text:
Mawlid

Mawlid (مولد) is an annual festival and holiday commemorating the birthday of Muhammad on the traditional date of 12 Rabiʽ al-Awwal, the fourth month of the Islamic calendar. A day central to the Sufi tradition of Sunni Islam, the Mawlid is also celebrated by Shia Muslims.

The celebration was initiated either by the Abbasids or the Fatimids. The Muslim general Gökböri, a deputy of Saladin ((r. 1174 – 1193)), is believed to have been the first to publicly celebrate Mawlid, which he did in an impressive ceremony at the Prophet's Mosque in Medina. The Ottomans under Murad III ((r. 1574 – 1595)) declared it an official holiday.

Celebrants hold on Mawlid in which religious poetry is recited in praise of Muhammad accompanied by a feast. Other customs affiliated with Mawlid are supererogatory fasting, Islamic music and. Most denominations of Islam approve of the commemoration of Muhammad's birthday.

The Mawlid observance is generally approved of across the four Sunni schools of law, the Shia, and by mainstream Islamic scholarship. Mawlid is considered a reprehensible (innovation) in Salafism, Deobandism and the Ahmadiyya. Mawlid is recognized as a national holiday in most of the Muslim-majority countries of the world except the Salafi states of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Etymology
is derived from the Arabic root word ولد, meaning to give birth, bear a child, descendant. In contemporary usage, Mawlid refers to the observance of the day of birth of Muhammad. Along with being referred to as the celebration of the birth of Muhammad, the term Mawlid refers to the 'text especially composed for and recited at Muhammad's nativity celebration' or "a text recited or sung on that day". The term Mawlid is also used in some parts of the world, such as Egypt, as a generic term for the day someone was born celebrations of other historical religious figures such as Sufi saints. It is also known as Eid-e-Milad an-Nabi (عید ميلاد النبي).

Date
According to the majority of Sunni Muslims and some Shi'as, Muhammad was born on the 12th of Rabi' al-awwal. Many Twelver Shia Muslims on the other hand assert that Muhammad was born on the 17th of Rabi' al-awwal. It stands as a matter of ikhtilaf or disagreement since prominent Shia scholars such as Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al-Kulayni, Ibn Babawayh, and Zayn al-Din al-Juba'i al-'Amili have affirmed the date of the 12th of Rabi' al-Awal. Nonetheless, others contend that the date of Muhammad's birth is unknown and is not definitively recorded in the Islamic traditions. The issue of the correct date of the Mawlid is recorded by Ibn Khallikan as constituting the first proven disagreement concerning the celebration.

History
The history of this celebration goes back to the early days of Islam when some of the Tabi‘un began to hold sessions in which poetry and songs composed to honour Muhammad were recited and sung to crowds in the major cities. The Ottomans declared it an official holiday in 1588, known as Mevlid Kandil. The term Mawlid is also used in some parts of the world, such as Egypt, as a generic term for the birthday celebrations of other historical religious figures such as Sufi saints. In early days of Islam, observation of Muhammad's birth as a holy day was usually arranged privately and later was an increased number of visitors to the Mawlid house that was open for the whole day specifically for this celebration. The history of this celebration goes back to the early days of Islam when some of the Tabi‘un began to hold sessions in which poetry and songs composed to honour Muhammad were recited and sung to the crowds.

The early celebrations, included elements of Sufi influence, with animal sacrifices and torchlight processions along with public sermons and a feast. The celebrations occurred during the day, in contrast to modern day observances, with the ruler playing a key role in the ceremonies. Emphasis was given to the Ahl al-Bayt with presentation of sermons and recitations of the Qur'an.

The exact origins of the Mawlid is difficult to trace. According to Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God, the significance of the event was established when Muhammad fasted on Monday, citing the reason for this was his birth on that day, and when Umar took into consideration Muhammad's birth as a possible starting time for the Islamic calendar. According to Festivals in World Religions, the Mawlid was first introduced by the Abbasids in Baghdad. It has been suggested that the Mawlid was first formalized by al-Khayzuran of the Abbasids. Ibn Jubayr, in 1183, writes that Muhammad's day of birth was celebrated every Monday of Rabi' al-awwal at his birthplace, which had been converted into a place of devotion under the Abbasids.

According to the hypothesis of Nico Kaptein of Leiden University, the Mawlid was initiated by the Fatimids. It has been stated, "The idea that the celebration of the mawlid originated with the Fatimid dynasty has today been almost universally accepted among both religious polemicists and secular scholars." Annemarie Schimmel also says that the tendency to celebrate the memory of Muhammad's day of birth on a larger and more festive scale emerged first in Egypt during the Fatimids. The Egyptian historian Maqrizi (d. 1442) describes one such celebration held in 1122 as an occasion in which mainly scholars and religious establishment participated. They listened to sermons, distributed sweets, particularly honey, Muhammad's favourite and the poor received alms. This Shia origin is frequently noted by those Sunnis who oppose Mawlid. According to Encyclopædia Britannica, however, what the Fatimids did was simply a procession of court officials, which did not involve the public but was restricted to the court of the Fatimid caliph. Therefore, it has been concluded that the first Mawlid celebration which was a public festival was started by Sunnis in 1207 by Muẓaffar al-Dīn Gökburi.

It has been suggested that the celebration was introduced into the city Ceuta by Abu al-Abbas al-Azafi as a way of strengthening the Muslim community and to counteract Christian festivals.

Start of a public holiday
In 1207, the Turkic general Gökböri started the first annual public festival of the Mawlid in Erbil. Gökböri was the brother-in-law of Saladin and soon the festival began to spread across the Muslim world. Since Saladin and Gokburi were both Sufis the festival became increasingly popular among Sufi devotees which remains so till this day. The Ottomans declared it an official holiday in 1588, known as Mevlid Kandil. It is a national holiday in most parts of the Muslim world except Saudi Arabia and Qatar which are officially Salafi.

Where
Mawlid is celebrated in almost all Islamic countries, and in other countries that have a significant Muslim population, such as Ethiopia, India, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, Iraq, Iran, Maldives, Morocco, Jordan, Libya, Russia and Canada. Hari Maulaud Nabi is a public holiday in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

In the last decades of the late 20th century there has been a trend to "forbid or discredit" Mawlid because of the rise of Salafism.

Sunni celebration
The first Sunni mawlid celebration that we have a detailed description of was sponsored by Saladin's general, Muzaffar al-Din Kokburi (Gökböri) and included the slaughtering of thousands of animals for a banquet which is believed to have cost 300,000 dirhams.

The presence of guests and the distribution of monetary gifts at mawlid festivals had an important social function as they symbolized "concretizing ties of patronage and dramatizing the benevolence of the ruler" and also held religious significance, as "issues of spending and feeding were pivotal both to the religious and social function of the celebration." Often organized in some countries by the Sunni Sufi orders, Mawlid is celebrated in a carnival manner, large street processions are held and homes or mosques are decorated. Charity and food is distributed, and stories about the life of Muhammad are narrated with recitation of poetry by children. Scholars and poets celebrate by reciting Qaṣīda al-Burda Sharif, the famous poem by 13th-century Arabic Sufi Busiri. A general Mawlid appears as "a chaotic, incoherent spectacle, where numerous events happen simultaneously, all held together only by the common festive time and space". These celebrations are often considered an expression of the Sufi concept of the pre-existence of Muhammad. However, the main significance of these festivities is expression of love for Muhammad.

Theological pros and cons
Early fatwas and criticisms of the mawlid have taken issue with the "possibility of coerced giving" as hosts often took monetary contributions from their guests for festival costs.

Jurists often conceptualized the observance of Muhammad's day of birth as a "form of reciprocation for God's bestowal of the Prophet Muhammad" as a way of justifying celebrations. According to this thought, the bestowal of such a gift required thanks, which came in the form of the celebration of the mawlid. Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (1392 CE) and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalini (1449 CE) both expressed such ideas, specifically referencing the hadith about the Jews and the fast of ‘Ashura’, but broadening the conception of "thanks to God" to multiple forms of worship including prostration, fasting, almsgiving, and Qur’anic recitation. The only limitation Ibn Hajar places on forms of celebration is that they must be neutral under Shari’a.

Pakistan

During Pakistan's Mawlid, the day starts with a 31-gun salute in federal capital and a 21-gun salute at the provincial capitals and religious hymns are sung during the day.

Indonesia

In many parts of Indonesia, the celebration of the Mawlid al-nabi "seems to surpass in importance, liveliness, and splendour" the two official Islamic holidays of Eid ul-Fitr and Eid al-Adha.

Tunisia
In Qayrawan, Tunisia, Muslims sing and chant hymns of praise to Muhammad, welcoming him in honor of his birth. Also, generally in Tunisia, people usually prepare Assidat Zgougou to celebrate the Mawlid.

Turkey
In Turkey, Mawlid is widely celebrated. It is referred to as Mevlid Kandili in Turkish, which means "the candle feast for the Prophet's day of birth". Traditional poems regarding Muhammad's life are recited both in public mosques and at home in the evening. The most celebrated of these is the Mawlid of Süleyman Çelebi. Plenty of other mawlids were written in Ottoman times.

India
Among non-Muslim countries, India is noted for its Mawlid festivities. The relics of Muhammad are displayed after the morning prayers in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir at the Hazratbal Shrine, where night-long prayers are also held. Hyderabad Telangana is noted for its grand milad festivities. Religious meetings, night-long prayers, rallies, parades and decorations are made throughout the city.

