www.talkcyprus.org

[erolz]

The following is a discussion sparked off in thsecon page of this thread
http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1156

Birkibrisli wrote: I am of course aware of TPap's past,but I am not in a position to comment on his present spots.I just don't know how much he has moved away from his EOKA days.But lets not forget that EOKA was intially a movement against the British empire.To counteract EOKA the British did what the British do best "divide and rule".

Sorry what do you mean 'intally'. Are you saying that initally EOKA's goals were indpendance for Cyprus and that later these changed into the goal of ENOSIS ? As I understand historical reality EOKA's goals from day one were undisputably ENOSIS. ENOSIS meant chaging colonial rules of Cyprus from the British to Greek rulers. It did not seek to end colonialism. It sought to change who the colonial rulers were.

Birkibrisli wrote:
Hence the Turkish Cypriot militia to fight EOKA,hence the bitterness and animosioty between the two communities.I know we don't see eye to eye on this,but sometimes I wonder what would've happened had the Turkish Cypriots joined the Greek Cypriots in early 50s in the fight against colonialism.Would we still end up where we are or would be better able to forge a Cypriot identity hence avoiding the civil war which followed. I have my own theories about that but I would be interested in yours.

I also wonder this. I think that if Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot had struggled togeather for independance the chances are very high that we would have avoided much of the inter communal violence and subsequent tradgedy that befell Cyprus. Where I differ from you is in this idea that it was the British that stopped Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot from strugglig togeather for indpendance. They certainly (and invetiably) expolited the fact that the Greek Cypriot community wanted one thing and the Turkish Cypriot another. What I do not believe is that it was the British that created the desire in the Greek Cypriot population for ENOSIS rather than Indpendance. Yes there were times and historical precedent that may have encouraged the view amongst Greek Cypriot that ENOSIS was possible and Independance was not, but the roots of the desire for ENOSIS by the Greek Cypriot were not these things and the strenght of the desire by 1950, by which time it was clear that actually Indpendance was possible and ENOSIS was not, were not down to the British. They were down to the Greek nationalist mengali idea and this was implanted so deeply in the Greek Cypriot commuites phsyche not by the British but by Greek nationalist elements, the most obvious and strongest and most effective being the Greek Orthodox church in Cyprus.

So I agree that had Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot ever had a chance to struggle togeather for independance of Cyprus , then things almost certainly would not have turned out as they did. However the Turkish Cypriot never had one iota of chance to struggle with their Greek Cypriot compatriots against the British, as long as the Greek Cypriot community persued ENOSIS and not independance. The cause of this Greek Cypriot persuit of ENOSIS over independance was not the result of British divde and rule policy to anywhere near the degree that it was the result of the Greek nationalist Mengali idea and the embedding of that idea over 100+ years in the Greek Cypriot minds by the Greek Orthodox church (and other Greek nationalist elements).

[Crash Test Dummy]

a great point there Erol. I think the the mentality of EOKA was Enosis. However to acheive this they had to become independant. I think that we will never know, however givent hat Grivas was Greek it is unlikey he would of 'hired' a Turkish Cypriot.

I suppose we will never know

[turkkan]

The answer to that question is that to EOKA, both were linked and in their minds, as was the case then, those two issues were so linked that they didnt even distinguish between them.

Quote: ENOSIS meant chaging colonial rules of Cyprus from the British to Greek rulers. It did not seek to end colonialism. It sought to change who the colonial rulers were.

Not to the greek cypriots, it would a bit like claiming that Crete is now under colonial rule by greece.

Quote: They were down to the Greek nationalist mengali idea and this was implanted so deeply in the Greek Cypriot commuites phsyche not by the British but by Greek nationalist elements, the most obvious and strongest and most effective being the Greek Orthodox church in Cyprus.

Your views on history are quite anarchronistic. You think of the situation then as if it was today. 'Greek nationalist elements' is wrong, every greek at that time beleived, especially since 1821, that enosis was their right as a community and they should be united with greece. It has nothing to do with 'nationalistic' elements, the way you say it impies that 'enosis' was something evil put in the back of the 'greeks' mind by the 'nationalstic elements' you talk about.

