Jayasinghe,

You may not be aware of this, being a Sinhalese Buddhist and all, but there is a long history in your country of the Sinhalese majority repressing the Tamil minority.

Why do you think they're fighting for independence in the first place?

Yes, the LTTE have used some truly awful tactics - including suicide bombings.

But, the Sri Lankan Army has waged a race war against the Tamil community in the North and East of your country - even going so far as using rape of Tamil women and girls as a tactic of war.

This is quite well documented - all you have to do is look it up.

M.I.A. herself is a REFUGEE from Sri Lanka - why do you think she and her family had to flee?

At this moment, the Sri Lankan Army is waging what can only be described as a genocidal war against the Tamils in the far north of Sri Lanka - they've even gone so far as to bombard hospitals and refugee camps with heavy artillery.

In light of those facts, is their any wonder why so many Tamils - in Sri Lanka, in India, in the Gulf states, in England, in Canada and here in the USA, support the LTTE?

For the record, although M.I.A.s dad was an LTTE supporter, she herself does NOT support the LTTE.

She DOES support autonomy and self determination for her people, the Sri Lankan Tamils and she DOES oppose the genocidal war currently in progress in Sri Lanka.

And can you blame her?

You don't even have to be Tamil - or even South Asian - to see the justice in their position.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the LTTE signed a cease fire with the government of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in 2002.

Here's the full text :

http://www.peaceinsrilanka.org/peace2005/Insidepage/Agreements/agceasefire.asp

Guess who violated it?

Hint - not the LTTE!

So who's the terrorists?

And who wants peace?

I think another facet of MIA's slightly controversial lyrical pot-stirring is that that's how most rock stars build their reputation on their earlier records. I think her first album definitely had a greater number of politically charged tunes, but most of those all but disappeared on Kala, either because she just omitted those topics or because her superb, challenging rhythms just drowned them in a sea of insignificance.

But back to the first point, look at Boogie Down Productions' first record Criminally Minded, or the Clash's debut LP. While the latter is a strong armed, anarchistic rabble rouser, the former is all but a call to arms for disaffected black youth. But fast forward to BDP's next record and what is its most memorable cut - "Stop the Violence." And while the Clash never stop stirring the pot, they may has well added Bob Marley as a fifth member for all their reggae-inspired feel-goodery.

So maybe MIA's comments are just rep-cementing disses with little purpose than to prove what a bad ass she is (And she sure as hell is a bad ass). Once she realizes her own power in pop music culture, she may switch to a more peaceful message, but I guarantee it'll be no less raucous and aggressive than before.

Don’t tell me that you’re not equally paradoxical.

Well said.

I think Gregory basically summed it up. This article is pretty flawed. MIA is raising awareness for the ongoing genocide happening in Sri Lanka against her Tamil people. I can assure you it's not a myth, because if you check today's news, the human rights watch have just published a report accusing the Sri Lankan government of shelling into Tamil civilian areas.

Despite what the girl who wrote this article may think... MIA has a fan base of MILLIONS, and she is doing good by raising awareness against the genocide of her people.

Thank you for your rational commentary. I was really not fond of Samhita's gross simplification of the NY Times article (which at no point called MIA a terrorist) and other people's critiques of MIA. It seemed more of knee jerk response, which she gave away in her last statement "I just really love her (MIA)." Like you said, plenty of us love Davis, the Dalai Lama, etc., but that appreciation for what they do in some realms does not mean we should give them cart blanche for other actions or statements they make. These people are human like the rest of us, and we can appreciate MIA's music and the stand she is taking for women and people of color in a very sexist industry, but that doesn't make her perfect or immune to scrutiny.

I like MIA, a lot. I like a lot of things and people I wouldn't want to line item sign off on everything in their life. And yes, I thought the article was off as well. This my girl right there.

There is a lot to be said in this discussion and being raised on one side of any conflict is going to impact your interpretation. Clearly M.I.A. is not going to be neutral in her analysis, but the fact that this dialogue is happening at all means that she has successfully brought awareness to an issue that was largely unknown in places like the U.S. (I suspect this is true elsewhere, but I can't really speak for other countries). Now that the situation has entered public conscious, people like the original poster can weigh in with their perspective.

I see you there Ted Leo reference, be it intentional or unintentional.

Gregory - In a comment I wrote to Samhita's original post, I said pretty much what you did (except that I have done actual academic research on this) - that the tamils have legitimate grievances based on being marginalized over many years by the majority. But our history dates back further than that - we've been living together for many hundreds of years, a history which I know better than you, so I'll thank you to check your assumptions on what I do or do not know about our history. Being Sinhalese and Buddhist doesn't mean that I suddenly go brain dead about Sri Lanka's history.

Not everyone against the LTTE suddenly blindly jumps on the government's bandwagon. Some of us are looking to bridge gaps and find another way.

My post was about my personal reaction to MIA and the way the press has covered her. I think your comment was not only a thinly veiled personal attack under the guise of righteou rhetoric, it was also misplaced. It must be nice to see the world so black and white, but I just can't do that.

Danny - just a fact checking thing - the HRW report accused both sides of the conflict: "Human Rights Watch also called on the LTTE to allow civilians to leave the war zone, stop shooting at those who try to flee to government-controlled territory, and cease deploying forces near populated areas."

Thanks everyone for their comments - even you, Gregory.

