Yesterday, June 26, marks the 20th anniversary of the publication of “Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,” which began the worldwide phenomenon that captured the attention of millions across the globe. In the 20 years since the first book was published, the Potter series is still culturally relevant, and has become especially notable in the past year since President Donald Trump rose to power.

J.K. Rowling, who authored the books, has taken a strong stance against Trump and what he represents; she can often be found on Twitter mocking the American president. Whether it’s about Trump’s responses to terrorist attacks or his ridiculous actions, Rowling is quick to criticize Trump, often delighting her youthful fan base. Here are just two examples of the millionaire’s social media commentary:

It’s called ‘leadership’, Donald. The terrorists were dead 8 minutes after police got the call. If we need an alarmist blowhard, we’ll call. https://t.co/NUiy9j4fBt

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 4, 2017

 

I wonder whether Trump talks to Trumpself in the third Trumperson when Trump’s alone. https://t.co/8CEzVTJjBq

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) May 3, 2017

Rowling’s presence on Twitter isn’t the only way Harry Potter fans are staying connected to the series as they resist the Trump Administration. Many fans have compared Trump to Voldemort, the antagonist of the series who comes to power and attempts to create a society of “pure blood wizards.” This Twitter user broke down her feelings on the similarities between the two:

I realized how similar Lord Voldemort and Donald Trump are so I wrote this… pic.twitter.com/UG33ZTUfYf

— Ashley C. (@ItsAshley_C) June 25, 2017

Others have turned to Hermione Granger, the main female protagonist, as a symbol of female power within the resistance. The reason Granger is so appealing to young girls, the Huffington Post argues, is that “here was a smart, hyper-competent, over-achieving woman facing down a cartoonishly unqualified man who spewed hatred at women, Muslims, immigrants, refugees, and disabled people.”

a nation of hermiones #WomensMarch pic.twitter.com/hvfDu3oL9m

— Paige (@paigeleighannne) January 22, 2017

Given that Emma Watson, who portrayed Granger in the movies, is a feminist symbol herself, the comparison becomes even more applicable. Watson, who graduated from Brown University in 2014, is an outspoken feminist and a UN Women Goodwill Ambassador.

While the comparisons offer children the opportunity to tangibly relate the real world to something they understand and love, some people are frustrated with the constant comparisons. One writer from The Federalist even argued that the comparisons “contribute to making our politics glib, emotion-driven, over-simplified, and posturing. At the same time, it takes beloved childhood stories and politicizes them in a way that narrows and diminishes their meaning.”

Others are simply tired of the constant references:

READ ANOTHER BOOK pic.twitter.com/SHcVKcTslG

— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) January 31, 2017

The final book of the series was published back in 2007, but the series remains culturally relevant as a symbol of youth fighting for justice. Some people may be annoyed by the constant references to the series, but Rowling’s writing has clearly inspired a generation of readers to protest for what they believe in just as Harry, Hermione, and Ron Weasley did throughout the seven book series.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 20 Years Later, Harry Potter is Still Culturally Relevant appeared first on Law Street.

Chocoholics in Britain are going crazy over the changed shape of the Toblerone chocolate bars. There used to be a tiny gap between the triangles–now it seems to have doubled!

What the what?!?! @Toblerone … when did you create a dual carriage way through the mountains?!?! pic.twitter.com/xfHPF5W5bq

— nathalie pownall (@Nathaliepownall) October 28, 2016

This is a travesty for fans of the iconic Swiss chocolate bar. But the shape has only changed in Britain. According to Mondelez International, the company that owns the brand, the rising prices of ingredients have made it more expensive to produce the mountain shaped chocolate. So the company decided to add more space in between the triangles to save a little cash. They could keep the same packaging, length, and even price, but buyers will get about 10 percent less chocolate per bar. But this was obviously not okay with chocolate consumers.

Why don’t they should just change the name to NO-blerone and be done with it? #Toblerone #TobleroneGate #TobleroneTuesday pic.twitter.com/dpMKDqwMIO

— Claire Murrihy (@ClaireMurrihy) November 8, 2016

Many people have pointed out that this change comes after the Brexit vote. The British will no longer be a part of the European Union, and no longer have the same access to delicious Swiss chocolate as other Europeans.

