 |
| IS Cyprus better off or Worse off after EOKA? |
| Cyprus was better off with EOKA: |
|
27% |
[ 5 ] |
| Cyprus was worse off with EOKA: |
|
44% |
[ 8 ] |
| Cyprus should of Stayed with Britain: |
|
27% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 18 |
|
| Author |
Message |
depurple
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 2880
Location: Australia
|
|
DP Says
"Well it looks like everyone GOT what they wanted AFTER ALL!"
1: Britain as a guarantor got is bases and kept a piece of Cyprus!
2: Turkey as a guarantor also got a piece of Cyprus OR should I say there Piece Operation of 74!
3: Greece has now got ENOSIS with Cyprus through the EU and one-day will also have ENOSIS with Turkey through the EU! FANTASTIC!
4: EOKA killed off the Communist movement in Cyprus and Russia! Great Job BOYS!
5: The Turkish Cypriot got equality with their OWN state or whatever! EVEN thou NO ONE recognizes it!
So everyone is Happy as LARRY!
BUT why am I so sad???????
Why are other Cypriots I talk to so sad?
cheers
PS Are the settlers happy?
Depends on what they GOT and what they will be left with ONE-DAY! |
|
| Back to top |
|
100%cypriot
Warnings : 4
Ministerial
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 2181
|
|
| Eioka achieved only to seperate this beautifull Island and seperate the people ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 952
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| it is clear that Britain wished to get out of sovereignty over Cyprus (whilst maintaining bases) - but WITHOUT causing conflict between the NATO allies of Greece and Turkey. |
It is not clear at all… Britain wanted to take advantage of the resources and the geographic location of Cyprus. They had little or no interest in the people living there and they had no concern in what the people wanted. They wanted to make sure that somehow they would stay in Cyprus and to achieve that they used the strategy “divide and rule”. Certainly Enosis was something that Britain didn’t want because it meant unite – not divide, independence was ok, but partition was the ideal settlement of the Cyprus issue. Look at today, almost none of the talks refer to removing the bases that in a sense are occupying Cypriot land. You see the focus of the problem is the bi-communal one, no one complains about the bases (except the Greens).
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| What I am saying is that a resort to violence was NOT required to achieve the end of British colonial rule in Cyprus and that Britain had made this abundantly clear by 55. |
And what I am saying is that people say EOKA was a mistake today knowing the consequences of the struggle, imo it was not possible for people at the time to foresee that Cyprus would achieve independence which lasted for 3 years! I cannot understand what makes you believe that Britain made it clear when specifically on 28 July 1954 the Minister of State for the Colonies, Henry Hopkinson, replied to a debate about Cyprus that “certain territories in the Commonwealth which, owing to their particular circumstances, can never expect to be fully independent.” From my understanding EOKA came after many peaceful attempts of settling the problem had been exhausted, and Britain showing no intentions to withdraw from Cyprus
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| This is where I disagree with you about the 'nobility' of a cause. To me the nobility or not of a cause is a function of its inherent ideas and not one of numbers or of geography. For example capital punishment in the UK has long been supported by a numerical majority - but I do not see capital punishment as a 'noble' idea simply because lots of people want it. |
This is something that we don’t disagree on… we both agree that democracy does not apply to all circumstances but there are limitations. I think what we disagree is whether democracy applies to the situation of Cyprus.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| Cyprus was and is predominately culturally Greek. Can you see the difference between your assertion and mine? Maybe these two will help you to see that difference. Australia was and is British. Australia was and is predominately culturally British. |
To be accurate, my assertion is:
Australia was stolen by Britain, and the British culture dominates in the land lived by the aborigines for centuries. Similarly Cyprus was stolen from Greeks by different foreign powers which despite their attempts, they did not manage to change the demographics of the island and the dominating culture is still Greek.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| As for the 'like it or not' - how about enosis was and is unachievable in Cyprus weather you like it or not. |
I don’t know how achievable it was in the past but you are right, the truth is that unfortunately enosis is not achievable today.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| The right to self determination does NOT say that peoples have a fundamental right to choose to be ruled by others. |
Your wrong, of course it does…otherwise it won’t be self-determination.
