 |
| Author |
Message |
De_La_Soul
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Posts: 1131
|
|
| and your point was? Just because people spoke Greek it doesnt make them ethnically Greek? Wow! original concept! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bullika
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 3025
Location: World
|
|
| De_La_Soul wrote: |
| and your point was? Just because people spoke Greek it doesnt make them ethnically Greek? Wow! original concept! |
 your sarcasm
OK listen up, my point is that Greek was the lingua franca of the Near East Christians, who are mostly of semitic origin, and who despite knowing or speaking Greek are not Greek ethnically. But it doesnt end there. KEEP READING >>>>
Cyprus was already home to indigenous people before the Greeks settled there. The Persians ruled Cyprus as did the Phoenicians who also settled there in Kition and the Egyptians and Assyrians too. Similarly Cyprus was infiltrated by large numbers of Near East Christians after the fall of the Christian states in the Middle East following their defeat at the hands of Muslims. We know this from traveller accounts and Lusignan records.
In addition to this there were Jacobites, Maronites, Syriac Christians, Coptic Christians and Armenians already residing in fair numbers on the island. Note: Cyprus had no less than 60 maronite villages in the 14th century. Later the Turks and Arabs arrived as slaves captured by the Christians and were often converted to Christianity in exchange for freedom. Then there were Venetians, and other Latin merchants who resided in the port towns of Cyprus, mostly at Larnaca.
KEEP READING>>>>> 
Then while all this was happening we had constant natural disasters, locust plagues that left people starving, other plagues that killed thousands, malaria that killed thousands, the Ottoman conquest that killed thousands. During Ottoman rule, Cyprus' population at some point in the 17th century was reduced to its lowest figure as poverty stricken Cypriots left the island in their tens and thousands and settled along the Syrian coast because of Malaria and plague.
In the face of all these changes and more, your claimed direct ancestral link to the Mycaeneans is rather doubtful. Why? because too much happened in 2000 years for the same people to stay in tact. Too many people shifted. It would be a mirale if you were a direct descendant of the Mycaeneans and not a mixture like the rest of us. History in Cyprus has shown that it was never a Greek island, Cyprus has always been a confluence of diverse cultures and this Greek heritage you talk of is mostly religion.
KEEP READING ITS NOT OVER YET>>>>
What do I mean its only religion?
Well my friend, Cyprus served as a sanctuary for Christians of the Middle East for hundreds of years and was a stone throw away from places like Palestine, Lebanon etc. Some of the arrivals, the educated priests from Syria and Lebanon would have known Greek from the bible.
Furthermore because the Greek speakers even in Cyprus never identified themselves as ethnically Greek in the middle ages, simply because ethnicity had not developed fully as a concept then, these Near East Christians including a fair number of Crusaders assimilated with Christians in Cyprus quite easily. Religion not ethnicity was the dividing factor in medoieval society, not ethnicity.
It would be a miracle if in the face of numerous invasions, occupations, and settlement of diverse peoples over 2000 years that you maintain this link fully in tact with the Mycaeneans. How about all the other rulers?
How can you even be sure? that is what irritates me the most, it is not as if there is a special test that can confirm this link, but yet you speak with conviction as if you are 101% Greek. That is what I have trouble with. I never pretend to be 100% Turkish, not even 50%, my mind is open to all possibilities and so should yours.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bullika
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 3025
Location: World
|
|
| Your claim to the Mycaeneans is like my claim to be from the Gokturks! Very unlikely! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Gardash
Senior Villager
Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 281
|
|
Nation as a concept, over race or creed, is a relatively new thing.
The whole wider Greek area (i.e. areas formerly settled/ruled by the Byzantine Empire, and Greek races of the past) was under different rulers. Most of the modern Greek state was under Ottoman rule for hundreds of years.
I think so far we all agree.
The Ottomans left the church pretty much alone, and it was they who kept educated. They held night schools covertly (hence the nursery rhyme 'feggaraki mou lambro' (my bright moon)). This, incidentally, is how the church ended up owning so much of Cyprus- the church didn't pay taxes, while Ottoman taxes were fixed regardless of how bountiful the harvest was. In lean times our peasants would donate land to the church and then lease it back for nominal rent!
Anyway. After a several hundred years of mixing/converting in both directions/intermarriage/etc. The identifying features of 'Greekness' was religion and language. Initially, in fact, various factions of the Greek uprising fought under French, British and (I think) Russian banners!!! This owed a lot to Etonian romantic ideas etc as well as the only coherent social structure remaining outside the realm of the Ottoman empire.