Mawlid texts
Along with being referred to as the celebration of the birth of Muhammad, the term Mawlid also refers to the 'text especially composed for and recited at Muhammad's nativity celebration' or "a text recited or sung on that day". Such poems have been written in many languages, including Arabic, Kurdish and Turkish. These texts contain stories of the life of Muhammad, or at least some of the following chapters from his life, briefly summarized below:

 * 1) The Ancestors of Muhammad
 * 2) The Conception of Muhammad
 * 3) The Birth of Muhammad
 * 4) Introduction of Halima
 * 5) Life of Young Muhammad in Bedouins
 * 6) Muhammad's orphanhood
 * 7) Abu Talib's nephew's first caravan trip
 * 8) Arrangement of Marriage between Muhammad and Khadija
 * 9) Al-Isra'
 * 10) Al-Mi'radj, or the Ascension to heaven
 * 11) Al-Hira, first revelation
 * 12) The first converts to Islam
 * 13) The Hijra
 * 14) Muhammad's death

These text are only part of the ceremonies. There are many different ways that people celebrate Mawlid, depending on where they are from. There appears to be a cultural influence upon what kind of festivities are a part of the Mawlid celebration. In Indonesia, it is common the congregation recite Simthud Durar, especially among Arab Indonesians.

Permissibility

Among Muslim scholars, the legality of Mawlid "has been the subject of intense debate" and has been described as "perhaps one of the most polemical discussions in Islamic law". Traditionally, most Sunni and nearly all of the Shia scholars have approved the celebration of Mawlid,   while Salafi, Deobandi and Ahmadiyya scholars oppose the celebration.

Support
Examples of historic Sunni scholars who permitted the Mawlid include the Shafi'i scholar Al-Suyuti (d 911 A.H.). He was a scholar who wrote a fatwa on the Mawlid, which became one of the most important texts on this issue. Although he became famous outside of Egypt, he was caught in conflicts in Egypt his entire life. For example, he believed that he was the most important scholar of his time, and that he should be regarded as a mujtahid (a scholar who independently interprets and develops the Law) and later as a mujaddid (a scholar who appears at end of a century to restore Islam). These claims made him the most controversial person of his time. However, his fatwa may have received widespread approval and may not have provoked any conflicts.

He stated that:"My answer is that the legal status of the observance of the Mawlid – as long as it just consists of a meeting together by the people, a recitation of apposite parts of the Qur'an, the recounting of transmitted accounts of the beginning of (the biography of) the Prophet – may God bless him and grant him peace – and the wonders that took place during his birth, all of which is then followed by a banquet that is served to them and from which they eat-is a good innovation (bid'a hasana), for which one is rewarded because of the esteem shown for the position of the Prophet – may God bless him and grant him peace – that is implicit in it, and because of the expression of joy and happiness on his – may God bless him and grant him peace – noble birth."Al-Suyuti thought that the Mawlid could be based on the fact that Muhammad performed the sacrifice for his own birth after his calling to be a prophet. He said that Abu Lahab, who he called an unbeliever, had been condemned by what was revealed in the Quran but was rewarded in the fire "for the joy he showed on the night of the birth of the Prophet" by releasing from slavery Thuwayba when she had informed him of the birth of Muhammad. Therefore, he talked about what would happen to a Muslim who rejoiced in his birth and loved him.

In response to al-Fakihani, al-Suyuti said a few things. He said that "because a matter is not known it does not necessarily follow that the matter does not exist nor ever has existed." He also said that a "learned and judicious ruler introduced it," in responding to al-Fakihani's statement that "on the contrary, it is a bida that was introduced by idlers... nor the pious scholars..." Al-Suyuti also said in response to "Nor is it meritorious, because the essence of the meritorious is what the Law demands," that "the demands of meritorious are sometimes based on a text and sometimes on reasoning by analogy." Al-Suyuti said that bidas are not restricted to forbidden or reprehensible, but also to the permitted, meritorious, or compulsory categories in response to al-Fakihani's statement that "according to the consensus of the Muslims innovation in religion is not permitted." In response to al-Fakihani's statement that "This, not withstanding the fact that the month in which he… is born namely Rabi'I, is exactly the same as the one in which he died. Therefore joy and happiness in this month are not any more appropriate than sadness in this month," al-Suyuti said that "birth is the greatest benefaction which has ever befallen us, but his death the greatest calamity that has been visited upon us." He said that the law allows expression of gratitude for benefactions, and that Muhammad had prescribed the sacrifice after the birth of a child because this would express gratitude and happiness for the newborn. Indeed, al-Suyuti said that the principles of the law say it is right to express happiness at Muhammad's birth.

The Shafi'i scholar Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (d 852 A.H.) too approved of the Mawlid and states that:"As for what is performed on the day of the Mawlid, one should limit oneself to what expresses thanks to God, such as the things that have already been mentioned: [Qur'anic] recitation, serving food, alms-giving, and recitation of praise [poems] about the Prophet – may God bless him and grant him peace – and asceticism which motivate people to perform good deeds and act in view of the next world."

The Damascene Shafi'i scholar Abu Shama (died 1268) (who was a teacher of Imam al-Nawawi (d 676 A.H.)) also supports the celebration of the Mawlid. The Maliki scholar Ibn al-Hajj (d 737 A.H.) also spoke positively of the observance of the Mawlid in his book al-Madhkal. Al-Hajj addresses his thoughts on the paradoxical problem of misguided Mawlid observance when he says:

"This is a night of exceeding virtue and what follows from an increase in virtue is an increase in the thanks that it merits through the performance of acts of obedience and the like. [However], some people, instead of increasing thanks, have increased innovations on it."

Likewise, the Shafi'i Egyptian scholar Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (d. 974 A.H.) was an avid supporter of the Mawlid and wrote a text in praise of it. This was supported and commented on by the Egyptian scholar and former head of Al-Azhar University Ibrahim al-Bajuri and by the Hanafi Syrian Mufti Ibn Abidin. Another Hanafi Mufti Ali al-Qari (d. 1014 A.H.) too supported the celebration of the Mawlid and wrote a text on the subject as did the Moroccan Maliki scholar Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar al-Kattānī (d. 1345 A.H.). Ibn al-Jazari (d. 833 A.H.), a Syrian Shafi'i scholar considers the celebration of the Mawlid to be a means of gaining Paradise.

In the Muslim world, the majority of Sunni Islamic scholars are in favor of the Mawlid. Examples include the former Grand Mufi of Egypt Ali Gomaa, Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki of Saudi Arabia, Yusuf al-Qaradawi the primary scholar of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Habib Ali al-Jifri, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy of Syria, president of the Heritage and History Committee of the United Arab Emirates Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Khazraji and Zaid Shakir, all of whom subscribe to Sunni Islam, have given their approval for the observance of Mawlid.

Opposition
Taj al-Din al-Fakihani (d. 1331), an Egyptian Maliki, considered Mawlid to be a blameworthy innovation that was either makruh or haram. Al-Fakihani said that there was no basis of this in the Book of God, nor in the sunnah of Muhammad, and that there was no observance of it on authority of scholars of the umma. He said that it was a "bida that was introduced by idlers, and a delight to which gluttons abandon themselves." He mentioned how the five legal categories included whether it is compulsory, meritorious, permitted, reprehensible, or forbidden. He said it was not compulsory, meritorious, or permitted, and therefore it was reprehensible or forbidden. He said that it was reprehensible when a person observed at their own expense without doing more at the gathering than to eat and abstain from doing anything sinful. The second condition of the category of forbidden, according to al-Fakihani, was when committing of transgressions entered into the practice, such as "singing–with full bellies–accompanied by instruments of idleness like drums and reed flutes, with the meeting of men with young boys and male persons with attractive women–either mixing with them or guarding them–, just like dancing by swinging and swaying, wallowing in lust and forgetting of the Day of Doom." He also said, "And likewise the women, when they come together and there lend their high voices during the reciting with sighing and singing and thereby during the declaiming and reciting disobey the law and neglect His word: ‘Verily, your Lord is on a watchtower’ (Sura 89:14)." He further said, "Nobody with civilized and courteous manners approves of this. It is only pleasing to people whose hearts are dead and do not contain few sins and offenses." Finally, he said that the month when Muhammad was born was also the month in which he died, and so implied that joy and happiness in that month are not more appropriate than sadness in that month.

Fellow Egyptian Maliki Ibn al-Haj al-Abdari also considered Mawlid as a blameworthy innovation that was either makruh or haram, who added that the celebration was never practiced by the Salaf. However Ibn al-Haj affirms the auspicious qualities of the month of the Mawlid in the most effusive terms and considers Muhammad's date of birth as a particularly blessed time of the year. The Maliki scholar Al-Shatibi considered Mawlid an illegitimate innovation. The Andalusian jurist Abu 'Abd Allah al-Haffar (d. 1408) opposed Mawlid, noting that had the Sahaba celebrated it then its exact date would not be a matter of uncertainty. The former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz, along with Hammud ibn 'Abd Allah al-Tuwayjiri (d. 1992), another Saudi scholar, in their opposition also argued that there were many worthy occasions in Muhammad's life which he never commemorated, such as the revelation of the first verses of the Qur'an, the Night Journey and the hijra.

In 1934, the minister of education in Egypt criticized the "useless stories" which filled Mawlid poetry, as he believed these were incompatible with a modern and scientific viewpoint that represented Muhammad on a more sober level. Similar criticism arose in 1982 when a chairman of the Mecca-based Orthodox Muslim Organization Rabita declared celebrations of Mawlid an "evil innovation."

While the Ahmadiyya deem the perpetual commemoration of Muhammad's life as highly desirable and consider the remembrance of him as a source of blessings, they condemn the common, traditional practices associated with the Mawlid as blameworthy innovations, Gatherings limited to the recounting of Muhammad's life and character and the recitation of poetry eulogising him, whether held on a specific date of Rabi' al-awwal or in any other month, are deemed permissible. Formal gatherings called Jalsa Seerat-un-Nabi commemorating Muhammad's life and legacy, rather than specifically his birth, are frequently held by Ahmadis and are often oriented towards both Muslim and non-Muslim audiences. These gatherings could be held in the month of the Mawlid but are promoted often throughout the year.

