| Author |
Message |
detailer
Senior Villager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 473
Location: UK
|
|
moderator note. This thread was split out from the thread found here
http://www.talkcyprus.org/viewtopic.php?t=198
| magikthrill wrote: |
| detailer wrote: |
| magikthrill wrote: |
| i dfeinitely agree with you erol. alas, the kurds will not have the same fate that the Turkish Cypriots had. and the sad thing is the kurds wont need to steal anyone's land in order to achieve what the Turkish Cypriots did. |
Magik,
If you(or Greek Cypriot at that time) showed the same sensitivity for the stolen rights and freeodom of Turkish Cypriot that time (which are still stolen), you wouldnt suffer for any land now. |
Detailer,
your response is as ridiculous as me saying
if you (or Ottomans at that time) had not mistreated the Greek Cypriots then you wouldnt suffer for any stolen privilges. |
First of all, half of stolen land has its equivalent in south. They can use it if they want.
But the main question here is that: Could we get our rights of 1960 agreements (or their equivalents) from Greek Cypriot without holding what belongs to them? The answer is simply no. This is human nature.
We are under very severe isolations anyway, if we dont exploit what belongs to Greek Cypriot, do you think anyone will still discuss about securing our rights of 1960 or just wait us to accept all his conditions?
Last edited by detailer on Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:38 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| magikthrill wrote: |
| detailer wrote: |
| magikthrill wrote: |
| i dfeinitely agree with you erol. alas, the kurds will not have the same fate that the Turkish Cypriots had. and the sad thing is the kurds wont need to steal anyone's land in order to achieve what the Turkish Cypriots did. |
Magik,
If you(or Greek Cypriot at that time) showed the same sensitivity for the stolen rights and freeodom of Turkish Cypriot that time (which are still stolen), you wouldnt suffer for any land now. |
Detailer,
your response is as ridiculous as me saying
if you (or Ottomans at that time) had not mistreated the Greek Cypriots then you wouldnt suffer for any stolen privilges. |
You can say that magik but I just do not believe it to be the case. Even if there had been no ottoman occupation (say the veneitians continued to rule or someone else) but there was a Turkish Cypriot population, I still believe that seed of enosis would have been planted in Cyprus by the Greek Orthodox church and grown as it did. I still believe that the Greek Cypriot community would have ebhaved in the same ways it did, pre 60 and post 60. However I think there is a real possiblity that if the Greek Cypriot numerical majority community have behaved differently towards the Turkish Cypriot community and with regard to enosis, then things could have been very different today.
The Greek Cypriot community, as I understand it did not want enosis because of what the ottomans had done to them. They wanted it as part of the mengali ideal. That ideal would be little different whoever owned cyprus historicaly I believe and however they treated Greek Cypriot.
(PS I am thinking that this thread needs to be split. If anyone has a serious objection to this let me know via PM. If I have no objections after 12 hours or so I will split it and more the cyprus history part into the cyprus problem section and leave the orginal thread for discussion of turkey / kurd issue) |
|
| Back to top |
|
magikthrill
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 631
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
You can say that magik but I just do not believe it to be the case. Even if there had been no ottoman occupation (say the veneitians continued to rule or someone else) but there was a Turkish Cypriot population, I still believe that seed of enosis would have been planted in Cyprus by the Greek Orthodox church and grown as it did. I still believe that the Greek Cypriot community would have ebhaved in the same ways it did, pre 60 and post 60. However I think there is a real possiblity that if the Greek Cypriot numerical majority community have behaved differently towards the Turkish Cypriot community and with regard to enosis, then things could have been very different today.
The Greek Cypriot community, as I understand it did not want enosis because of what the ottomans had done to them. They wanted it as part of the mengali ideal. That ideal would be little different whoever owned cyprus historicaly I believe and however they treated Greek Cypriot.
(PS I am thinking that this thread needs to be split. If anyone has a serious objection to this let me know via PM. If I have no objections after 12 hours or so I will split it and more the cyprus history part into the cyprus problem section and leave the orginal thread for discussion of turkey / kurd issue) |
once again erol i can agree with what you are saying because i believe you are right.
however you probably cant agree that if Greek Cypriots were 18% and Turkish Cypriots 82% there would be no cyprus quesiton. just an island part of turkey.