“This application of external self-determination is seen in the three main methods for exercising the right of self-determination mentioned in General Assembly Resolution 1541(XV) : emergence as a sovereign independent State ; ... free association with an independent State ; or ... integration with an independent State. 38 Importantly, it can be seen in this Resolution that the right of self-determination does not imply that independence, or secession from an independent State, is the only, or even the necessary and appropriate, means of exercising the right.”
I think the most appropriate resolution for Cyprus was integration with an independent state and that state was Greece.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| Again you also make you classic mistake in your assertion "I forgot some countries are not entitled to their human rights". |
Ok, let me rephrase, “the people of some countries are not entitled to their human rights”
| Quote: |
| Sept 55 - accept that Cyprus is not a purely internal British issue and that both Turkey and Greece have a legitimate interest. |
They only reviewed their policy because of the existing resistance of EOKA. The issue had little to do with Turkey and Greece, they issue had to do with the people of Cyprus but that was not in their interest. Again evidence of Britain’s policy ‘divide and rule’
| Quote: |
| June 56 - exploration of feasibility of conceding to enosis through self- determination (immediately rejected by Turkey) |
What did Turkey have to do with self-determination in Cyprus? As DP says POLITICS …the new that Turkey will reject Enosis and they used it as a pretext to form another resolution.
| Quote: |
| Dec 56 - acceptance of contingent application of self determination with the proviso that Turkish Cypriot would have a separate such right. |
Of course they presented separate self-determination, meaning partition. Similar to what happened in India and Pakistan and elsewhere where the British had colonies.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| The problem was the demand for enosis - this is what made it 'hard' for Britian to hand over its sovereignty post 55 and not any desire to maintain Cyprus as a colony indefinitely. |
If they did have plans to leave Cyprus why would they care whether if it was Greek or Turkish or independent? The fundamental idea of Enosis was not their problem; their problem was that through Enosis they would off had less control over Cyprus than a Cyprus divided in two independent states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 952
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
100% Cypriot wrote:
| Quote: |
| Eoka achieved only to seperate this beautifull Island and seperate the people ! |
How can EOKA be blamed for the division of Cyprus caused 15 years after its action was ceased.
Sure EOKA has some stake in the overall separation, but it is tiny in comparison to the Greek coup followed by a Turkish invasion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| It is not clear at all… Britain wanted to take advantage of the resources and the geographic location of Cyprus. They had little or no interest in the people living there and they had no concern in what the people wanted. |
That is not true stavrizatz. All through the 40's whilst refusing to discuss sovereignty the British made constant efforts to increasingly devolve decision making and power in Cyprus to Cypriots. These efforts were blocked time and again by the Greek Cypriot leadership , because they feared that such self rule under British sovereignty might lead to the people going off the idea of enosis and because under British sovereignty a voice would be given to the Turkish Cypriot community as well. If the desire had been simply for independence then increasing constitutional self government was the natural way to move towards that end without the need for violence and indeed this was a route by which many British colonies gained full independence. What stopped this process in Cyprus was not British reticence to allow Cypriots to govern their own affairs but in fact the absolutist pursuit of enosis by the Greek Cypriot leadership and their determination to not let Cypriots determine their own affairs unless it guaranteed enosis (and in the process denied the Turkish Cypriot community an ability to be involved in a material way in such decisions).
| stavrizatz wrote: |
They wanted to make sure that somehow they would stay in Cyprus and to achieve that they used the strategy “divide and rule”. Certainly Enosis was something that Britain didn’t want because it meant unite – not divide, independence was ok, but partition was the ideal settlement of the Cyprus issue. Look at today, almost none of the talks refer to removing the bases that in a sense are occupying Cypriot land. You see the focus of the problem is the bi-communal one, no one complains about the bases (except the Greens). |
This whole thesis that 'division in Cyprus' makes the British bases and their retention of them 'more secure' just makes no logical sense to me. The idea that the sovereign bases are more secure in a Cyprus of instability and continued conflict and with a population that regards Britian as an 'enemy' vs how secure they would be in a stable peaceful cyprus makes no sense to me.
