said artist avoids hypocritical sanctimony. Isn’t that what we should demand of *anyone* making “political” claims?

  6. Jenn Lena

    I vote that we make a list of all the topics that count as “political” and then a list of the things that give you a right to address them, including personal experience, asceticism, and a penis. And then I vote that we laugh at the folly of our biases.

  7. AlbiRacer

    Uh, yeah. Not arguing about who has a “right” to address “political” issues (nor what constitutes “political”), nor the correlation with penis possession. Hirschberg is an asshole and the piece is mean-spirited and fundamentally unfair, no doubt. But someone who says

    “The whole point of going to the Grammys was to say, ‘Hey, 50,000 people are gonna die next month, and here’s your opportunity to help.’ And no one did.””

    kind of asks for more scrutiny about such matters.

    You see, that’s what is called Sanctimony.

    PS – I was wrong about the Silver Lake house(s). It was Brentwood.

  8. An interesting post.

    I also read the NYT article though I must say Hirschberg went for the agent provocateur angle herself. If we take on board it was her finale for the daily, it’s clear why she wanted to court publicity with a less than glamorous take on MIA’s profile and background. It seemed to be a cheap shot by an otherwise reputable journalist. The embellished details was frankly naive.

    Whether this be owing to ignorance of the conflict in the South-Asian country itself or partiality on her behalf, it deserved a rebuttal to clarify the facts (voila, Twitter!).

    Atleast, the controversy has given attention to the real issues Hirschberg and her ilk should be writing about – the oppression and ethnic cleansing of minorities around the world – which MIA’s video, unflinchingly explicit as it is, gives long-due exposure to.

    Sadly, the (media) politics has typically deviated it from what should be the true source of conversation. Not a surprise there. This is the exact hypocrisy “Born Free” highlights in vivid detail.

    You may be interested in my post on this video:

    I think we can expect more of the same from MIA, as for Hirschberg it was a strategy that worked and backfired at the same time.

  9. Jenn Lena

    @Atticus: Thanks for your comment and link. You reminded me that I had not yet linked to the post I wrote on the “Born Free” video (and it is hidden below the web fold): https://whatisthewhat.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/more-bad-news-for-redheads/

  10. Really wonderful place to be with. Keep it up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s