(PS split sounds fine. sorry for the off topic but we needed some heated debates to get the polittics sections going on!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| magikthrill wrote: |
however you probably cant agree that if Greek Cypriots were 18% and Turkish Cypriots 82% there would be no cyprus quesiton. just an island part of turkey. |
I do not think I can have a guess at that hypothetical. I do think if the situation were reversed there is reason to think that the 'world powers' would not have wanted Cyprus to have been part of Turkey and that we would have ended up with something like the same 60's agreements we did end up with, but I might be wrong there. I can also see a scenario where Cyprus was just 'handed back' to Turkey as well. However if we had 60's type agreements for an independent Cyprus, I can easily believe that a Turkish Cypriot majority community would not have behaved any better towards the Greek Cypriot minority, and sought to remove what it considered 'excessive' privileges of the minority community and quite possibly in very similar ways to how the Greek Cypriot admin did this. The main 'difference' however is that I do not think there is or was a similar Turkish Cypriot/T idea like the 'mengali ideal'. That is to say I think Turkish Cypriot would have been less inclined to want union with Turkey than Greek Cypriot wanted union with Greece and more inclined to 'accept' an agreement based around an independent Cypriot nations (all be it a Turkish Cypriot dominated one). That is where I think there might have been differences in such a hypothetical scenario.
| magikthrill wrote: |
(PS split sounds fine. sorry for the off topic but we needed some heated debates to get the polittics sections going on!) |
Agreed re needing some debate and contention in debate. I will split the thread in my 3am - 6am 'sitting' as it's generally pretty quite then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cannedmoose
Warnings : 4
Moderator
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 5358
Location: National Forest, England
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
| Agreed re needing some debate and contention in debate. I will split the thread in my 3am - 6am 'sitting' as it's generally pretty quite then. |
You do keep some funny hours gardesh... I'm hoping there isn't another thunderstorm tonight, couldn't sleep at all last night and I've been like a zombie all day  |
|
| Back to top |
|
brother
Warnings : 3
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 8938
Location: London/Cyprus
|
|
| Quote: |
| Agreed re needing some debate and contention in debate. I will split the thread in my 3am - 6am 'sitting' as it's generally pretty quite then. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
murtaza
Villager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 21
|
|
| magikthrill wrote: |
| detailer wrote: |
| magikthrill wrote: |
| i dfeinitely agree with you erol. alas, the kurds will not have the same fate that the Turkish Cypriots had. and the sad thing is the kurds wont need to steal anyone's land in order to achieve what the Turkish Cypriots did. |
Magik,
If you(or Greek Cypriot at that time) showed the same sensitivity for the stolen rights and freeodom of Turkish Cypriot that time (which are still stolen), you wouldnt suffer for any land now. |
Detailer,
your response is as ridiculous as me saying
if you (or Ottomans at that time) had not mistreated the Greek Cypriots then you wouldnt suffer for any stolen privilges. |
Lets continue, If you dont call crusaders, and If crusaders dont use your island, you will not be occupied.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
magikthrill
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 631
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
| magikthrill wrote: |
however you probably cant agree that if Greek Cypriots were 18% and Turkish Cypriots 82% there would be no cyprus quesiton. just an island part of turkey. |
I do not think I can have a guess at that hypothetical. I do think if the situation were reversed there is reason to think that the 'world powers' would not have wanted Cyprus to have been part of Turkey and that we would have ended up with something like the same 60's agreements we did end up with, but I might be wrong there. I can also see a scenario where Cyprus was just 'handed back' to Turkey as well. However if we had 60's type agreements for an independent Cyprus, I can easily believe that a Turkish Cypriot majority community would not have behaved any better towards the Greek Cypriot minority, and sought to remove what it considered 'excessive' privileges of the minority community and quite possibly in very similar ways to how the Greek Cypriot admin did this. The main 'difference' however is that I do not think there is or was a similar Turkish Cypriot/T idea like the 'mengali ideal'. That is to say I think Turkish Cypriot would have been less inclined to want union with Turkey than Greek Cypriot wanted union with Greece and more inclined to 'accept' an agreement based around an independent Cypriot nations (all be it a Turkish Cypriot dominated one). That is where I think there might have been differences in such a hypothetical scenario.
|
True regarding the megali idea however that doesnt mean that Turkey would give up land where the majority of its residents were of turkish origin. lets not fool ourselves here. lets not forget imvros and tenedos (sorry cant remember the turkish names) which had a minority greek population.
| Quote: |
Agreed re needing some debate and contention in debate. I will split the thread in my 3am - 6am 'sitting' as it's generally pretty quite then. |
i think you have miscalculated the fact that I am back in west coast USA. your 3 am is my 5 pm  |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| magikthrill wrote: |
| i think you have miscalculated the fact that I am back in west coast USA. your 3 am is my 5 pm |
true but you are part of a numerical minority in this regard and I am part of a numerical majority so I have a democratic right (if not duty) to force my opinons / views / actions on you regardless of your wishes  |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| magikthrill wrote: |
| True regarding the megali idea however that doesnt mean that Turkey would give up land where the majority of its residents were of turkish origin. lets not fool ourselves here. lets not forget imvros and tenedos (sorry cant remember the turkish names) which had a minority greek population. |
On a more serious note - I am not sure of the example you gave - I just do not know what they refer to or when.
