As the Rohingya Muslim minority in Myanmar’s western state of Rakhine face increasing violence from the country’s army, the Tatmadaw, pressure is building on Nobel Peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi to break her silence and condemn what a top U.N. official has described as “ethnic cleansing.”
While Myanmar’s constitution places the military squarely in control of the interior, borders, and defense, some kind of condemnation, or at the very least, mild criticism of the military’s actions against the Rohingya, was expected from the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Her critics are growing in number and their frustration with her seeming acquiescence with the violence against the Rohingya is leading some to suggest that her Nobel Peace Prize be taken from her.
While it’s certainly reasonable to hope that Aung San Suu Kyi would stand up and condemn the military’s bloody crackdown in Rakhine, many can also understand that she is in an unenviable position.
Surrounded by ruthless generals and a military that is independent from any oversight from the country’s civilian government, Suu Kyi would be understandably hesitant to denounce the onslaught. She is well aware of what could happen to her if she dares challenge the very same military apparatus that placed her under house arrest for 15 of the last 21 years. This takes a bit more courage than, say, lambasting President Trump at the Emmy Awards or mocking the pope on Bill Maher’s Real Time. In many places in the world, the risks of speaking out are quite high, much more than losing the support of your peers, audience, or advertisers.
And even those risks are too high for most. Take the Emmy Awards the other night. The show, which is supposed to recognize achievement in American television, turned into a predictable and tedious anti-Trump pep rally.
The show’s host, Stephen Colbert, started the transition from awards show to political rally right out of the gate with an opening monologue that quickly turned to his pet obsession, President Trump. The jokes were predictable and sounded more like political commentary than humor.
After Colbert set the political tone of the show, many of the other presenters and award winners to grace the stage followed him like lemmings in expressing their contempt for the former host of Celebrity Apprentice.
Colbert took special pleasure in reminding everyone that Trump’s show never won an Emmy, even playing a clip from one of his debates with Hillary Clinton last year showing Trump telling the audience that his show should have won one. After the clip ended, Colbert took a long pause punctuated with odd facial expressions to relish the fact that the academy never did award an Emmy to Trump. Colbert came across like a sullen eight-year old telling his playmate that he can’t have one of his cookies…so there!
The presenters and award winners that followed couldn’t resist taking their swings at the Trump piñata that seemed to hang over and eclipse the entire show. This might explain why the show drew so few viewers, barely surpassing last year’s show ratings, which were the lowest ever.
After a while, the repeated insults of those on stage against Trump seemed forced, as though they were more interested in showing their peers that they were one of them rather than expressing their true feelings.
Certainly, one would guess that a crowd of Hollywood celebrities would tend, statistically, to be anti-Trump, but is it possible, in any gathering of human beings, whether at a party, a BBQ, or even among a small family gathering, that there would not be one divergent opinion, one individual who disagrees with an opinion expressed by someone else? Is it possible that there was not one presenter or award recipient up on that stage that didn’t like Hillary Clinton? The odds are that there most certainly was, but yet, you didn’t hear any jokes about her. Why? Could it have anything to do with wanting to fit in with the crowd and not jeopardize a very lucrative career in Hollywood? Peer pressure can very powerful.
It’s the kind of collective group think you see among those social climbers in high school who want so desperately to fit it in with the football players and cheerleaders that they quickly learn what’s cool and what’s not. They pick up what kind of clothing, music, and slang will get them in with the popular students and avoid saying or doing anything that might jeopardize their standing within the group. We saw an adult version of that on stage at the Emmy’s. No one dared to say anything that might upset the cheerleaders and football players. No career was put at risk.
So when we see Hollywood celebrities cowed into silence and afraid to express their own opinions at an award show, we should be able to better understand why a woman living under a brutal military junta might be slow in reaching for the microphone.
As with most things in life, it’s always easier to summon up the courage when you are a spectator, far away from the action–and risks.
byxy45