Myanmar People Called

People of Myanmar

However, the church in Myanmar has continued to grow and prosper. Almost two thirds of the population are Bamar (also called Burmese or Burmese). Inward is in the so-called Upper Burma. Pa-o- people call them Naung Ma, people who live by the lake. The Yangon (formerly Rangoon) is the gateway to Myanmar.

Commentaries on the concept of Myanmar

Myanmar's army is still omnipresent and pervades the country's civilian community, which is still a hostile elite governed by bribery, compulsion, nepotism und sponsorship (Guanxi if you favour Chinese!), and what Burma needs is a kind of revolutionary France (Suu Kyi said in France that she enjoys reading Victor Hugo lol) before it can really join the contemporary age.

Liberté, Égalité, fraternité would certainly shed light on these stupid "ethnic conflicts" and perhaps even the sparsely disguised race prejudice that still exists in the state. Like many Asians, Myanmar people have a tendency to brush uncomfortable things under the carpet, but now that they are trying to "reform and open up," the more ugly things will come into sight.

Myanmar's indigenous communities make up a large part of Burma and could have a more important part if the 50 communities were to work together against Bamar's "hegemonic ambitions" (racist genocide terrorist strategy). The majority of Burmese people are rightly concerned ("fear" is the term here) about the harassment and threats made by the Bamar to enforce their will.

They use the classical "divide and conquer" approach (which is why they insist on "bilateral talks" to promote their absurd genocide against the Rohinyas, Karens and many other ethnical groups). In my opinion, the role of India and China could be to give Burmaʼ ethnical minority groups powerful ethical and civic backing and not to let the Bamars use the point that Myanmar "belongs to them" where they can do whatever they want.

From today, many Myanmar companies will be willing to embrace a Mongol or Kurdish as one of their people because they look like them. For them it does not make any difference how long they have lived in Myanmar (1 month, 2 month, 3 month or one year).

As a Buddhist, the more likely he or she is to be recognized as a Myanmar national. However, southern Asians like Rohingyas are not acceptable as their people, no matter how long they have lived there (50 years, a hundred years, two hundred years and so on).

From today, to be a Moroccan national, you have to be what they look like or be of the Mongolian people. So they have no way of being acceptable as people. Mr. Farmaners statement: "Anti-Muslim prejudices are indigenous in Burma's societies and snide remarks about Muslims are so mundane.

I' ve seen in some of their commentaries that they even ask to examine the DNA of Rohingyas to be able to determine whether they are Myanmar nationals or not, just like what the Nazi's did to verify whether they were of Asian or not. Wonder how those same people can come to Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, etc. and brazenly ask for asylum or nationality within three to four years if they do not want a people to be recognised as their people who have lived there for at least a hundred years (here I am not referring to all Myanmar people but to the xenophobic Burmese)!

Bamar are a big admirer of barbarity and are at risk of extinction. Bamar receive some arms, enter a bullfight and murder "unwanted groups" like the Rohinyas or Thailand with terroristic tou touc. In any case, most of the world's current issues come from al-Qa' ida and the Bamar.

Shouldn't "Myanmar" be treating all "illegal immigrants" equally, regardless of "ethnicity"? Myanmar is regarded as their land and the others, Rohingyas included, are inferior. Looking at their internal advisory group, there are few minority nationalities. While I know she doesn't like the term Myanmar, many minority groups do not like using the name.

To some extent, Aung San Suu Kyi is not only persistent in her anti-generals position, but is not vulnerable to minority groups. http://latimesblogs.latimes. com/world_now/2012/07/whats-in-a-name-in-mya..... When the generals decided to change the name, they did so not only to free themselves from the country's former settlement, but also to find a more comprehensive name than Burma (often associated with the Bamar major ethnical group), although the two are the major ethnical group.

Some people have the pretext that they have been incorporated into "Burma" and they were once sovereign states. Every country inherits something good and evil from the colonisers, but Burma took the good and wasted it and substituted it with something evil. There will be no Myanmar without the solution of ethical issues, no freedom, no development.

On South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia and Bamar terrorism: The Bamar Burmese have for thousands of years regarded the Bamar tribe as inhabited by savages in their land and peripheries and it is a sign of Bamar tradition to "eliminate", "eradicate" and/or "bamarize" them (to place them under the Bamar's intercultural, economical and geographical control).

Obviously the Bámar are conscious of minority ethnicities, but they will only disguise these "picturesque people" as touristic assets or just murder them (although of course the Bámar guides will always be wearing westerly suits). The Bamarian community is persuaded of its superior ity in culture (especially towards the rotten, backward, neighboring ethnical minorities), it has long-term policy objectives of the ethnical domination of the city.

It is the aim to make only Burma Bamar and finally make Southeast Asia and later the whole planet Bamar. While they may regard India and China as "worthy opponents" to fight, the Bamar do not even regard Thai or ethnical minority groups as "equal".

The South China Sea, Indian Ocean and Thailand are the Bamar's strategy targets, which is why they are carrying out acts of terrorism to demand them. In the end, the" conquerors" always write story, but since the Bamar project will probably not be successful, it is unlikely that the story will be by them. This will not be happening in Burma and some other lands, because the Bamars essentially want to vanquish the Burmese minority tribes, vanquish the remainder of South East Asia and finally vanquish the US to become the only dominant super power, and many Bamar (even among those living or studying in the West with Canada passports) are brainwashing to believe that this is Bamar's "obvious destiny" when one considers their "10,000 years of civilization and racial supremacy (with a few fractions)".