Also the idea that enosis meant a united Cyprus is just cloud cookoo land thinking imo. The reason why the British opposed enosis was that they knew that the attempt to impose such by Greek Cypriot and or Greece would lead to conflict between the NATO allies of Turkey and Greece during the height of the cold war.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| I cannot understand what makes you believe that Britain made it clear when specifically on 28 July 1954 the Minister of State for the Colonies, Henry Hopkinson, replied to a debate about Cyprus that “certain territories in the Commonwealth which, owing to their particular circumstances, can never expect to be fully independent.” |
This was the LAST attempt by Britian to deny that the sovereignty of Cyprus could be discussed. By 55 the British position had changed totally and continued to develop. So that in 55 Harding presented the British position to Makarios as thus
| Quote: |
| It is not therefore their [British Governments] position that the principal of self determination can never be applicable in Cyprus. It is their position that it is not now a practical proposition both on account of the present strategic situation and on account of the consequences on the relations between NATO powers in the Eastern Mediterranean. |
and
| Quote: |
| Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to discuss the future of the island with representatives of the people of Cyprus when self-government has proved itself a workable proposition and capable of safeguarding the interests of all sections of the community. |
Of course for Makarios for whom 'enosis and nothing but enosis' was the objective such self government leading to independence was something that had to be avoided at all costs for two reasons. Firstly the fear that Cypriots having run their own affairs successfully under British sovereignty they then might to wonder if enosis was such a desirable thing and secondly because self rule under British sovereignty would not allow the Greek Cypriot to simply ignore Turkish Cypriot wishes with impunity. Once again we can clearly see that it was not a refusal to allow self government and ultimate independence of Cyprus that required confrontation and a resort to violence by the Greek Cypriot community but a refusal to allow enosis and it's imposition on the Turkish Cypriot community by the Greek Cypriot community because of the threat it created to regional peace and stability between nato allies during the height of the cold war.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| From my understanding EOKA came after many peaceful attempts of settling the problem had been exhausted, and Britain showing no intentions to withdraw from Cyprus |
Peaceful attempts to get Britain to agree that she would grant enosis to the Greek Cypriot community , with no regard for the wishes of the Turkish Cypriot community or any regard for the consequences to international peace and stability between NATO allies in the region may have been exhausted. However to suggest that all attempts to find peaceful ways for achieving and end to British rule and ultimate independence of Cyprus had not only not been exhausted every attempt was being blocked by the Greek Cypriot demand of enosis and nothing but enosis. Which is exactly why I take objection to the idea that the resort to violence was the the only way left to Cypriots to secure their end of British rule and their independence. It was not. The resort to violence was an attempt to impose enosis INSTEAD of independence.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| This is where I disagree with you about the 'nobility' of a cause. To me the nobility or not of a cause is a function of its inherent ideas and not one of numbers or of geography. For example capital punishment in the UK has long been supported by a numerical majority - but I do not see capital punishment as a 'noble' idea simply because lots of people want it. |
This is something that we don’t disagree on… we both agree that democracy does not apply to all circumstances but there are limitations. I think what we disagree is whether democracy applies to the situation of Cyprus. |
You claim that 'enosis' was a 'noble idea'. I am trying to understand what it is about enosis that you consider 'nobel'. So far all you seem to have offered is that 'many people wanted it' which to me is not the criteria I would use to asses the nobility or not of an idea.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
To be accurate, my assertion is:
Australia was stolen by Britain, and the British culture dominates in the land lived by the aborigines for centuries. Similarly Cyprus was stolen from Greeks by different foreign powers which despite their attempts, they did not manage to change the demographics of the island and the dominating culture is still Greek. |
Who lived in Cyprus before the Greek cultural invasion of Cyprus? In ant case your revised assertion (whilst ignoring the reality of both demographic and cultural change of ottman invasion and rule) is a lot less 'prejudice' than the orginal "....after all Cyprus was and is historically Greek you like it or not."
| stavrizatz wrote: |
“This application of external self-determination is seen in the three main methods for exercising the right of self-determination mentioned in General Assembly Resolution 1541(XV) : emergence as a sovereign independent State ; ... free association with an independent State ; or ... integration with an independent State. 38 Importantly, it can be seen in this Resolution that the right of self-determination does not imply that independence, or secession from an independent State, is the only, or even the necessary and appropriate, means of exercising the right.”
