Another problem is that in the absence of other organizations, in the first few days, TRO was reportedly the only group providing aid in LTTE controlled areas of Sri Lanka. I was told that TRO was both "a legitimate aid organization" as well as "something more sinister". Same issue came up repeatedly with Hindu right front groups in India as well, although for me the issue was more clear cut in that case (don't give them money).

All the same, not to delegitmize a completely valid ethical point, but I think it's more complicated in the context of our entire lives. Other issues that come up might be: paying taxes to various governments (like the US's) that have funded terrorist organizations and human rights abusers in the past (like the forerunners of Al Qaeda) as well as committed its own human rights abuses (like Abu Ghraib); giving money to the strongly homophobic Salvation Army; allowing your child to join the homophobic Boy Scouts; or listening to music on Hot 97.

Personally, I think you do the best you can with the information you can get and make honest choices based on your values. If you feel really conflicted about this, you should 1) try to find out if your assumptions about the situation are correct and 2) make an honest and healthy choice for yourself.

I don't think these ethical issues should be swallowed up by larger contextual issues.

I don't know M.I.A's experience, and I imagine that colors her position, but I can't accept terrorism as a method. I can't support the murder of innocent civilians in the name of freedom, just like I can't accept the murder of iraqi civlilians in the name of democracy. And I can't understand how these issues are largely ignored or considered peripheral by the indie media.

The Sinhalese army is certainly guilty, but the LTTE do not have clean hands:
http://www.spur.asn.au/ltteatro.htm

In the context of an insurgency, I remain skeptical of all claims made by one side against the other. It is possible that the situation occurred exactly as described. It is also possible that somebody in the government, wishing to reduce the LTTE's direct control over relief, is seeking to discredit them. There are many occasions in which insurgents will blame the government, or the government will blame insurgents, for things that turn out to be false when examined in a cursory fashion, on the ground. Given our distance from the facts, I try to remain skeptical of statements that are consistent with group interest unless I have other verification.

Why is there necessarily a dichotomy?

Does appreciation of a work of art require agreement with the opinions expressed?

Just think of Ms. Arulpragasam like great poet and fascist sympathizer Ezra Pound.

A hot, hot Ezra Pound.

I am not swayed by the fact that America lists the LTTE as a terrorist organization. The rapid branding of organizations post 9-11, seems a bit too convenient. The Sri Lankan tamils, I gather, had to face genuine oppression. But I really can't approve of their methods.

Does she endorse their tactics or does she merely support the cause? Be that as it may how cute is she in real life? Does she look like she did in the B&W picture in the New Yorker or does she look like what she looked in video?

"female suicide bombers"?..would male suicide bombers have been more acceptable?...no, but seriously, this is an interesting topic thats was actually racking my brain this weekend too; I don't have any real answers; I sympathize with the oppression of the Tamil minority, but obviously not to some of the tactics employed in their resistance. Does enjoying/consuming the products of very or even mildly political musicians, mean your supporting their causes? I don't know if that's neccesarily true. I mean there's definitely something to be said for apathetic middle class subarbanite kids, myself included, to live vicariously through radical rebellious musicians. But really, do these kids even remotely care about the reality of the politics; um, no. I mean Rage Against the Machine thrived on such an audience. In the case of MIA, shes becoming quite the darling of the liberal indie music loving set (what those kids become when they grow up); I even heard her on my favorite indie radio station, KEXP.org., just yesterday. I visited her website and read some articles, and its funny to see that most of them just gloss over the Tamil Tigers connection, oftentimes romanticizing it as a story of a child of the rebellion doing good creative things; which maybe true, even with the spin. I dunno.

ultimately, I don't think the listener has to be ideologically aligned with the artist. I wouldnt' be able to listen to merle haggard or ghostface killah otherwise. But, there should be some engagement. It doesn't have to be conclusive, but it should be beyond merely romanticizing her past.

t: Just for the record, the US State Department (under Madeline Albright) branded the LTTE as a terrorist organization around 1997 (well before 9/11)

I'm simply a poet who has recently had the chance to study in an American school, and from a purely artistic perspective, I think it's very interesting that a lot of people seem to focus mainly on the political standpoint of the art, which is absolutely fair, but, from the standpoint of craft, her work is interesting. The fusion of dappan kuthu, a very "tamil" art form and rap (pardon the political incorrectness) is interesting. Now, whether her work fits into "counterculture" and whether it is ethical to ignore the artist's responsibility in supporting human rights issues (either negatively or positively-- one man's poison..etc..you get the idea) are matters best left to those who appreciate the art (even if they are at odds with the political agenda of the work).