Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 89919	2008-05-16 06:04:00	Is it Burma.	Cicero (40)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
669971	2008-05-16 06:04:00	I firmly of the view that it should be BURMA not Myanmar.A leading UK Burma campaigner explained the difference thus: “Often you can tell where someone’s sympathies lie if they use Burma or Myanmar. Myanmar is a kind of indicator of countries that are soft on the regime.” After witnessing the appalling indifference of Burma’s military leadership to the welfare of its cyclone-ravaged citizens over recent days, the question needs to be asked: just why would New Zealand’s Government leadership and its media go out of their way to honour the wishes of such a regime by referring to the country as Myanmar, when both the political leadership and the media of the UK, Europe and Australia do precisely the opposite?	Cicero (40)
669972	2008-05-16 06:08:00	I firmly of the view that it should be BURMA not Myanmar.A leading UK Burma campaigner explained the difference thus: “Often you can tell where someone’s sympathies lie if they use Burma or Myanmar. Myanmar is a kind of indicator of countries that are soft on the regime.” After witnessing the appalling indifference of Burma’s military leadership to the welfare of its cyclone-ravaged citizens over recent days, the question needs to be asked: just why would New Zealand’s Government leadership and its media go out of their way to honour the wishes of such a regime by referring to the country as Myanmar, when both the political leadership and the media of the UK, Europe and Australia do precisely the opposite?I agree with you. It should be Burma. The BBC always refer to Burma not Myanmar.	Pato (2463)
669973	2008-05-16 06:50:00	There is a good discussion about the name in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org Most news agencies (except the BBC who probably are still living a colonial mindset) have a bob each way - e.g. "Myanmar, the country formerly known as Burma". Burma is the English name cos they couldn't pronounce Myanmar, whereas Myanmar is a name that derives from the 13th century - hence a wee bit older than the colonisation period. If any gumberment other than the present junta had changed the name back to the indigenous name, there wouldn't have been a problem. People just won't accept Myanmar as legitimate because the present gumberment isn't legitimate. No-one seems to have a problem with Beijing, Kolkata, Mumbai etc, because the change was made by a legitimate authority.	John H (8)
669974	2008-05-16 08:56:00	You are so right John. Look how the the African countries have progressed since the those nasty colonials have left.	Cicero (40)
669975	2008-05-16 10:01:00	It's Istanbul not Constantinople now but that is nobodies business but the Turks. Old song. Google it. Things change. Take Ceylon which is now Sri Lanka. Take Mount Egmont! Where is Mount Taranaki BTW. Same place right! Tourist arrives and says, "I want to go Mount Egmont as I have seen very nice pictures." Taxi driver says, "I can't take you to Mount Egmont but I can take you to Mount Taranaki for the same price." Tourist jumps up and down and accuses taxi driver of stealing Mount Egmont. Think about street names that have changed due to having similar names or phonetic names in the same suburb. I phone 111 and say there is someone breaking in at 12 Reed Rd or was that Ried Rd or Read Rd. I would know but while being questioned the person may have more time to get in. For the record I still think of Burma as being Burma. Try these links and compare the difference:- www.everypoet.com www.seeklyrics.com I could never make out that the "dawn came out like thunder from China across the bay." I do not think it is possible.	Sweep (90)
669976	2008-05-16 15:07:00	There is a good discussion about the name in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org Most news agencies (except the BBC who probably are still living a colonial mindset) have a bob each way - e.g. "Myanmar, the country formerly known as Burma". Burma is the English name cos they couldn't pronounce Myanmar, whereas Myanmar is a name that derives from the 13th century - hence a wee bit older than the colonisation period. If any gumberment other than the present junta had changed the name back to the indigenous name, there wouldn't have been a problem. People just won't accept Myanmar as legitimate because the present gumberment isn't legitimate. No-one seems to have a problem with Beijing, Kolkata, Mumbai etc, because the change was made by a legitimate authority. It is very interesting doing a search on the above highlighted word. You are a strange lad.	mikebartnz (21)
669977	2008-05-16 19:42:00	I don't really care either way, except Burma is easier to pronounce. Every country has the right to call themselves whatever they like, but they can't take away what we ourselves want to call them. Also I'd be mighty p'd off if an NZ government tried to change the name of New Zealand.	Greg (193)
669978	2008-05-16 22:59:00	I don't think it matters a tuppenny damn to life, the universe, or anything else whether people on this site continue to call a country by the name it was known as by its former colonial masters. The colonialists couldn't give a toss about what the indigenous people called their country either - they too chose a name that was easier to pronounce - but they got tossed out or died out eventually, as will the old buffers on PressF1. No doubt we still have members of the Flat Earth Society on here as well - who cares? It is an utter irrelevance. Incidentally, do any of you still call Malawi "Nyasaland"?	John H (8)
669979	2008-05-16 23:16:00	I don't think it matters a twopenny damn to life, the universe, or anything else whether people on this site continue to call a country by the name it was known as by its former colonial masters. The colonialists couldn't give a toss about what the indigenous people called their country either - they too chose a name that was easier to pronounce - but they got tossed out or died out eventually, as will the old buffers on PressF1. No doubt we still have members of the Flat Earth Society on here as well - who cares? It is an utter irrelevance. Incidentally, do any of you still call Malawi "Nyasaland"? The so called colonialist called NZ New Zealand,do think it should be call NOTHING,that way we an avoid realty altogether.	Cicero (40)
669980	2008-05-16 23:49:00	Does it really matter, whichever way you say it the government are refusing to help their own people over there, but as we all know they don't have oil so Uncle George does not need to send the boys in. Every tribe of American Indian or should that be First Peoples? had their own name for America so is every State going to get renamed and the borders shifted along ancient lines? I don't think so.	gary67 (56)
1 2 3 4 5