Wait while I get my violin and hankies. Oh, please, stop the nonsense. The Rohingya are, have been, and will always be, Bengali or Bangladeshi Muslims, whether they migrated into Myanmar 2000 years ago or yesterday. No amount of anthropological mumbo-jumbo will make them indigenous to Myanmar. No, Hindi IS NOT THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE AS URDU, just because an Indian Punjabi can comprehend a Pakistani Punjabi. Incorrect analogy. Bengali spoken by Rohingya is Bengali spoken by the Prime Minister of Bangladesh: IDENTICAL. Are you identical with other ethnic Chinese from Burma who use Western first names ? Are you identical with Bamar people who don’t ? Your point is silly, every individual has personality differences. This is about ethnicity, not about Sigmund Freud. You have shown your typical academic faddish anti-non-Muslim-phobia that prevents most of academia from even addressing any aspect of adherents of Islam, and your generalisations about non-Muslim Burmese are gratuitous.
Why do you Islamophiles constantly feel the need to defend Islam and Muslim at every opportunity, but feel no such need to defend the victims of Islam, from Morocco to Indonesia ? It is your GroupThink that is callous and your refusal to recognize that you apply a double standard. Rohingya are merely Bangladeshi Muslims and nothing more and if you care so much about them, tell Bangladeshi Nobel Prize Winner, Muhammad Yunus, an intelligent man, to advise Bangladeshis to use birth control.
John,
anyone who claims to follow the way of Jesus’ justice and works for the CIA has a conflict of interest. They are clearly confusing faith and race, faith and nationality and so forth.
Always wondered how their astrologers interpreted the name Kyatpyay for them (depending on how you spell Kyat, as in the currency or alternatives such as would mean “evil spirits flee” or “tight run/crisis flee”) when they decided to move to Nay Pyi Taw (sic).
I find it very interesting that many academic scholars that bemoan the ‘ill-treatment’ of Muslims in Burma are either silent, or in fact, defensive of the ill-treatment of non-Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia. It is a most interesting dynamic
that criticism of what is believed to be anti-Muslim behavior in Southeast Asia, when reversed and other critics point out anti-non-Muslim behavior in Malaysia and Indonesia, the thesis of the conversation quickly changes from what is perceived to be ‘legitimate’ criticism of persecution of the Rohingya, to defence of Islam in Malaysia and Indonesia; the corollary being anything short of such a defence, is “Islamophobic”, a disingenuous and abused term. Postings critical of supposed Bamar Buddhist behavior is freely allowed, with no censorship or apparent need for self-censorship, but postings about Muslim mistreatment of non-Muslims, in Malaysia and Indonesia, are often self-censored, discouraged by some faculty worldwide as “Islamophobic” (I have specific examples in mind), and in many instances, such commentary simply not permitted. Aside from the Popperian nullification of Leftist doctrine that you can’t be both for moral and cultural equivalency, while at the same time actually favouring one cultural group over another (a preponderant practice in Marxist-Leninist exegesis, bitingly attacked long go by Orwell and Kafka in fiction and in literary and political criticism), one must ultimately ask, if “Islamophobia” is not considered a legitimate cultural practice (it really isn’t, for the real reasons never provided, that its critics confuse fear with hatred), isn’t “Non-Islamophobia” (“Non-Muslim-phobia” might be better) equally valid under the same cultural norms that critics of non-Muslims, insist are real and relevant ? It would appear for certain academic circles, the type that Orwell had in mind, it would not be the case, as ‘all religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others’ (and relatively intelligent observers can figure out what religion that is).
This Rohingya thing is stupid surrogate, isn’t it?
Main issue here is easily identifiable people in the north of Arakan has well planned and hatched international connections and lobbyists and feeling now upper hand via media,and feel-good international organizations DEMAND for their own caliphate.
Doing so people on the ground are simply trampled worser and worser every single day as Alice would say by ruthless junta now equally internationally pampered and sucked up for their possession of keys to the last virgin land businessmen the world over want to swoop up and devour.
Put short and simply, the word Rohingya means neither this nor that. So long as the world- or business people who really own the world- is sucking up to the regime in Kyat-pyae no one has any chance for any justice or chance to be treated decently.
Why not simply ask for simple decent treatment of people on the ground rather that these esoteric demands?
During his visit to Ava in 1795 Francis Buchanan met a group of Muslims who told him they came from Arakan. They said they were “Rooinga” which they (not he) interpreted as “natives of Arakan”. We should however note that this was an isolated, indeed unique reference, because neither Buchanan, in his voluminous writings, nor any other of his contemporaries, ever used the expression again. I would therefore be most cautious about regarding this sole reference as evidence of an ethnic label. I see it more as a geographic locator.
