Emma Larkin's Finding George Orwell in Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi
Dear Writer:
Thank you in advance for your professional work and service. I am appreciated.
( Number of Sources are all depend on your writing and up to you. I believe the total paper should be around 3 and 1/3 .pages or around that range, I just paid for 4 pages in case you need to add any more writing and it should be fine as well)
Short Essay Responses
#A (Emma Larkin’s Finding George Orwell in Burma)
Your responses will be based primarily on the Larkin text ((Larkin, Emma. Finding George Orwell in Burma (2005) EL)), along with the chapters by Aung San Suu Kyi (“In Quest of Democracy” and “Freedom from Fear”). Include a citation (any standard format is fine) if you are: a) referring to information gleaned from outside of the Larkin text or Aung San Suu Kyi chapters; b) using a direct quotation from any source. Responses getting high marks will demonstrate the following characteristics: a thorough treatment of the issues raised in the question, well written, tight organization, and thoughtful.
1. For many decades, Burma’s government has been widely considered one of the worst in the world. Unfortunately, many “post-colonial” nations (i.e., nations that were colonized in the past by Western nations but have now been granted independence) have been saddled with corrupt, inept, and tyrannical governments since gaining independence. A thread that weaves its way through Larkin’s text is the similarities between the ways in which the British colonial government ran Burma and the ways in which Burma’s military regime has operated. Because of these similarities, Aung San Suu Kyi has characterized the current period in Burmese history “the second struggle for independence” (the first struggle being, of course, against the British). Using at least five (5) specific examples from the Larkin text, discuss how the military government of Burma has been a sort of ‘reflection’ of the British colonial government that preceded it, in terms of its practices, policies, attitudes, etc. (This response should be about 2/3rds of a page to one page in length, single-spaced or longer)
2. Using the Larkin text and the handout “Finding George Orwell in Burma: Some Notes on the Exercise of State Power” as inspiration, discuss at least five (5) of the ‘tools’ the post-colonial government of Burma has used to exercise power over the people of Burma. Relate the concepts in the handout to specific examples from the Larkin text, as well as class discussion. Among others, be sure you include two primary ‘tools’ in your discussion: 1) the concept of fear; Aung San Suu Kyi chose to title her most important book Freedom from Fear. In what ways has the Burmese government utilized fear as a means of controlling the populace?; 2) A central theme of Orwell’s writings was the power of surveillance. Use the term panopticon (the concept of surveillance as a tool in the exercise of power. Re-read what Larkin says about the panopticon on page 79 of the text, then dig deeper into this fascinating concept) as well.
Leaving Burma for a moment, in what ways do governments in general (including your own government), powerful corporations, the financial sector, etc. employ fear as a tool of manipulation and control? Include the concept of surveillance/’the panopticon’ in your response. What, if anything, can be done by ordinary folks to fight the power of fear as it is utilized in attempts to control us? (This response should be about 2/3rds of a page to one page in length, single-spaced or longer).
3. I am curious to know what you found particularly interesting or striking about readings of Larkin and Aung San Suu Kyi. Please mention three things from the readings that intrigued you, and what you found interesting about them. (This response should be about ½ page, single-spaced or longer)
4)Dear Writer; please do this number (4) in one single spaced page according to instruction. Thanks
You may watch any or all of the films listed below for extra credit. After viewing the film, complete a brief paper of 2-3 single-spaced paragraphs (no more than one single-spaced page). The paper must be typed and contain the following: 1) a paragraph synopsis or summary of the film, in your personal writing 2) a paragraph or two in which you include pertinent observations or commentaries on the film, particularly as they pertain to the issue(s) raised below and in class. Only papers containing these two specific types of paragraphs will be accepted.
Important note: Dear writer :There are a number of on-line reviews of these movies, please make sure your writing is different than those and unique.
1. The Quiet American. Based on Graham Greene’s famous 1955 novel of the same name, this film deals with both the French and American involvement in Vietnam in the early 1950’s. Base your comments on our class readings & discussions of this era in Vietnam; most Americans think of ‘the Vietnam War’ as being something that happened in the 1960’s & 1970’s, but as this film portrays, U.S. involvement dates back to the early 1950’s when the French were still an occupying force (before their fall at Dien Bien Phu in 1954). How is this involvement portrayed via the character Pyle? What are Fowler’s views on foreign involvement in the politics of Vietnam? Other impressions of the film?
2. The Lady. Comment on the film’s portrayal of key moments in Aung San Suu Kyi’s life as she experienced them, including: 1) the events of 1988; 2) her house arrest; 3) the elections of 1990; 4) the death of her husband; 5) the Saffron revolution of 2007; 6) other key moments/events in her life that you care to comment on. Connect your comments to class readings and discussions on Burma.