Even WAAAAYYY later, who was the only institution able to mobilise the Cypriots (or actually the Orthodox Cypriots) in the 30's and 50's?
This is also the reason the Greeks, who don't have a secular state like the Republic of Cyprus (I mean this at least on paper- it's a whole new thread!!!) have real difficulty separating church and State.
In this sence Greekness is a bit like Jewishness. Race has, actually, long been bleached out of us. Just as there are black Ethiopian and blonde Russian Jews, there is a LARGE variation in the physical appearance of Greeks (and I use Greeks in the loosest term) from, say, Xanthi and Komotini up North to the islanders of Crete and Rhodes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| Bullika wrote: |
| In the face of all these changes and more, your claimed direct ancestral link to the Mycaeneans is rather doubtful. Why? because too much happened in 2000 years for the same people to stay in tact. Too many people shifted. It would be a mirale if you were a direct descendant of the Mycaeneans and not a mixture like the rest of us. History in Cyprus has shown that it was never a Greek island, Cyprus has always been a confluence of diverse cultures and this Greek heritage you talk of is mostly religion. |
Even though I am prepared to give some merit to most of your other arguments, the one I highlighted above and which I hear to be used in many cases and under various discussion contexts, is a completely worthless argument. In the same way, none of the Greek islands and none of the other parts of mainland Greece were ever historically parts of Greece, simply because Greece as a unified entity and a nation /state in its contemporary notion only exists for the last 180 years. The same can be said and argued for any part of Turkey, be it the Istanbul area, or west Turkey or East Anatolia, that they were never parts of Turkey in a historical sense, simply because Turkey as a nation /state only exists for the last 80 years. Before that we never had a country called Turkey, but the areas that Turkey now covers were mere parts of various empires that now ceased to exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Cypriot
Senior Villager
Joined: 21 Feb 2006
Posts: 429
|
|
Kifeas makes a good point but, other than that, I am in agreement with Bullika's analysis. Thank you.
The nation state is a modern concept. Greece was only constructed recently as a homogeneuous, unified entity. Turkey too. Now it's Cyprus' turn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bullika
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 3025
Location: World
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| Bullika wrote: |
| In the face of all these changes and more, your claimed direct ancestral link to the Mycaeneans is rather doubtful. Why? because too much happened in 2000 years for the same people to stay in tact. Too many people shifted. It would be a mirale if you were a direct descendant of the Mycaeneans and not a mixture like the rest of us. History in Cyprus has shown that it was never a Greek island, Cyprus has always been a confluence of diverse cultures and this Greek heritage you talk of is mostly religion. |
Even though I am prepared to give some merit to most of your other arguments, the one I highlighted above and which I hear to be used in many cases and under various discussion contexts, is a completely worthless argument. In the same way, none of the Greek islands and none of the other parts of mainland Greece were ever historically parts of Greece, simply because Greece as a unified entity and a nation /state in its contemporary notion only exists for the last 180 years. The same can be said and argued for any part of Turkey, be it the Istanbul area, or west Turkey or East Anatolia, that they were never parts of Turkey in a historical sense, simply because Turkey as a nation /state only exists for the last 80 years. Before that we never had a country called Turkey, but the areas that Turkey now covers were mere parts of various empires that now ceased to exist. |
Did you actually bother to read it? The point I am making it is quite clear even for you. Cyprus is not an ordinary "Greek" island. Look above where I say "Cyprus is a confluence of diverse cultures...." |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bullika
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 3025
Location: World
|
|
| Gardash wrote: |
Nation as a concept, over race or creed, is a relatively new thing.
The whole wider Greek area (i.e. areas formerly settled/ruled by the Byzantine Empire, and Greek races of the past) was under different rulers. Most of the modern Greek state was under Ottoman rule for hundreds of years.
I think so far we all agree.
The Ottomans left the church pretty much alone, and it was they who kept educated. They held night schools covertly (hence the nursery rhyme 'feggaraki mou lambro' (my bright moon)). This, incidentally, is how the church ended up owning so much of Cyprus- the church didn't pay taxes, while Ottoman taxes were fixed regardless of how bountiful the harvest was. In lean times our peasants would donate land to the church and then lease it back for nominal rent!