I think the most appropriate resolution for Cyprus was integration with an independent state and that state was Greece. |
It would help greatly if you could provide the source of the above quotation for it is not clear to me who is making the extrapolation of what the UN declaration actually says to the conclusion that it includes 'intergration with an independant state'. Certainly the actual UN resolution (passed in dec 1960 btw) makes no such assetion. The full text of the UN declaration is here.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/c_coloni.htm
and includes the following
| Quote: |
| 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. |
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| Ok, let me rephrase, “the people of some countries are not entitled to their human rights” |
Or rephrase it again, "when separate peoples within a single nation have opposed desires for the future it may be necessary for both such peoples absolute exercise of self determination to be limited in order to protect tose of the other."
| stavrizatz wrote: |
They only reviewed their policy because of the existing resistance of EOKA. |
Says who? Britain had already granted independence to India - a nation of vastly more benefit and profit to Britain and without any need for a resort to violence by the Indian National Congress. The fact is that the writing was on the wall for the end of colonialism since WW2. After WW2 it was not in reality an issue of if Britain (and the other colonial powers) would grant independence to their colonies , but a matter of when and how.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
The issue had little to do with Turkey and Greece, they issue had to do with the people of Cyprus but that was not in their interest. Again evidence of Britain’s policy ‘divide and rule’ |
Of course the issue had to do with firstly Greece that had been making iridescent claims on Cyprus ever since it's own independence in 1800s and then by Turkey determined not see this strategic island so close to its own shores pass into Greek control unopposed.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| What did Turkey have to do with self-determination in Cyprus? As DP says POLITICS …the new that Turkey will reject Enosis and they used it as a pretext to form another resolution. |
Again this is an issue of 'like it or not'. Like it or not Turkey did and does have an interest in the future of Cyprus, through both geographical location and through the fraternal relationship to the Turkish Cypriot community. Turkey could not and did not convince the world that Cyrpus should never be independent. It did however convince the world that enosis , imposed on the Turkish Cypriot community against THEIR communal will, was not an acceptable future for Cyprus and that in any future independent Cyprus the Turkish Cypriot community must be able to protect itself from such an imposition of Greek Cypriot will. You may not like this reality but real it was none the less.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
If they did have plans to leave Cyprus why would they care whether if it was Greek or Turkish or independent? The fundamental idea of Enosis was not their problem; their problem was that through Enosis they would off had less control over Cyprus than a Cyprus divided in two independent states. |
Not at all. The British problem with enosis as a follow on for Cyprus from British rule was that such would lead to conflict within Cyprus between Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot and then to conflict of the NATO allies of Greece and Turkey. This was by far and away the greatest single concern of the British (and indeed the USA) at the time. Again we see this Greek Cypriot idea from then repeated now that Greek Cypriot getting what Greek Cypriot want in Cyprus is the ONLY thing that matters - and any obligation to the Turkish Cypriot community andtheir wishes is irrelevant and any obligation to regional and international peace and stability is irrelevant. So what if Greek Cypriot desires required trampling over the communal wishes of Turkish Cypriots and risked destabalisation of the whole region and undermining of NATO to achieve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
100%cypriot
Warnings : 4
Ministerial
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 2181
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
100% Cypriot wrote:
| Quote: |
| Eoka achieved only to seperate this beautifull Island and seperate the people ! |
How can EOKA be blamed for the division of Cyprus caused 15 years after its action was ceased.
Sure EOKA has some stake in the overall separation, but it is tiny in comparison to the Greek coup followed by a Turkish invasion. |
Yeah The Greek Coup with the fingers of Eioka ( B ) and the dream of Enosis  |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 952
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Erolz, I don't have much to add to our conversation, I have a point of view based on the knowledge that I have and I always revise and re-assert that point of view. Howerer briefly I will answer you question what I consider nobel about enosis.
Actually I think there is always a fine line when it comes to conflicting views and antagonistic visions.