Ambiguity
The position of Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328) on the Mawlid has been ambiguous. On the one hand, he considered that it was a reprehensible devotional innovation and criticised those who celebrated the Mawlid out of a desire to imitate the Christian celebration of Jesus's day of birth. On the other hand, he recognised that some observe Muhammad's day of birth out of a desire to show their love and reverence of him and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions. The Salafi writer Hamid al-Fiqi (d. 1959) criticised Ibn Taymiyya for holding this view and stating that "How can they receive a reward for this when they are opposing the guidance of God's Messenger (pbuh)?".

Ibn al-Hajj (c. 1250/56-1336) praised carrying out ceremonies and expression of gratitude during the festival, but rejected the forbidden and objectionable matters that took place at it. He objected to certain things, such as singers performing to the accompaniment of percussion instruments, pointing to their blameworthiness. He asked about what connections there might have been between percussion instruments and the month of Muhammad's day of birth. However, he said that it was right to honor and distinguish the day of birth because it showed respect for the month. He also said that excellence lied in devotional acts. Therefore, al-Hajj said that "the respect of this noble month should consist of additional righteous works, the giving of alms and other pious deeds. If anybody is not able to do so, let him then in any case avoid what is forbidden and reprehensible out of respect for this noble month." He said that even though the Quran might be recited, the people actually were "longing for the most skilled adepts of folly and stimulating means to entertain the people," and said that this was "perverse". Therefore, he did not condemn the Mawlid, but only "the forbidden and objectionable things which the Mawlid brings in its wake." He did not disapprove of preparing a banquet and inviting people to participate. In addition, Ibn al-Hajj also said that people observed the Mawlid not just from reasons of respect but also because they wanted to get back the silver they had given on other joyous occasions and festivals, and said that there were "evil aspects" attached to this.

Skaykh al-Islam, Abu I-Fadl ibn Hajar, who was "the (greatest) hafiz of this time," said that the legal status of the Mawlid was that it was a bida, which was not transmitted on the authority of one of the pious ancestors. However, he said that it comprised both good things, as well as the reverse, and that if one strove for good things in practicing it and evaded bad things, the Mawlid was a good innovation, and if not, then not. He said that the coming of Muhammad was a good benefaction, and said that only the day ought to be observed. He said that "it is necessary that one restricts oneself to that which expresses gratitude to God… namely by reciting the Quran, the giving of a banquet, almsgiving, declamations of some songs of praise for the Prophet and some ascetic songs of praise, which stimulate the hearts to do good and to make efforts to strive for the Hereafter." He also said that the "sama and the entertainment and the like" may have been in line with the joyous nature of the day, but said that “what is forbidden or reprehensible, is, of course, prohibited. The same holds true for what is contrary to that which is regarded as the most appropriate."

Other uses
In some countries, such as Egypt and Sudan, Mawlid is used as a generic term for the celebration of the day of birth of local Sufi saints and not only restricted to the observance of the birth of Muhammad. Around 3,000 Mawlid celebrations are held each year. These festivals attract an international audience, with the largest one in Egypt attracting up to three million people honouring Ahmad al-Badawi, a local 13th-century Sufi saint.

title: Mawlid


text:
Keith Hennessey

Keith Hennessey is an American economist and former political advisor who served as the Assistant to the U.S. President for Economic Policy and Director of the National Economic Council. He was appointed to the position in November 2007 by President George W. Bush, and served until the end of Bush's second term in office. Hennessey had served in the White House since August 2002, when he was appointed to the position of Deputy Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Deputy Director of the U.S. National Economic Council.

Education
Hennessey holds a B.S. in Mathematics and Political Science from Stanford University and a Master of Public Policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. The title of his Harvard public policy thesis was Unintended Consequences: Critical Assumptions in the Clinton Health Plan.

Career
Prior to joining the White House staff, Hennessey worked for Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott from February 1997 to August 2002. While in Senator Lott's office, he was involved in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and all budget resolutions since 1997, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and all tax legislation since 1998, Trade Promotion Authority, all health legislation, the Transportation Equity Act, FAA authorization bills and many other smaller bills. Prior to joining Senator Lott, Hennessey worked as a health economist for the Senate Budget Committee, from January 1995 to February 1997. Hennessey was a research assistant for the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform from June 1994 to January 1995. From 1990 to 1992 he tested the database program Q&A for Symantec Corporation in Cupertino, California.

Since leaving the White House, Hennessey has been a television commentator and established a blog, which was named in an article reported by the Wall Street Journal economics bureau as one of the "Top 25 Economics Blogs" in 2009.

From 2009 to 2012, Hennessey worked as a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. He has since worked as a lecturer at Stanford Law School, the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and the Stanford University Public Policy Department.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Keith Hennessey


text: Talk:Dark Reign: The Future of War

title: Talk:Dark Reign: The Future of War


text:
April Uprising of 1876

The April Uprising (Априлско въстание) was an insurrection organised by the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire from April to May 1876. The rebellion was suppressed by irregular Ottoman bashi-bazouk units that engaged in indiscriminate slaughter of both rebels and non-combatants (see Batak massacre).

The American community around Robert College in Istanbul, the Protestant mission in Plovdiv headed by J.F. Clarke as well as two other Americans, journalist Januarius MacGahan and diplomat Eugene Schuyler, were indispensable in bringing knowledge of Ottoman atrocities to the wider European public.

Their reports of the events, which came to be known in the press as the Bulgarian Horrors and the Crime of the Century, caused a public outcry across Europe and mobilised both common folks and famous intellectuals to demand a reform of the failed Ottoman model of governance of the Bulgarian lands.

The shift in public opinion, in particular, in the Ottoman Empire's hitherto closest ally, the British Empire, eventually led to the re-establishment of a separate Bulgarian state in 1878.

Background
In Europe, in the 18th century, the classic non-national states were the multi-ethnic empires such as the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, whose population belonged to many ethnic groups and spoke many languages. The idea of nation state became more prominent during the 19th century. The most noticeable characteristic was the degree to which nation states used the state as an instrument of national unity in economic, social and cultural life. By the 18th century, the Ottomans had fallen well behind the rest of Europe in science, technology, and industry. However, the Bulgarian population was also suppressed socially and politically under Ottoman rule. Additionally, more immediate causes for the greater mobilisation compared to earlier revolts were the severe internal and external problems which the Ottoman Empire experienced in the middle of the 1870s. In 1875, taxes levied on non-Muslims were raised for fear of state bankruptcy, which, in turn, caused additional tension between Muslims and Christians and led to the Herzegovinian rebellion and the Stara Zagora revolt in Bulgaria. The failure of the Ottomans to handle the Herzegovinian uprising successfully showed the weakness of the Ottoman state, and the atrocities committed during its suppression discredited it internationally. In the late 19th century, European ideas of nationalism were adopted by the Bulgarian elite.

Preparation
In November 1875, activists of the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee met in the Romanian town of Giurgiu and decided that the political situation was suitable for a general uprising. The uprising was scheduled for April or May 1876. The territory of the country was divided into five revolutionary districts with centers in Vratsa (leader-Stoyan Zaimov), Veliko Tarnovo (Stefan Stambolov), Sliven (Ilarion Dragostinov), Plovdiv (Panayot Volov—who later gave his position to his assistant Georgi Benkovski) and Sofia (Nikola Obretenov).

The rebels had been hoarding arms and ammunition for some time and even constructed a makeshift cannon out of cherry-wood.

In the progress of the preparation of the uprising, the organisers gave up the idea of a fifth revolutionary district in Sofia due to the deplorable situation of the local revolutionary committees and moved the centre of the fourth revolutionary district from Plovdiv to Panagyurishte. On 14 April 1876, a general meeting of the committees from the fourth revolutionary district was held in the Oborishte locality near Panagyurishte to discuss the proclamation of the insurrection. However, one of the delegates disclosed the plot to the Ottoman authorities. As a result, the Ottoman police made an attempt to arrest the leader of the local revolutionary committee in Koprivshtitsa, Todor Kableshkov on 2 May 1876.

The Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee's minutes from 17th of April 1876 chaired by Benkovski discuss retaliation against the Turkish and Muslim population in mixed regions opposing the uprising. These actions include killing, arson of property and homes and seizure of assets. On the other hand, Muslims who did not resist were to be protected in the same way as the Bulgarian population. The committee also gave approval for torching towns and villages. However, there is no evidence that this plan was implemented.

Outbreak and suppression

In conformity with the decisions taken at Oborishte, the local rebel committee attacked and surrounded the headquarters of the Ottoman police in Koprivshtitsa on 20 April 1876. At least two Ottoman police officers were killed, and the commander, Necip Aga, was forced to release arrested rebel suspects. Necip Aga and his close officials managed to escape the siege. However, due to this incident, the Bulgarian rebels had to proclaim the insurrection two weeks in advance of the planned date.

Within several days, the rebellion spread to the entire Sredna Gora and to a number of towns and villages in the northwestern Rhodopes. The insurrection broke out in the other revolutionary districts, though on a much smaller scale. The areas of Gabrovo, Tryavna, and Pavlikeni also revolted in force, along with several villages north and south of Sliven and near Berovo (in present-day North Macedonia).

Ottoman response was immediate and severe. Irregular bashi-bazouks, sometimes accompanied by army detachments, were swiftly mobilized. These forces attacked the first insurgent towns as early as 25 April. The Ottomans massacred civilian populations, the principal places being Panagurishte, Perushtitza, Klisura, and Batak (see Batak massacre). By the middle of May, the insurrection was completely suppressed. One of the last sparks of resistance was poet Hristo Botev's attempt to come to the rebels' rescue with a detachment of Bulgarian political émigrés resident in Romania, which ended with the unit's rout and Botev's death.

