Because suddenly the protests which have been taking place for 20 years are getting very loud, and the people are taking to the streets, led by the monks, to demand a democratically elected government. The sudden attention is due to a sudden huge shift in the country.
I can’t seem to find anything about this on any English language sites, but according to a Norwegian journalist one Burmese colonel has defected and is now hiding among the Karen people. The colonel claims that he defected because he was ordered to raid two convents, round up the monks, take them into the jungle and kill them. He also claims that several thousand people have been killed in Burma in the last few days. Apparently he hopes to seek political asylum in Norway and will tell everything he knows if he’s able to get here safely.
The journalist in question has spent a lot of time in Burma and made a documentary last year where he, among other things, interviewed Aung Sang Suu Kyi so he seems legit, but the information cannot be confirmed through other sources (obviously).
According to a former Burmese intelligence official, thousands are dead and hundreds of monks’ bodies have been dumped in the jungle. (Scroll 2/3 down the page.)
Well, Buddhism has been becoming a fashionable sort of thing amongst intelligentsia circles in the west, so monks and nuns are sort of the new cuddly critters.
“Worldwide” in this context presumably means “now including the US”. Burma has been in the news on and off here for years; possibly due to the former UK involvement in the country, or possibly just due to a more internationalist outlook in major our news outlets. That said, I’d imagine there was widespread coverage in 1988 too.
That’s the one I was talking about. His name is Major Htaly Win. Apparently he’s out of Burma now and in Thailand. I expect we will here more from him in the next few days regarding what has been going on.
Yup, without bald guys in saffron robes we wouldn’t care about foreign suffering. :rolleyes:
Not as much, apparently. It’s not like the Burmese governent hasn’t been treating people badly for a long time.
The reason it’s called ‘news’ is because it’s information that is new. The Saffron Revolution is a new development, hence the interest, hence the reporting. It doesn’t mean we didn’t care before but do now.
Here’s how this goes:
The land east of India has for a Millenia or so been called Myanmar. The British ‘acquired’ the area in the late 1880’s but being content to ignore the hill tribes and stay in the river valley dominated by the Burma people they simply called the area ‘Burma’.
When General Ne Win and the Junta took power in the 60’s he changed it back to Myanmar. I say all this to describe a classic diplomatic Catch-22:
Saying ‘Myanmar’ implies both pro-Junta, but also Anti-colonialism (i.e. Nationalism)
Saying ‘Burma’ implies anti-Junta, but also harkens back to an era most would like to forget, there is after all no longer a Belgian Congo.
The USA, UK and NATO call it Burma, the UN calls it Myanmar…and they’re both right.
The name wasn’t changed to Myanmar until 1989, by the current junta (well, actually SLORC, but pretty much the same thing). Before that it was the “Union of Burma”. also, both “Burma” and “Myanmar” refer to the people in the river valley (both “Burma” and “Myanmar” are really the same word in Burmese…“Myamma” is the formal version of the word, and “Buma” is the informal version).
And also
is true, but the state that used to be called the Belgian Congo is now the Congo again.
Captain Amazing, the Burma are a distinct ethnic group and the word ‘Myanmar’ does not specifically refer to them. You’re right about the name change in '89 though (how’d I forget that?)
And about the Congo, pedantic nitpicks aside, you see my point yeah?
Except “Myanmar” does refer to the Burman people…both “Burma” and “Myanmar” are derived from the name for that ethnic group.
And I’m sorry, but I don’t see your point about the Congo.
Not to mention that “Burma” was the creation of the Burman people, not the British. Burma under the Konbaung dynasty was an aggressive, imperialistic state that expelled the British from their first local foothold at Negrais in 1739. They were actively competeing with the British for dominance over Assam and associated territories like Manipur, which is what triggered the first Anglo-Burmese War in 1824.
Implying that “Burma” is a colonial invention is a mistake. It was an indigenous imperial description, describing the militarily dominant majority, busily conquering their neighbors ( which today compromise Burma’s numerous minorities ).
Eh, excuse me - 1759. Obviously my Burmese history is getting a bit rusty. I also almost wrote Toungoo dynasty in the original post, instead of Konbaung. Imagine the egg on my face after that kind of gaffe :p.
:rolleyes: sigh Dude, you grasp the concept but are a little unclear on the specifics.