GOODY TWO SHOES: When Did Bombay Disappear Into The Black Hole Of Calcutta?
In “The Opinionator” (a New York Times blog), Chris Suellentrop addresses one of The Stiletto’s pet peeves. Some newspapers covering the Buddhist monk uprising, use the dateline “Burma,” others use “Myanmar.” Geography not being one of her strong suits (remember, she’s the product of public school education), it actually took The Stiletto a day or so to realize that all the action was occurring in one country, and wasn’t a regional revolt involving heretofore pacifist monks.
It turns out that it’s OK (that is to say, not racist or otherwise demeaning) for English speakers to continue to use “Burma” and “Bombay.” The Stiletto will go one step further and advise journalists for English-language newspapers and broadcasters to use the place names familiar to readers and viewers since the goal is to clearly communicate important information, rather than to impress people with how “trendy” they are.
Suellentrop quotes James Fallows, who writes that President Bush is right to say “Burma":
[W]hen it comes to referring to the nation in English, there’s little debate. Myanmar is the name invented 18 years ago by the benighted junta, known as SLORC* back then and the State Peace and Development Council now, when it seized power through force. When Westerners say “Myanmar,” they’re not being culturally respectful to the people of a beautiful but oppressed nation. (We don’t call China Zhongguo or Germany Deutschland just because the locals do.) They’re bowing to the whims of the generals who still imprison Aung San Suu Kyi.
There is no reason to humor them.
In other words, The Times’ effort to be “politically correct” backfired. In contrast, by insisting on using the country’s traditional name the BBC, The Financial Times, and Slate, among others, avoided using the preferred lexicon of the monks’ oppressors.
Comments