As for the Turkish cypriots and greek cypriots fighting against the british together, this is nonsense. Why would we at that have wanted the british to leave? The current status quo then suited us, we had no reason to fight the british alongside you. THe reasons you (greek cypriots) fought them was because you wanted to unite with greece,we had no such wish, and being under turkish rule was an impossiblity then, so things were just fine the way they were then for us. These 'what if' questions, dont usually get you anywhere.

[erolz]

turkkan wrote:
Not to the greek cypriots, it would a bit like claiming that Crete is now under colonial rule by greece.

Well Crete is a colony of Greece is it not?

turkkan wrote:
Your views on history are quite anarchronistic. You think of the situation then as if it was today. 'Greek nationalist elements' is wrong, every greek at that time beleived, especially since 1821, that enosis was their right as a community and they should be united with greece. It has nothing to do with 'nationalistic' elements, the way you say it impies that 'enosis' was something evil put in the back of the 'greeks' mind by the 'nationalstic elements' you talk about.

I accept what you are saying. My post was made as a counter tothe idea that it was the British that inspired and envoked the idea of ENOSIS in Greek Cypriot specificaly to create a divide and rule potential in Cyprus. The main point I was trying to make was that it was not the British that did this primarily (there were some points where it could be said they ecouraged such ideas, for whatever reason, but they were not the prime cause of the desire for enosis in Greek Cypriot). Imo ENOSIS was something evil put inbto the minds of greek CYPRIOTS, whoever did this. It is what made them think of themselves (and Cyprus) as Greek and not Cypriot imho.

turkkan wrote:
As for the Turkish cypriots and greek cypriots fighting against the british together, this is nonsense. Why would we at that have wanted the british to leave? The current status quo then suited us, we had no reason to fight the british alongside you. THe reasons you (greek cypriots) fought them was because you wanted to unite with greece,we had no such wish, and being under turkish rule was an impossiblity then, so things were just fine the way they were then for us. These 'what if' questions, dont usually get you anywhere.

If the struggle was for ENOSIS then clearly no Turkish Cypriot would be part of such a struggle and many would actively oppose such - as is exactly what happend. However the hypothetical senario is that Greek Cypriot did not think of themselves as Greek, but as Cypriots and were struggling for Cypriot independance. If that vision of indpendance meant a united Cypriot nation shared by all Cypriots I think it is perfectly possible to imagine Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot working togeather in such a struggle (as diverse ethnic groups in India stuggled togeather for independance - all be it to divide after they achieved it).

Again the whole point I was trying to counter was this idea that it was the British that divided us. It was no imo. They exploited such division but they did not create it. Cypriots divided Cypriots, by persuing not Cypriot goals and ideals but 'non cypriot' goals and ideals.

[Crash Test Dummy]

Erol but exploiting the problems in Cyprus it is just as bad as creating them. The British could easily of dissolved the situation to an extent, then left the island united and peacefull. However it chose to reamian, create army bases and fuel the fire.

[erolz]

Crash Test Dummy wrote: Erol but exploiting the problems in Cyprus it is just as bad as creating them.

I am not saying that expoliting the divisionwas not 'bad'. I am just saying that as Cypriots we should accept that the prime responsibility for failing to build a desire for a Cypriot nation lies with Cypriots. Blaming the British does not change this reality. And it is Cypriots who now need to find ways of building a cypriot nation. We will nto be able to do that imo if we live in this state of denial as to why we failed to do this in the past.

Crash Test Dummy wrote:
The British could easily of dissolved the situation to an extent, then left the island united and peacefull. However it chose to reamian, create army bases and fuel the fire.

I do not agree that it was in the power of the British to avoid the ethnic clashes that occured after they left. Certainly no where as much in their power as it is was in our power to do so as Cypriots. Even if the British had just pack up and left Cyprus in 1950, before eoka and without any bases and without broker or forcing a 'deal' on Cyprus, the stage was still set for ethnic inter communal clashes in Cyprus imo. Greek Cypriot would have still wanted not a Cypriot nation but union with Greece. They would have still believed this was their right and the Turkish Cypriot community had no right other than to accept this. The Turkish Cypriot community would have still believed they did have a right to determine such an aspect of their own future and would have resited. Turkey would still have been drawn into this , because Cyprus would still be 50 km of her souther coast and it would still have been an imperative for her that Cyprus not become a Greek Island.