I kind of don't understand all the love for the LTTE that I'm seeing here. I'm a fan of MIA as well, but the LTTE is notorious for its use of child soldiers (the rehabilitation of whom is my thesis topic). I don't know enough about the situation in Sri Lanka to cast judgment on their motives, but I think judgment should be cast on their methods. Whether or not a genocide is going on, the use of child soldiers is a war crime and a crime against humanity. The LTTE aren't innocent freedom fighters. Whatever the Sinhalese majority is doing, whatever deplorable tactics are being used against the Tamil minority, the use of child soldiers is never justified. So let's not oversimplify this issue.

I love MIA and I really liked this article too. lots to think about. thanks for sharing your insights.

I am sorry for it, but the word "terrorism" has no meaning anymore. Maybe it should, and maybe we should insist on using it consistently and with an actual definition, but right now - in this particular day and age - I cannot use that word, in post-2001 the word does not mean "an organization that commits acts of terror on a regular basis" (by which both the Sri Lankan state and the LTTE would be labeled as such) but "an opponent to the states that are friendly to the rulers of US/Europe et al". That is not an acceptable definition.

And the function of the word is no longer to differentiate between certain acts but to shut down discussions, it is a demonizing word that means support for the oppressive states and their wars and no-way-out for the groups given this stamp. In post-2001 a group labeled as "terrorist" means that it is not worthy of being talked with, it means it's views are no longer valid, it means that no discussion is allowed, it means no peace-talks. To label a group as "terrorist" is a declaration of war and an end of debate - informally and formally / legally.

When that is said, I agree with you, that LTTE is an organization that has committed acts of terror (violence against civilians in order to spread terror). In this proper use of the word, I agree with you. I have said why I shiver at your using the word because in these times it has a completely different meaning and function. You want the parties to talk - but using this word, unfortunately, today has the opposite function ... "we do not talk with terrorists" means there can be no peace except through annihilation, and that only the states / the existing powers have legitimacy.

If we recognize that acts of terror do exist and have a proper meaning. If we want a rational discourse. Then we would have to say, honestly, that the Sri Lankan State AND the LTTE have committed such acts. Then what? That would actually be a good idea in the first place: to acknowledge responsibility and harmful acts that happened is probably a necessity for future positive relations. Both parties have done acts in violations of the Geneva convention (which is for states - it is very hard for groups without state-power to fight with the same standards as whole armies can) etc and terrorized civilians - let's acknowledge that, and then start talking and see what we can do for the future, to move on.

Unfortunately that is not the function of this label anymore, and therefore I hesitate to use it and I shiver when it is used, because it has the opposite effect now. To use the word "terrorist" today means: no peace, no talks, no acknowledgment of state terrorism and oppression, no solutions and no debate.

The Sri Lankan state has, as so many other states (that is an inherent part of nationalism) systematically oppressed a cultural/ethnic minority. Countries that used to follow the refugee-convention like Canada and Western Europe once sort-of did (not meant as a praise, just to point out that they don't even assume anymore) can testify to that: we have lots of Tamil refugees who proved they were indeed persecuted as an ethnic group (trust me - it is not like the European states would not deny them asylum if it was not proven beyond all legal loopholes).

So, the Tamils have as a group been oppressed and denied justice. Does this legitimize "terror" and the LTTE? That is not a simple question! Because it does indeed mean that there was just cause for rebelling. Not by any means, but what means where available? If fighting back is justified but we say "but you can only do it with the same means as the occupying/oppressing state" to a people who has no such means, then aren't we rather hypocritical in our so-called defense of the cause? In fact we would in effect be supporting the state and the military. It is hard and complicated to be a group that is oppressed and does not have the same means as the oppressor.

This does not mean that everything this group does is then justified. Of course not! It just makes it very complicated if one wants to have a world of absolutes, which is what the label "terrorist organization" creates. The very label is in it's modern definition a blanket support for the powers-that-be and an eradication of the oppressed group AND their cause from public discourse. Using the word "terrorist organization" today - no matter how correct it may be - makes it impossible to really acknowledge that oppression exists and is wrong, because it is the oppressed are always labeled as "terrorists" and beyond debate.

I can also testify that, in my experience, rather many Tamil refugees in Europe kind-of support the Tigers - not in a everything-they-do way, but in the way they they are a symbol of their cause, they fight the reason they had to flee. This may be wrong and naive and simplified, but things probably tend to get more simplified when you are further away from the conflict (likewise I can testify that there are more Hamas-supporters amongst Palestinian refugees than among Palestinians in Palestine, and I think the reason is, that for the refugees the organization becomes a symbol of their struggle rather than a complicated real thing).

I think the Western discourse proves that - we are mentally far away from every conflict and see only absolutes. In real life, there are organizations that commit acts of terror at various degrees and sometimes oppressed people do wrong things and states are terrorists and that is all very complex. The US/EU "terror lists", laws and discourse do not allow this recognition of reality. This "new world order" (I know that is an abused term in the US, used by nazis and stuff) basically says: States (except "rogue states" of course, defined by the US government) are all okay and can do whatever they want, whereas if you are not a state, all you can do is write petitions while you get killed. Now - killing and terrorizing civilians is wrong! Of course it is (when both parties do it). But the "terror"-label today just doesn't help if what you want is for the killing to STOP. Today that word only works as a support for the status quo and war.

This is why I really don't like the use of that word. It is a dangerous word. It blocks reason.

PS. I really apologize for the long post!

In this discussion most people are at least acknowledging that oppression exists and is not legitimate, even though there is differences about what forms of resistance are acceptable and what should be done about it. Imagine if a discussion like this had been possible about Palestine among US liberals... including this site.
Sigh ...

This is a good debate, I wish everybody will keep it in mind and apply the same-types of arguments consistently in similar scenarios elsewhere.