Nevertheless, a unit of Circassian paramilitaries managed to commit a final atrocity well after the end of hostilities. They butchered 145 non-combatants at Boyadzhik after confusing the preparation for a Bulgarian holiday with a rebellion in the making.

The Porte's refusal to send additional regular army detachments, and the decision of the Beys of Edirne and Filibe to instead arm bashi-bazouk forces greatly determined the number of casualties and the aftermath of the uprising's suppression. Thus, the village of Bratsigovo, which was one of the best prepared centres of the rebellion and managed to fiercely resist enemy attacks for days, suffered only 250 casualties, very few of whom civilian, after fighting a regular Ottoman army unit. The leader of the Bratsigovo resistance, Vasil Petleshkov, also assumed all blame for what had happened. By contrast, Perushtitza, Panagurishte and Batak, which faced bashi-bazouk forces, all suffered enormous casualties, estimated by Schuyler at approx. 1,000, 3,000 and 5,000, respectively.

Schuyler qualified the uprising as poorly prepared and undeserving of the brutality of the Ottoman response. Modern Bulgarian historiography also calls it premature and poorly prepared and considers that the organisers only wanted to draw European and Russian public attention to the plight of Ottoman Bulgarians, with no illusions that the revolt would succeed.

In view of the poor preparation of the insurgents, but the enormous repercussions of their deeds, American Protestant missionary and author Henry Otis Dwight called the revolt "the maddest freak that ever led men to death".

Casualties
The most detailed contemporary account of the uprising was prepared by American diplomat Eugene Schuyler. He learned about the events from faculty members at Robert College, who feared that the coming investigation of Englishman Walter Baring would turn into a cover-up because of the British Empire's strongly pro-Ottoman official stance and his own reputation as a Turkophile.

After visiting 3 cities and 11 villages, Schuyler compiled a report detailing the burning of sixty-five villages, the demolition of five monasteries and the slaughter of at least 15,000 people—rebels and non-combatants alike. However, what Schuyler emphasised the most was the exceptional, highly unnecessary brutality employed, in particular, at Batak. Eventually, despite his reputation as a Turkophile, Baring by and large confirmed Schuyler's findings. The report of his investigation only reduced the estimated number of victims to 12,000.

Januarius MacGahan also put the number of Bulgarian casualties at 15,000, with the reservation that the figure does not cover the insurrection north of the Balkan. Subsequent investigations by the French and Russian Consuls estimated the number of Bulgarian casualties at 25,000–40,000. In mid-June 1876, Turkish sources claimed some 18,000 casualties, and Bulgarian ones 30,000.

According to Baring, the civilian Muslim population was not materially affected by the rebellion. This is also substantiated in the reports of Eugene Schuyler and James F. Clarke, who testify that very few peaceful Muslims were killed. According to Schuyler, Muslim casualties numbered 115, of whom 12 women and children. Ottoman officials at the time claimed approx. 500 Muslim casualties.

Modern controversy
While contemporary witnesses are unanimous on the scale of destruction of human life and property among the rebels and agree that there were few Muslim casualties, there is disagreement on both issues among modern Western historians. Some of them not only take issue with the number of Muslim victims but also disparage or negate Bulgarian casualties.

Thus, American historian Justin McCarthy claims that more than 1,000 Muslims were slaughtered and many more expelled during the revolt, while putting Bulgarian casualties at 3,000–12,000. He also stresses that Russian atrocities against Muslims during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 were far worse than those against insurgent Bulgarians. In History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Stanford Shaw claims that far more Muslims than Christians were killed in the uprising. He also estimates Bulgarian casualties at fewer than 4,000.

On the other hand, Barbara Jelavich, who admits that the beginning of the April Uprising was accompanied by a massacre of Muslim civilians, upholds Baring's estimate of 12,000 Bulgarian casualties. According to British historian Richard Shannon, the insurgents killed less than 200 Muslims, very few of whom were non-combatants.

According to the report written by Schuyler and American journalist Januarius MacGahan, the Ottoman government at the time did not claim more than 500 Muslims killed—most of whom in battle. Polish scholar Tomasz Kamusella opines that the numbers of victims may not distinguish between Orthodox Christians and Muslims, but acknowledges that there were only some 500 Muslim deaths.

This is countered by American historian Richard Millman, who states that Schuyler visited in person only 11 of the villages he reported on, even though Schuyler himself admits that on the first page of his report. However, it is certain that Schuyler visited Batak and other towns and villages that suffered a particularly gruesome fate, e.g., Perushtitsa and Panagyurishte. Millman also claims that the accepted reality of the massacres is largely a myth.

McCarthy, Shaw and Millman all blame the accounts of Baring, MacGahan, Schuyler and Gladstone's actions on a colonial mindset, an ingrained anti-Turkish bias, "othering", preconceived ideas of Turkish barbarism and guilt or, at best, on pro-Russian leaning. McCarthy has since dedicated an entire book to the issue, where he attributes all negative perceptions of Turkey in the US to 19th century American missionaries—such as pastor James F. Clarke, who first gave an alert about the treatment of the Bulgarian rebels.

However, McCarthy, Shaw and Millman have in turn themselves been accused by fellow Western historians of being an "apologist for the Turkish state", of having "an indefensible bias toward the Turkish official position" (McCarthy), of suffering from a "Turkish-nationalist bias", of offering a "vehemently anti-Armenian and Hellenophobic interpretation of modern Turkish history" (Shaw), of "being irredeemably pro-Turkish and pro-Disraeli" (Millman), etc. multiple times throughout their careers. Most relevant in the context of the April Uprising's casualty figures is fellow historian Hakem Al-Rustom's critique that "'Justin McCarthy is an apologist for the Turkish state and supports the official version of history, which denies the Armenian genocide. He thus might have exaggerated the number of Muslim victims in the Balkans in order to underplay the number of Armenian victims in Anatolia.'"

Both McCarthy and Shaw are Armenian Genocide denialists. McCarthy is also a member of, and has received grants from, the Institute of Turkish Studies.

Contemporary Bulgarian historians generally accept the number of Bulgarian casualties at the end of the uprising to be around 30,000. According to British and French figures, 12,000–15,000 Bulgarian civilians were massacred during the uprising.

Press reports
News of massacres of Bulgarians reached European embassies in Istanbul in May and June 1876 through Bulgarian students at Robert College, the American college in the city. Faculty members at Robert College wrote to the British Ambassador and to the Istanbul correspondents of The Times and the Daily News.

"But let me tell you what we saw at Batak ... The number of children killed in these massacres is something enormous. They were often spitted on bayonets, and we have several stories from eye-witnesses who saw the little babes carried about the streets, both here and at Olluk-Kni, on the points of bayonets. The reason is simple. When a Mohammedan has killed a certain number of infidels he is sure of Paradise, no matter what his sins may be ... It was a heap of skulls, intermingled with bones from all parts of the human body, skeletons nearly entire and rotting, clothing, human hair and putrid flesh lying there in one foul heap, around which the grass was growing luxuriantly. It emitted a sickening odour, like that of a dead horse, and it was here that the dogs had been seeking a hasty repast when our untimely approach interrupted them ... The ground is covered here with skeletons, to which are clinging articles of clothing and bits of putrid flesh. The air was heavy, with a faint, sickening odour, that grows stronger as we advance. It is beginning to be horrible."

An article about the massacres in the Daily News on 23 June provoked a question in Parliament about Britain's support for Turkey, and demands for an investigation. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli promised to conduct an investigation about what had really happened.

In July, the British Embassy in Istanbul sent a second secretary, Walter Baring, to Bulgaria to investigate the stories of atrocities. Baring did not speak Bulgarian (although he did speak Turkish) and British policy was officially pro-Turkish, so the Bulgarian community in Istanbul feared he would not report the complete story. They asked the American Consul in Istanbul, Eugene Schuyler, to conduct his own investigation.

Schuyler set off for Bulgaria on 23 July, four days after Baring. He was accompanied by a well-known American war correspondent, Januarius MacGahan, by a German correspondent, and by a Russian diplomat, Prince Aleksei Tseretelev.

Schuyler's group spent three weeks visiting Batak and other villages where massacres had taken place. Schuyler's official report, published in November 1876, said that fifty-eight villages in Bulgaria had been destroyed, five monasteries demolished, and fifteen thousand people in all massacred. The report was reprinted as a booklet and widely circulated in Europe.

Baring's report to the British government about the massacres was similar but put the number of victims at about twelve thousand.

MacGahan's vivid articles from Bulgaria moved British public opinion against Turkey. He described in particular what he had seen in the town of Batak, where five thousand of a total of seven thousand residents had been slaughtered, beheaded or burned alive by Turkish irregulars, and their bodies left in piles around the town square and the church.

British response

Liberal Party leader William Ewart Gladstone published a pamphlet on 6 September 1876, Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East,   attacked the Disraeli government for its indifference to the Ottoman Empire's violent repression of the April Uprising. Gladstone made clear his hostility focused on the Turkish people, rather than on the Muslim religion. The Turks he said: "'... were, upon the whole, from the black day when they first entered Europe, the one great anti-human specimen of humanity. Wherever they went, a broad line of blood marked the track behind them; and as far as their dominion reached, civilisation disappeared from view. They represented everywhere government by force, as opposed to government by law. For the guide of this life they had a relentless fatalism: for its reward hereafter, a sensual paradise.'"

The political impact of the reports was immediate and dramatic. As the leader of the opposition, Gladstone called upon the government to withdraw its support for Turkey."'I entreat my countrymen', he wrote, 'upon whom far more than upon any other people in Europe it depends, to require and to insist that our government, which has been working in one direction, shall work in the other, and shall apply all its vigour to concur with the states of Europe in obtaining the extinction of the Turkish executive power in Bulgaria. Let the Turks now carry away their abuses in the only possible manner, namely, by carrying off themselves ...'"