#toblerone #brexit I told you that leaving the EU would have serious consequences. Now I’ m really upset. pic.twitter.com/w81cWYpNl4

— Mark Greenwood (@markcjgreenwood) November 8, 2016

Since the British opted out of the EU, the value of the British pound has fallen significantly, making commodities like cacao way more expensive than before. This is yet another reason for division between the voters who voted for or against Brexit. However, last Thursday did see a rise in the pound, after the High Court in Britain ruled that Parliament has to vote before an actual Brexit can take place.

Here’s another conspiracy theory for you all: some people believe the chocolate brand chose to reshape the bars right now because no one would notice due to all the U.S. election hysteria.

I bet @Toblerone thought they could sneak their new smaller bar out today and hope #ElectionDay would cover up the news #TobleroneGate

— seanieb1983 (@seanieb1983) November 8, 2016

Financially this is a tactic that more and more companies are using to avoid raising prices, and it could hit more types of candy in the coming months. “The new gappy-teeth Toblerone is yet another example of shrinkflation, where shrinking pack contents allows for a backdoor price rise,” said retailing expert Ratula Chakraborty.

But most of us feel like this:

All this talk about #TobleroneGate is making me want #Toblerone right now.

— Busy Working Mummy (@busyworkingmum1) November 8, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chocolate Fans Outraged Over the Changed Shape of Toblerone: Is Brexit to Blame? appeared first on Law Street.

John Oliver took the opportunity on Independence Day to release a little web special, with a reminder to Americans about the original “Brexit.” It has now been 240 years since Americans kicked the Britons out, and he wanted us to think about what could have been. According to Oliver, this is a sampling of what you guys miss out on by not being British:

• The accent–the “beautiful vowel sounds” of the British could have been yours, Oliver points out, before describing what he thinks the American accent sounds like. (Spoiler alert: it’s not flattering.)
• Fashion–the little black bowler hats are also something that Americans probably envy the Brits.
• The cuisine, like minced meat pie–the British delicacy that embodies the British people. According to Oliver, they’re hard and crusty on the outside, they can give you the impression of composure, but on the inside it’s just a hot f***ing mess.

Finally, Oliver concluded by pointing out the very significant difference between the American sunny optimism and the British cloudy pessimism. It is a well-known fact and cultural difference that Americans have a hard-to-break confidence. Brits on the other hand would “never make the mistake of developing self-esteem” since they know they could never be as good as the Queen. Oliver even took a shot at the Queen, dubbing her “an elderly woman who frowns for a living.”

Generously, Oliver admitted that America might be better off the way it is, after all.

The show is having a summer break but will be back on July 24. Watch the clip below:

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver: What are Americans Missing out on by Not Being British? appeared first on Law Street.

In a country where even the name is a contentious issue, Burma, or Myanmar as it has more recently been known, is home once again to a brewing conflict. There are many competing sides in this struggle, including the much-criticized government, the victimized Muslim population, and Buddhist monks who are advocating a nationalist message. The violence has already led to mass displacement, reprisal attacks and questions about Myanmar and its democratic reforms. A shaky government is gearing up for the 2015 elections, but the outcome of this conflict is anything but certain.  Read on to learn about the history of Myanmar, the current conflict, and the prognosis.

What is Myanmar?

Myanmar, or Burma as it was known prior to 1989, is a country located in Southeast Asia. Its population of approximately 55 million people is comprised primarily of Burmese Buddhists, but there are also sizable minority groups residing there as well. For most of its history, Myanmar was home to independent Burmese kingdoms, until it was conquered and made a British colony from the nineteenth to twentieth centuries.

In 1937, Myanmar was finally separated from the British colony of India, and in 1948 gained full independence; however, independence did not exactly open the country to opportunity. Instead, for the next 60 or so years it was ruled by one military dictatorship after another. Finally, in 2011, a new quasi-civilian government was elected under the leadership of a man named Thein Sein and long-awaited reforms began. These reforms included releasing long-held political prisoners, agreeing to peace with minority groups, and opening up the press and the rest of society. The video below provides a description of the country’s road from independence to the present.

