Moe Aung, thanks for your post on “Myanmar”. It would be fascinating to see original sources for this as an early ethnonym. Does it pre-date Bagan? Any etymology available?
Seems all the more reason to insist on saying “Myanmar languageS”.
transition, hmm. if they don’t watch out it will be from the frying pan into the fire.
mistrust and tensions [especially in the north] are extremely high at the moment. many longstanding issues have worsened in last 3-4 years. the country has opened up, a little, on the surface but the “rotten core” of the problem remains.
Ah ok. Well, I can assure you that it is today commonly referred to as Myanmar language in both English and Myanmar (as in, Myanmar sar) by many Myanmar citizens, regardless of whether that should or should not be the case.
I am unsure if this is a post-1989 phenomenon but agree with Nich that it has momentum on its side. Changing to another name, or reverting to Burmese, seems unlikely both because I see no real push for change among either ethnic Bamar or minorities and it would require an amendment to the constitution – something the military government didn’t have to worry about in 1989!
Over the years I have occasionally offered a few thoughts on the topic of Myanmar/Burma. This is one starting-point. And, even earlier, there was this interesting discussion.
I’ve been wrong before but I would be very surprised if a future government, of any stripe, now reverted to Burma in official situations. Seems that Myanmar (as country, language and people), notwithstanding the clunky adjectival forms, has got momentum on its side.
For me, an excellent analysis of these issues (and quite a bit more) is the 2011 essay by Rosalie Metro.
American unless qualified north or south means the US generally speaking. Asian for people in Britain from the Indian subcontinent is irritating as the rest of us from Asia are then compelled to use the term Oriental, but I’m not sure if it’s the “Indians” who called themselves thus or the British authorities. And in America Asian means Oriental not Indian!
Myanmar is the older and formal name of the country Burma, the Bamar race and the Burmese language in Burmese, so it’s like the German govt insisting on Deutschland in English usage. No use pretending it’s neutral. Frankly the minorities wouldn’t care so long as they are treated fairly and with respect.
Kind-of. Because it’s unspecific and inconsistent. After all, there is no country called “America”. Their country does form part of geographical North America, but then so does Canada which historically has as much or little right to call itself America.
Not to mention umpteen states in South America… And what about Mexico and Central America?
Reminds me of the irritating use by Indians and Pakistanis (and Bangladeshis?) of the quasi-neutral ethnonym “Asian”, despite constituting a rather tiny part of that continent.
What if push comes to shove once again? From those who have the biggest and rightful stake in our country’s future as with the 88 generation and the prewar generation before them.
Paul you say you ‘wonder what the Revolutionary King really thinks?’ On the infrequent occasions the old fella is paraded in his motorised wheelchair he looks totally gaga – only a slight remove from the breathing corpse – so what he ‘thinks’ – really or otherwise – is a moot point. As for the other bastards that have spent a lifetime feeding off royal ‘barami’ you are certainly correct – they won’t ‘give way’. They know no other way. Following the May coup all one seems to get is varying shades of black comedy.
I had originally written “Leaving the politics aside…” but deleted it. I guess I shouldn’t have. So aside from politics, why do you insist Myanmar is not a language?
Language is arguably the most democratic instrument that a people possess. Yet there is censorship, both muzzling of the press by the state and self-censorship.
Talk about orthography we’ve had to endure the autocrat Ne Win’s diktat of insisting the article “a” to be spelled as “one” (tit instead of the normal abbreviated form ta) before a noun. Since it also means “stuck”, sure enough the country got stuck in a ruck tits up.
Orthographic spelling of the capital’s name came up with the gem Nay Pyi Taw with the three syllables separately. If you strictly follow this rule Yangon should be Yan Gon or you might insist more correctly Ran Kon, and you were born in Mran Mar or Myan Mar!
We lost the rolling r sound over the last couple of centuries, so what? Yes, we make a particular spelling mistake all the time because of that to the extent of a senior monk compiling the correct forms in verse called Pink-yit Thatpon in the 18th C whereas the Rakhine (Yakhine to us Burmese) never do.
