M.I.A.’s Hypocrisy Problem
It’s no wonder when a celebrity represents herself publicly in ways different from how she actually lives. Celebrities sell an image as their primary way of making money. This is even true of music celebrities who have a blurrier distinction between their onstage personas and their actual selves. So for a Hip-Hop star to rap about the ganster life, even if he grew up in less-than-impoverished circumstances and now lives in a mansion in Connecticut, is not so much hypocrisy as it is good business sense.
But what happens when the celebrity uses her status to speak out about certain controversial causes, perhaps giving implicit support for terrorist groups and showing a general lack of understanding for the issues she sings about? What happens in these cases is that someone writes a rather unflattering portrayal of the artist in the New York Times Magazine. And such an article has appeared about pop firebrand Maya Arulpragasam, who performs under the name M.I.A.
In the article, author Lynn Hirschberg presents a very fair view of Ms. Arulpragasam, describing her as talented and innovative. But she also presents another side of the entertainer, who is engaged to a very rich son of a music mogul (the two also have a son together), despite her claims of underground roots and criticisms of other artists for “selling out.” And Ms. Hirschberg points to M.I.A.’s lyrics, which support the now-defunct rebel group, the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, who fought using guerilla and terrorist tactics, including the use of child soldiers. Ms. Hirschberg quotes Ahilan Kadirgamar of the Sri Lanka Democracy Forum: “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.”
The article is long and the overall characterization of Ms. Arulpragasam is not flattering. Unsurprisingly, she was not happy with the article. In a bout of petty revenge, she listed Ms. Hirschberg’s mobile phone number on Twitter, leading the reporter to get thousands of calls. This kind of reaction should be supported by a strong argument, hopefully explaining why M.I.A.’s lyrics seem to support the Tamil Tigers and why Mr. Kadirgamar’s interpretation of M.I.A.’s politics are wrong. So far, no such argument has emerged.
We can look to some comments from Ms. Arulpragasam in Rolling Stone magazine to get a better perspective of where those lyrics come from. Unfortunately, these comments are not flattering either. Speaking to Rolling Stone contributing editor Jenny Eliscu, Ms. Arulpragasam responded to Ms. Hirschberg’s article: “If I want to be really political, I’d have to sit down and study you know. But I feel like my approach to politics is [that] I never said I’m smart and I read this and I’m making assumptions. But why aren’t I allowed to write about my experience? Why can’t I say, ‘Oh my God, my school got shot by the government?’ I can’t say that, yet they can do it. But I want to be able to still say it somewhere. There needs to be some sort of an outlet for people like me.” These comments seem to confirm Mr. Kadirgamar’s characterization of her politics as “simplistic.”
Admitting you aren’t particularly smart when it comes to politics seems like an honest strategy, especially when coupled with the idea of speaking from personal experience. But Ms. Arulpragasam’s comments start to ring false due to her hollow claims of censorship: “I can’t say that, yet they can do it.” Who says that she can’t talk about a school being shot up by the government? Censors from her own country? The American government or entertainment industry? Plenty of people have made careers for themselves out of talking about the problems with governments, from the Holocaust to Somalia/Islamic Republics to Iran to Sierre Leone. Why should it be any different for Ms. Arulpragasam and her onstage persona M.I.A.?
The answer is that it isn’t any different, that Ms. Arulpragasam isn’t smart, and that she will do whatever she can to get publicity. Her shtick was wearing thin on her second album, even as it was well-received by critics; she needs attention to promote her upcoming third album, which seems destined to disappoint, especially if she continues to attack reporters. Ms. Arulpragasam would do well to retire to her Los Angeles mansion and decide what she wants to do with her life. She can try to draw attention to the problems facing her home country of Sri Lanka, or she can express her ignorance and invariably hurt her cause.
Related posts (automatically generated):