power was accompanied by xenophobic messages from the military and political elite calling on the general public to “commit violence against foreign ‘interferers’ and Burmese who support them” (p. 116). Long before the official transition to democracy and the shifting of the appearance of Tatmadaw power, seeds were sown to draw public participation in active maintenance of the status quo in terms of the dominance and economic prowess of the military and political elite. GONGOs and other military and government-controlled operations played an important role in controlling the direction in which public solidarity was experienced and acted upon. Skidmore (2004) elaborates: From the period of resistance to British colonization, through the period of resistance to Japanese fascism, and onward through more than four [at the time of writing] decades of military dictatorship, a collective historical memory of resistance has been formed and articulated by urban and educated opposition groups. (p. 61) Underlying each period of resistance is the fact that it was directed toward the central power apparatus. To the Burmese populace, there is an inherent relationship between the government and/or military and resistance sentiments. This dichotomy created a critical point for the Tatmadaw in terms of preventing threats to its power from being actualized. To do this, the military has strategically rewritten Burmese history through publications of new history books, opening of museums dedicated to the glory of Burmese kings and the military, and public commemoration and celebration of ancient kings and military generals. In re-creating public perceptions of Burmese history, the military is able to disrupt the solidarity of those who have shared experiences of resistance. 37