Prominent Europeans, including Charles Darwin, Oscar Wilde, Victor Hugo, and Giuseppe Garibaldi, spoke against the Turkish behavior in Bulgaria. When war with Russia started in 1877, the Turkish Government asked Britain for help, but the British government refused, citing public outrage caused by the Bulgarian massacres as the reason.

Political affairs and propaganda
During the 19th century, British Empire typically supported Ottomans against their conflicts against Russian Empire, a common rival at the time, to curb its pan-Slavist and Orthodox Christian influence in Balkans. William Gladstone assumed a pro-Russian position on the conflict and was not concerned with the expansion of Russia's power projection. In contrast, the works of Frederick Burnaby present a pro-Turkish understanding of events. To investigate the accounts of massacres in British media, Burnaby embarked on a travel through Ottoman lands; his memoirs were published under the titles A Ride to Khiva: Travels and Adventures in Central Asia (1876) and On Horseback through Asia Minor (1877). According to Burnaby, many Western accounts of atrocities were exaggerated and sometimes fabricated and atrocities against Muslims were omitted from the press reports. The landlord of Burnaby in Ankara complains to him about this as such, "Your newspapers always published the accounts of the Bulgarian women and children who were slaughtered, and never went into any particulars about the Turkish women who were massacred by the Bulgarians, or about our soldiers whose noses were cut off, and who were mutilated by the insurgents in the Herzegovina. A Turk values his nose quite as much as a Christian." Burnaby's goal was to present a counter-narrative to the general Russophile attitude in Britain. According to Turkish historian Sinan Akıllı, his attempts manifested mixed results and were only partially successful in reversing the public opinion.

Aftermath
The April uprising was not successful in itself, but its bloody suppression by the Ottomans caused such outrage across Europe that public opinion, even in Turcophile England, shifted, demanding a reform of the model of Ottoman governance. As a result, the Great Powers called the Constantinople Conference in December 1876, where they presented the Sultan with a combined proposal that envisaged the creation of two autonomous Bulgarian provinces, largely overlapping with the borders of the Bulgarian Exarchate. By splitting the autonomy in two and ensuring extensive international oversight of provincial affairs, the proposal reflected all of the British Empire's wishes and allayed its fears that the provinces would become Russian puppets.

Thus, the decades-long Bulgarian struggle for self-governance and freedom appeared to finally bear fruit. And this the Bulgarians had achieved entirely by themselves—through the efforts of both clergy and the young Bulgarian bourgeoisie, which had successfully argued before and succeeded in convincing Grand Vizier Âli Pasha in the need for a separate Bulgarian church and millet, thus initiating the Bulgarian nation-building process even under foreign rule, and through the blood shed by the hothead revolutionaries who had managed to cause a seismic shift in European public opinion.

However, on 20 January 1877, Grand Vizier Midhat Pasha officially and finally rejected the autonomy proposal. Bulgarian historiography has traditionally cast the blame for the failure of the Conference on the go-to villain in modern Bulgarian history, the English. However, newer research rather indicates that the power that sabotaged the Conference was the Russian Empire itself. The Russians had already apportioned Ottoman holdings in Europe amongst themselves and Austria-Hungary by virtue of the secret Reichstadt Agreement and Budapest Convention and stood to lose the most from a Bulgarian state that was not under their control—namely, their century-old dream of controlling the Turkish Straits and having a warm-water port (a.k.a. Catherine the Great's "Greek Plan").

The date of finalisation of the Budapest Convention, 15 January 1877, mere five days before Midhat Pasha's rejection of the autonomy proposal, and its clauses, where the Russian Empire explicitly undertakes not to create a large Slavic state but rather two small autonomous Bulgarian principalities/provinces north and south of the Balkan mountains have even caused several researchers to call the Treaty of San Stefano a "trick" or a "charade". ''Санстефанският договор е обикновен предварителен (прелиминарен) протокол за прекратяване на войната между две воюващи страни. В него понятие „освобождение на България” няма. И това е логично, защото цел на руската политика не е освобождението на България. Завладяването, т.е. окупацията на част от територията на Османската империя, е само средство за постигане на цел. Целта е Русия да има безпрепятствен достъп до Проливите. Това означава, че руската имперска завоевателна доктрина не предвижда по пътя към „топлите морета” да има независими, провеждащи своя национална политика, държави. Нейна цел е да има контролирани и зависими от политиката на императора „автономни” области. Това е целта. Пропагандата е нещо друго. Тя може да облече целта в привлекателна дреха. За българите тази дреха се нарича „освобождение”. Впрочем самите руски историци признават това, когато записват в „Болшая советская енциклопедия” следното: ”Царското правителство на Русия преследваше във войната с Турция завоевателни цели, но използваше лозунга на една освободителна война”. С други думи понятието „освободителна война” е лозунг и нищо повече. Той е за „народните маси”. Елитът – императорският двор, военоначалниците са абсолютно наясно с целта. И я преследват и до Санстефанския „договор”, и след него. Доколкото под Санстефанския протокол стои подписът на руския посланик в Цариград граф Николай П.Игнатиев, то е добре да се цитират неговите „записки”, издадени през 1914 г. в Санкт Петербург. В тях четем: „На Русия ѝ е тясно в Черно море и тя трябва да владее изхода му, т.е. Проливите, пряко и косвено, и то не само заради осигуряването на безопасността и благосъстоянието на своя Юг, колкото поради политически и икономически съображения.” И по-нататък: „За да бъде властта ни здрава и да не изисква постоянно извънредно напрежение от наша страна, е необходимо да държим в нравстено подчинение съседните области и да превърнем българското и гръцкото население, от една страна, и арменското, от друга, в послушно оръдие на руската политика и в постоянни съюзници, като унищожим всякаква възможност за преминаването им във враждебен лагер.”'' For more, see: Alexander Yordanov (2018) Санстефанският договор - „ловушка”, капан, илюзия, инструмент за столетно манипулиране на българския народ [The San Stefano Treaty – A Snare, Trap, Illusion and an Instrument for Manipulating Bulgarians for More Than a Century], https://faktor.bg/bg/articles/mneniya/lacheni-tsarvuli/-sanstefanskiyat-dogovor-blagodarnostta-dalgat-i-praznikat

Whatever the truth, the Ottoman Empire's rejection of the autonomy proposal gave the Russians the much-desired excuse to declare war on the Ottoman Empire, while preventing the United Kingdom from interfering because of public opinion. Less than two years after the uprising, Bulgaria, or at least a part of it, would be free again.

title: April Uprising of 1876


text:
HMS Shark

Thirteen ships of the Royal Navy have been named HMS Shark (or HMS Sharke) after the shark:
 * HMS Sharke (1691) was an 8-gun brigantine launched in 1691 and sold in 1698.
 * HMS Sharke (1699) was a 14-gun sloop launched in 1699 and captured by French forces in 1703.
 * HMS Sharke (1711) was a 14-gun sloop launched in 1711, rebuilt in 1722 and sold in 1732.
 * HMS Shark (1732) was a 14-gun sloop launched in 1732 and sold in 1755.
 * HMS Shark (1776) was a 16-gun sloop purchased on the stocks in 1775 and launched in 1776. She was converted to a fireship and renamed HMS Salamander in 1778, and was sold in 1783. She then became the mercantile Salamander and was seriatem a whaler, convict transport to Australia, whaler, and slaver. She is last listed in Lloyd's Register in 1811.
 * HMS Shark (1779) was a 16-gun sloop launched in 1779. She was used as a receiving ship on the Jamaica station from 1803 to 1816 and foundered in Port Royal harbor in 1818; her remains were sold a few months later.
 * HMS Shark (1780) was a 28-gun sixth rate bought in 1780 that foundered with the loss of her entire crew during a storm off North America in 1780.
 * HMS Shark (1794) was a 4-gun Dutch hoy purchased in 1794 and handed over to French forces in 1795 at La Hogue by her crew during a mutiny.
 * HMS Shark (1894) was a Rocket-class destroyer launched in 1894 and broken up in 1911.
 * HMS Shark (1912) was an Acasta-class destroyer launched in 1912. She was sunk at the battle of Jutland in 1916.
 * HMS Shark (1918) was an S-class destroyer launched in 1918 and scrapped in 1931.
 * HMS Shark (54S) was an S-class submarine launched in 1934. She was disabled by an air attack in 1940 and sank the next day.
 * HMS Shark (G03), an S-class destroyer launched in 1943. She was transferred to the Royal Norwegian Navy on completion in 1944 and renamed HNOMS Svenner (G03). She was sunk later that year.

title: HMS Shark


text:
Ávila Adobe

The Ávila Adobe, built in 1818 by Francisco Ávila, is the oldest standing residence in the city of Los Angeles, California. Avila Adobe is located in the paseo of historic Olvera Street, a part of the Los Angeles Plaza Historic District, a California State Historic Park. The building itself is registered as California Historical Landmark #145, while the entire historic district is listed both on the National Register of Historic Places and as a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument.

The Plaza is the third location of the original Spanish settlement El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de Los Ángeles sobre el Río Porciúncula, the first two having been washed out by flooding from the swollen Río Porciúncula (Los Angeles River). The Avila Adobe was one of the settlement's first houses to share street frontage in the Pueblo de Los Angeles of Spanish colonial Alta California.

The walls of the Avila Adobe are 2.5 - 3 ft thick and are built from sun-baked adobe bricks. The original ceilings were 15 ft high and supported by beams of cottonwood, which was available along the banks of the Los Angeles River. Though the roof appears slanted today, the original roof was flat. Tar (Spanish: brea) was brought up from the La Brea Tar Pits, located near the north boundary line of Avila's Rancho Las Cienegas. The tar was mixed with rocks and horsehair, a common binder in exterior building material, and applied to beams of the roof as a sealant from inclement weather.

