Burma: What's in a name?

'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: https://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100164771/obama-administration-refuses-to-say-it-will-recognise-results-of-falklands-referendum/

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

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

One can understand that the BBC 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.

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.

Please, not this again.

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

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

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

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.

Interestingly enough the BBC 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 legacy of apartheid in South Africa. BBC shapes thoughts by its broadcasts - some judgement surpassing convenience is needed here.

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

"...BBC 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.

"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.

'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?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2010/09/impartiality_is_in_our_genes.html

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

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 BBC 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...

"...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....

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

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

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?

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