Anyway. After a several hundred years of mixing/converting in both directions/intermarriage/etc. The identifying features of 'Greekness' was religion and language. Initially, in fact, various factions of the Greek uprising fought under French, British and (I think) Russian banners!!! This owed a lot to Etonian romantic ideas etc as well as the only coherent social structure remaining outside the realm of the Ottoman empire.
Even WAAAAYYY later, who was the only institution able to mobilise the Cypriots (or actually the Orthodox Cypriots) in the 30's and 50's?
This is also the reason the Greeks, who don't have a secular state like the Republic of Cyprus (I mean this at least on paper- it's a whole new thread!!!) have real difficulty separating church and State.
In this sence Greekness is a bit like Jewishness. Race has, actually, long been bleached out of us. Just as there are black Ethiopian and blonde Russian Jews, there is a LARGE variation in the physical appearance of Greeks (and I use Greeks in the loosest term) from, say, Xanthi and Komotini up North to the islanders of Crete and Rhodes. |
The point you make over Nation is the same point that I made Gardash.
The last paragraph males sense in reference to the Greeks of Cyprus and Anatolia, who are not originally from Greece or who are mixed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| The Cypriot wrote: |
Kifeas makes a good point but, other than that, I am in agreement with Bullika's analysis. Thank you.
The nation state is a modern concept. Greece was only constructed recently as a homogeneuous, unified entity. Turkey too. Now it's Cyprus' turn. |
Even though you agree with Bullika's analysis, and as I said I am also prepared to give merit to most of his arguments, Your conclusion as it is portrayed in your last short paragraph and which i am in full accord with, and his (Bullika's) indented conclusion as it is extracted from his analysis, address two totally different issues and concepts.
You are using an analysis (Bullika's one) that was made for the purpose of founding a conclusion on a different subject, that of the Greek ethnic (racial) purity of the G/Cs, so that you forward a conclusion on a rather different subject /issue, that of the need to develop or enhance the notion of a Cypriot nation /state. The two issues /notions are not the same, nor are they mutually excluding each other! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| Bullika wrote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
| Bullika wrote: |
| In the face of all these changes and more, your claimed direct ancestral link to the Mycaeneans is rather doubtful. Why? because too much happened in 2000 years for the same people to stay in tact. Too many people shifted. It would be a mirale if you were a direct descendant of the Mycaeneans and not a mixture like the rest of us. History in Cyprus has shown that it was never a Greek island, Cyprus has always been a confluence of diverse cultures and this Greek heritage you talk of is mostly religion. |
Even though I am prepared to give some merit to most of your other arguments, the one I highlighted above and which I hear to be used in many cases and under various discussion contexts, is a completely worthless argument. In the same way, none of the Greek islands and none of the other parts of mainland Greece were ever historically parts of Greece, simply because Greece as a unified entity and a nation /state in its contemporary notion only exists for the last 180 years. The same can be said and argued for any part of Turkey, be it the Istanbul area, or west Turkey or East Anatolia, that they were never parts of Turkey in a historical sense, simply because Turkey as a nation /state only exists for the last 80 years. Before that we never had a country called Turkey, but the areas that Turkey now covers were mere parts of various empires that now ceased to exist. |
Did you actually bother to read it? The point I am making it is quite clear even for you. Cyprus is not an ordinary "Greek" island. Look above where I say "Cyprus is a confluence of diverse cultures...." |
Yes Bullika, but so do most other parts of what today constitutes modern Greece! I.e. a confluence of diverse cultures....! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bullika
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 3025
Location: World
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| The Cypriot wrote: |
Kifeas makes a good point but, other than that, I am in agreement with Bullika's analysis. Thank you.
The nation state is a modern concept. Greece was only constructed recently as a homogeneuous, unified entity. Turkey too. Now it's Cyprus' turn. |
Even though you agree with Bullika's analysis, and as I said I am also prepared to give merit to most of his arguments, Your conclusion as it is portrayed in your last short paragraph and which i am in full accord with, and his (Bullika's) indented conclusion as it is extracted from his analysis, address two totally different issues and concepts.
You are using an analysis (Bullika's one) that was made for the purpose of founding a conclusion on a different subject, that of the Greek ethnic (racial) purity of the G/Cs, so that you forward a conclusion on a rather different subject /issue, that of the need to develop or enhance the notion of a Cypriot nation /state. The two issues /notions are not the same, nor are they mutually excluding each other! |
Nothing to do with racial purity.