What I would say though is that for me, Turkey as a modern nation state as founded by Ataturk, is just not an expansionist nation. Not in philosophy or in it's actions since its foundation. Turkey as a modern nation state emerged directly from the collapse of a prior expansionst empire and as such it 'rejected' these old models and chose new ones. It specifically drew it's borders and said this is Turkey - no more no less. I see all sorts of Turkish speaking populations outside Turkey (especially in former soviet union) but no real political ambitions or 'ambitions of the masses' to create a 'greater turkey'.
Greece on the other hand ..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
magikthrill
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 631
|
|
WHy would Turkey expand more? When was there EVER a Turkish state in the past? never.
Also, don't forget that Turkey was founded with the treaty of Lausanne... the treaty that gave Turkey everything it lost with the treaty of Sevres.
Also, megali idea refered to the idea that every place where Greek-speaking populations were found should be annexed to Greece. Not just any random place because Greeks had apparently lived there for years before the Ottomans even came along.
What you are telling me is because the Ottomans conquered these territories that they deserve to have a nation more than the aboriginal inhabitants? |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| magikthrill wrote: |
Also, don't forget that Turkey was founded with the treaty of Lausanne... the treaty that gave Turkey everything it lost with the treaty of Sevres. |
But considerably less that it controlled as the ottoman empire.
| magikthrill wrote: |
Also, megali idea refered to the idea that every place where Greek-speaking populations were found should be annexed to Greece. Not just any random place because Greeks had apparently lived there for years before the Ottomans even came along. |
Just as Turkish equivalent to the mengali could seek to incorporate any areas where there is a significant Turkish speaking population? But that is not the 'philosophical idea' on which modern Turkey is founded. Quite the reverse as I understand it.
| magikthrill wrote: |
What you are telling me is because the Ottomans conquered these territories that they deserve to have a nation more than the aboriginal inhabitants? |
Not at all. I am trying to explain my perspective on the different 'philosophical ideas' that modern Turkey was/is based on and modern Greece was/is based on and the differences between them.
There seem to be a Greek Cypriot/G idea (and I may have got the wrong impression here) that anywhere there is a large historic greek speaking population, that area never had any indigenous people before Greek became the language, or if they did that indigenous population wanting to become greek because of Greece's glory, or they were too 'primitive' to count. Leading to an idea that everywhere there is such Greek speaking populations the place is by definition Greek. In contrast anywhere there is a large historic Turkish speaking population , that is because the Turks conquered the area and stole it from the 'native' inhabitants who never want to be Turks (or part of the ottoman empire).
Now there is some truth to this idea I think but it is an overly simplistic one to my mind and and overly 'apologetic to ancient Greeks' as well in my view. It is true that the Greek 'empire' was less an empire of conquering by force and more by culture than say the ottoman empire, but it certainly was not a black and white scenario and to me weather you are conquered by force of arms or by 'cultural invasion', you still become conquered. In modern terms you could claim that America conquers many places by 'cultural invasion' with macdonalds and coke and TV programs and the like. With youths and others in many no American countries wanting to 'be american', dress american, talk american etc etc. Would you argue that where this happens these places should become part of the USA, because the people where not conquered by force of arms but by 'cultural invasion'?
(PS. I am going to lock this thread so I can split it as promised before. It should only take 5 mins or so , so please bear with me. It will be reopned shortly. Thanks) |
|
| Back to top |
|
magikthrill
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 631
|
|
1) The modern turkish state was founded almost 100 years after the modern greek state so comparing philosphies is not very accurate.
2)when the greek state was founded it was a very small portion of what it is today and there were greek speaking populations all around it. THAT is why megali idea was formed
3) on the contrary when Turkey was founded there were LIMITED places with Turkish speaking populations. the only places the Turks could have wanted to unite with (using the basis the Greeks did) were Thrace and Cyprus. The Turkish Thracans though were allowed to remain in their homeland because they saw that more important then becoming refugees to be controlled by someone who speaks Turkish rather than Greek.