Always thought the British learnt the name Rangoon from an Indian, but it might have been from a Rakhine since they annexed the Arakan first.
As for transliteration from English for foreign names and terms in the Burmese language press, they no longer seem to bother, treating the public as literate in English (middle class mindless penchant?). And of course on the other hand the existing ones such as Lin Koon for Lincoln or Le Nin) for Lenin seem unlikely to change any time soon.
Even if you disregard non-Tai minorities (who hardly appear on their radar), too many Bangkok friends have a seriously prejudiced attitude to the “regions”.
Well, maybe the North counts for something. But Isaan? You’re kidding me.
I was thinking of the repeated calls for “retroactive impeachment” of Governor Schwarzenegger. The notion has been kicked around a lot in American political discourse over the years.
So maybe it’s a case of “California thinks, RTA acts”?
Tom, the Burmese junta decided to call the country “Myanmar” some years ago. It is not widely accepted internationally.
Burma is a country with many minorities, speaking languages from at least 3 different language families (apart from Indo-European English): Tibeto-Burman; Tai-Kadai; Austro-Asiatic!
The majority ethnic group and language is Burmese. Minorities speak Shan, Mon, Karen, Kachin, etc, etc.
There is perhaps a case for naming the country more “neutrally” since minorities *may* thereby feel less “excluded”. But I’m not convinced.
As Myanmar IS NOT A LANGUAGE but the would-be name of a state, there is no adjective for a language of that name, only potentially of a nationality.
Interestingly, Great Britain does have a nationality adjective, “British”, while the United States of America doesn’t.
As an aside, the BBC has the utterly stupid habit (some idiot suit must have spat out an edict) that staff refer to “Myanmar, also called Burma”. The logical and internationally preferred version should be “Burma, also called Myanmar”.
Johnleemk’s commentary was lengthy, has some very valid points (especially his question at its end), appears to have come from a well-educated source and is, unfortunately, also riddled with misinformation. It would take a long response to explain all of them, so I shall just provide as short a response as possible via one example. He describes as “the actions of Christians” many atrocities, such as the killing of local ethnic groups after “Christians” had invaded their countries and also the internecine violence between Russia and Ukraine.
He conveniently omits that
– it was a Christian-driven movement that FREED slaves and ended slavery in the West
– in all of the instances of “Christians” killing local ethnic groups, those ethnics (rightfully)almost always attacked first in defense of their territory
– it has been only Christian-founded countries that have, over about the past 250 years, instilled and fought n defence of democracy.
– that it was and will always be (un-Christian) human nature (i.e. natural law) to ‘take’ from someone else if they can, and at least those who were (in a manner of speaking) ‘fortunate’ enough to be overpowered by Christians were always (generally)treated with reasonably decency as compared to peoples overpowered by non-Christians. Two examples of non-Christian invasion: consider (1) the history of the Chatham Islanders and (2) what is happening in areas where ISIS has gained control.
– where Christians have ‘forcefully’ sought to impose their beliefs on non-Christians, it has always been because the Christian beliefs are superior in terms of individual freedom, safety and human progress. For example, Christians abhor ritual killings of the defenceless innocent, which has been a very common practice is virtually all non-Christian (barbarian) societies. Why would Christians have NOT executed those who determinedly engaged in outdated, unnecessary barbaric practices? In contrast, Christians and Buddhists have never been engaged in war based on a Christian attempt to assert Christianity over Buddhism. Why not? Because Buddhism isn’t barbaric.
– while Christianity may be seen as ‘flawed’ ( rather than “Christianity’ itself. It’s *humans* who are flawed and too-often fail to meet the very high,’perfect’ Christian standards, )it (Christianity) is self-evidently vastly less ‘flawed’ than, for example Islam and even Buddhism (Buddhism being a prescription for enslavement by virtue of its philosophy of ‘no-to-violence-under-any-circumstances’). One might postulate that Christianity has taken the ‘middle road’ between the extremes of Buddhism and Islam, embracing the best of each and repelling the worst of each. Which is why a Christian-based society WILL engage in violence (go to war) under certain circumstances, such as against Hitler and Saddam, who, too many conveniently forget killed 300,000 Kurds. But today’s Christian-based societies do not ‘keep’ territory they invade and overpower and leave once their mission to free the oppressed has (they hope!) been accomplished. Germany and Iraq are examples.