Looking at the three main desires of Cypriots in 1878-1960:
1. Independence - Cypriots did not consider that as an option as up to that point there was no Cypriot Nation with both Turkey and Greece were claiming Cyprus. Independence was not the desire of the people but the desire of the colonial power
2. Partition - out of question... it required an ethnic division of people
3. Enosis - a) a natural reunification of Cyprus with its motherland, b) the wish of the majority of Cypriots, c) Cyprus was going to benefit being part of a larger country (security reasons)
| Quote: |
| It would help greatly if you could provide the source of the above quotation |
It is a quotation from one of a link that you provided in the past about the article: self-determination; a human rights approach. I saved the article on my pc, I don't remember where it was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
depurple
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 2880
Location: Australia
|
|
The real question may............be!
Did EOKA act on behalf of the majority of Cypriot people OR only for some of the Cypriot people?
I also agree with 100% that they ended up separating the people and also planting the ROOTS of Evil with EOKA B:
I know a lot of EOKA who became EOKA B?
WHY?
Because they couldn't accept the fact that Cyprus was an Independent country and STILL wanted ENOSIS even thou MOST Cypriots didn't want this! (That is why they fought each other in the Coupe!)
Grivas was also promised ENOSIS by the British only if he could get of the Communist plague in Cyprus: We do not want a second CUBA!
So Grivas MAIN concern in Cyprus was the Communists and nothing else really mattered to him!
He was once asked who he would shoot first: A Turk or a Communist Greek Cypriot and he said I cant answer that question??????????? Amazing!
The sad thing is that EOKA B also killed Innocent people who where not Communist BY mistake BUT they did say SORRY to the families!
cheers
"There is no rules in Politics" said W Churchill the 3rd!
(Ask Russia/Germany what happened)
Promise them everything!
Give them Nothing!
Take half of what they have!
PS Even that famous speech Churchill made, Someone told my that was a also another hoax as well?
"We will fight them for their Bitches!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
polis
Warnings : 3
Villager
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 72
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| ... all I am saying is that they resisted a foreign power that was ruling our country, they said NO to domination NO to unjustice, NO to unfair distribution of the wealth of the island, they were striving for freedom and long lasting peace in Cyprus. Whether if they achieved it, whether if the made mistakes, whether if they discriminated particular groups it is a different chapter. |
I am sorry stavrizatz but I have to comment on this.
From a Turkish Cypriot point of view 'they' said no to domination of Greek Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communal will by others but in a manner that required the domination of Turkish Cypriot will to achieve (by fighting for enosis and not independence alone). They said NO to injustice against Greek Cypriot but did not ever question how just it was to force enosis on the Turkish Cypriot community against their will. If they WERE striving for freedom and long lasting peace then they were striving for the freedom of only Greek Cypriot and not Turkish Cypriot - for to the vast majority of Turkish Cypriot enosis represented a potential tyranny to them far in excess of that suffered under British rule. |
Not true. The incorporation of Cyprus into the Greek state was neutral vis a vis Turkish Cypriot minority concerns. Turkish Cypriots could have flourished as citizens of a Greek state or be heavily suppresed as citizens of a Greek Cypriot dominated Cyprus independent state.
Turkish Cypriots concerns had to do with the fear of being dominated by Greeks period. Turkish Cypriots not only were numericaly in the minority, they were also less advanced as against their Greek neighbours polictically, economically and culturallly. Their cultural and linguistic differences with the Greek majority meant that they it would be more difficult for them to fit in in a Greek dominated society - unlike for example the maroite or armenian minorities. The source of Turkish Cypriot fear, therefore, was that as citizens of a Greek dominated Cyprus they would inevitably play the role of second class citizents whatever attempts were made by the state to extend to them all the rights and privileges that modern democratic societies extend to their minority citizents.
Turkish Cypriot gravitation towards separatism therefore was inevitable, whether Greek Cypriots had enosis as their goal or not. But this was no more than a tendency. What turned it into an all out militant and extremist separatist movement was the fact that it happened to be in line with the way the Turkish Army perceived Turkish national interests in the region.
Turkish Cypriots were - and still are - exploited by the Turkish military establishment as a means of nutralizing Greek domination in Cyprus and that is in fact the root of all their (and our) suffering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| polis wrote: |
Not true. The incorporation of Cyprus into the Greek state was neutral vis a vis Turkish Cypriot minority concerns. Turkish Cypriots could have flourished as citizens of a Greek state or be heavily suppresed as citizens of a Greek Cypriot dominated Cyprus independent state.
