|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
Yangon? Rangoon?
Who Cares?
The General Sure
Does.
By Jason Hart
The city of Yangon,
Myanmar
is truly a testament to the military regime’s attempt to “transform the
city in line with commercial, strategic and ideological goals, as
discussed by Donald Seekin in “The State and The City”. Although the
military presence itself is not extremely apparent in human form around
the city, its ideological presence can be witnessed in many forms.
While traveling through the city I witnessed many billboards that
described malignance toward political dissidents. These signs attempted
to influence the people of the city into reporting pro democracy
activities and organization against the military regime. Other signs
described how those caught transporting illegal drugs could be
sentenced to death.
The city’s aesthetic are also the conscious will of the
regime. For example, most buildings appear a bit dilapidated with
rusting tin roofs and mold growing on the colonial era brick. These
buildings house both commercial enterprises and the residents
themselves. At the same time, there is a sharp contrast between these
buildings and the immaculate pagodas that can be found throughout the
city. The government has sponsored the construction of these beautiful
religious sites, in what seems to be an effort to convince the masses
to look toward the supernatural realm, or the next life, as to avoid
the conditions of this earthly existence. This phenomenon seems to be
pretty effective, in that the population seems entirely unwilling to
express any uneasiness with the regime. While in and around
conversations, I heard low mutterings of discontent, but no single
Burmese citizen I spoke with was willing to outright criticize the
government.
It was interesting that when the Burmese spoke of their
government they consistently used the pronoun “they”. For example, my
tour guide discussed how “they” (the government) had recently built the
bridge that we were crossing, or the process by which “they” passed
legislation. In the United
States, all but those who feel
severely disenfranchised use the pronoun “we” to describe government
activity. Even when an American individual disagrees with the action
being discussed, he or she will still often use the same pronoun. For
example, when I describe the war in Iraq
(an action I did not support from its outset) I still say “We invaded Iraq”,
because I feel as though I am part of the nation who made such
decisions, whether they were good decisions or not. The Burmese do not
feel this sense of identity with the political activities around them,
and they should not, because they are well aware that their lives are
being influenced and manipulated by a force that currently appears to
them to be out of their control.
|
