Myanmar?

[King Henry V]

I consider my geography to be very good, partly because I watch the news a lot and I can roughly place every counrty in the world. But where on earth is Myanmar? I heard the name yesterday on CNN (Crap News Network). Can anyone help?

[Dutch_guy]

Myanmar was Burma and this is where you can find it in the world :

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/0...mar.yangon.gif

[edyzmedieval]

Since when Myanmar is in Africa?!

Myanmar was the old Burma, with the capital at Rangoon(if I'm not mistaken). And old communist country, very poor, but quite large, and has tons of rice plantations supplied with water by the Mekong.

[Samurai Waki]

Yes Myanmar is Burma my grandfather got shot down over Myanmar in 41' when he was running protocol reports between British India Command and Anzac that didn't want to be recieved via radio transmissions.

[Marcellus]

Here's Myanmar (formerly known as Burma and in my experienced usually still called Burma) on a map:

[Es Arkajae]

They can call it whatever they like, as fas as I'm concerned its BURMA.

Same goes for India and this silly renaming spree they've gone on lately with some of their cities.

I sometimes call Sri Lanka by that name but I still get a miniscule thrill out of calling them Ceylon, it speaks to the inner tea drinking Western imperialist in me

[lars573]

The whole Myanmar and Burma thing comes from that the US dones't reocnize the military junta that rules the country or the name change. The military (with a general as president) has been in charge since 1962. The military under the guise of the State Law and Order Council has been running things as a commitee since 1988. They aren't communist just the "Burmese way of socialism". The countries most successful buisness is the government controlled heroin trade. Everything else is in the shitter

[Red Harvest]

They can call it whatever they like, as fas as I'm concerned its BURMA.

Same goes for India and this silly renaming spree they've gone on lately with some of their cities.

I sometimes call Sri Lanka by that name but I still get a miniscule thrill out of calling them Ceylon, it speaks to the inner tea drinking Western imperialist in me

Those "silly naming sprees" are usually because colonial Europeans didn't bother to try to pronounce names properly...or they chose incorrect names. Many Asian countries have been returning to the original or phonetically correct names. Imagine that Britain had been a colonial possession of China and London was called "Wonton" because it sounded "close enough."

[Es Arkajae]

Those "silly naming sprees" are usually because colonial Europeans didn't bother to try to pronounce names properly...or they chose incorrect names.

Welcome to wonderful world of language , I think you'll find that the so called 'original' language they're trying to 'return' to is just as filled with contractions, mistranslations and remnant historical misunderstandings in its terminology, spelling and pronunciation as any other language. As far as I'm concerned the renaming spree is just silly pandering to misplaced Indian chauvanism or misplaced political correctness, one or the other and I'll have none of it.

I'd also point out for instance that 'Mumbai' i.e. Bombay is actually just a made up name as it was the English who basically founded the city

"The appellation Mumbai is an eponym, etymologically derived from Mumba — the name of the local Hindu goddess Mumbadevi, and Aai — meaning mother in Marathi. In the 16th century, the Portuguese named the area Bom Bahia, which means Good Bay. This was later corrupted to Bomaím or Bombaim, by which name it is still known in Portuguese; and after the British gained possession, it was anglicised to Bombay. The name was officially changed from Bombay to Mumbai in 1995, but the former name is still popularly used in the West and by many of the city's inhabitants and famous institutions"

Aside from those local inhabitants who simply don't care, many still use Bombay and I'd wager many prefer it.

I'd also point out that all of Indias history is one of of successive waves of invaders coming into the country and adding their own contribution to the cultural currents within the sub-continent, the British conquest of India was another one of these, its cultural contributions no more 'non-Indian' then most of what is supposedly 'Indian' culture in the 'first' place .

Many Asian countries have been returning to the original or phonetically correct names. Imagine that Britain had been a colonial possession of China and London was called "Wonton" because it sounded "close enough."

'Brittannia' (Britain), 'Londinium' (London).

Wessex, Canterbury, Istanbul, Russia, Canada, America , these are some names then theres things such as Kangaroo, Ketchup etc.

Language is a tricky thing, and quite naturally so and you will usually find me disapproving of people trying to 'engineer' it for their own petty ends. Its one of the reasons I despise political correctness.

[Ronin]

this further proves that everyone should be forced to watch seinfeld episodes..

J. Peterman: I've already left, Elaine. I'm in Burma.

Elaine: Burma?

J. Peterman: You most likely know it as Myanmar, but it will always be Burma to me. Bonne chance, Elaine. (to a passerby) You there on the motorbike! Sell me one of your melons! (runs after him)

- in Seinfeld - "The Foundation"
Season 8, Episode #135
Original Air Date: September 19, 1996.

[Big_John]

i knew a burmese girl once.......

[Sjakihata]

alternatively, it proves that you, my friend, watch too much seinfeld

[Red Harvest]

It is their country, if they choose to change the name, it is their right. This is especially true of ones where the foreign pronunciation was not correct. Chauvinism? That is interesting when it is being used to justify colonial names. If a nation chooses to replace a colonial name, that is their right. Self determination.

The question here is WHO is trying to engineer the language for their own petty ends (as you put it.) Seems to me the locals have a better case than foreigners for selecting the names. Too often the arguments against political correctness are a defense for prejudice or laziness. I always find it irritating when coworkers made no effort to correctly pronounce foreign names, to me it is a clear sign of disrespect. The lack of interest shown in local sensitivities conveys an unflattering sense of superiority/snobbery. It's sort of like saying, "Well, y'all look alike to me." While I might be unable to pronounce some names correctly (at least on the first go or two or more), I at least make an effort and try to correct myself when I discover an error.