In writings which you will find on the website I edit you will see that I have on several occasions supported the right of Arakan Muslims to use the ethnic designation “Rohingya” if that is what they wish. That is the essence of self-determination.
Michelle and the kids are probably touring Shwedagon.
What happened to the critics of the existence Naypyidaw?
Reminding all here that Ret. SG Than Shwe and the cohorts are simply, brilliant and tenacious.
Know thy enemy strength and weakness.
See how they see their future.
The WA/Tayoke and some Kala has been using those 2 facts repeatedly to their advantages. Without any cry and whine for useless careless international intervention.
Rohingya Buddhist is not a term in Rakhine or Burmese language and hence no need of the term Buddhist Rohingya.
Instead of calling the Rohingyas Bengalis, why don’t the Buddhists call them (the Rohingyas) Rakhine Muslim in Burmese or Rakhine language? Care to answer that?
How you can b callous about the persecution of the Rohingyas by comparing to the mess in the middle east is beyond me.
But I will say this: Just because your Bengali colleagues can carry on a complete conversation with Rohingyas does not mean they are synonymous and you know it. I am sure YOU KNOW THAT a Hindi-speaking Indian can carry on a complete conversation with an Urdu-speaking Pakistani as well. Are they synonymous in their identities?
With the statement “Rohingya are Muslim Bangladeshi migrants and nothing more”, you have shown your true prejudice.
May I ask why do you Bamar feel so insecure and feel threatened about a people who wants to call themseleves Rohingyas?
I agree that “Bamar Muslim is hardly anomalous” but most Bamars are still looking for this *elusive” identity of “Burmese” requiring to be a Buddhist and have no comprehension that the term Burmese Muslims just means a national of Burma.
With your comment of “To find your elephant, you need to go into the ‘Citizenship’ room. You won’t find it in the ‘Census’ room from where my comment was made.”, you have lost complete credibility with me Mr. Tonkin.
Please educate yourself by looking for Professor Richard Bulliet’s lectures at Columbia universty or elsehwere posted on youtube on so called Islamization and the forming a Caliphate which is NOT going to happen.
What do you mean by concoction? Did you not comprehend the statement “The first known record of a very similar word to Rohingya used to refer to the Muslim inhabitants of Arakan is to be found in an article about the languages spoken in the “Burma empire” published by the Scottish physician Francis Buchanan in 1799”?
I would like to know how you are genuinely and seriously supporting the alleviation of the sufferings of the Rohingyas in Arakan beyond denying them the right to call Rohingyas?
None of minority groups in Burma is demanding independent state. They are demanding their basic rights to governed by themselves.
Generally speaking, any government does not support for creating new states (if possible). The common argument for this is how can small state survive economically? This argument is hollow.
Think of this. In Yangon or any city, there are rich families, poor families, big families, and small families. If you can acknowledge the fact that these families (rich or poor; big or small) are independence. In other words, they daily manage and survive on their own.
The same logic can be applied to statehood. They are sovereign states with less than 500,000. If you can acknowledge these small states survive, then you can see economic reason does not hold.
Suriyon Raiya : ‘et tu Brutus’ and the questionable loyalty of praetorian guards is one of the eternal murkey questions of politics. It’s a bit unfair to accuse Lee Jones of being ‘out of his depth’ in such murky waters. I thought both reviews excellent, on such a difficult, dangerous topic, where both reviewers had the courage to NOT hide behind anonymity.
“Thailand is still relatively safe to visit…. as petty crime is widespread but murders and assaults targeting foreigners are relatively rare.
But tourists should be aware that this is a country where things can very suddenly go very wrong, and where there is no credible functioning justice system.
…. it’s sensible for tourists to exercise extreme caution while Thailand remains ruled by an unaccountable and criminal elite.”
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Wait while I get my violin and hankies. Oh, please, stop the nonsense. The Rohingya are, have been, and will always be, Bengali or Bangladeshi Muslims, whether they migrated into Myanmar 2000 years ago or yesterday. No amount of anthropological mumbo-jumbo will make them indigenous to Myanmar. No, Hindi IS NOT THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE AS URDU, just because an Indian Punjabi can comprehend a Pakistani Punjabi. Incorrect analogy. Bengali spoken by Rohingya is Bengali spoken by the Prime Minister of Bangladesh: IDENTICAL. Are you identical with other ethnic Chinese from Burma who use Western first names ? Are you identical with Bamar people who don’t ? Your point is silly, every individual has personality differences. This is about ethnicity, not about Sigmund Freud. You have shown your typical academic faddish anti-non-Muslim-phobia that prevents most of academia from even addressing any aspect of adherents of Islam, and your generalisations about non-Muslim Burmese are gratuitous.