– the ‘atrocities’ that johnleemk ascribes to “Christians” were invariably committed by NON-Christian (secular) individuals who lived within a Christian society. Take for example Abu Ghraib. The two individuals who abused their power over those prisoners were certainly not Christians and definitely not shouting “In God’s Name” (the Christian equivalent of Allah Akbar?) while abusing their prisoners. However the true strength of that society’s (the USA) Christian foundations came to the fore when those two individuals were prosecuted and punished by their society for their …. well…. UN-Christian… wrongdoings.
I could go on…. but apologies that this response is already so lengthy. That’s the problem with the truth. Lies can so easily be presented as short, feel-good, convincing ‘sound-bytes.’ The truth always need much explanation or those easily impressed by ‘short and sweet’ lies will invariably not believe the truth.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Review of Burma’s Spring
Moe Aung, thanks for your post on “Myanmar”. It would be fascinating to see original sources for this as an early ethnonym. Does it pre-date Bagan? Any etymology available?
Seems all the more reason to insist on saying “Myanmar languageS”.
Myanmar in transition
Way too many Chinese “settlers” in Burma already and China (not the Posh Lady) will shape Burma’s destiny.
Jokowi: The First Hundred Days
[…] Jokowi: the first 100 days (ANU) […]
Myanmar in transition
transition, hmm. if they don’t watch out it will be from the frying pan into the fire.
mistrust and tensions [especially in the north] are extremely high at the moment. many longstanding issues have worsened in last 3-4 years. the country has opened up, a little, on the surface but the “rotten core” of the problem remains.
Review of Burma’s Spring
Ah ok. Well, I can assure you that it is today commonly referred to as Myanmar language in both English and Myanmar (as in, Myanmar sar) by many Myanmar citizens, regardless of whether that should or should not be the case.
I am unsure if this is a post-1989 phenomenon but agree with Nich that it has momentum on its side. Changing to another name, or reverting to Burmese, seems unlikely both because I see no real push for change among either ethnic Bamar or minorities and it would require an amendment to the constitution – something the military government didn’t have to worry about in 1989!
Review of Burma’s Spring
Ahh, these old chestnuts!
Over the years I have occasionally offered a few thoughts on the topic of Myanmar/Burma. This is one starting-point. And, even earlier, there was this interesting discussion.
I’ve been wrong before but I would be very surprised if a future government, of any stripe, now reverted to Burma in official situations. Seems that Myanmar (as country, language and people), notwithstanding the clunky adjectival forms, has got momentum on its side.
For me, an excellent analysis of these issues (and quite a bit more) is the 2011 essay by Rosalie Metro.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Review of Burma’s Spring
American unless qualified north or south means the US generally speaking. Asian for people in Britain from the Indian subcontinent is irritating as the rest of us from Asia are then compelled to use the term Oriental, but I’m not sure if it’s the “Indians” who called themselves thus or the British authorities. And in America Asian means Oriental not Indian!
Myanmar is the older and formal name of the country Burma, the Bamar race and the Burmese language in Burmese, so it’s like the German govt insisting on Deutschland in English usage. No use pretending it’s neutral. Frankly the minorities wouldn’t care so long as they are treated fairly and with respect.
Review of Burma’s Spring
Hi, Mike.
Kind-of. Because it’s unspecific and inconsistent. After all, there is no country called “America”. Their country does form part of geographical North America, but then so does Canada which historically has as much or little right to call itself America.
Not to mention umpteen states in South America… And what about Mexico and Central America?
Reminds me of the irritating use by Indians and Pakistanis (and Bangladeshis?) of the quasi-neutral ethnonym “Asian”, despite constituting a rather tiny part of that continent.
