the citizen-viewer

A citizen-viewer asks why the term “Burma” is used in this space rather than “Myanmar”, the name adopted by the current regime in 1989. Since this question comes up frequently, here’s the answer — with the caveat that the whole question is only symbolic.

First, some background.

It may well be more common among people in Burma to call their country, in writing, something like Myanmar. There is also a long history of Burmese calling the country, in speech, something that sounds more like “Burma” (or Bamar), possibly because the Burmans are by far the largest ethnic group (and they would be even more dominant if you exclude the Shan, who really should have their own country).

Although the derivation of “Myanmar” is unclear, one possibility is that Myanmar and Burma are simply variant pronunciation of the same name. In neighboring countries — at least in Thailand and Cambodia — Burma has been known for ages as “Bama” or something close to that, just as Cambodians know Thailand as “Siem” (and used that term long before the British started calling it “Siam”).

Then the SLORC comes along via a 1962 coup d’etat and renames Burma “Myanmar”, probably in part to appeal to the dominant Burman ethnic group and presumably to gain sympathy among foreigners by making an anti-imperialist move.

Funny thing, though — the movement that actually won independence for Burma, led by Suu Kyi’s dad and others, and then became the government (and a relatively legitimate one), didn’t bother to make this change, though there was ample opportunity (1948-62). In contrast, the ostensibly anti-imperialist SLORC (under its new name, SPDC) is busily turning Burma into a far-flung province of China.

Like the SLORC, the Khmer Rouge tried to gain legitimacy by insisting on a new proper name, in that case Kampuchea, saying that it was the name in local usage.

In the case of Burma, the NLD and its allies won elections in 1990 by a landslide — about 90% — only to have the SLORC annull the results and declare martial law, which persists today. The closest thing to a legitimate representation of the Burmese people’s collective will, the NLD and the government-in-exile, agree that the country’s name is still Burma.

Let’s imagine that sections of the US military, supported by countless highly paid Blackwater contractors, overthrow the government in Washington. Many members of Congress who oppose the coup are rounded up and killed. Election results are anulled, and when the population rises up, heavily armed troops massacre thousands and imprison tens of thousands more. The new regime announces that the country shall henceforth have a new name, let’s say, “Karlrovia”. Surviving members of Congress, as a government-in-exile, continue to call their country “the United States of America”.

Should citizen-viewers the world over switch right over to “Karlrovia”? Would the now enslaved former Americans like to be called Karlrovians? Would you call them Karlrovians? If your answer is yes, then you should certainly call Burma “Myanmar”.

The point is that it doesn’t matter what the SPDC wants us to call Burma. Burma is the name until it is changed by a legitimate government. It is the SPDC alone that has prevented Burma from having a legitimate government. All they have to do is turn the government back over to the people, and then the people can freely decide what they want their country’s name to be.

In the meantime, it’s probably safe to assume that most Burmese people are far more interested in having us foreigners help them in their aspirations for freedom than in having us call their country by one name or another.