Anthropology: Emma Larkin’s Finding George Orwell in Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi
Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Part 1
The military Burmese government reflection of the British colonial government
The British colonial empire went into Burma/Myanmar to exploit the country’s resources and spread imperialism. The British believed that there was a need to rule over the people and civilize them. The British authorities were sensitive to any negative portrayal in the press as this would undermine their imperial rule (Larkin, 2005). Under the colonial system, the British curtailed many freedoms, with imperialism used to justify colonialism. The military junta quickly sought to suppress any dissenting voices, a legacy from the British imperial empire. There was a brief period of press freedom in the 1950’s, but this was only short-lived, and the legacy carried on from the British, albeit characterized restricted freedom was eliminated all together.
The military government has historically suppressed the civil society, and this aspect was carried over from the British (Keys, 2010). After seizing large parts of Burma, the British disempowered the existing aristocracy in order to create a weak civil government. The divide and rule tactic of governance employed by the British resulted to the Burmese being excluded from participation in the civil service. To keep the citizens subdued the military government saw no reason for enhancing and improving the middle class. The British were able to maintain control without organized dissent because there was a weak civil service or middle class who would engage politically to bring change. The isolationist polices adopted by Burma in 1948 following the departure of the British then set ground for more oppression, with the military not accountable to anyone (Lurkin, 2005).
It may appear as though censorship is a phenomenon that merely characterized the Burmese military junta, but the British colonialism also relied on self censorship. In order to have total control over the Burmese people, the British resulted to controlling what as seen, heard, and read. This tactic meant to ensure that the ruling British imperial rulers were not ridiculed, there were fears that this would lead to nationalist elements. The Burmese junta has also resulted to censorship by controlling information available to the people. Both the British and Burmese lived in fear that when people were informed they would be more politically agitated. The main aim of censorship is influence the relationship between individuals and the state.
One of the elements that allow democracy to thrive is the room for debate, allowing people of divergent opinions and ideologies to lay out their claims. Even though, the British did allow some form of debate, there were constraints and limits on the extent to what people would say. On the other hand, the Burmese military government suppressed debate that was against ‘Burmese socialism’ (Case, 2013). The junta punished those who tried to stir debate about democracy. The colonial government and the military government both objected to debate for fear that it would result to political consciousness, but the Burmese have been more explicit on their demands to stop debate as this would stifle political opposition and instill fear on the local population.
Kyi (1992) recognizes the impact of propaganda in influencing people’s view about the government and public administration. Propaganda and misinformation on democracy was stated as being contrary to Burmese culture and values have been advanced by the junta to restrict freedoms and democracy. In the case of the British the propagandist elements were intertwined with censorship, with selective dissemination of information meant to disempower the people. In Burma, the junta has relied on propaganda to advocate against free and fair elections one of the core elements of democracy, while also justifying their oppression of the people. Propagandizing has merely served the interests of the ruling class during the colonial and post colonial times, affecting negatively the democratization process.
Part 2
Exercise of State Power
The Burmese military junta has relied on fear to intimidate the people and stall the democratization process. After the election win of Aung San Suu Kyi in 1990, the government still exerted fear on the citizens to intimidate them. The fear that the junta would lose power has resulted to more violence against the people (Kyi, 1990). Putting Suu Kyi under house arrest set to show that the regime would use any means to terrorize the people. Even after western sanctions following the human rights abuses and arrest of Suu Kyi, the junta has only ceded little to reforms for fear of losing the grip on power. The Burmese were conditioned by fear to the extent that they were afraid of being imprisoned as happed to Suu Kyi. The fear that one would encounter death and their property seized meant that the people were more cautious about their political utterances.
Burma has over time relied on an efficient surveillance machine divided onto various departments and relying informers to report to people (Larkin, 2005). Information gathered through surveillance has proven valuable to quash any intended peaceful protests, as political activists and dissidents are harassed by the junta. In any case, since the friends and families of political activists fear surveillance they tended to associated with artists less over time. For the totalitarian regime, surveillance gave power to the ruling elite by tracking down citizens. This fits with Orwell’s thoughts that totalitarianism would result to increased surveillance and curtailing of freedoms, given that it instills fear with the citizenry less willing to express their thoughts freely.
The concept of panopticon aptly shows that the ruling elite use surveillance to exercise power. Surveillance at the lowest cost is a tool relied upon by the ruling elite to get access to information, while using maximum intensity to targeting the most ardent critics as presented by the surveillance program. The surveillance avails more information, for which the citizens had no power or authority to stop. As such, the junta had the upper hand all the time, as it was easier to isolate individuals who may have thought that their actions are invisible. The citizens being surveyed are not willing participants, but the centralized power relying on gathered information meant that the government wo...