Aung-thwin's"Myth of the Downtrodden Mon" II

Here are two texts that provide evidence of widespread oppression prior to the Mon revolt of 1740. Each text is proof against the claim made in The Mists of Ramanna (from the last post):

"I have found nothing in the pre-colonial Mon histories that show any indication that they were, or felt themselves oppressed by any group, including the Burmese speakers, even when both parties were at war..."

The Mon monk of Athwa in Pegu (c. 1740) writes of the last king of the restored Toungoo Dynasty (1597-1752)Maha-dama-ya-za-di-pati. This is a contemporary Mon monk writing about Mon oppression:

"In that king’s reign throughout Hanthawaddy [Pegu] the royal taxes were exceedingly heavy. [Tax collectors] followed their selfish inclinations and ordered that taxes be collected on every plantain tree, every chili plant, every brinjal plant, every loom.They even taxed the breasts of suckling mothers at the rate of two mats of silver for women whose breasts had not fallen…And so [because of this taxation] all the people, monks and laymen, of the Ram-manya country [land of the Mons] had no comfort and were in great distress" (British Library manuscript BL OR 3464, p.139, quoted in Lieberman, Burmese Administrative Cycles, p. 213).

Lieberman finds that this account agrees with Burmese Royal decrees (p. 213).

There's also an anonymous English account of 1750 describes a situation of uncontrolled rent-seeking by local officials. The word "oppress" is used by this on-the-scene observer:

"...every petty governour of Towns or Cities, if he can but satisfy the Minister at Court, can at his pleasure oppress the people under him, without any fear of Punishment, which has caused the revolt of the richest and largest province of his Kingdom [Pegu]" (quote in Lieberman, Administrative Cycles, p. 213).

Lieberman concedes:

"This decline was probably the inevitable result of geographic considerations rather than of a conscious policy of discrimination against Mons and southern Burmans. It was natural that official families nearest the capital would have had the ear of the king and his favorites. Nonetheless, decreasing patronage opportunities within the central administration must have alienated Delta leaders and reinforced the impression created by ruinous taxation that Ava’s government no longer functioned in the interests of the southern society" (Lieberman (1984) Burmese Administrative Cycles: Anarchy and Conquest: c. 1580-1760, Princeton, p. 214).

Financial oppression is oppression just the same. I still think what kept the Mons going as a group with the potential for revolt and state formation for over 200 years without the help of British colonialists is a more relevant and also answerable question.

References

Lieberman, Victor (1984) Burmese Administrative Cycles: Anarchy and Conquest: c. 1580-1760, Princeton.