[turkkan]

Quote: Well Crete is a colony of Greece is it not?

No crete is part of greece. Its like saying the 'Isle of Man' is not part of the UK.

Quote: Imo ENOSIS was something evil put inbto the minds of greek CYPRIOTS, whoever did this. It is what made them think of themselves (and Cyprus) as Greek and not Cypriot imho.

This whole concept of being Cypriot is something new, a concept of the past couple of decades, with its pioneer mainly being the late lanitis (not the guy who used to write for cyprus mail, but the original owner of Lanitis ltd), who self exiled himself because of the threats he got at that time due to his book where he spelled his beleifs in. I dont think the greek cypriots ever considered themselves anything but greek, so again this 'whoever put it in their head' think is again nonsense, if your language is greek and your traditions are greek, you dont need anyone to put anything in your head to make you think you are greek. You can argue genetics now if you want but that is irrelevant. The concept of being a 'cypriot' is as i said a relativley new invention by some who thought/beleive that this would be a way for their to be peace on the island or for any political future to be based around. I personally do not support this idea, its prone to many failures, mainly that it is a made up notion,which in itself is not so unusual, as that is usually the basis of ethnicity, generally the creation of historical myths, but it is more prone to fail because their is a lack of support for it. But then again you can argue that it is worth a shot and prehaps it could work.


Quote: However the hypothetical senario is that Greek Cypriot did not think of themselves as Greek, but as Cypriots and were struggling for Cypriot independance.

Again, this scenario would fail, as there would be serious arguments of how the goverment was going to be shared after the supposed 'independence'.

[Crash Test Dummy]

You can argue that millions of years ago cyprus as an island was part of Turkey or Greece. However whoever the majority of people were on the island (Turks or Greeks) they would of wanted unity with their 'mother state'.

I think that Greek Cypriot's had a greater desire to join with Greece than Turkish Cypriot's had to join Turkey. This is because for the islands history it has been invaded constantly. I think Enosis was more fore security and recognition rather than spite for the Turkish Cypriot's

[bg_turk]

Never in the entire human history have Turks and Greeks fought together as allies side by side. The gap and mistrust between the two is enormous.
To believe that Turks and Greeks will unite in a struggle to form one nation is the most extreme form of naivety, that may be acceptable in fairy-tales but not in reality.

[bg_turk]

a Cypriot nation has never existed. A quick search in google with the following key words shows that even the concept of "cypriot nation" is hardly used at all in comparison to other nations.

NATION---------------# OF HITS
turkish nation ----------65,200
bulgarian nation--------12,800
macedonian nation-----19,700
albanian nation---------14,200
greek nation------------47,100
kurdish nation----------25,000
cypriot nation--------------414
martian nation-------------317

When the concept of a cypriot nation is as foreign as that of a martian nation, how could possibly Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots unite as one nation, in the name of what shared ideal?

[erolz]

bg_turk wrote: Never in the entire human history have Turks and Greeks fought together as allies side by side. The gap and mistrust between the two is enormous.
To believe that Turks and Greeks will unite in a struggle to form one nation is the most extreme form of naivety, that may be acceptable in fairy-tales but not in reality.

Is it naievity to think that Turkish CYPRIOTS and Greek CYPRIOTS could ever or would ever struggle togeahter to form a CYPRIOT nation then?

Is this not the TAKSIM argument? We have always been 'seperate', if not geogrpahicaly then in all other sense, thus we should remain seperate now geographicaly and as seperate nations?

bg_turk wrote:
When the concept of a cypriot nation is as foreign as that of a martian nation, how could possibly Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots unite as one nation, in the name of what shared ideal?

The results you show are pretty damming (though I think population size is a factor here as well - I would like to see comparative results for nations nearer the pop size of Cyprus).

If it is true that there is no concept , even today, of a Cypriot nation then this is our failing. All the talk of this plan or that plan or ways to unite Cyprus are futile without this. Personaly I do not think things are as bad as they seem from your google analysis. Certainly my view is that historicaly there was no such concept and that played a major role in the failure of the Cypriot nation as created in 1960. Today however I think there are Cypriots on both sides of the divide that can concieve of and desire a united Cypriot nation of Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot living in harmony and co operation in a shared Cypriot nation?

