Why are you toting XRW views as acceptable and 'mainstream?' I don't like XRW or XLW, you don't like one, but seem to favour the other.....that's OK if that's what you want, just don't pretend to be anything but a fan
When I was last at RMAS, we were all paraded in the Churchill Hall to be addressed by the great Nobel Laureate, whether we liked it or not. The Foreign Office had, apparently, decided that she needed to be filmed lecturing large amounts of officers and OCdts in order to provide leverage against Myanmar's military.
In respect of her father, a person we would have called a 'terrorist insurgent' leader against Britain, she came out with the line, 'It was not that we hated the British, it was that we loved freedom more.'
I was incandescent at this triteness, but we all had to grin and applaud the great Laureate. It made me realise how much the government sees the Army as a political tool to be manipulated for its ends.
One of the reports showed some staged photos of one woman in a bright orange item of clothing with a tea towel on her head waving a sword around as "proof" the muslims were burning their own villages. Unfortunately the same woman was seen in the next non muslim village over.
He is a sad little man with a long history of throwing tantrums, making up things nobody ever said and calling anyone a racist for not sharing his views. He picks and chooses what people say and downright makes things up. Despite the fact I have said numerous times on here that I support the rights of both political extremes to say what they want to say he claims I am defending Nazis. He cannot and will not seperate the difference between supporting free speech and agreeing with the views of those people.
He is incapable of defending his stance on this issue and simply labels everyone as Nazis and refuses to return to the thread. This happens on every thread in the forum that involves a discussion about the far right.
What makes it a different case is that our fluffier types have spent years telling themselves that Buddhists are religious hippies and can't get their heads around them having their share of utter shits same as any other group of humanity.
Organised religion is about temporal control first and foremost. It's not exempt from the need for an 'Other' to define itself in relation to.
AIUI this has been going on a long time and no-one in Burma ( and that includes the Sainted Nobel laureate) likes the muslim minority - if she's quiet about it it's because er....
She agrees with it.
It seems that hating the muslims is one of the few things that everyone in Myanmar whatever their other differences can agree on.
Needless to say there are other sides to the story - the muslims have been doing their fair share of ethnic cleansing - as always there are the fit young blokes of military age who are off doing their own thing away from the tragic pictures of refugees.
They were wanting their own state run by muslim rules back before Indian independence.
The Burmese claim the existence of this community is only because of migration during the British empire.
The muslims were armed to resist the Japanese in WW2 but rather than that, promptly chose to do some ethnic cleansing against their Bhuddist Burmese neighbours.
Yes the pictures are tragic but the Muslim minority are far from blameless victims.
when Syria kicked off I saw lots of activists saying the West, the UK and whites were to blame.
When there were riots in the US, again I saw lots of protests saying that black lives matter and that the West, the UK and white people in the UK are accountable.
When Antifa riots kicked off in the US I heard that Trump was to blame, protesters in Bristol (England) said white people were accountable.
Now that loads of Muslims are being killed or hearded from their homes in Myanmar no one seems to want to blame anyone, no one has said its my fault as a British person.
Is there something different this time or is the situation just a bit too complex for the activist community?
I've worked in Myanmar on and off for several years.
Yes it's a complex problem and, a bit like Bosnia, not simple to just label people as 'good' and 'bad' guys.
Here's a simplified explanation.
Aung San was the independence leader. He led the creation of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar. Key point was his vision that Burma would, after independence, include the (mainly Buddhist) Burmah majority AND all the minority communities which, by and large, ring Myanmar's borders, but particularly to the east. The idea was 'independence first, political settlement second'. He was assassinated with the job half-done. Burma becomes a military dictatorship. His daughter becomes an academic, marries a Brit, moves to UK, raises two British-borne children.
At some point in the 80's she is sucked into and then takes leadership of the 'pro-democracy' movement. This leads to her house arrest and her becoming a prisoner of conscience. She's offered the chance to feck off back to UK to join her husband who is by now dying of cancer. She declines as she knows she'll be permanently exiled if she does. It is this decision that particularly makes her 'saintly' reputation in the West.
Concurrently, the military have failed to see through Aung San's vision of a great settlement, and their heavy-handed repression of the (mainly Christian) minorities leads to arm conflict with numerous different armed groups (at least 17 at one point recently), some of them for 60 years or so.
But this issue with the ethnic minorities on the eastern borders is NOT the issue that's been top of 'The Lady's' agenda. Her focus has always been the pro-democracy movement within the Burmah polity. The last elections saw her eventual victory, but the Army (the 'Tatmadaw') did not go gently into that good night. The constitution has been amended to guarantee the armed forces a considerable bloc of seats in the parliament, and they retain executive control of all of the security agencies, including the MoD and the Border Security Ministry. So she won but she's there on sufferance. And there are few votes in the Burmah majority for supporting the ethnic minorities.
And if that weren't sensitive enough, there's the Rohingya situation. Essentially ethnic Bengali (and Moslem), the inclusion of Burma into British India, made it easier for these people to settle in the west of Burma (not that any borders in pre-colonial SE Asia were hermetically sealed). Ironically, the reduction of the Junta's repression over the last few years in an attempt by the military to improve their electability, releases pent-up anti immigration hatred (sound familiar?) amongst the Burmah majority. Aung Sang Sui Kyi's constituency.
And this anti-Moslem hatred is pretty viscous. There is a particularly nasty form of radical Buddhism in Myanmar. I was there in 2013 when one senior monk issued an edict that said no Buddhist was allowed to have relations with a Moslem, marry a Moslem or do business with a Moslem. Almost word for word the same as the 1936 Nuremberg Race Laws. Nasty.
So she's in a cleft stick. She's a Burmah politician, in government under sufferance from the military. It's only the support of the Burmah majority that keeps the Army from taking control again. If she moves too far to support either the minorities or the Rohingya, she could lose this support.
Most foreigners don't understand that there are these three overlapping problems in Myanmar, let alone her weak position.