4) I dont remember the US conqeuror American Indians w/ McDonalds. However, if modern people feel American enough to be united with America (PERFOECT EXAMPLE : PUERTO RICO) then so be it. It's their choice. THat its cultural invasion. Nobdoy forces you to eat McDonalds or wear Tommy Hillfiger. It's your CHOICE. However if I'm not mistaken it wasnt the choice of byzantine bishops heads to be chopped off or for civilans to pay extreme taxes to feed the conquerors because they called their god a different name.
DO you get me on this?
on the contrary when the modern turkish state was founded |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
Ahh some 'roustabout' argument / discussion at last. Thanks magik we needed some As often happens when the 'heat' goes up so does my verbosity sorry about that.
| magikthrill wrote: |
| 1) The modern turkish state was founded almost 100 years after the modern greek state so comparing philosphies is not very accurate. |
They were both the forming of the modern nation states of each respectively so imo are fair to compare in this context. Anyway the megali idea really came to the fore after 1922 - see below.
| magikthrill wrote: |
2)when the greek state was founded it was a very small portion of what it is today and there were greek speaking populations all around it. THAT is why megali idea was formed |
I would refer you to the most excellent book "The Cyprus Conflict - national identity and statehood by Zenon Stavrinides" on this. I will quote a smaller (still ong) section and link to a larger section because it's all relevant and interesting imo.
http://www.visionmatters.co.uk/cyprus/mengali.txt
| Quote: |
During the heyday of the Great Idea the Greeks developed a
conception of their national identity which included the
following features:
(a) The Greek nation are a people who lived for millenia in
their Mediterranean territory. Present-day Greeks are the
descendants of the Hellenic heroes Plato, Sophocles, Alexander
and the Greek-speaking Christians of Byzantium. They are to be
identified not by reference to citizenship of the existing Greek
state, but by reference to a distinguished civilisation and
language to which they are all the rightful heirs.
(b) The Greek nation is much larger than the modern Greek
State. The latter is that part of the Hellenic and Christian
Orthodox world which has been liberated from (mostly
Ottoman) domination by the sacrifice and heroism of Greek
people.
(c) It is the patriotic duty of all `true' Greeks, to work for the
liberation of all historically Greek lands, now inhabited by
Greeks under foreign rule. And it is a `prescription of history' (a
meaningless phrase which has enjoyed wide currency among
history-conscious Greeks) that all foreign-dominated Greek
territory will eventually become united with the free Greek
State.
Thus to be a `true' Greek, one would have to conceive of
oneself as a member of a great nation only a part of which
having, as yet, been redeemed and organized as a free national
State; and further, to believe that this national state must grow
steadily until it encompasses the whole of the ancient and
Byzantian Hellenic world. Greek children at school were taught
extensively their history (or an official version of it), ancient,
medieval and modern; and modern history was taught as a
record of the gradual fulfilment of national aspirations, mainly
by fighting against Ottoman Turkish conquerors. So, by a
combination of various historical factors, state-controlled
education, propaganda and political demagogy, Greek
nationalism and patriotism came to mean by the 1860s: pride in
being a member of a Superior nation, belief in the necessity of
extending the boundaries of the Greek State to include all
historically Greek lands, and consequently the assertion of the
duty to support a just struggle against the Turkish conquerors
who have for long held by force sacred national territory. |
I am afarid that I see this kind of understanding of the megali idea even today in a few of the more extreme Greeks / Greek Cypriot (like Chomskyfan on CF) and to a lesser degree in some of the less extreme ones as well. This 'big idea' is very Greek and in my mind has no comparable equivalent in Turkish / Turkish Cypriot minds. Hence comming right back to the original 'hypothetical' question re a cyprus with majority T/Turkish Cypriot and minority G/Greek Cypriot i think this difference in 'mentaility' between these groups may well have resulted in a different outcome to what we have today.
| magikthrill wrote: |
3) on the contrary when Turkey was founded there were LIMITED places with Turkish speaking populations. the only places the Turks could have wanted to unite with (using the basis the Greeks did) were Thrace and Cyprus. |
You may be right here. My knowledge of Turkish history outside of the cyprus problem is lamnetably low (but should improve when I meet up with Alistair in UK and get my hands on some of his books ). However are there/ were there not signifcant areas in the USSR that were Turkish speaking? Areas like Azebijan and Turkmenistan? Did modern Turkey base its national idea on returning these areas to the Turkish nation or on actually rejecting such a course and saying 'here is turkey, no more and no less'?
