I use Birma or Burma.
But never ever Myanmar.
Ceylon or Sri Lanka?
Rhodesia or Zimbabwe?
Soviet Union or Russia?
Siam or Thailand?
In June 2014, the Australian government, led by Prime Minister Tony Abbott, continued a long-running discussion on the manner in which Australian officials would refer to the Southeast Asian nation. While Burma was the formal title used by the Australian government, the Labor government revised the national name to the Union of Myanmar in 2012.
However, the matter has resurfaced, as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) reverted to the former title under Abbott's leadership in late 2013. A reason for the change has not appeared in the media, but, as of June 2014, the Abbott government's policy advises officials to switch between Burma and Myanmar, in accordance with the circumstances at hand.
In April 2016, soon after taking office, Aung San Suu Kyi clarified that foreigners are free to use either name, "because there is nothing in the constitution of our country that says that you must use any term in particular".
Well then you're never ever right.
If you think that "Myanmar" is right, then why did you not click for it?
Birma, Burma, or Myanmar - what name or names do you use?
Well then you're never ever right.
Ceylon or Sri Lanka?
Rhodesia or Zimbabwe?
Soviet Union or Russia?
Siam or Thailand?
Those who say "Myanmar" support a military dictatorship.
Birma, Burma, or Myanmar - what name or names do you use?
Well then you're never ever right.
Ceylon or Sri Lanka?
Rhodesia or Zimbabwe?
Soviet Union or Russia?
Siam or Thailand?
And you can't go back to Constantinople...
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night
Every gal in Constantinople
Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
So if you've a date in Constantinople
She'll be waiting in Istanbul
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way
Rhodesia
Ceylon
Russian Empire
Saim
South-West Africa
Upper Volta
Arabia
Persia
Abyssinia
Belgian Congo
all good heritage names.
Who the hell cares?
I guess Byzantium is out of the question then.
Mostly colonial names, imposed from Europe. Like the artificial borders that were decided around European conference tables and have caused a lot of the disorder in that continent. The Belgian Congo, for example, was the personal property of the king of Belgium as was everyone who lived there.
None the less, they all heritage names from either historical recognition by civilized others as a people or their first recognition as a political jurisdiction. Those who have changed their names (sometimes more than once) often do so NOT because they were a historic polity, but because they want to sanitize their past - e.g. the Congo becoming Zaire. Of course once that name is besmirched by torture, killings, and a one-party dictatorship they found it necessary to swap yet again for another name...this time returning to using "Congo" in their second rename.
It's all very laughable, and I don't participate in playing those linguistic fads. Rhodesia was the first political entity as a country, so that's that. Same for Belgian Congo (although "the Congo" is perfectly acceptable historically) and Upper Volta.
If it is the white Europeans that first organized a region as a political jurisdiction, that's that.
Who the hell beaks off about a subject they don't care about? Just ****ing move on to a subject you have an opinion about, ferchristsakes.
Well then you're never ever right.
Ceylon or Sri Lanka?
Rhodesia or Zimbabwe?
Soviet Union or Russia?
Siam or Thailand?
However, both the UK & the US have not recognized the name change and therefore both Brits and Americans are correct when they refer to Burma as well.