frankbangkok,
I wasn't being entirely serious with that suggestion, but thank you for your response. When you say
many Asians may view this disaster differently than westerners do
, what exactly do you mean? That Asians think the Burmese should be left to fend for themselves? Or am i missing something in the Asian mindset? i know Thailand said they didn't need help after the tsunami, but as far as I know the other affected Asian nations welcomed it, so are we talking about an issue of face here? I am a little confused but bow to your obvious experience and knowledge of these things.
Without getting too involved in esoteric and impenetrable thinking vis-a-vis such a horrible and real disaster as the one now unfolding in Burma, it can be enlightening and calming, however, to examine and compare one Eastern view of such events with one Western view.
In Buddhist teaching, the Law of Karma, says only this: For every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first. This second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according to whether the first event was accompanied by craving, resistance or delusions, that is, whether it was skillful or unskillful. Buddha also said that: Events are not skillful or unskillful, pleasant or unpleasant in themselves, but are such only with respect to the mental thoughts that occur along with them. Therefore, the Law of Karma teaches that responsibility for actions is born by the person / group / nation who commits them, and that responsibility for events is born by the person / group / nation who precipitated them.
We Westerners generally view events in a much different light than many in the East do. With respect to the present emergency in Burma, most of us Westerners do not see this as anything but a horrible, random accident which victimized an innocent populous. Thus, we rush to assist the victims with all the aid we can assemble. This divergence of opinion actually plays out quite well on the world’s stage. The United Nations’ division of the world’s countries into Western donor nations and Eastern / third world recipient nations, correlates well with the West’s wish to assist those less fortunate, and the Eastern / recipient nations’ belief that divine assistance will come to them to the extent that they deserve it.
As I see it, and please feel free to disagree with me if you wish, our sacred mission in life as Westerners is to see to it that the desperately needy in the East, and else where, do receive the divine assistance they so desperately need and deserve.
What is in a name some of you call the country Burma as i do and The Nation newspaper does as well . Well i am a Brit so that's my reason, but some of you call the country Mayanma , apart from thats what the junta renamed it why do you call it that when the Burma people say Burma.?
On 18 June 1989, the military junta passed the 'Adaptation of Expressions Law' that officially changed the English version of the country's name from Burma to Myanmar, and changed the English versions of many place names in the country along with it, such as its former capital city from Rangoon to Yangon (which represents its pronunciation more accurately in Burmese though not in Arakanese). This prompted one scholar to coin the term 'Myanmarification' to refer to the top-down programme of political and cultural reform that led to and followed in the wake of this renaming.[7] This decision has not been subject to independent legislation and no national referendum was held to decide this change by the people.[2] Within the Burmese language, Myanmar is the written, literary name of the country, while Bama or Bamar (from which "Burma" derives) is the oral, colloquial name. In spoken Burmese, the distinction is less clear than the English transliteration suggests.
The renaming proved to be politically controversial.[8] Opposition groups continue to use the name "Burma," since they do not recognize the legitimacy of the ruling military government nor its authority to rename the country in English. The name change has been recognized by the United Nations, China, India, Singapore, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Bangladesh, ASEAN, and Russia. However it has not been recognized by many western governments such as the United States, Australia, Canada or the United Kingdom, which continue to use "Burma," while the European Union uses "Burma/Myanmar" as an alternative.[9][10][11]
Use of "Burma" and its adjective, "Burmese," remains common in the United States and Britain. Some news organizations, such as the BBC and The Financial Times, still use these forms.[12][13] MSNBC, The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and others use "Myanmar" as the country name and "Burmese" as the adjective. Jim Lehrer, of PBS's nightly news program The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, used to call the country Myanmar but now uses the phrase Myanmar-also referred to as Burma. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation also refers to both names in their news articles.