| magikthrill wrote: |
4) I dont remember the US conqeuror American Indians w/ McDonalds. However, if modern people feel American enough to be united with America (PERFOECT EXAMPLE : PUERTO RICO) then so be it. It's their choice. THat its cultural invasion. Nobdoy forces you to eat McDonalds or wear Tommy Hillfiger. It's your CHOICE. However if I'm not mistaken it wasnt the choice of byzantine bishops heads to be chopped off or for civilans to pay extreme taxes to feed the conquerors because they called their god a different name. |
I probably should not have used this comparison at all because it is more distracting than informing in hind sight. My point was not to compare modern american 'cultural imperialism' with otttoman imperialism through force of arms.
| magikthrill wrote: |
DO you get me on this? |
If your point is that if given a choice of how you are to be conquered between 'cultural invasion' and 'physical invasion' would I choose 'cultural', then the answer is yes I would and I do get your point. However _my_ point is that they are both 'invasions', both a 'taking over' of indigenous peoples. Certainly one form is more benign than the other, but at some levels they are both 'bad' and both 'invasions'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
magikthrill
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 631
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
Ahh some 'roustabout' argument / discussion at last. Thanks magik we needed some As often happens when the 'heat' goes up so does my verbosity sorry about that.
|
yes i feel like this forum is finally livening up a bit! :)
| magikthrill wrote: |
They were both the forming of the modern nation states of each respectively so imo are fair to compare in this context. Anyway the megali idea really came to the fore after 1922 - see below.
|
Actually I believe your second statement is quite incorrect. In fact the only remnants of Megali Idea post 1922 was Cyprus! Don't forget the biggest implementation of Megali Idea was in fact pre-22 with the invasion of Anatolia when the Greek soldiers went through and raped and destroyed everything in sight resulting to the removal of all greeks from asia minor.
| Quote: |
I would refer you to the most excellent book "The Cyprus Conflict - national identity and statehood by Zenon Stavrinides" on this. I will quote a smaller (still ong) section and link to a larger section because it's all relevant and interesting imo.
|
Although I find your piece of writing interesting I feel what it does is generalize what certain Greeks (extremists) felt about the great idea. the great idea was not some kind of written manifest that was spread through pamflets. what it came down to in terms of every simple greek human being was that greek-sepaking populations needed to be greek because they used to be greek. analysts can go ahead and make a book about this statement by incorporating generalizations but that is what it comes down to.
| Quote: |
I am afarid that I see this kind of understanding of the megali idea even today in a few of the more extreme Greeks / Greek Cypriot (like Chomskyfan on CF) and to a lesser degree in some of the less extreme ones as well. This 'big idea' is very Greek and in my mind has no comparable equivalent in Turkish / Turkish Cypriot minds. Hence comming right back to the original 'hypothetical' question re a cyprus with majority T/Turkish Cypriot and minority G/Greek Cypriot i think this difference in 'mentaility' between these groups may well have resulted in a different outcome to what we have today.
|
The way Megali Idea has affected the Cypriot population of today I can see how you regard this greek notion as an extremist view but it wasn't necessarily so. If Megali Idea didn't occur then Greece would be nothing but mainland, peloponisos and the cyclades. It is what spurred the greater greek revolution...
| Quote: |
You may be right here. My knowledge of Turkish history outside of the cyprus problem is lamnetably low (but should improve when I meet up with Alistair in UK and get my hands on some of his books ). However are there/ were there not signifcant areas in the USSR that were Turkish speaking? Areas like Azebijan and Turkmenistan? Did modern Turkey base its national idea on returning these areas to the Turkish nation or on actually rejecting such a course and saying 'here is turkey, no more and no less'?
|
I am also unaware of this as well. For one thing I had no idea these countries spoke Turkish. Aren't they though past Armenia making it hard for them to be a unitary country w/ Turkey. If not why arent they?
| Quote: |
I probably should not have used this comparison at all because it is more distracting than informing in hind sight. My point was not to compare modern american 'cultural imperialism' with otttoman imperialism through force of arms.
|
well then you made a point by adding something that wasnt part of the inital discussion because you mentioned americas cultural imperialism. non?
| Quote: |
If your point is that if given a choice of how you are to be conquered between 'cultural invasion' and 'physical invasion' would I choose 'cultural', then the answer is yes I would and I do get your point. However _my_ point is that they are both 'invasions', both a 'taking over' of indigenous peoples. Certainly one form is more benign than the other, but at some levels they are both 'bad' and both 'invasions'. |
i get what you're saying but i feel the biggest difference is CHOICE. i think choice is the most important word in any vocabulary. choice indicates freedom. limiting or removing ones choices limits or removes ones freedoms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home 