The original floor of the Avila adobe was hard-as-concrete compacted earth, which was swept several times a day to keep the surface smooth and free from loose soil. (Dirt floors were common among most early adobes.) In later years, varnished wood planks were used as flooring.

The original structure was nearly twice as long as it now appears and was L-shaped, with a wing that extended nearly to the center of Olvera Street. The rear of the house had a long porch facing the patio. Francisco tended a garden and a vineyard in the rear courtyard. The nearby Zanja Madre (literally "Mother Ditch") was a main water aqueduct and irrigation ditch that brought water down to the Pueblo from the Los Angeles River and was close enough to the adobe for Francisco Avila to avail himself. Avila eventually added a wooden veranda and steps to the front of the adobe.

Beginnings
Avila Adobe was originally built in 1818 in Alta California. Throughout the years, the Avila home has kept the styles similarly as to when it was originally built, even after withstanding wars and restoration. The town in which the home was built was called El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles, which is now known as the city of Los Angeles. Before the construction of the Avila home, the land was colonized by Spanish people from Sinaloa, Mexico. In the early 1800s, the town was home to ranchero families who dominated the town. Francisco Avila was a wealthy cattle rancher who was a native of Sinaloa. Francisco grazed cattle which eventually led him to begin a ranching business that grew his wealth significantly.

Over time, the home was rented to different people, and in the next century the Avila home took many other forms of use. The home was used as a hotel, housing, lodging, and as a temporary home for U.S. troops. There was a period during its first century where the Avila Adobe was left vacant and unattended. During the years of the late 1920s, the home was neglected and unwatched. The city attempted to demolish the home as it had no use. The home was then saved by Christine Sterling, who saw the home as a historical site. Sterling did not want the authenticity of the home to be destroyed, since it was one of the first homes built in Los Angeles. Sterling was able to stop the city from demolishing the home and eventually transformed it into a museum for others to learn about the history of the home. Sterling named the street in which the Avila home was built Olvera Street, after Agustin Olvera, and influenced the creation of the Mexican marketplace called "Placita Olvera". Today, the home is often visited by many tourists and locals. Olvera Street continues to provide a Mexican cultural environment that is influenced by the history of the Avila Adobe home.

Francisco Avila
Francisco Avila, a Californio and wealthy cattle rancher, was the grantee of Rancho Las Cienegas west of the pueblo (present day mid-Wilshire district). Avila spent his working time at the rancho where he resided during the week. On weekends, special feast days, or holidays, he came to the Pueblo where he could conduct trade business, entertain friends, families, or patrons; or prepare for services at the Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles Asistencia (church) across the plaza.

The Avila Adobe was considered gracious in its day. It had a number of spacious rooms with an ample number of windows. It served many a social gathering with the Avilas hosting these events in the large sala (parlour).

Francisco Avila would trade hides and tallow (a main ingredient in candles and soap) to acquire luxury furnishings imported from Mexico and beyond to decorate the house. French doors and window frames were ordered from Boston. These imports were brought to post-independence Mexican Alta California by ship over thousands of miles around the southern Cape Horn of South America. Avila's wealth and trade goods allowed the purchase of fine furnishings and goods from Mexico and New England, and Asia and Europe. Avila would also trade for household goods with merchant ships anchored in San Pedro Bay or the San Diego pueblo of Mission Bay, which were carted inland by an ox-drawn carreta, a wooden bullock cart of the era.

The adobe was always ready to receive friends, family, and travelers, including the famous trailblazer, Jedediah Smith. Smith had led a group of fur trappers overland and across the Mojave Desert to southern California, and stayed at the adobe for a few days during January 1827. These were the first U.S. citizens to reach Alta California from the east via an overland route. Smith later recorded: "A few families are rich in cattle and horses and mules and among these Señor [Francisco Avila] and his brother [Ygnacio Avila] are perhaps the richest."

Francisco Avila died on April 5, 1832. His widow, Encarnacion Avila, remained at the adobe until her death in 1855, though sometime after Francisco's death she did remarry.

During the Mexican–American War
On May 18, 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico, the Mexican–American War, at which time the U.S. took interest in Alta California. U.S. Navy Commodore Robert F. Stockton arrived in Monterey on July 14 and declared California won over. He then proceeded to march toward Los Angeles which he took without so much as a shot being fired. But the Pueblo de Los Angeles had not capitulated so easily and revolted against the garrison of men left to police the pueblo, winning the Siege of Los Angeles. Stockton was forced to return in October via San Diego. After the Battle of San Pasqual just north of San Diego in December, which was a setback for the Americans, they marched toward Los Angeles. They became involved in the Battle of Rio San Gabriel near the San Gabriel River on January 8, 1847, which after two days quelled the Mexican resistance there. The Battle of La Mesa followed.

When news of the advancing American troops reached the Pueblo, most of the inhabitants fled, including Maria Encarnacion Avila, whose husband was not around to protect her. She went to the home of a nearby relative and left the house in charge of a young boy who had orders to leave the doors and shutters closed. On January 10, Stockton arrived with a marching band fanfare that lured the young boy outside leaving the door open. The troops passing noticed the great size of the house with its lavish furnishings and decided to take it as temporary headquarters. When hostilities ended on January 13 with the signing of the Treaty of Cahuenga, the troops vacated the adobe.

Avila's youngest daughter, Francisca married Theodore Rimpau, a German native in 1850. After Encarnacion Avila died in 1855, the couple lived in the adobe until 1868. By now the structure had aged appreciably, and the Rimpaus left. Various family member rented the house over the next few years after which it became a boarding house. An 1870 earthquake damaged the structure even more, causing it to fall into ruin, and in 1928 the City of Los Angeles condemned it.

20th-century restoration
Christine Sterling, a non-Hispanic woman from San Francisco, who had moved to Los Angeles, had an interest in the city's cultural history. In 1926, she began work on the project of transforming the old plaza area from a skid row ruin into a Latin-American cultural center. She enlisted the aid of Harry Chandler, the Los Angeles Times owner and publisher, who printed several articles that would generate public interest in the project and raise funds for the restoration. However, after two years the funding was failing miserably. Even though she faced a seemingly lost cause, when she learned of the 1928 condemnation of the adobe, she acted quickly to get a stay on the wrecking ball. She tracked down the owner of the building who happened to be Miss Sophia Rimpau, a member of the original family. She agreed to rent the adobe to Mrs. Sterling for a nominal amount. Sterling then went to the papers and called in reporters to cover a story on the restoration of Olvera Street and the Avila Adobe. The campaign sparked the support she needed and soon she had enough funds to buy the house.

One of Sterling's benefactors was Florence Dodson de Shoneman, a descendant of the Californio Sepulveda family, who provided furnishings for an entire room in the adobe. The adobe underwent the necessary renovations to keep it from being demolished and Sterling pleaded with city council to rescind the condemnation order. Not only did council fulfill the request, but the chief of police provided assistance from prison inmates to help clean up the plaza area. Eventually the Avila Adobe was completely restored to its former glory. By Easter Sunday 1930, the Olvera Street Plaza was transformed from a skid row to a Mexican-style marketplace.

Christine Sterling maintained her residence at the adobe, but held it open for group and student tours. In 1953 the State of California acquired the Avila Adobe as part of the El Pueblo de Los Angeles State Historic Park. Mrs. Sterling remained in the house until her death in 1963.

The 1971 Sylmar earthquake caused major damage to the adobe, and the house was closed to tours until a $120,000 and five-year restoration could be completed. A new structure added to the rear of the building was set up as a memorial to Christine Sterling. The Adobe has now been opened to tours since 1976.

Historic house museum
The present adobe is a historic house museum, with seven rooms left from what used to be a much larger building. Restoration has worked to create an idea of what the original home was like. The largest room, the family room, was a general area for dining, entertainment, and social gatherings. The office room was the main business room for Francisco Avila. The sala, or living room, was reserved for special occasions such as a wedding or baptism or maybe even entertaining special guests. There were sleeping quarters for the parents and another for the children and a kitchen for food preparation that doubled as a bathing room. Cooking was done outdoors in the courtyard. Sanitation was done elsewhere outside the house. Most of the original furnishings came from other countries with which Avila traded.

The adobe consists of a generous courtyard with covered porches for each of the adobe's areas, including stables and a workshop. A more recent archaeological find has revealed a portion of the Zanja Madre ("Mother Ditch"), which transported water into the pueblo via a brick-laid pipeline from the river. In the courtyard grows two grape plants.

The adobe is a Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument and a California Historical Landmark (No. 145) and is on the National Register of Historic Places.

Access
The Avila Adobe is open for public touring and is located at East 10 Olvera Street within El Pueblo de Los Angeles State Historic Park. The park office is located at 845 N. Alameda Street, and the Visitors Information Center is at 128 Paseo de la Plaza.

Influence on Los Angeles history
The Avila Adobe home is a good demonstration of the history of Los Angeles and how the city was first discovered. The city was first named El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles, but then later renamed as Los Angeles. Before the construction of the Avila home, the city was a small town with a few homes and families that consisted of cattle ranchers. The home is a key factor in understanding the cultural history of Los Angeles because although today the city contains a multiculturalism population, it once only consisted of just Hispanic people. The city was founded by Spanish colonizers in 1781, which consisted of a group of only a few people.

Although there are many historical sites in the Los Angeles area, the location of where the Avila home stands is the oldest area of Los Angeles. There is a lot that can be learned historically by visiting the home. With the naming of Olvera Street where the home stands and the creation of the Mexican market, the home preserves the historical landmark. After the war and earthquake, the home was able to preserve the original refurnished style as in the 19th century. With the help and dedication of Christine Sterling, the Avila home was able to be restored and representing an important landmark in the city's history. What is interesting is that Avila Adobe home is not interesting because of how it came to be, but because it still exists today.