Ehe Reason why the Burmese Junta confiscate the allready arrived Supplies of Food ect. In all 38 Tonnes. The reason why the Junta won't let any Helper from the various Organizations inside Burma is pretty obvious. The Military Regime wants to distribute those Help Suplies to their soldiers and their relatives first and taking advantage of the allready Storm ravaged Populatioon by selling them Suplies for exorbtant Prices.
Your's The understudy!!'
In Love with Hua Hin since 19naughty9 and it ain't fading!!!
(My fable for All Things Japanese knows no boundaries!) Proud Student of Stamford University Hua Hin Campus from 1999 to 2004 (5th Batch of Graduates.)
“Once you survive Stamford U Hua Hin Campus only you can survive anything!!!”
nevets wrote:What is in a name some of you call the country Burma as i do and The Nation newspaper does as well . Well i am a Brit so that's my reason, but some of you call the country Mayanma , apart from thats what the junta renamed it why do you call it that when the Burma people say Burma.?
What's in a name? Good question. Not much really, in this case. As far as I'm aware Myanmar is the name of the country in their own language. The military dictatorship insisted (way back) that this become the internationally acknowledged name. The UN accepted that, and it was fairly widely used until comparatively recently, when supporting (verbally) change in Burma became popular. I seem to remember the BBC calling it Myanmar for some time, and I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Aung San Suu Kyi referred to the country as Myanmar, but of course that may not have been in English. Will she change it back when (and surely it must be when, rather than if) she is in charge?
All of that is really neither here nor there. I'm not sure it's correct, and frankly that doesn't matter much. I doubt very much that the people of Burma give a monkey's fart what we call their country right now. More to the point is what you think, say (and do) about what's happening there. The people that matter are talking the talk, but they certainly aren't walking the walk. It wouldn't take the US (oh okay, and a handful of token assorted Europeans) 5 minutes to get rid of the Junta, and they certainly wouldn't get anything but praise and thanks from the people, but, hey, we don't want to upset China, do we? They might take their business elsewhere, and then we might have to, eerm..., buy things from each other, like we used to...
Free trade, don't you just love it? Or am I being too simplistic?
That was always my understanding as well, frankbangkok. The UK, at least, never recognised the junta and the word "Myanmar".
Conversely, India has a habit of changing names (Bombay/Mumbai: Calcutta/Kolkata: Madras/Chennai, etc etc, but we recognise the country and therefore some name changes.
As an aside.
If you've been to Ranong and are filling in the TM card, do you say that you've entered from Burma or Myanmar?
Years ago, I put down Burma and the Imm Officer changed it by hand. I've always put Myanmar from then on.
the burmese junta confiscating the aid supplied by the UN for their own distribution (or not as will surely be the case!!) has little to do with buddhist teachings or karma.
it's more to do with greed, corruption & profiteering from their own peoples misery.
i can't understand why the UN don't start parachuting supplies in to the worst affected areas, its not that difficult surely??
Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
lomuamart wrote: The UK, at least, never recognised the junta and the word "Myanmar".
You'd better tell Gordon Brown. Apparently we have an embassy in Myanmar. But not in Yangon...
British Embassy of United Kingdom in Rangoon Myanmar
Country Represented: United Kingdom
Type of Representation: British Embassy
Country Located in: Myanmar
City: Rangoon
It would surprise me if UN flights would enter Burmese airspace without permission of the Burmese authorities. Correct me if I am mistaken, but so far as I know, this has never happened without a General Assembly resolution recommended by the security Council. Such a resolution would most likely not be possible in this case.
Individual soverign states which are members of the United Nations could indeed act unilaterally, however. The most likely nation to take such an action would, of course, be the United States. To do this, the relief flights would need to be protected from possible hostile response from the Junta. In Southeast Asia the only nation with military assets to do this is the United States.
Last edited by frankbangkok on Sat May 10, 2008 9:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
Would you believe that with aid agencies trying hard to get people into Burma to help save lives. They have closed the visa office for a 3 day holiday... (source BBC news)
(source BBC news)