Why do you Islamophiles constantly feel the need to defend Islam and Muslim at every opportunity, but feel no such need to defend the victims of Islam, from Morocco to Indonesia ? It is your GroupThink that is callous and your refusal to recognize that you apply a double standard. Rohingya are merely Bangladeshi Muslims and nothing more and if you care so much about them, tell Bangladeshi Nobel Prize Winner, Muhammad Yunus, an intelligent man, to advise Bangladeshis to use birth control.
William Young dies in Thailand
John,
anyone who claims to follow the way of Jesus’ justice and works for the CIA has a conflict of interest. They are clearly confusing faith and race, faith and nationality and so forth.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Always wondered how their astrologers interpreted the name Kyatpyay for them (depending on how you spell Kyat, as in the currency or alternatives such as would mean “evil spirits flee” or “tight run/crisis flee”) when they decided to move to Nay Pyi Taw (sic).
Myanmar: The calm before the storm?
I find it very interesting that many academic scholars that bemoan the ‘ill-treatment’ of Muslims in Burma are either silent, or in fact, defensive of the ill-treatment of non-Muslims in Malaysia and Indonesia. It is a most interesting dynamic
that criticism of what is believed to be anti-Muslim behavior in Southeast Asia, when reversed and other critics point out anti-non-Muslim behavior in Malaysia and Indonesia, the thesis of the conversation quickly changes from what is perceived to be ‘legitimate’ criticism of persecution of the Rohingya, to defence of Islam in Malaysia and Indonesia; the corollary being anything short of such a defence, is “Islamophobic”, a disingenuous and abused term. Postings critical of supposed Bamar Buddhist behavior is freely allowed, with no censorship or apparent need for self-censorship, but postings about Muslim mistreatment of non-Muslims, in Malaysia and Indonesia, are often self-censored, discouraged by some faculty worldwide as “Islamophobic” (I have specific examples in mind), and in many instances, such commentary simply not permitted. Aside from the Popperian nullification of Leftist doctrine that you can’t be both for moral and cultural equivalency, while at the same time actually favouring one cultural group over another (a preponderant practice in Marxist-Leninist exegesis, bitingly attacked long go by Orwell and Kafka in fiction and in literary and political criticism), one must ultimately ask, if “Islamophobia” is not considered a legitimate cultural practice (it really isn’t, for the real reasons never provided, that its critics confuse fear with hatred), isn’t “Non-Islamophobia” (“Non-Muslim-phobia” might be better) equally valid under the same cultural norms that critics of non-Muslims, insist are real and relevant ? It would appear for certain academic circles, the type that Orwell had in mind, it would not be the case, as ‘all religions are equal, but some religions are more equal than others’ (and relatively intelligent observers can figure out what religion that is).
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
This Rohingya thing is stupid surrogate, isn’t it?
Main issue here is easily identifiable people in the north of Arakan has well planned and hatched international connections and lobbyists and feeling now upper hand via media,and feel-good international organizations DEMAND for their own caliphate.
Doing so people on the ground are simply trampled worser and worser every single day as Alice would say by ruthless junta now equally internationally pampered and sucked up for their possession of keys to the last virgin land businessmen the world over want to swoop up and devour.
Put short and simply, the word Rohingya means neither this nor that. So long as the world- or business people who really own the world- is sucking up to the regime in Kyat-pyae no one has any chance for any justice or chance to be treated decently.
Why not simply ask for simple decent treatment of people on the ground rather that these esoteric demands?
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
During his visit to Ava in 1795 Francis Buchanan met a group of Muslims who told him they came from Arakan. They said they were “Rooinga” which they (not he) interpreted as “natives of Arakan”. We should however note that this was an isolated, indeed unique reference, because neither Buchanan, in his voluminous writings, nor any other of his contemporaries, ever used the expression again. I would therefore be most cautious about regarding this sole reference as evidence of an ethnic label. I see it more as a geographic locator.
In writings which you will find on the website I edit you will see that I have on several occasions supported the right of Arakan Muslims to use the ethnic designation “Rohingya” if that is what they wish. That is the essence of self-determination.
Female faces at the ASEAN Summit in Naypyitaw
Obviously nothing controversial to report.
Michelle and the kids are probably touring Shwedagon.
What happened to the critics of the existence Naypyidaw?
Reminding all here that Ret. SG Than Shwe and the cohorts are simply, brilliant and tenacious.
Know thy enemy strength and weakness.
See how they see their future.