Review of Burma’s Spring
Tom, sorry, there never was a language called Myanmar. You can look it up in a dictionary of languages.
The Burmese majority of Burma speak Burmese.
“Myanmar” is presumably a name or phrase (no idea what it means) from the Burmese language, co-opted as the junta’s choice for whatever reason.
I agree we need a corresponding adjective for that nationhood (like “British”). We don’t need a new noun for a corresponding (non-existent) language.
Review of Burma’s Spring
Ah! Interesting. Many people I know from the United States of America use the adjective “American.” Do you disagree?
Review of Burma’s Spring
Sorry. I meant “stuck in a rut”.
What if push comes to shove once again? From those who have the biggest and rightful stake in our country’s future as with the 88 generation and the prewar generation before them.
Impeaching Yingluck Shinawatra
ECB stimulus was it?
And I thought the Thai investors were merely responding ‘with exuberance’ to Panthongae’s: “Are you ready? Are you ready, Thai people?”
Impeaching Yingluck Shinawatra
Paul you say you ‘wonder what the Revolutionary King really thinks?’ On the infrequent occasions the old fella is paraded in his motorised wheelchair he looks totally gaga – only a slight remove from the breathing corpse – so what he ‘thinks’ – really or otherwise – is a moot point. As for the other bastards that have spent a lifetime feeding off royal ‘barami’ you are certainly correct – they won’t ‘give way’. They know no other way. Following the May coup all one seems to get is varying shades of black comedy.
Review of Burma’s Spring
Hi Paul,
I had originally written “Leaving the politics aside…” but deleted it. I guess I shouldn’t have. So aside from politics, why do you insist Myanmar is not a language?
Review of Burma’s Spring
Language is arguably the most democratic instrument that a people possess. Yet there is censorship, both muzzling of the press by the state and self-censorship.
Talk about orthography we’ve had to endure the autocrat Ne Win’s diktat of insisting the article “a” to be spelled as “one” (tit instead of the normal abbreviated form ta) before a noun. Since it also means “stuck”, sure enough the country got stuck in a ruck tits up.
Orthographic spelling of the capital’s name came up with the gem Nay Pyi Taw with the three syllables separately. If you strictly follow this rule Yangon should be Yan Gon or you might insist more correctly Ran Kon, and you were born in Mran Mar or Myan Mar!
We lost the rolling r sound over the last couple of centuries, so what? Yes, we make a particular spelling mistake all the time because of that to the extent of a senior monk compiling the correct forms in verse called Pink-yit Thatpon in the 18th C whereas the Rakhine (Yakhine to us Burmese) never do.
Always thought the British learnt the name Rangoon from an Indian, but it might have been from a Rakhine since they annexed the Arakan first.
As for transliteration from English for foreign names and terms in the Burmese language press, they no longer seem to bother, treating the public as literate in English (middle class mindless penchant?). And of course on the other hand the existing ones such as Lin Koon for Lincoln or Le Nin) for Lenin seem unlikely to change any time soon.
Impeaching Yingluck Shinawatra
Of course, nothing whatever to do with “Asia markets toast ECB stimulus” – to cite just one of the many such headlines you seem to have missed…
Impeaching Yingluck Shinawatra
“Thai rak Thai”? I don’t think so.
Even if you disregard non-Tai minorities (who hardly appear on their radar), too many Bangkok friends have a seriously prejudiced attitude to the “regions”.
Well, maybe the North counts for something. But Isaan? You’re kidding me.
Impeaching Yingluck Shinawatra
I was thinking of the repeated calls for “retroactive impeachment” of Governor Schwarzenegger. The notion has been kicked around a lot in American political discourse over the years.
So maybe it’s a case of “California thinks, RTA acts”?
Review of Burma’s Spring
Tom, the Burmese junta decided to call the country “Myanmar” some years ago. It is not widely accepted internationally.
Burma is a country with many minorities, speaking languages from at least 3 different language families (apart from Indo-European English): Tibeto-Burman; Tai-Kadai; Austro-Asiatic!