California Historical Landmark
California Historical Landmark Marker NO. 145 at the site reads:
 * NO. 145 AVILA ADOBE - This adobe house was built ca. 1818 by Don Francisco Avila, alcalde (mayor) of Los Angeles in 1810. Used as Commodore Robert Stockton's headquarters in 1847, it was repaired by private subscription in 1929-30 when Olvera Street was opened as a Mexican marketplace. It is the oldest existing house in Los Angeles.

title: Ávila Adobe


text:
James V. McConnell

James V. McConnell (October 26, 1925 – April 9, 1990) was an American biologist and animal psychologist. He is most known for his research on learning and memory transfer in planarians conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. McConnell also published several science fiction short stories in the mid-1950s.

Career
Most of McConnell's academic career was spent in the psychology department at the University of Michigan, where he was a professor from 1963 through his retirement in 1988. He was an unconventional scientist, setting up his own refereed journal, the Journal of Biological Psychology, which was published in tandem with the Worm Runner's Digest, a planarian-themed humor magazine. His paper Memory transfer through cannibalism in planarians, published in the Journal of Neuropsychiatry, reported that when planarians conditioned to respond to a stimulus were ground up and fed to other planarians, the recipients learned to respond to the stimulus faster than a control group did. McConnell believed that this was evidence of a chemical basis for memory, which he identified as memory RNA. Although well publicized, his findings were not completely reproducible by other scientists and were therefore at the time completely discredited (for review, see Chapouthier, 1973).

McConnell's work has been referred to by a scientist who hypothesized that McConnell's results could be explained by RNA interference (Smallheiser, 2001).

McConnell originally published satirical articles alongside serious scientific articles in the Journal of Biological Psychology but received complaints that it was difficult if not impossible to tell which was which. He decided to publish the satirical Worm Runner's Digest upside down with its cover as the back of the Journal of Biological Psychology to make it clear which articles were satire. This, he said, created problems with librarians returning the Journal to the publisher with the complaint that it was improperly bound. He was amused by this. He spent many of his evening hours in the 1960s in informal rap sessions with students in their dorms. He was prone to making provocative statements, believed that memory was chemically based and that in the future humanity would be programmed by drugs. He once commented that he would rather be "a programmer than a programmee".

McConnell was one of the targets of Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber. In 1985, he suffered hearing loss when a bomb, disguised as a manuscript, was opened at his house by his research assistant Nicklaus Suino.

McConnell died of a heart attack at St. Joseph's Mercy Hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1990.

Short fiction

 * "Life Sentence" (Galaxy Science Fiction, January 1953)
 * "All of You" (Beyond Fantasy Fiction, July 1953)
 * "The Game of White" (Other Worlds Science Stories, July 1953)
 * "Grandma Perkins and the Space Pirates" (Planet Stories, March 1954)
 * "Phone Me in Central Park" (Planet Stories, Fall 1954)
 * "Hunting License" (Imagination, April 1955)
 * "Avoidance Situation" (If, February 1956) about subspace
 * "Nor Dust Corrupt" (If, February 1957)
 * "Learning Theory" (If, December 1957)

title: James V. McConnell


text:
Myanmar national football team

The Myanmar national football team (မြန်မာ့လက်ရွေးစင်အမျိုးသားအသင်း) represents Myanmar in men's international association football and is governed by the Myanmar Football Federation.

It was known as the Burma national football team until 1989, when Burma was renamed Myanmar. During their heydays, the team finished second in the 1968 AFC Asian Cup, participated in the Summer Olympics in 1972 and in the Asian Games and having won the Asian Games twice; in 1966 and 1970, and the football event of the Southeast Asian Games on five successive occasions; in 1965, 1967, 1969, 1971 and 1973. They did not participate in any World Cup qualification for the rest of the 20th century, contributing to the downfall of the national side.

Since being renamed, Myanmar's highest achievement has been the silver medal at 1993 Southeast Asian Games. Myanmar played its first FIFA World Cup qualifiers in 2007 in the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualifiers, losing 0–7 and 0–4 to China.

The golden eras (1948–1970s)
Burma participated in 1954 Asian Games and won a bronze medal, standing behind Taiwan (gold) and South Korea (silver); this was the beginning of the golden era. On the other hand, the nation was not expected to contend for a medal in the Olympic-type Asian Games. In the meantime, this delegation became the first male Burmese team to win a continental medal. Against all odds, the Burma team bettered their 1954 effort by winning the gold medal in the Asian Games, which was held at Bangkok in the mid-1960s. In that tournament, Burma beat Iran in the gold-medal game.

The 1966 Asian Games gold medal-winning squad established itself as one of the two best teams in the region as it finished as runner-up to Iran at the 1968 Asian Cup. Having won a silver medal in 1968, the men's soccer team had a strong performance in the early 1970s as it qualified to compete in the 1972 Summer Olympics, which was held at Munich (West Germany), upon being one of the three finalists in the Asian tournament. Despite only winning against Sudan with 2–0, the Burmese players won the Fair Play Award. The following year, the nation earned its fifth consecutive Southeast Asian Games gold medal at Singapore City (Kuala Lumpur 1965, Bangkok 1967, Rangoon 1969, and Kuala Lumpur 1971).

Three years before that, the national team wrote perhaps their most important chapter: they captured the continental title for the second time in a row, after the Burmese Olympic Committee sent footballers to Thailand for the 1970 Asian Games. Burma thus became the third football squad to win the Asian tournament twice. They were declared national heroes in Rangoon, the then capital of Burma, with their second consecutive gold medal in men's soccer.

During this golden era, Burma produced many talented footballers. One among them is Suk Bahadur who is now considered as the greatest Burmese footballer of all time for his outstanding contribution to Burmese football.

Over the following years, mainly due to political problems within the country, the national side's ability to defend its Asian title slowly faded away.

Decline and struggle (1970s–2010s)
In the later years, Burma were unable to achieve similar results like in the golden era, due to many factors. The collapse of whole Burmese football system during the rule of Ne Win and later, the junta, had a negative impact on Burmese football team. Lack of funding and poor infrastructure prevented many Burmese players to play abroad, thus leading to retirement. At the same time, the rise of Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand made Myanmar's golden era fade away.

Despite this, Myanmar managed to win silver medal in 1993 Southeast Asian Games, after losing to Thailand in the final, or the 2004 AFF Championship when Myanmar won bronze.

Resurgence (2010–2019)
Myanmar's 2011 reforms had been a major point of turning Myanmar's football, which had declined since 1970s. During this era, a new wave of Burmese football had arrived with the change of Myanmar's political climate, after many years under junta's rule.

The arrival of Gerd Zeise, a German manager, had been the crucial point. Under Gerd, Myanmar's football since reforms has witnessed a significant progress. The Myanmar U20 team qualified to Myanmar's first ever FIFA tournament, the 2015 FIFA U20 World Cup after going to the semi-finals in the 2014 AFC U19 Championship as host. In the 2016 AFF Championship, Myanmar, as host, once again went to semi-finals, only losing to eventual champions, Thailand.

Between these successes, a lot of problems remain. Myanmar's football capability has been questioned after their disastrous 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification; while on the same time, a lot of teams in Asia have also risen up after many years under shadows. Once again, Myanmar failed to qualify for 2019 AFC Asian Cup, when they suffered a tremendous 1–5 defeat at the hand of Kyrgyzstan. In an efforts to prepared the team for the 2018 AFF Championship, on 13 October 2018, Myanmar played a friendly match against Bolivia at the Thuwunna Stadium losing 3–0 in the process.Under Antoine Hey, Myanmar also had an unsuccessful 2018 AFF Championship, with the team was knocked out from the group stage, and Hey resigned after the tournament.

Myanmar began their 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification grouping with old rival Kyrgyzstan, as well as Tajikistan, Mongolia and especially powerhouse Japan. Under the guidance of the new manager Miodrag Radulović, Myanmar had a disastrous beginning when the team fell 0–1 to Mongolia away, 0–2 to Japan at home and especially a 0–7 away defeat to the Kyrgyz, causing the Montenegrin to be fired. After the defeat to Kyrgyzstan, old coach Antoine Hey returned, where he helped Myanmar to gain a shock home win 4–3 over Tajikistan before beating Mongolia 1–0 also at home to boost morale.

The dramatic fall (2020–2022)
The COVID-19 pandemic in Myanmar and subsequent Myanmar protests depleted greatly the national team when many key players refused to represent Myanmar in international football citing the junta's involvement. As for the result, Myanmar brought to Japan with half of its squad members weren't regular starters, and suffered its worst defeat in modern era to the host 0–10, forcing Antoine Hey's men to win their 2 remaining matches against Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan while hoping for defeats from their 2 main opponents in the same time against Japan (and even a draw or a defeat against Mongolia for Kyrgyzstan) to be among the 4 best runners-up. Having lost to Kyrgyzstan 1–8 the next match, Myanmar were officially eliminated from the World Cup and the top 2 spots in the group. Eventually, Myanmar confirmed its bottom place in the group, losing 0–4 to Tajikistan, and have to play the 2023 AFC Asian Cup qualification.

During the 2020 AFF Suzuki Cup, Singapore defeated Myanmar 3–0, with Ikhsan Fandi scoring a brace. However in the next match, Myanmar bounced back from that defeat with Than Paing and Maung Maung Lwin both scoring a goal to earn a 2–0 victory over Timor-Leste which give the team the hope of qualifying to the semi-finals. However, those hopes were made impossible after Thailand won 4–0 against Myanmar which ended a disastrous tournament after failing to defeat the Philippines in the final matchday.

Myanmar were also drawn in the group of death in the 2023 AFC Asian Cup qualification, being drawn with Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan and also Singapore. The team failed to secure a points in the 2023 AFC Asian Cup qualification being humiliated by Singapore 6–2, Tajikistan 4–0 and Kyrgyzstan 2–0.