While the country stills struggles with violence and implementing reforms, its name also remains something of a quagmire. Although it officially changed the name from Burma to Myanmar following a brutal government crackdown in 1989, the world has been slow to accept it. The United States for example, while hopeful of Myanmar’s democratic aspirations, still officially uses the name Burma so as not to appear to sanction human rights violations there; however, during a historic visit in 2012, President Obama did refer to the nation as Myanmar instead of Burma. For the duration of this article, I will use Myanmar so as to avoid confusion.

A History of Conflict

Long before the invasion of colonizing British, Myanmar was home to extensive conflict. Much of the conflict was centered in a region called Rakhine, inhabited by the Rakhine people. The region has been repeatedly invaded by multiple forces. One of those forces is the minority Rohingya Muslim population, who clashed with the Buddhist Rakhine people. Rakhine has also been invaded by the Buddhist Burmese, who they are ethnically different from, mostly for political and historical reasons. Rakhine is a powder keg region that has consistently been a center of conflict in Myanmar.

There have also consistently been tensions between the Rohingya Muslims and the Buddhists (both Burmese and Rakhine). Some of it may stem from WWII, when Rohingya Muslims remained loyal to the British, while the Buddhists supported Japan in hopes of achieving independence. This was compounded after WWII when the Rohingya attempted to rise up and carve out an area of autonomy for themselves and were initially successful; however, over time they were defeated and have since been politically oppressed.

The Current Conflict

Rohingya Muslims

The Rohingya are a Muslim minority group in western Myanmar. The group are victims of an official government policy that has been called ethnic cleansing by some; their people are segregated into isolated camps and villages where basic services are not available. The situation is bad enough that the Rohingya are considered some of the world’s most persecuted people by the United Nations. In a recent national census the group was not even counted among the country’s citizens. In fact, a 1982 law forbids the Rohingya from becoming citizens of the country. The group is discriminated against both because of its religion and also its traditionally darker complexion.

The Rohingya originated from a part of what was once a region called Bengal and is now part of Bangladesh. While the Rakhine are the overall majority in the region, in the areas bordering Bangladesh, the Rohingya are actually the majority. It is still unclear exactly how the group came to the region, with some saying they have existed there for hundreds of years and others claiming they are relative newcomers from just this past century. Either way, the Rohingya are viewed with great hostility in Myanmar. This distinction also excludes them from indigenous status within the country’s constitution.

Rakhine Buddhists

The other group is the Rakhine Buddhist nationalists. Somewhat surprisingly, many of those involved in the conflict are also Buddhist monks. This movement has become known as the 969 movement.

The number 969 is a reference to Buddha and some of his teachings. The figurehead of this movement is Ashin Wirathu, who has risen to fame by delivering fierce speeches that include unsubstantiated claims about Muslims, calls to boycott Muslim businesses, and demands for laws that prevent interfaith marriage.

Nevertheless, while the Rakhine are the majority in the region, they are yet another minority within it. Unlike the Rohingya, who are generally viewed as newcomers, the Rakhine are a much older group there. In fact, they once had their own empire in what is now Bangladesh and Myanmar, before they were invaded by the Burmese. To the Rakhine and much of the rest of the population, the Rohingya therefore are an illegal immigrant group and are treated as such.

The Flashpoint

The current conflict was set off by the rape and murder of a Buddhist woman by a Muslim man in May 2012. This led to a wave of violence perpetrated primarily against Rohingya by Buddhist nationalists. A second wave of attacks took place that October. These were different from the first in two ways: first they were much more coordinated; second they were directed at Muslims in general and not just the Rohingya.

Following the attacks, the government took two steps. First it created an interfaith commission to provide a report on exactly what had led to the violence. While portions of the report were valuable, other parts that called for Rohingya family planning cast doubt on its goals. Second, as the focus of attacks grew from the Rohingya to Muslims in general, the government made an effort to protect Muslim populations by sending in police; however, far from being useful, police sometimes stood by or even engaged in violence against Muslims along with Buddhist nationalist crowds. The government also sent the army into areas and they have proven more effective because they have less Rakhine Buddhists among their ranks.

This conflict has led to terrible living conditions for the Rohingya, with many being forced to flee into Bangladesh where they are living in refugee camps. It has also led to a mass exodus as Muslim citizens of Myanmar seek safety in other countries. It has further led to several reprisal bombings and attacks on Buddhist holy sites and Myanmar government offices by Muslims who claim to be acting on behalf of the Rohingya. Domestically, it has increased scrutiny on a government seemingly unable to stop the violence. It has also opened the door to leadership for a the popular opposition candidate named Aung San Suu Kyi. The video below explains the conflict in depth.