To the Bamar, it is just an "undeclared war" against the ethical minority, the remainder of South East Asia and finally the remainder of the globe. Better be wary (UNHCR could read it!) when you compare "Myanmar" with the USA. In the USA, many of Burma's "refugees" live and many of them are ethnically minority groups.

Is it true they' re discriminated against by whites? There are also many people (mainly Karen) in Thai fugitive centres queuing up and trying (or even lying?) to get policy refugees and a flight permit to a westerly destination (USA, Canada, Norway, UK, Germany, Denmark,...). If Myanmar is such a "more civilized" place to life, why would they do that?

I understand that it is almost a "business" between different "Myanmar exiled " municipalities, isn't it? Since 3323 B.C. Indo-Arayans have lived in Arakan according to the novel "Za Lok Kay Pho Lay? Weren't these the ancestors of the people who today were called Rohingya?

It should also be remembered that the Khittagong area of Bangladesh and Arakan of Myanmar were united and a country was ruled by the same monarch. It' s not surprising to find a similarity between the people in the area of Arakan and Khittagong. In addition to the Rohingyas, Chakmas (Thaks) and Baruas also talk a Chittagong dikt and similar civilizations with the people of the city.

So if they can be regarded as Myanmar people, why not Rohingyas? If Burma is not in this world, then it can remain without granting Rohingyas nationality. Incidentally, during the colonial era, migrating from one place to another (within the colonized countries) was perfectly legitimate. Furthermore, during the Aung San and Aktle deal, he (Aung San) pledged that he would recognise anyone who lived on his own land as a Burmese national.

They live on both sides of the country, in Burma and Bangladesh. When they can be nationals of both lands (the same Rakhines), why can't Rohingyas be nationals of Burma? The points that some extremists in Burma are trying to defend in order to label Rohingyas as illegals are nothing but sluggish pretexts.

Aung San Suu Kyi cannot be held responsible for the grievances of Myanmar's minority population. In fairness, she is still not the ringleader of Myanmar. It is also a much more complicated subject with more than 100 minority groups in Myanmar. Burma is treating its minority groups much better than other nations such as the US and India.

The Rohingyas get more righteousness in Myanmar! When you point your finger at Myanmar, please look at yourselves first! Burma is more civilized than most. From today, many Myanmar companies will be willing to embrace a Mongol or Kurdish as one of their people because they look like them.

For them it does not make any difference how long they have lived in Myanmar (1 month, 2 month, 3 month or one year). As a Buddhist, the more likely he or she is to be recognized as a Myanmar national. However, southern Asians like Rohingyas are not acceptable as their people, no matter how long they have lived there (50 years, a hundred years, two hundred years and so on).

From today, to be a Moroccan national, you have to be what they look like or be of the Mongolian people. So they have no way of being acceptable as people. Mr. Farmaners statement: "Anti-Muslim prejudices are indigenous in Burma's societies and snide remarks about Muslims are so mundane.

I' ve seen in some of their commentaries that they even ask to examine the DNA of Rohingyas to be able to determine whether they are Myanmar nationals or not, just like what the Nazi's did to verify whether they were of Asian or not. Wonder how those same people can come to Europe, the USA, Canada, Australia, etc. and brazenly ask for asylum or nationality within three to four years if they do not want a people to be recognised as their people who have lived there for at least a hundred years (here I am not referring to all Myanmar people but to the xenophobic Burmese)!

because you kill Indian-looking people (the Rohinyas). The U.S. will help you kill the Rohinyas? ahahahahahahhaha you Myanmar terrorists barbarians are killing me! The Bamar, if they want to commemorate the Rohinyas holocaust, they should also commemorate the Chinese people! However, you should remember that not all people in Burma are hostile to foreigners and there are still people in Burma who want to be diverse.

If you don't know, I should say that there is a 1-Kyat drone in Burma's TE boards, posted in Burma and China boards 24 /7, copied and pasted by his 1-Kyat master from Burma (check out his old postings; they'll be reviewed all 20 times or so!) and made simple fun notices.

It is true that there are sound counter-reactions between the ASSK (and its NLD party) and Burmese nationalities nowadays. Mr Aung San Suu Kyi will deal with everyone and jeopardise everything if these things really work for Burma democratic. Understanding the ASSK has moved within very confined policy frameworks, especially Burma's policies have been in turmoil for many centuries to achieve their goals.

In replying with "she knows nothing about Rohingya," she has tackled the problem and most people in Burma are pleased with that response, but (certainly) others are not pleased because they are making Rohingya obtain nationality and demand a state under the name of human rights or universal law. It was important for the rest of the hemisphere to know that Myanmar is not against Muslims, but Myanmar is completely against Rohingya to take nationality, believing that most of Rohingya are illegal Bangladeshi migrants.

A Myanmar representative and Human Right Watch held a Rohingya conference in the United States on 4 July 2012. Myanmar's CEO emphatically says HRW as follows: "The Myanmar mission today, at a Human Rights Watch summit, gave a clear signal that if some states, such as the US, can agree, we can carry Rohinja (stateless people) by ship or by other means.

"This extract was copied from the Facebook page of Hmuu Zaw - a member of the Myanmar delegation and an officer of President Thein's office.

Mehr zum Thema