The 2022 AFF Championship took place with Myanmar having friendly matches in Thailand as preparation fixtures. They won two matches against club teams, Chonburi and Samut Prakan. Despite this, they lost 6–0 to old rivals Thailand, although the opponents fielded a weaker squad. Myanmar then played their opening match against Malaysia, but although counter-attacking play was good, they lost 1–0 due to Faisal Halim's goal and a late penalty from Win Naing Tun being saved from Malaysia's Syihan Hazmi. In the next match, Myanmar played Singapore at the Jalan Besar Stadium, an artificial grass which cost them in addition to poor performances as the final result was 3–2 in Singapore's favour conceding the last goal from a goalkeeper punt kick which assisted Shawal Anuar to secured the 3 points for Singapore. However, Maung Maung Lwin did score two goals in this match: one being a composed right top corner finish while the other was a first-time volley. The team's chances of qualifying had been ruined, as they played Laos on home soil, going down 1–0 early on through Soukaphone Vongchiengkham but Kyaw Min Oo, who was having an excellent tournament scored a header, completely unmarked. Laos scored back to take the lead up to 2–1 however in the 90+6 minutes, Myanmar captain Maung Maung Lwin secured a point for Myanmar as the match ended at 2–2 which also mean that this draw confirmed the team's elimination from the tournament. They lost 3–0 against Vietnam in their final match and they failed to registered a single win in the group stage of the AFF Championship for the first time since the 2014 edition. On 31 January 2023, Antoine Hey resigned from his position as head coach. Despite the poor results, the team can take positives away from this tournament as the playing style was praised by many fans.

Glimpses of hope (2023–present)
In March 2023, Germany head coach Michael Feichtenbeiner was tasked to lead Myanmar with positive results. With the domestic league being more active compared to last year's competition, Myanmar fans had no reason not to be optimistic when they participated in the 2023 Tri-Nation Series tournament hosted by India. This tournament saw the big returns of Aung Thu and Nyein Chan Aung after boycotting call-ups over the coup earlier, which was seen as a surprise. Players such as Lwin Moe Aung, Hein Htet Aung and Win Naing Tun were also called up to the national squad. In the first match, the finishing cost Myanmar against a tough India side, losing 1–0 with a goal in first half stoppage time by Anirudh Thapa. In the second match against Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar midfielder Kyaw Min Oo blew a big leading chance with a penalty miss in the first half. Despite this miss, Myanmar continued to press and trouble the Kyrgyzstan defence and were eventually rewarded with a goal from Aung Thu in the 82' minute. However, they gave away a goal in the 90+6' minute from a corner kick. Despite it being a draw, this result showed the return of the winning spirit that Myanmar desperately needed during the last year. The Myanmar team had shown a significant improvement throughout the last 6 months, and it showed in the match against Kyrgyzstan.

In June 2023, Myanmar travelled to Dalian to face China and Macau in the international friendly window in which Myanmar played their first match against China but came out with a 4–0 defeat despite a strong showing in the first half. On 19 June 2023, Macau was Myanmar's next opponent and goals from Lwin Moe Aung and Maung Maung Lwin secured a 2–0 win which secured Myanmar's first win in over two years since their last win over Timor-Leste on 8 December 2021. In September 2023, Myanmar played both of their friendly match at home against Nepal which the first match resulted in a disappointing 0–0 draw, with Myanmar goalkeeper Kyaw Zin Phyo saving Anjan Bista's penalty. In the second match, the performance significantly improved and Myanmar won 1–0 to an 86' minute goal by striker Win Naing Tun. In October 2023, Myanmar played against Macau in the 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification first round match at home which see them thrashing Macau 5–1 at home on 12 October 2023. Myanmar failed to produce the same performance in the second leg however, as Macau put up a strong resistance to end the game in a disappointing goalless draw; still, due to having won 5–1 in the first leg, Myanmar advanced to the second round of the qualification, where Myanmar will have to face sterner oppositions in group B, which are Syria, North Korea and Asian hegemon Japan, which had impressed greatly in the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

Amidst the backdrop of ongoing security crisis on home soil, notably with the kickstarting of the Operation 1027 that led to war and destruction in the country's borderlands and glimpse of war closer to Yangon, where Myanmar team chose to base themselves, the Burmese started their campaign with a predictable 5–0 thumping in the hands of Japan, the highest-ranked team in Asia at the time, before suffering an agonising 6–1 loss to North Korea on home soil, in which Win Naing Tun scored Myanmar's solitary goal. On 21 March 2024, Myanmar shockingly held Syria to a 1–1 draw after Soe Moe Kyaw scored the only goal for the team during the 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification match, which was a surprise after Syria's decent performance in the 2023 AFC Asian Cup earlier. Unfortunately, Myanmar could not keep up with the tempo in the return leg, losing 7–0 to Syria in a match where the Burmese were reduced to ten men after Hein Phyo Win was sent off.

Kits
The Myanmar national team used to play with a kit made by FBT. This contract lasted until 2018.

In November 2018, the Myanmar national team signed a six-year contract with Warrix Sports. The sports kit sponsorship contract is valued at US$5.67 million and it will run from 1 November 2018 to 31 December 2024.

On 6 November 2018, Warrix introduced a new Myanmar home and away kit. Myanmar's home kit is a red shirt with red shorts and red socks while the away kit is a white shirt with white shorts and white socks.

Stadium
Myanmar plays most of its home matches in Thuwunna Stadium in Yangon, Myanmar. The stadium is larger and more up-to-date than the outdated Bogyoke Aung San Stadium. In 2013, the stadium was upgraded to a seating capacity of 50,000 spectators from the previous capacity of 32,000. It also hosted the 2016 AFF Championship Group B matches.

Results and fixtures
The following is a list of match results in the last 12 months, as well as any future matches that have been scheduled.

Coaching history
* As caretaker

Current squad
The following players were called up to the 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification matches against 🇯🇵 japan and 🇰🇵 north korea on 6 and 11 June 2024.

Caps and goals updated as of 6 June 2024, against 🇯🇵 japan.

Recent call-ups
The following players have also been called up to the Myanmar squad within the last twelve months.

INJ Withdrew due to injury PRE Preliminary squad RET Retired from the national team SUS Serving suspension WD Player withdrew from the squad due to non-injury issue.

Player records
Players in bold are still active with Myanmar.

FIFA World Cup

 * Banned in 2006 for withdrawing from qualification in 2002.
 * Initially banned from 2018 for crowd trouble during a 2014 World Cup qualifying match against Oman but later overturned to matches to be played on neutral soil.

International

 * Olympic Football Tournament
 * Fair Play Award: 1972

Continental

 * AFC Asian Cup
 * [[File:Med 2.png]] Runners-up (1): 1968

 * Asian Games
 * [[File:Med 1.png]] Gold medal (2): 1966, 1970*
 * [[File:Med 3.png]] Bronze medal (1): 1954

Regional

 * ASEAN Football Championship
 * Fourth place /Semifinalist(2) : 2004, 2016

 * Southeast Asian Games
 * [[File:Med 1.png]] Gold medal (5): 1965*, 1967, 1969, 1971, 1973
 * [[File:Med 2.png]] Silver medal (3): 1961, 1993, 2007, 2015
 * [[File:Med 3.png]] Bronze medal (2): 1975, 1977, 2011

Other awards

 * Merdeka Tournament
 * [[File:Med 1.png]] Winners (4): 1964, 1967*, 1971, 2006
 * [[File:Med 2.png]] Runners-up (4): 1966, 1968, 1970, 2007

 * Jakarta Anniversary Tournament
 * [[File:Med 1.png]] Winners (4): 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975
 * [[File:Med 2.png]] Runners-up (1) 1976

 * Korea Cup (President's Cup)
 * [[File:Med 1.png]] Winners (3): 1971*, 1972, 1973*
 * [[File:Med 2.png]] Runners-up (1): 1975
 * [[File:Med 3.png]] Third Place (1): 1974

 * Myanmar Grand Royal Challenge Cup
 * [[File:Med 1.png]] Winners (2): 2006, 2008

 * Philippine Peace Cup
 * [[File:Med 1.png]] Winners (1): 2014

 * Colombo Cup
 * [[File:Med 3.png]] Third Place (3): 1952*, 1953, 1955

 * 4-nation Tiger Trophy (Myanmar)
 * [[File:Med 2.png]] Runners-up (1): 1995

 * AYA Bank Cup (Myanmar)
 * [[File:Med 3.png]] Third Place (1): 2016

 * Tri-Nation Series (India)
 * [[File:Med 2.png]] Runners-up (1):2023 *
 * *trophy shared

title: Myanmar national football team


text:
User talk:Hellspawn2666

I was wondering why you moved Cell (biology) to Cell formation? Are you planning to do something else with Cell (biology)? --jag123 19:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hellspawn2666


text:
WOTC

WOTC is a Religious formatted broadcast radio station licensed to Edinburg, Virginia, serving Woodstock and Shenandoah County, Virginia. WOTC is owned and operated by Valley Baptist Church - Christian School.

Programming
WOTC carries programs from area churches along with religious and Christian music from local artists mixed with programs from the Fundamental Broadcasting Network located in Morehead City, North Carolina. It also carries news programming from USA Radio News.

title: WOTC


text: File:Augie Doggie and Doggie Daddy (title card).jpg


text:
Isca Yacu

Isca Yacu, located in northern Argentina, is a town in Jiménez Department, Santiago del Estero Province. Population (2010) 87. Postal code 4184.

title: Isca Yacu


text:
User talk:LadyInTheRadiator

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for insulting people. You edits have been removed: note that repeated misbehavior will result in your being blocked from editing. -- Karada 17:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:LadyInTheRadiator


text:
Talk:Faye (musician)

Picture
Uploaded a much better one

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Faye (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523130718/http://fayeofficial.com/ to http://www.fayeofficial.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Faye (musician)