"The study of the role historiography and public memory play within nation-building processes in Southeast Asia continues to see a steady rise of interest with scholars, governments and in growing numbers also the public eye. In face of continuous local resistance towards national integration, the struggle to define a national identity by converting multiple pasts into a single national narrative remains crucial to authoritarian and post-authoritarian regimes alike. The question of belonging to one nation has yet to be resolved by various communities throughout the region (Aung-Thwin M. , 2012). Especially Myanmar’s challenged government tries hard to create a general Myanmar identity that includes not only the Bamar majority, but also all of the people living on Myanmar territory – with the current exclusion of the Muslim Rohingyas. 1 This nation-building attempt is naturally on terms of the government. The streamlining of regional or ethnic histories and narratives poses new threats and worries to the already suspicious minorities amidst the pacification and reconciliation attempts of Naypyitaw. Successive regimes and leaders have tried to both exploit the ideological groundwork laid in the dynastic, colonial and independence eras and to develop innovative new strategies to convince Myanmar’s inhabitants to overlook what divides them and prioritize what they have in common (Metro & SalemGervais, 2012)..."