The Future For Myanmar

Going forward, three groups of people are likely to have the biggest impact, not only on this conflict but on the country as a whole. These are the Myanmar government, politician Aung San Suu Kyi, and the Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu

Myanmar Government

Aside from the Rakhine debacle, the government has several other things to worry about. According to international watchdog organization Human Rights Watch, the government has been backsliding on many of the promised reforms from 2011, namely granting freedom to the media. On top of this is the increasingly evident control still held by the military, which threatens to make the widely anticipated elections later this year into a farce that do nothing to change the status quo.

Unfortunately for the people of Myanmar the status quo is not that pretty either. The economy is one of the least advanced in the world. It is also plagued by sanctions from places like the U.S. and E.U. These conditions are only exacerbated by fighting and the perception of ethnic cleansing, which prevents new investments and global support.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Aside from the government’s inability to maintain control, it is also feeling heat from Aung San Suu Kyi. Kyi has been arrested a number of times for denouncing the military regimes that have ruled Myanmar over the course of the last 30 years. Her efforts even garnered her a Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.

Despite her record of denouncing injustice, however, she has declined to speak out in defense of the Rohingya. Many speculate this is her acting politically, as not only might she aspire to the presidency, but some of her strongest backers are the same Buddhist monks attacking Muslims. Furthermore it is unclear how much her voice could really alter things in Rakhine, especially considering the recent refusal by the government to allow her to run for the presidency. Still, it seems that as someone who champions civil rights she would stick up for a targeted minority even if it was unpopular, for the sake of country as a whole. Regardless of her relationship with the government, she is often viewed as a strong and respected voice in Myanmar. The video below chronicles Kyi and her viewpoints.

Ashin Wirathu

At the heart of Buddhist nationalist rhetoric is an embattled monk. Practically unknown before, he began to make a name for himself in 2001 during an earlier uprising against Muslims as part of the 969 group. His actions earned him 25 years in prison, but he was released as a political prisoner in 2010.

While he does not enjoy universal support, he has a large following because of his strong nationalist message and his denunciation of the Rohingya Muslims who are not liked by any segment of the population. Wirathu has also increased his audience by broadcasting on YouTube.

What gives him the most clout though is inaction. His fellow monks and the government have refused to discipline him. This has led some to believe he is preaching a message with which the government implicitly agrees. One of the few groups to oppose his teachings however, are certain women’s groups, which feel he labels the country with a bad image and is attempting to infringe on their rights by restricting who they can marry.

The following video details Wirathu and what he is preaching.

While these three actors are not the only ones at play in Myanmar, they are at the heart of the current conflict. They are also three agents who can affect change for good or for bad across the country itself.

Conclusion

The conflict in Myanmar threatens not just the Rohingya, but all minority groups. This is especially true in the wake of nationalist sermons preached by Buddhist Monks. Unfortunately not much is likely to be done about the situation. Although elections loom, the most promising candidate, Aung San Suu Kyi, is barred from participating. Unchecked and unresolved violence is only likely to simmer and burst out again; however, if the government can make real in-roads to reform and put on a legitimate election then the opportunity to rewrite Myanmar’s  story still exists.

 Resources

Primary

World Factbook: Myanmar

Additional

NPR: In Buddhist-Majority Myanmar, Muslim Minority Gets Pushed to the Margins

Washington Post: Why it’s Such a Big Deal That Obama Said ‘Myanmar’ Rather Than Burma

Al Jazeera America: Myanmar’s Buddhist Terrorism Problem

BBC: Why is There Communal Violence in Myanmar?

Human Rights Watch: Burma: Rights Heading in Wrong Direction

BBC: Myanmar Profile

BBC News: Ashin Wirathu: Myanmar and Its Vitriolic Monk

International Crisis Group: The Dark Side of Transition: Violence Against Muslims in Myanmar

Quartz: Aung San Suu Kyi Has Gone Silent on a Major Human-Rights Crisis in Myanmar

Guardian: Burma Rules Out Lifting Ban on Aung San Suu Kyi Presidency Before Election

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Myanmar or Burma: Conflict in a Country With Two Names appeared first on Law Street.