The majority ethnic group and language is Burmese. Minorities speak Shan, Mon, Karen, Kachin, etc, etc.
There is perhaps a case for naming the country more “neutrally” since minorities *may* thereby feel less “excluded”. But I’m not convinced.
As Myanmar IS NOT A LANGUAGE but the would-be name of a state, there is no adjective for a language of that name, only potentially of a nationality.
Interestingly, Great Britain does have a nationality adjective, “British”, while the United States of America doesn’t.
As an aside, the BBC has the utterly stupid habit (some idiot suit must have spat out an edict) that staff refer to “Myanmar, also called Burma”. The logical and internationally preferred version should be “Burma, also called Myanmar”.
A rage against history
Johnleemk’s commentary was lengthy, has some very valid points (especially his question at its end), appears to have come from a well-educated source and is, unfortunately, also riddled with misinformation. It would take a long response to explain all of them, so I shall just provide as short a response as possible via one example. He describes as “the actions of Christians” many atrocities, such as the killing of local ethnic groups after “Christians” had invaded their countries and also the internecine violence between Russia and Ukraine.
He conveniently omits that
– it was a Christian-driven movement that FREED slaves and ended slavery in the West
– in all of the instances of “Christians” killing local ethnic groups, those ethnics (rightfully)almost always attacked first in defense of their territory
– it has been only Christian-founded countries that have, over about the past 250 years, instilled and fought n defence of democracy.
– that it was and will always be (un-Christian) human nature (i.e. natural law) to ‘take’ from someone else if they can, and at least those who were (in a manner of speaking) ‘fortunate’ enough to be overpowered by Christians were always (generally)treated with reasonably decency as compared to peoples overpowered by non-Christians. Two examples of non-Christian invasion: consider (1) the history of the Chatham Islanders and (2) what is happening in areas where ISIS has gained control.
– where Christians have ‘forcefully’ sought to impose their beliefs on non-Christians, it has always been because the Christian beliefs are superior in terms of individual freedom, safety and human progress. For example, Christians abhor ritual killings of the defenceless innocent, which has been a very common practice is virtually all non-Christian (barbarian) societies. Why would Christians have NOT executed those who determinedly engaged in outdated, unnecessary barbaric practices? In contrast, Christians and Buddhists have never been engaged in war based on a Christian attempt to assert Christianity over Buddhism. Why not? Because Buddhism isn’t barbaric.
– while Christianity may be seen as ‘flawed’ ( rather than “Christianity’ itself. It’s *humans* who are flawed and too-often fail to meet the very high,’perfect’ Christian standards, )it (Christianity) is self-evidently vastly less ‘flawed’ than, for example Islam and even Buddhism (Buddhism being a prescription for enslavement by virtue of its philosophy of ‘no-to-violence-under-any-circumstances’). One might postulate that Christianity has taken the ‘middle road’ between the extremes of Buddhism and Islam, embracing the best of each and repelling the worst of each. Which is why a Christian-based society WILL engage in violence (go to war) under certain circumstances, such as against Hitler and Saddam, who, too many conveniently forget killed 300,000 Kurds. But today’s Christian-based societies do not ‘keep’ territory they invade and overpower and leave once their mission to free the oppressed has (they hope!) been accomplished. Germany and Iraq are examples.
– the ‘atrocities’ that johnleemk ascribes to “Christians” were invariably committed by NON-Christian (secular) individuals who lived within a Christian society. Take for example Abu Ghraib. The two individuals who abused their power over those prisoners were certainly not Christians and definitely not shouting “In God’s Name” (the Christian equivalent of Allah Akbar?) while abusing their prisoners. However the true strength of that society’s (the USA) Christian foundations came to the fore when those two individuals were prosecuted and punished by their society for their …. well…. UN-Christian… wrongdoings.
I could go on…. but apologies that this response is already so lengthy. That’s the problem with the truth. Lies can so easily be presented as short, feel-good, convincing ‘sound-bytes.’ The truth always need much explanation or those easily impressed by ‘short and sweet’ lies will invariably not believe the truth.