Slate provides a guide to the thicket of stylistic and political issues that face newspapers and magazines confronted with a city or country that has changed its name. Burma’s ruling military junta changed the country’s official (English) name to Myanmar back in 1989; some publications, like the New York Times, went along with the change immediately, others made the switch in later years, while others still prefer to stick with Burma, the name by which most English-speaking people still know the country.
The Economist got itself into a tangle over this last year during its coverage of the monks’ protests. The magazine has used the name Myanmar for as long as I can remember (its style guide states: “Where names are officially altered… the change should be respected.”) Yet finding itself with a Burma/Myanmar cover story, quite possibly for the first time since the name change, the magazine plumped for “Burma’s saffron revolution” as its cover line, presumably on the basis that the marginal Economist reader, idly browsing the current affairs section in WH Smith, was likely to be turned off by the unfamiliar ring of “Myanmar.” Nevertheless, the magazine stuck rigidly to its style guide inside, where there was nary a “Burma” to be seen.
Since Aung San Suu Kyi calls it Burma, and she’s the legitimately elected President of the country, I think we should all do so as well. The military junta that usurped power and has ruled the country illegitimately has attempted to cast themselves as good guys, using a supposedly authentic pre-colonial name, which I’m told is based on a misreading of ancient texts. It’s the same old story–attempt to make yourself look good and post-colonial by making up a new “Old” name. Change Congo to Zaire; then change it back. Cambodia becomes Kampuchea, then back to Cambodia. Bombay becomes Mumbai, Madras becomes Chennai, despite the fact that there was no place named Chennai at the spot where the British first landed in Madras.