The two arguments above are linked.
gardash wrote
| Quote: |
| Anyway. After a several hundred years of mixing/converting in both directions/intermarriage/etc. The identifying features of 'Greekness' was religion and language. |
This compliments what I said earlier that religion not ethnicity was the diding factor in medieval society. therefore the whole idea of there being Greekness (ethnically speaking) is wrong.
Look >>
Bullika
| Quote: |
| Furthermore because the Greek speakers even in Cyprus never identified themselves as ethnically Greek in the middle ages, simply because ethnicity had not developed fully as a concept then, these Near East Christians including a fair number of Crusaders assimilated with Christians in Cyprus quite easily. Religion not ethnicity was the dividing factor in medoieval society, not ethnicity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Bullika
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 3025
Location: World
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| Bullika wrote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
| Bullika wrote: |
| In the face of all these changes and more, your claimed direct ancestral link to the Mycaeneans is rather doubtful. Why? because too much happened in 2000 years for the same people to stay in tact. Too many people shifted. It would be a mirale if you were a direct descendant of the Mycaeneans and not a mixture like the rest of us. History in Cyprus has shown that it was never a Greek island, Cyprus has always been a confluence of diverse cultures and this Greek heritage you talk of is mostly religion. |
Even though I am prepared to give some merit to most of your other arguments, the one I highlighted above and which I hear to be used in many cases and under various discussion contexts, is a completely worthless argument. In the same way, none of the Greek islands and none of the other parts of mainland Greece were ever historically parts of Greece, simply because Greece as a unified entity and a nation /state in its contemporary notion only exists for the last 180 years. The same can be said and argued for any part of Turkey, be it the Istanbul area, or west Turkey or East Anatolia, that they were never parts of Turkey in a historical sense, simply because Turkey as a nation /state only exists for the last 80 years. Before that we never had a country called Turkey, but the areas that Turkey now covers were mere parts of various empires that now ceased to exist. |
Did you actually bother to read it? The point I am making it is quite clear even for you. Cyprus is not an ordinary "Greek" island. Look above where I say "Cyprus is a confluence of diverse cultures...." |
Yes Bullika, but so do most other parts of what today constitutes modern Greece! I.e. a confluence of diverse cultures....! |
No they dont. Corfu and Chios had Jewish communities once, but thats as far as you`re going to get with diversity. Cyprus has always been a melting pot of cultures, because of its strategic geographical position. It is closer to Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, the Holy Land that it is to Greece. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cypezokyli
Ministerial
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2344
|
|
ofcource they have bullika. perhaps not as divrse but still.. if oyu ever see watch dances, mucis, instruments and uniforms from corfu u will realise the great italian influence on them 
unless we turn this discussion on who was more diverse . which will make no snese imo
as for the nations, i agree that they were created - usually in bloody ways, and when it comes to cyprus i am in favor of creating a new billingual nation, in peaceful ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bullika
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 3025
Location: World
|
|
At the end of the day the argument that Greek Cypriots are Greek in origin is like saying that the English are all from the Anglo-Saxons. Nevermind the Celtic input! It is an argument based on supremacy of cultures, it borders on racism, because you refuse to accept that there is any other imput into your culture, Arab, Turkish, Persian.... (all Eastern peoples). Why do you refuse to accept it?
because like many Western Europeans you believe you are superior to Eastern (Oriental) peoples and that nothing good possibly comes from them.
Kifeas and De La Soul probably have more Turkish blood than me, considering I am part Catalan and Latin/Maronite (fathers side). Louroudjina was mostly Latin and Maronite mixed. In fact it would not be wrong to call either Kifeas or Source Turkish. They are Turkish.
The question is how can you prove that you are not???????
Last edited by Bullika on Mon Feb 27, 2006 12:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bullika
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 3025
Location: World
|
|
| cypezokyli wrote: |
ofcource they have bullika. perhaps not as divrse but still.. if oyu ever see watch dances, mucis, instruments and uniforms from corfu u will realise the great italian influence on them
unless we turn this discussion on who was more diverse . which will make no snese imo
as for the nations, i agree that they were created - usually in bloody ways, and when it comes to cyprus i am in favor of creating a new billingual nation, in peaceful ways. |
Italian came after wards with Mediterranean trade, but they are not as diverse as Cyprus. Look we have had so many diverse rulers, more than half of them are Eastern. Cyprus unlike the Aegean and Ionian islands has ties to the Middle East peoples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
 
 
Link Partners
605118 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home