This page is referenced by:

• 1 2018-07-30T07:01:10-07:00 WWW.BURMA.MM/Not_Myanmar/ 32 plain 2018-07-31T03:52:28-07:00 Sandria Tran 
  
  In Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media: The Extension of Man, McLuhan states, “The Medium is the Message”. However, is the message as intrinsically important as the content? How intense should the message be? The medium as well? How media-savvy must the audience be? Can they discern the truth? Or, more importantly, at what cognitive level can an individual, if you give them the knowledge or tools, to recognize the truth, to create a want or effect where there once was none, to start precisely a movement, to propagate an idea? Did you think of the message before it was created? 
  
  To answer these questions I presented, I find this sentence summarizes precisely the power of propaganda: “Nobody wants a motorcar until there are motorcars, and nobody is interested in TV until there are TV programs” (15 McLuhan). This ideology can be extended to social movements and activism. Particularly, in the way how the medium is so powerful in the right hand for the right intentions, it can mobilize people. 
  
  Nestled in-between and sharing the borders of many countries such as China, Laos, Thailand, India, and Bangladesh, is a country that goes by Myanmar but to others it goes by Burma. Given it is turbulent history, this country illustrates how important the medium plays in defining the economic and political message. Director Anders Østergaard’s “Burma VJ”, which exposes Burma as a country engrossed in the worst human rights violation through a military dictatorship-regime during the Saffron Revolution. It also illustrates the series of nonviolent protests taken place during August, September, and October 2007 against the military state. VJ in the title stands for video journalists and the documentary makes it clear these are volunteer journalists who had risked their lives to document on low-resolution hand-held cameras and smuggle the corrupt acts that occur out of the country for the Internet to see. These underground video journalists gathered footage to tell the story. The story is clear: It is about Burma. Whose story is this in this documentary? Democratic Voice of Burma, the non-profit Burmese media organization committed to responsible journalism, and the Burmese people against the violent military state. 
  
  
  
  The early 2000s were simpler times for social media platforms. To give you an idea of what the early 2000s looked like I provided a timeline (from the Internet)!  
  
  Myspace and Linkedin were discovered in 2003. Following that year Facebook was created. A year prior to the Saffron Revolution, Twitter had made its scene in 2006. The very year that these nonviolent protests were happening Tumblr entered the online world. These are just contemporary references to give you an idea of how the internet was not antique. During these protests, many Youtube videos also emerged during 2007 to speak out about Aung San Suu Kyi, the world’s only imprisoned Nobel Peace Prize recipient. One of these videos showcased Jim Carrey front in center on Youtube calling to action on Burma and for people to join these particular organizations: The Human Rights Action Center and U.S. Campaign for Burma. Just over ten years ago, the world responded to this video congratulating him for voicing on an important issue. Their thanks go to actor Jim Carrey. I often wonder where is Democratic Voice of Burma in the mix of Jim Carrey’s video? However, I digress. 
  
  Alas, the internet in Myanmar—I mean Burma. No? Yes. A country with two names. The name of the country is still a topic of controversy. In 1989, then the military regime renamed Burma to Myanmar and Rangoon—the country’s capital—to Yangon, which has caused all sorts of confusion. Between all the military junta’s brutal violence to suppress dissent and find ways to control—especially their recent ethnic cleansing campaign toward their Rohingya Muslim population in 2017—the country never revisited its name: Burma or Myanmar? The message here is very clear, however, and it is this: what are better ways to assert power than change and alter the truth and history than through manipulation and fake news?
  
  Back to the internet. The country took its revolution online through Facebook to rally the Mayanmese/Burmese cause and against the military junta. It unified over 500 groups and one of them was the “Support the Monk’s Protest in Burma”, which grew to 432,479 from 3,500 in just one month. “Burma VJ” illustrated this intense revolution that took place on social media with inspiring clips of monks protesting. However, it also depicted explicit videos of monks shot and brutally assaulted.  Sometimes the price of democracy is the unfortunate casualties. Nevertheless, the internet revolutionized people in an isolated country defined by its political instability, violent military regime, and closed borders. It gave people power even when its own military government restricted the information that flowed outside its borders. People took to the World Wide Web to fight for democracy. The documentary defines the movement through the Monk’s rebellion and how religion inspired the people, especially student activists, to rise against the junta, which hadn’t happened since the last forty years. The smuggling and uploading of footage to the Internet, which can be contributed to the globalization of the internet, is why people know about Burmese’s struggles. Saffron Revolution had such much grassroots protesting, but despite how its activism ran offline and online, it did not lead to political change. Or, at the very least, positive political change to overtake the military regime that terrorizes its people and commit tremendous human rights violations even to this day. 
  
  I’ve written about contemporary Chinanet’s censorship, but Burma beats China in censorship for being the most heavily censored states In the world. Nobody knows about Burmese until there is Myanmar online and nobody is interested in Burmese until there is Myanmar. For those, like me, who felt defeated at the end of “Burma VJ” and wondered what was the point of protesting when social change happens so slowly to countries like Burma? It is clear that there is potential for the Internet to revolutionize activism, which sparked the power to change the country inside and also outside. 
  
  As of contemporary news, Facebook and Burma Internet are intertwined, where internet subscribers have a chance to access Facebook free of charge through Free Basics app subscription. That is also its own controversy in a still highly regulated country. Burmese activism is now readily online. However, the online world in Burma is deeply rooted in social, political, and economic motivations where now it is no longer a positive platform of social activism like the times of 2007. Technology companies like Facebook must confront new emerging threats of fake news and hate speech that is not just unique to just western countries like America but also Burma. Moving forward, Burmese activism will be tied to offline and online activism, as they continue the good fight for democracy, especially in a highly authoritarian state. The message is loud and clear: no democracy is no democracy for Burma.