Longtime readers know that we have been following the Rohingya Muslim story for years and when they finally burst on the scene in a big way in your US/Western towns and cities as refugees (small numbers are coming to the US already), just as the Somalis did decades ago, at least you will have a chronology here at RRW of how it happened.
For ambitious readers and prospective authors, we have 134 previous posts in our Rohingya Reports category.
And, one reason why the turmoil in largely Buddhist Burma (aka Myanmar) is being watched so closely is that if the Burmese government is allowed to exclude an ethnic/religious group, which they claim are basically illegal aliens from Bangladesh, from full participation in government, the world’s Leftist/Islamist axis will have suffered a blow. Burma/Myanmar wants the right to keep Burma for its own kind of people (diversity is not beautiful to them!).
There is lots of interest in learning exactly who these people are and how they came to be in Burma. I’ve seen two reports including the one I’m posting now (here is a previous one) this month of historians holding seminars on the subject.
Of course, to us, the issue will primarily be—why are the Rohingya/Bengalis coming to the US? Why is this conflict in Burma our problem?
Historians confirm that at most the people calling themselves Rohingya today are in Burma from the days of colonial rule—not from an Arab shipwreck centuries before that.
From Eleven (Myanmar media):
A straight forward message was given by history Professor Aye Chan* of Kanda University of Japan that there is no Rohingya in Myanmar, tracing back to centuries of Rakhine chronicle at a lively lecture in spacious MICT Park of Yangon on March 14.
[….]
According to Aye Chan, there is no national as Rohingya people in history and that the historians would be unethical if they considered things merely on the basis of patriotism and moreover, they should not advocate on the wrong premises. One must not talk or write without the firm evidences and that the history writers must try to present the truth by setting aside the partisanship. He said that he had never advocated on behalf of any national race in the discussions or writings.
The professor continued, “In the chronicle of Myanmar, there never were Rohingya people. I always talk and declare this statement. However, I respect and pay esteem to human rights matters. I have never committed or slip of tongue that undermined human rights. All the evidences are with me.”
Elaborating the past, he said that the existing problem was the bad legacy of the colonial rule for over one hundred year in Myanmar.
Professor Aye Chan goes on to debunk the Arab shipwreck theory.
Leaving the history aside, here is the real nugget of truth behind the conflict—Islamists are spreading their people across the world and hiding behind a shield (that it’s all about humanitarianism and fairness)—and Dr. Chan calls them out. Remember we learned about the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and Iran involved in shoving the Rohingya down the throats of the Buddhists, here and here.
If peaceful coexistence is the goal, then why is money being raised for a holy war?
There are talks and discussions spreading to the effect calling for peaceful coexistence between Rakhine national races and Bengali.
The Professor raised a question to the audience, “There is request for cash donation to wage religious war (Jihad – – a holy war fought by Muslims to defend Islam). The handouts are distributed in the Islamic countries. Bank accounts for such donations are opened in Chittagong and Dhaka in Bangladesh. With such sinister scheme in the pipeline, will you believe the idea of peaceful coexistence with Rakhine nationals and Bengali?”
He continued his talks by saying that the word “Rohingya” was first introduced in an article in the then Guardian daily newspaper published in Yangon by a person named Mr. Abu Gaffer, nationalities representative of Buthitaung Township of Rakhine State in 1951.
* Read about Professor Aye Chan here, and then here a Rohingya living in the US calls him a racist (ho hum, so what else is new).