New Mandala

7 responses so far ↓

• 1 polo // Apr 27, 2008 at 6:24 am

  “….Yangon ….Burma …”

  Hmm, diplomatic there, covering both sides of the game. Just sayin’…

• 2 Nicholas Farrelly // Apr 28, 2008 at 12:58 am

  Thanks Polo,

  Your friendly jibe got me thinking…

  Over the years I have fixed on a compromise approach to describing places in Burma that works quite well. In general, although I’m sure there are exceptions, I tend to write “Myanmar” when I refer to the central authorities.

  I also find it is often best to use the revised spellings where the English-language place names have changed during the rule of that Myanmar government. As an extreme example, I go with Pyin Oo Lwin (not Maymyo). And in the case of Yangon the new English-language spelling simply seems more accurate (a bit like the way the Bengalis have changed to “Kolkata”).

  But for the country as a whole, and here I mean the full territory (including all the Special Regions, and the areas where there is still ongoing civil war), it makes the most sense to still say “Burma”. I don’t know if this is diplomatic. But I do think it is effective and helps to somewhat reconcile the competing “Myanmar” or “Burma” claims that are made on the national territory. Perhaps it just ends up making everyone unhappy. Anyway, for all of the tens of thousands of words expended on trying to justify various naming regimes, I think this works best.

  It is very similar to the approach taken by Mary Callahan in Making Enemies: War and State Building in Burma (2003). On page xvi she notes, regarding her dual deployment of “Burma” and “Myanmar”, that “[t]his choice is intended to reflect less a political stance than a recognition that there remains controversy over the issue”.

  There is no perfect answer to any of this. This dual approach just seems to make the most sense (to me) in the present moment. But I am certainly happy to have a discussion about this. Is there an even better way of dealing with the nomenclature that takes into account the many complexities?

  Best wishes to all,

  Nich

• 3 jonfernquest // Apr 28, 2008 at 10:13 pm

  Three cheers for the DFID guy. One day things will improve.

  Names in Burma-Myanmar are very confusing. The government does have a valid point that the place has always been called Myanmar but, on the other hand, South Korea has always been called Han-guk in Korean script, and it is possible to use one name for internal consumption and the other for the outside world, just to provide continuity and make life simpler and less confusing.

  There are definitely too many transliterations and ways to spell Burmese place names too, which causes confusion. Like every work on the Pagan era uses a transliteration that is based on how inscriptions were written and can’t be pronounced so when non-experts try to pronounce it…ouch. But I guess this is all the least of poor old Burma-Myanmar’s ills though.

• 4 Grasshopper // Apr 29, 2008 at 12:32 am

  I liked that article. Nicholas you say : But for the country as a whole, and here I mean the full territory (including all the Special Regions, and the areas where there is still ongoing civil war), it makes the most sense to still say “Burma”. But weren’t all the ’special regions’ still “special” when Myanmar was officially named Burma? Or does this acknowledge too much that Burma would fragment into a Yugoslavia type situation — and academics holding that to be a standard would only serve to confuse things further away from the Ivory Tower? Maybe I do not know enough of the history to comment, but I would think that there would be no simple way to determine what a sovereign state is to be named until it’s people have determined it – so Myanmar can hardly be legitimate on those grounds – can Burma? Did the people in the region at the time believe Burma to be their “state?”

  Personally, I think referring to Burma as the Democratic Republic of Myanmar is best. Like The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, the Democratic Republic of Congo – it seems most states prefaced by “Democratic Republic” are the complete opposite — so why not make it a standard? Very Derrida. (although perhaps not so much the case in the Congo now touch wood..)

• 5 Nicholas Farrelly // Apr 29, 2008 at 1:19 am

  Thanks Grasshopper,

  Interesting points.

  The last time the “Union of Burma” held sway most of the areas that are now “Special” (although they may not be for much longer depending on how one reads the proposed constitution) were in rebellion. At about the same time that those battles were postponed, and the various ceasefires declared, “Myanmar” also officially came on the scene. Calling the junta’s government “the Myanmar government” does, in this context, seem relatively unproblematic. Perhaps it just means that “Myanmar” will always have a particular aftertaste and that some future “Burmese government” will see fit to get rid of the word from official parlance, or, alternatively, that they will actively improve its image. For the moment, it is what the generals call the country they control and by using it to refer to their government (and not the country) a distinction is drawn between official discursive interventions and the other voices that swirl around.

  But the name of the country is even more problematic when it is taken, like you do, in the context of the areas that are currently called “Special”. Some would, of course, prefer to see them as Kachinland, Shanland, etc. “Burma” isn’t always, as you suggest, the be all and end all. But, in the meantime most of my friends and associates who come from these places tend to go with “Burma”, at least in English, and “Bamar” or some variation in their vernacular. And in Jinghpaw, for example, it is not uncommon to refer to “Myen Asuya” (the “Myanmar government”…but asoya/asuya is a Burmese word too…so it does get complicated quickly…). But using “Myen Asuya” is a bit like what I am doing in English. “Myanmar” is, as we know, supposed to be the post-colonial panacea for the generals. The final directive for living together in ethnic harmony. What was that t-shirt I once put up on NM: “Happyland Myanmar”?

  But maybe this is all a distraction and perhaps your “Democratic Republic of…” intervention makes most sense. Bonus points if anyone gets that through a peer review process. Maybe the best strategy is just to be upfront about it: perhaps the title could be something like – “Bringing the Democratic People’s Republic to Burma/Myanmar/etc: An exploration of place names and politics on the global periphery”. New Mandala would be happy to host a working paper. I’m sure anyone taking on this challenge would get loads of helpful comments and suggestions…

  Best wishes to all,

  Nich

• 6 jonfernquest // Apr 29, 2008 at 5:31 pm

  “The final directive for living together in ethnic harmony. ”

  Yep. “Myanmar Naing-ngan” with “naing-ngan” I believe coming from “let-net naing-ngan” which means something like “collection of tributary states conquered by arms.”

  Also they haven’t **just** changed the name of the country.

  I can remember people talking about Myanmar food, Myanmar language, I speak Myanmarese, or “Myanmar people” each wearing approved national costumes and dancing in a circle in the government staged national unity event, but not smiling. In short, name changing is not just name changing, it’s also changing and regimenting the way that people think about things. All a little bit too much for us westerners who like our pancakes dripping with irony.

• 7 Grasshopper // Apr 29, 2008 at 8:02 pm

  I did not know that the Generals referred to their government as Myanmar —- the Happy country, indeed. Generals government happy = ‘country’ happy. Nicholas and Jon, very illuminating, thanks.

Leave a Comment