[Crash Test Dummy]

bg_turk wrote:

NATION---------------# OF HITS
turkish nation ----------65,200
bulgarian nation--------12,800
macedonian nation-----19,700
albanian nation---------14,200
greek nation------------47,100
kurdish nation----------25,000
cypriot nation--------------414
martian nation-------------317


These results can not be used. Cyprus is tiny compared to the size of turkey or greece. I would not expect there to be a slight similarity.

I see your point though.

[Kifeas]

I think some people here confuse the term nation as it is understood in its modern political definition with the classic anthropological definition.

The modern political definition of the term nation is associated with the citizenship of the individual or his belonging to a particular country-state. In this respect, there is a Cypriot nation, in the same way that there is an Australian or an American or a British nation. Even in the cases of Turkey and Bulgaria for example, in which the global names of these countries are associated with the “ethnic” background (in its anthropological meaning) of only a group of the people living in them, still all the rest of the people in those countries are regarded to belong to those relevant nations in their political sence.

Bg_Turk for example, says that he belongs to the Turkish nation. However, at the same time he belongs to the Bulgarian nation in the modern political definition of the term. The same applies to a Kurd (one that belongs to the Kurdish nation) but who at the same time is a citizen of Turkey and therefore a member of the Turkish nation in its political sense.

In Cyprus we do not even have such a conflict of names and terms, since the term Cypriot nation, in its political sense, doesn’t conflict with the existence of a greater Cypriot nation in its anthropological sense. If Bg_Turk did not find any references on the term “Cypriot nation” during his Google search, I suggest to him to make a search on the term “people of Cyprus” or “Cypriots” instead. I am sure he will find plenty of references. I also suggest to him to be a little bit less “clever” in the future because we cannot follow his ingeniousness some times.

There is such a concept of a “Cypriot nation” if and since there is a concept of “people of Cyprus” or “Cypriots.” When Cyprus became a member of the European Union, all the (legal) people of Cyprus became European Union citizens, Greek speaking Cypriots and Turkish speaking Cypriots alike.

The people if Cyprus may not have struggled for the creation of a Cypriot nation as such (although such a struggle does occur now among those who believe in the true re-unification of the country versus those who do not believe in the true re-unification of the country but only to a fake one,) but the people of Cyprus (irrespective of “ethnic” background and /or linguistic differences,) have worked together and watered with their sweat the same (each others) fields for centuries now and under the same hot and burning Cypriot sun. They have also participated together in a number of small and larger riots and revolts (my history book makes reference to 27, if I am not mistaken, such cases) against the oppressive nature of both the Ottomans and the British rulers. The people of Cyprus have participated together in numerous trade union strikes against the oppressive and exploiting foreign and local capitalists, such as those that took place in the beginning of the previous century at the mines of Amiantos, Skouriotisa and Lefka and some of them died together in the same mine tunnels or while fighting the colonial police during their strikes.

The people of Cyprus (some 35,000) have joined together the British forces under the name of the “Cypriot Contingent” in order to fight the fascism during the WWII, and many have died and buried together in many battle fields across Europe, Middle East and North Africa. The people of Cyprus have lived and mixed together in all corners of Cyprus for many centuries now (except for only the last 30 or for some the last 40 years,) and to the best of my understanding they all share one common love, which also happens to be the most important of all, the love for their common home which is Cyprus.

These are the “alternative” historical realities. They are “slightly” different than the historical “realities” (realities on the ground) of some, which only go 40 years back. Isn’t it Bananiot?

[Crash Test Dummy]

Intresting there Kifeas. I knew the 2 communities got along and lived side by side but i did not know that they were fighting side by side.

[bg_turk]

Kifeas wrote:
The modern political definition of the term nation is associated with the citizenship of the individual or his belonging to a particular country-state. In this respect, there is a Cypriot nation, in the same way that there is an Australian or an American or a British nation.
Bg_Turk for example, says that he belongs to the Turkish nation. However, at the same time he belongs to the Bulgarian nation in the modern political definition of the term.


Kifeas,
I never said I belonged to the turkish nation. The reason why I use the term turk in my name is because I am ethnically turk, yet, I am a member of the bulgarian nation. Yet, I do understand the point you make. I do not refer to myself as bulgaian because apart from national belonging this also refers to ethnic origin as well.