The WA/Tayoke and some Kala has been using those 2 facts repeatedly to their advantages. Without any cry and whine for useless careless international intervention.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Rohingya Buddhist is not a term in Rakhine or Burmese language and hence no need of the term Buddhist Rohingya.
Instead of calling the Rohingyas Bengalis, why don’t the Buddhists call them (the Rohingyas) Rakhine Muslim in Burmese or Rakhine language? Care to answer that?
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
How you can b callous about the persecution of the Rohingyas by comparing to the mess in the middle east is beyond me.
But I will say this: Just because your Bengali colleagues can carry on a complete conversation with Rohingyas does not mean they are synonymous and you know it. I am sure YOU KNOW THAT a Hindi-speaking Indian can carry on a complete conversation with an Urdu-speaking Pakistani as well. Are they synonymous in their identities?
With the statement “Rohingya are Muslim Bangladeshi migrants and nothing more”, you have shown your true prejudice.
May I ask why do you Bamar feel so insecure and feel threatened about a people who wants to call themseleves Rohingyas?
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
I agree that “Bamar Muslim is hardly anomalous” but most Bamars are still looking for this *elusive” identity of “Burmese” requiring to be a Buddhist and have no comprehension that the term Burmese Muslims just means a national of Burma.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
With your comment of “To find your elephant, you need to go into the ‘Citizenship’ room. You won’t find it in the ‘Census’ room from where my comment was made.”, you have lost complete credibility with me Mr. Tonkin.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Indigenous Rakhine are so voiceless that one of them, born in Bangladesh, is now a member in Burmese parliament.
here is the homework: find out what his name is. here is a tip: he wears his Gyaung Paung in the opposite direction.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Please educate yourself by looking for Professor Richard Bulliet’s lectures at Columbia universty or elsehwere posted on youtube on so called Islamization and the forming a Caliphate which is NOT going to happen.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Please refer which independent scholars you’re referring to? Dr. Aye Maung, the nationalist Rahine?
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
What do you mean by concoction? Did you not comprehend the statement “The first known record of a very similar word to Rohingya used to refer to the Muslim inhabitants of Arakan is to be found in an article about the languages spoken in the “Burma empire” published by the Scottish physician Francis Buchanan in 1799”?
I would like to know how you are genuinely and seriously supporting the alleviation of the sufferings of the Rohingyas in Arakan beyond denying them the right to call Rohingyas?
Closer ties: Australia and Malaysia
Was Australia ever interested in human rights issues in Malaysia or anywhere?
I think Australia is doing the right thing.
To be closer to Asia, one needs to be like Asians (whatever that means).
Big agenda for ethnic groups in Myanmar
Nakal #1
The only similarity of Myanmar with regard to M.E in every respect is location of both countries in this world.
Even the stupid phrase that you seek has to do with dog other than chicken and likewise son other than excrement.
1) The fact that Panlone agreement cease to exit with the very first armed conflict with Bamar as victor.
2)Yet after each failures the same so called representatives regress to the now none valid agreement is why this administration is so dismissive.
3)WOrst relying on the west to re stake a useless careless claim.
4)Observe how the WA get whatever they want without even a party at PAnlone.
In stead of resorting to ill advised last disastrous armed conflict.
5) The Kachin rep are as bad as existing government as stated in #2.
Big agenda for ethnic groups in Myanmar
None of minority groups in Burma is demanding independent state. They are demanding their basic rights to governed by themselves.
Generally speaking, any government does not support for creating new states (if possible). The common argument for this is how can small state survive economically? This argument is hollow.
Think of this. In Yangon or any city, there are rich families, poor families, big families, and small families. If you can acknowledge the fact that these families (rich or poor; big or small) are independence. In other words, they daily manage and survive on their own.
The same logic can be applied to statehood. They are sovereign states with less than 500,000. If you can acknowledge these small states survive, then you can see economic reason does not hold.
Review of Kingdom in Crisis
Suriyon Raiya : ‘et tu Brutus’ and the questionable loyalty of praetorian guards is one of the eternal murkey questions of politics. It’s a bit unfair to accuse Lee Jones of being ‘out of his depth’ in such murky waters. I thought both reviews excellent, on such a difficult, dangerous topic, where both reviewers had the courage to NOT hide behind anonymity.
Thai Police: Intent to reform?
AMM:
“Thailand is still relatively safe to visit…. as petty crime is widespread but murders and assaults targeting foreigners are relatively rare.
But tourists should be aware that this is a country where things can very suddenly go very wrong, and where there is no credible functioning justice system.
…. it’s sensible for tourists to exercise extreme caution while Thailand remains ruled by an unaccountable and criminal elite.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/asia/thailand/11228849/Thailand-most-dangerous-tourist-destination-claims-book.html