[Byzantine Prince]

Ok first of all ever heard of google?!?! You could have just searched the name, this is not a real topic for discussion.

Second of all the name Burma changed to Myanmar because they are a military dictatorship last I checked. A brutal one at that. They are destroying that country with their insane plans and changing the name is probably one of the nicer things they have done.

Red Harvest you make it sound like they are chose to change the name democratically because they hate the British imperialism, which is untrue.

[Red Harvest]

Red Harvest you make it sound like they are chose to change the name democratically because they hate the British imperialism, which is untrue.

I'm not talking about just Myanmar, nor am I speaking just about the British. I won't defend the military dictatorship. I made my response in regards to a comment about renaming of various Asian cities.

[Es Arkajae]

<snip>snip<snip>

And its my right to refuse to accept the new names (as indeed have many Bombay residents themselves apparently).

I don't recall myself at any point in this thread denying anyone elses 'right' to call anything whatever it is they want. Nice to see also somene else in here pick up on your sudden affection for terms of self-determination and such guff which is irrelevent to this discussion.

I do recall expressing my opinion on the politically motivated changing of place names and then pointing out the holes in your fallacious 'original and phonetically correct' nonsense.

Oh and also nice to see you completely ignore the pertinent points I made about India's cultural heritage, the changing and almost always inexact nature of place names so that you could go off on a rant about supposed Western arrogance etc. I ought to be accepting your concession on the issue.

[Red Harvest]

And its my right to refuse to accept the new names (as indeed have many Bombay residents themselves apparently).

I don't recall myself at any point in this thread denying anyone elses 'right' to call anything whatever it is they want. Nice to see also somene else in here pick up on your sudden affection for terms of self-determination and such guff which is irrelevent to this discussion.

I do recall expressing my opinion on the politically motivated changing of place names and then pointing out the holes in your fallacious 'original and phonetically correct' nonsense.

Oh and also nice to see you completely ignore the pertinent points I made about India's cultural heritage, the changing and almost always inexact nature of place names so that you could go off on a rant about supposed Western arrogance etc. I ought to be accepting your concession on the issue.

Concession? What? That you can call it anything you want? Sure that's fine with me. Just don't try to defend it by calling the native population's changes simple chauvinism, while at the same time ignoring the hypocrisy in what you've just said. The western arrogance is all too apparent.

Self determination is entirely relevant. Your history of the name actually reinforced my point, coming from a Portugese name that was then Anglicized. However, I was speaking in a more general sense anyway, rather than a single city or island or nation.

[Es Arkajae]

Concession? What? That you can call it anything you want? Sure that's fine with me. Just don't try to defend it by calling the native population's changes simple chauvinism, while at the same time ignoring the hypocrisy in what you've just said. The western arrogance is all too apparent.

I had to point out to you that the city of Bombay as well as being founded by the British had a 'new' name which was essentially made up.

Others here have already raised the question of just how 'democratic' these name changes were. What I see is the Indian government in a national campaign of renaming things to terms it defines as more 'Indian' whatever that means, it reaks of either chauvanism or political correctness. Renaming Bombay to Mumbai had about as much 'cultural' legitimacy as would renaming Los Angeles to Bruce city because it sounded more 'American'.

I also like how you immediately attach negative conotations towards chauvanism. Rather than it simply being used to describe possible motives behind the name change attempts I disapprove of.

Self determination is entirely relevant.

...Was this the part where you were supposed to explain how exactly?

Your history of the name actually reinforced my point, coming from a Portugese name that was then Anglicized.

I fail to see how that reinforced any of your so far looseley connected and rather non-sensical points?

However, I was speaking in a more general sense anyway, rather than a single city or island or nation.

Well then the multiple global examples I produced settle the matter as far as whining about 'original and phonetically correct' goes.

[Red Harvest]

[QUOTE=Es Arkajae]snipQUOTE]

All you've really done is prove my point about this being a western arrogance problem on your part. Thanks for that.

[Es Arkajae]

All you've really done is prove my point about this being a western arrogance problem on your part. .

Thats why many in Bombay themselves continue to call it Bombay eh?

Red I've poked numerous holes in the few arguments of yours that actually remained on-topic and you've completely failed to counter mine, instead focussing on throwing about silly accusations.

I'll be accepting that concession of yours now.

[King Henry V]

The fact is that Bombay, Madras and Calcutta were all originally trading posts built by the English or the Portuguese. Originally it was just a fort, a quay and a collection of huts in which the natives lived. The Indians probably didn't even have a name for such a place!
Well at least it is good to see that the old BBC still calls "Myanmar" Burma.
Here's an interesting article talking about the same things we are.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4579905.stm

[Sjakihata]

oh, believe me, places do ALWAYS have names.

And what you said, can be applied to EVERY single city. Once it was only huts. Rome, London, Paris every city.

[bmolsson]

It's not a very nice country....

[Samurai Waki]

It has been called Myanmar and Burma alternatively for the last 100 or so years. During the Empire Period it was called Burma... then during the 30s-40s it was Myanmar, then it switched back to Burma, then back to Myanmar. Sort of like Siam and Thailand.

[Slyspy]

Those "silly naming sprees" are usually because colonial Europeans didn't bother to try to pronounce names properly...or they chose incorrect names. Many Asian countries have been returning to the original or phonetically correct names. Imagine that Britain had been a colonial possession of China and London was called "Wonton" because it sounded "close enough."

Was that original name the Persian or the native name for the God-forsaken clutch of huts that used to be there before the white man was given it?