΄σΟσ΄«Γ½

΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ BLOGS - The Editors
Β« Previous | Main | Next Β»

Burma: What's in a name?

Post categories:

Jon Williams Jon Williams | 08:37 UK time, Thursday, 14 June 2012

Today, β€œThe Lady” begins a 17-day visit to Europe. Aung San Suu Kyi arrives at an important moment in her country – but what should we call it?


Aung San Suu Kyi

Some news organisations refer to it as Myanmar, others, including the ΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ choose to call it Burma. Over the next week, there will be lots of reporting about the country. So how do we decide which name to use?

The nation's military leaders changed the English language version of the country's name to Myanmar in 1989. The name change was opposed by pro-democracy campaigners and by Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy. They argue that the name was changed by a military junta that had no legitimacy - the NLD won elections in the country a year later, but the junta refused to recognise the result.

The decision to change the name of a country or a city is often politically sensitive, frequently the result of a nation shedding its colonial past, for example, Rhodesia's transition to Zimbabwe or India's commercial capital Bombay becoming Mumbai.

When Hillary Clinton visited the new capital Naypyidaw late last year, her advisors said she would not use either Myanmar or Burma, but would use phrases like "your country", "this land" and "what you call Myanmar". Officials said it was a sensitive issue for their hosts, but also for the US government.

That is not an option for the ΄σΟσ΄«Γ½. For us, the issue is about what is most helpful to our audiences. The ΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ Burmese Service was founded in 1940. It has covered independence, uprisings and long years of military rule. It plays a vital role in bringing accurate, impartial news to the people of Burma, reaching an audience of many millions inside the country. In English - and in Burmese - our responsibility is to our audience. For now, most know the country as Burma, so, for now, that's what we continue to call it.

Others take a different view. The United Nations and the New York Times began calling the nation Myanmar in 1989, while the Associated Press adopted "Myanmar" in 2006. The ΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ continues to keep names under review. Earlier this year we adopted the name "Chennai" for the Indian city of Madras - by contrast, we still refer to Bangalore rather than Bengaluru.

Jon Williams is the ΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ World News editor.

Comments

  • Comment number 1.

    'When Hillary visited ... Officials said it was a sensitive issue for their hosts, but also for the US.'

    Clearly, taking a lead from Mrs. C's merry crew is not always the smart play:

    'our responsibility is to our audience'. For now. Reassuring.

  • Comment number 2.

    All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

  • Comment number 3.

    One can understand that the ΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ has to relate to its readers. Hence the name Burma is being used. Mrs Clinton has excellent credentials and is an exceedingly smart diplomat. Her decision to follow other guidelines after deep thought should not cause unnecessary debate.

  • Comment number 4.

    Choice of names stems from the existence of two different names for the country - in Burmese; these are used in separate & different contexts. In Burmese language, Burma is known as either Myanma or Bama - Myanma is the written, literary name of the country; Bama is the spoken name of the country.

  • Comment number 5.

    Please, not this again.

    We do not call Finland "Suomi", Germany "Deutschland " etc.

    English is all of our language and it's not for ΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ or any other journalists to tell us what our words mean, thank you.

    "Burma" means that land the Burmese call "Myanmar".

  • Comment number 6.

    In the 1920s, some favoured the name Myanma, which had been the name applied to the OLD BURMESE KINGDON DESTROYED BY THE BRITISH IN 19TH CENTURY. In the 1930s, the left-wing independence parties favoured the name Bama, as they thought this name was more inclusive of minorities than Myanma.

  • Comment number 7.

    Interestingly enough the ΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ Burmese Service, except in its title seems roughly to approximate the distinction between written reference, Myanmar, & spoken Burma. I'm sorry that I didn't have sufficient time to read several reports from the Service in depth, but it seems an interesting point nonetheless.

  • Comment number 8.

    "Burma" is the name given by British when colonized. We call ourselves "Myanmar" and we are proud of it.

  • Comment number 9.

    8. At 14:25 14th Jun 2012, Michael wrote:

    "Burma" is the name given by British when colonized. We call ourselves "Myanmar" and we are proud of it.

    ===

    Good for you Michael. Welsh speakers call my homeland "Loegr", but I call it "England". I wouldn't ask them to change, though.

  • Comment number 10.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 11.

    Let the Americans be as silly as they like.

    It was they who started all this nonsense by calling Constantinople "Istanbul" as I remember.

    They can call lifts "elevators" and pavements "sidewalks" if they want.

    Let them have their own word for Burma too.

  • Comment number 12.

    Jon, what suits audiences isn't always right: e.g. retaining old street names and even govt roads policy was seen as contributing to entrenching the in South Africa. ΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ shapes thoughts by its broadcasts - some judgement surpassing convenience is needed here.

  • Comment number 13.

    12. At 19:26 14th Jun 2012, Craig Smith wrote:

    "...΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ shapes thoughts by its broadcasts..."

    ===

    Without doubt. However, between you, those who clamour for some impossible ideal of "impartiality", and you, are going to have to decide what exactly it is that you want.

  • Comment number 14.

    "The decision to change the name of a country or a city is often politically sensitive, frequently the result of a nation shedding its colonial past, for example, Rhodesia's transition to Zimbabwe or India's commercial capital Bombay becoming Mumbai.``so sensitive, it should be just another alias.

  • Comment number 15.

    '13. Eddy from Waring wrote:
    '. those who clamour for some impossible ideal of "impartiality", and you, are going to have to decide what exactly it is that you want.

    Seems it's sorted, and genetic. So, a possible next DG failing you already?
    /blogs/theeditors/2010/09/impartiality_is_in_our_genes.html

  • Comment number 16.

    Whatever The Lady calls her country is good enough for me.

  • Comment number 17.

    16. At 10:31 16th Jun 2012, Douggielee wrote:

    "...Whatever The Lady calls her country is good enough for me..."

    ===

    ...and may well yet be good enough for the ΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ too.

    However, I don't recall them calling China by Mao's preferred appellation at the time.

    15 JM: Naturally. Time will indeed tell on the other...

  • Comment number 18.

    "...for example, Rhodesia's transition to Zimbabwe."


    Oh, dear.

    A better example could have been sought by the author, given the opacity of the subject of naming of Zambia's neighbour to the south between 1965 and 1979: with the Bill renaming Southern Rhodesia as "Rhodesia" never receiving assent, the correct name remained the fuller "Southern Rhodesia" until it became Zimbabwe....

  • Comment number 19.

    Times change. So does the map. So do the names. Sometimes for good, reasonable reasons, sometimes for political ones. Only history will pronounce the final verdict and by then none of us will be here arguing for or against: our children (or their children) will have the last word.

    Until then: let The Lady choose

  • Comment number 20.

    The Lady calls it Burma. That's good enough for me.

  • Comment number 21.

    The French call it "Birmanie". Italians and Spanish use "Birmania".

    Their relevant history's different from ours, but I'd expect they'd see no reason whatsoever to change in any case.

    So it's perhaps just to be the English-speaking world, that changes, is it?

  • Comment number 22.

    Wonder idea...

    In your
    sunshine I
    can see an
    intention full
    of happiness
    and there, in
    the light of
    this candle,
    a delicate
    thought calling
    the future.

    Francesco Sinibaldi

Μύ

More from this blog...

΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ iD

΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ navigation

΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ Β© 2014 The ΄σΟσ΄«Γ½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.