Here are articles from the Bulgarian constitution. Despite the fact that the official language and religion in the state is those of the bulgarian ethnicity, the state guarantees the rights of other ethnicities to participate in the bulgarian nation as well.

Quote:
Article 3 [Language]
Bulgarian is the official language of the Republic.

Article 6 [Human Dignity, Freedom, Equality]

(1) All persons are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
(2) All citizens shall be equal before the law. There shall be no privileges or restriction of rights on the grounds of race, nationality, ethnic self-identity, sex, origin, religion, education, opinion, political affiliation, personal or social status, or property status.

Article 13 [Religion]

(1) The practicing of any religion is free.
(2) The religious institutions shall be separate from the state.
(3) Eastern Orthodox Christianity is considered the traditional religion in the Republic of Bulgaria.
(4) Religious institutions and communities and religious beliefs shall not be used to political ends.

Article 54 [Culture, Creativity]

(1) Everyone shall have the right to avail himself of the national and universal human cultural values and to develop his own culture in accordance with his ethnic self-identification, which shall be recognized and guaranteed by the law.



Quote:
In Cyprus we do not even have such a conflict of names and terms, since the term Cypriot nation, in its political sense, doesn’t conflict with the existence of a greater Cypriot nation in its anthropological sense. If Bg_Turk did not find any references on the term “Cypriot nation” during his Google search, I suggest to him to make a search on the term “people of Cyprus” or “Cypriots” instead. I am sure he will find plenty of references. I also suggest to him to be a little bit less “clever” in the future because we cannot follow his ingeniousness some times.

There is such a concept of a “Cypriot nation” if and since there is a concept of “people of Cyprus” or “Cypriots.” When Cyprus became a member of the European Union, all the (legal) people of Cyprus became European Union citizens, Greek speaking Cypriots and Turkish speaking Cypriots alike.

The people if Cyprus may not have struggled for the creation of a Cypriot nation as such (although such a struggle does occur now among those who believe in the true re-unification of the country versus those who do not believe in the true re-unification of the country but only to a fake one,) but the people of Cyprus (irrespective of “ethnic” background and /or linguistic differences,) have worked together and watered with their sweat the same (each others) fields for centuries now and under the same hot and burning Cypriot sun. They have also participated together in a number of small and larger riots and revolts (my history book makes reference to 27, if I am not mistaken, such cases) against the oppressive nature of both the Ottomans and the British rulers. The people of Cyprus have participated together in numerous trade union strikes against the oppressive and exploiting foreign and local capitalists, such as those that took place in the beginning of the previous century at the mines of Amiantos, Skouriotisa and Lefka and some of them died together in the same mine tunnels or while fighting the colonial police during their strikes.

The people of Cyprus (some 35,000) have joined together the British forces under the name of the “Cypriot Contingent” in order to fight the fascism during the WWII, and many have died and buried together in many battle fields across Europe, Middle East and North Africa. The people of Cyprus have lived and mixed together in all corners of Cyprus for many centuries now (except for only the last 30 or for some the last 40 years,) and to the best of my understanding they all share one common love, which also happens to be the most important of all, the love for their common home which is Cyprus.

These are the “alternative” historical realities. They are “slightly” different than the historical “realities” (realities on the ground) of some, which only go 40 years back. Isn’t it Bananiot?
Those things that you have mentioned are true for most people that lived in the Ottoman empire. It is true for armenians and turkish villagers, it is true for bulgarian and greek villagers, who have lived in an atmosphere of tolerance and often cooperation for centuries as "komsu" to each other. But none of these helped prevent the bloodshed which followed after the liberation of each country. In all cases nationalism poisoned the intercommunal relationships.
If you could say that Cypriot nationalism was stronger than Greek and Turkish nationalism I would believe you. But this is not the case and I do not believe it to be the case for the majority of Greek Cypriots, or Turkish Cypriots.
Cypriot so far remains only a geopgraphical name for the people who live in Cyprus, much in the same way as Thracian refers to the people who live in Thrace. I am afraid none of us have reached the political maturity to build a nation on anything other than ethnic origin. Hopefully Cyprus will prove be wrong.