M.I.A.'s "Born Free"

[Kevin]

Has anyone watched the music video to Born Free by M.I.A.? It's been getting attention based on its content, most notably getting banned from YouTube. It can be seen here (Note: contains violence and a small amount of nudity):

miauk.com

Some people think she made the video for shock value alone, while others interpret a message from it. I'd like to see what people here think about it.

[fartinggurl]

This video has a definate message. It's talking about genocide, which is a problem all around the world. They just happened to use red-heads in the video as an example of a minority. If you just happen to hear the lyrics, she's saying that we're born free, and should not be discriminated for being a certain race, religion, or whatever.

[Classicblast]

I get the same impression. Genocide is nothing new. Hitler's war was largely a genocidal effort to extinguish certain cultures. In the days of the crusades obviously that was centuries ago but the Christians fought Hebrews and pagans all fought each other in an effort to convert each other to their beliefs or destroy whoever they could not impress into their own stable.

Al-Qaeda is genocidal. It's not as if genocidal efforts are anything new or by any stretch of the imagination finished. John Lennon's song Imagine was made as a way of trying to prevent genocide "imagine all the people living life in peace."

"Some say I'm a dreamer but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one."


Obviously that's a nice thought and not entirely realistic but its a good message anyway.

[Slayzie]

Shock value? The movie 300 contained more objectionable content than this clip for chrissakes, and I saw that when I was 15.

YouTube's banning it outright seems rather strange to me.

[Kevin]

M.I.A. is of Sri Lankan Tamil descent, even spending her childhood there. I think this music video is a metaphor for the genocide of the Tamil people. Showing a government round up and kill a minority as arbitrary as red-headed people is representing the Sri Lankan majority and the Tamil minority.

Classic, I don't believe she sees the United States as an "evil empire". Instead, I think using United States paramilitary forces is there to bring the message home. It's asking if people would react differently to a genocide if the players involved were more familiar and recognizable.

[Classicblast]

I admire you're objectivity I definitely don't see it that way. I interpret it the way I mentioned in the last post. And it could still be a paraphrase of a paraphrase. Some people have interpreted the war on terror as the United States accusing all Muslim or protest groups of no specific government as being a nation of terror.

Obviously none of us will ever know for sure what the intent is but that's something I get from the video.

[Jason O'Lewa]

its a scary video
it has political refrence but I dont see how it should be band from youtube
even if you dont agree with the message
it is a serious message its not porn theres nudity but not for porn reasons

national geographic has nudity thats not realy inappropreate when its done that way
i dont know how I feel about the politics of the video myself but I dont think its too inapropriate for you tube
you tube has porn and actual killings

this in an enactment

[Phil]

I will comment more later. I have a restless 3 year old to attend to right now. I do want to talk about this though.

[Phil]

May 1, 2010 18:07:02 GMT -5 Jason O'Lewa said:

my dad wil probably see it more like classic sees it but he is more politics interested than I am.

Your dad must be a wise man.

You're right I do see it similar to how Classic sees it. I don't know if I'd ban it from YouTube though. This is a free society. We are founded on the idea that I may disagree with what you say but I'd defend with my life your right to say it.

I agree with Classic about the nazi connotation replacing the swastika with an American flag but otherwise having the nazi soldier approach is a protest against the American war on terror. Also wishing to imply that the war on terror is oppression of innocent people. Which I do not share that opinion.

Jason's post is somewhat part of a discussion we had at home not too long ago. Nudity isn't necessarily pornography and harsh language is sometimes just a fact of life.

That discussion in our house stemmed from a program on public television channel featuring natives in an African jungle and their cultural life style. We kind of made the kids watch it to let them see there is still a 3rd world and to become aware there are still people who live that way.

On here we get yet another example of nudity that is not pornographic.