Burma or Myanmar?
In the transcript of a recent conversation between journalists and two senior United States government officials we get some inkling that the official use of Burma as a name for the country is coming to an end. Here is how the anonymous senior US official puts it:
I think as you know, there are only two countries really who use the term Burma officially in the current context. That is the United States and Great Britain. Many publications, most of our interlocutors in Southeast Asia and elsewhere – we in almost all circumstances use the term Burma in official settings. And occasionally in private meetings, we will refer to the country either by its capital name Nay Pyi Taw, Burma, or Myanmar.
It is the case that in certain meetings that government officials are – in the country are occasionally unhappy with the use of the term, because in their view, our concern has always been Aung San Suu Kyi’s concern, which is not the name itself as much as the process of how the decision was made to change the official name from Burma to Myanmar.
For some of the country, however, it is the concern about the name itself. Remember that Myanmar/Burma is a multiethnic country, and Burmans are a majority group but there are a number of others. The name Myanmar has been used historically, and in fact, Burma is the bastardization; it is what some of the British original settlers thought they heard when the people they interacted first used the term Myanmar. And even members of the NLD and others, when they write their country out in a letter, they use the word “Myanmar.” However, it is the case that we – official practice – and you will have seen it today when Secretary Clinton spoke – is to continue to use the term “Burma.”
After writing about these issues briefly earlier in the year, I was recently interviewed on the topic. I describe myself as a long-time agnostic on the question. More generally, that radio report makes for a handy summary, especially as Myint Cho from the Burma Campaign Australia disagrees with my analysis. I think with the use of “Burma” there will always be holdouts, as there are for “Siam”.
But the momentum behind Myanmar would now seem to be almost unstoppable and with changes in language usage it can be difficult to stand against prevailing trends.
Notwithstanding concerns about the process through which the name was changed back in 1989 I think 2012 and 2013 will be the years when the big switch occurs. At some stage New Mandala is also likely to cross over.
If anybody out there has some wise advice on the most appropriate “trigger” for that change then I am all ears.
As the vast majority of foreigners paying attention to Myanmar only pay attention really to the words of ASSK in relation to politics, I think “the trigger” will be when we start getting news reports subtitled with her having said “Myanmar”. Then it will be commonly accepted by everyone avidly watching the news, and so it will become a relatively irrelevant debate in the circles of the now-called-”Burma”-watchers, and for people mildly aware of what happened in 1989. The truth was never all that important for legitimacy…..
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Myanmar is the dominant term used in Yangon from what I’ve seen, although there is a sizeable minority who use Burma. I’ve noticed people will sometimes use Burma when speaking to a foreigner and Myanmar when speaking to a… Myanmar person.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
When speaking Burmese, I tend to here “Burma” placed before the word “country” in more colloquial speech and “Myanmar” placed before it in official language.
I’m not sure what the staying power of “Burma” will be in English if Americans & British stop using it, but I don’t get that the sense at all that it will be disappearing anytime soon in Burmese language usage.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Burma or Myanmar ?
What’s the big deal ? I cannot see any.
Many people from Burma would say different meaning of Burma, Myama and Bama. They also are ready to argue until their face turn blue.
In reality, most people will come up with very vague meaning of these words. Some would try to explain as “Myan = quick/fast” and “Mar = hard/durable”. Well, this sort of shallow explanation worked during General Ne Win’s one party rule but not anymore in modern days.
Some say the word “Myanmar” originated from India while some others are happy to claim bizarre forms of explanation and the same way goes for the Burmese ethnic’s original root. (The truth might hurt, but let face this with a brave face).
Quality comment or not?
1 
0
The All Burma Federation of Student Unions (ABFSU or ba ka tha in Burmese), or for that matter the Communist Party of Burma (CPB or ba ka pa) are unlikely to change to Myanmar. We have a saying, “when everyone but you drinks the bitter rain water and goes insane, so must you so you’re not the ‘odd one’ out”.
I agree with Rhoden. Bamar/Bama is not going to die out any time soon just because official Burmese (from the dawn of history) and now also official English use the term Myanmar to be politically correct.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
The generals having their laugh on the West saving face effort now underway.
Untold yet known to everyone, who have traveled to Myanmar, is the required compliance by Embassy of Myanmar insistence on addressing/filling the visa application with “Myanmar” .
Using “Burma” risk immediate rejection of that process.
This exercise of snuff diplomacy illustrate another aspect of the overall useless careless policy.
To denigrate this government of Myanmar has been USA and GB intent,a name already dignified by UN.
Daw Aung San Suu Kyi willingly acquiesce to this West idiocy at the expense of the humanity within, is evident here at New Mandala.
What next?
Acknowledgment of the true impact, denied so long, of the ongoing useless careless policy?
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Neither term describes the multi-ethnic state that is struggling to be born. As with most births, the naming will suggest itself at that time. And I suspect it will be neither the B-word or the M-word.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Des Matthews,
Since the ownership of the old name Suvunnabhumi (Golden Land) has been disputed and ‘misappropriated’ by some of the neighbours I reckon the B word or the M word will persist. Definitely not something similarly retrogressive like Naypyidaw.
Many of us especially the minorities see the Republic of the Union of Myanmar as a RUM deal. The Union of Burma did last 14 years (1948-1962) until our ethnic brethren began to lose faith completely in the Socialist govt of U Nu. Ne Win then staged a coup and reneged on Panglong. It has remained a four letter word in the military dominated govt circles to this day.
Remember how ASSK dropped the call for a second Panglong like a hot potato after embracing it initially. Now she has taken some tentative steps towards including the armed groups the KIO and the KNU in the national reconciliation process taking advantage of the regime’s new found permissiveness in return for lifting the sanctions. When, not if, this is going to hit the buffers, as the regime proscribes dialogue and considers certain things non-negotiable, we shall find out soon enough.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0