Turkish Cypriots concerns had to do with the fear of being dominated by Greeks period. Turkish Cypriots knew that not only were they numericaly in the minority, they were also less advanced as against their Greek neighbours both polictically, economically and culturallly. They knew that their cultural and linguistic differences with the Greek majority meant that they could not fit in in a Greek dominated society and that therefore they were afraid that as citizens of a Greek dominated Cyprus they would inevitably play the role of second class citizents.
Turkish tendency towards separatism therefore was inevitable, whether Greek Cypriots had enosis as their goal or not.
What did allow the tendency to develop into an all out armed movement was the fact that it happened to be in line with the way the Turkish Army perceived Turkish national interests in Cyprus. They were therefore used by Turkey as means of nutralizing Greek domination in Cyprus and that is really the root of all their (and our) suffering. Not Greek Cypriot nationalism. |
Well thank Polis for telling me what Turkish Cypriot think and thought.
You may wish to believe that for Turkish Cypriot there was no difference between being a made a Greek citizen (with no choice in the matter) or being a citizen of the Republic of Cyprus, that there was no difference from them being a Turkish Cypriot community representing 18% of their states population or being a 'muslim greek' and representing less than 0.1% of the population and no difference in seeing their (shared) homeland being made a part of Greece in order to fulfill Greek nationalist goals vs seing it become an independent state. You may wish to believe all these things in order to try and absolve your community of any responsibility for the mess we are in today, but it is just not true. The concerns that you list Turkish Cypriot having are much greater in a scenario of enosis than independence. If we feared being a numerical minority in an independent cyprus we feared MORE being a massively smaller one in a greater hellenic state. The same with Greek domination.
You claim that it was inevitable that Turkish Cypriot would head towards separatism, enosis or not. Well let me suggest to you that degree to which the Turkish Cypriot community viewed separatism favorably was directly related to the degree to which the Greek Cypriot community treated them and their communal desires with contempt and considered and treated them as 'culturaly' inferior because they were not Greek.
Finally can we just be clear and honest that enosis was an expression of GREEK nationalism. Many Greek Cypriot may have at one time supported this GREEK nationalist idea that has it roots in the megali idea but it is was and will remain a GREEK nationalist idea - that was based on the non existence of a Cypriot nation at all.
I do agree with you that Turkey had (and has) strategic interests and that it's motive was essentially to ensure that Cyprus did not come under direct control of Athens or sole control of Greek Cypriot alone. That is true and it certainly has played it's part in the disasters that have befallen Cyprus. However to try and claim this is the (sole) root of our joint suffering as Cypriots is just (to me at least and with all due respect) propagandist nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 952
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| You may wish to believe that for Turkish Cypriot there was no difference between being a made a Greek citizen |
Than I can argue, what is the difference between being a Cypriot citizen and made a Cypriot citizen against your communal will (with no choice in the matter)!
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| If we feared being a numerical minority in an independent cyprus we feared MORE being a massively smaller one in a greater hellenic state. |
In most countries of the world xenophobia is cultivated, similarly in Cyprus... Greek Cypriots have fears of Turkish domination and Turkish Cypriots have fears of Greek domination. I don't believe Turkish Cypriots were going to be effected greatly by becoming Citizens of Greece rather than Cyprus and it was possible that you could progressed more as community under a Greek state rather than a Cypriot state.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| considered and treated them as 'culturaly' inferior because they were not Greek. |
That is sad and wrong in any situation. We are all equal and such mistreatment and discrimination that occured in the past should be acknoledged, but i don't think it is very relevant to whether Cyprus was under a Greek or Cypriot state.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| Finally can we just be clear and honest that enosis was an expression of GREEK nationalism. Many Greek Cypriot may have at one time supported this GREEK nationalist idea that has it roots in the megali idea but it is was and will remain a GREEK nationalist idea - that was based on the non existence of a Cypriot nation at all. |
One way of looking at it is that Enosis was a nationalist idea, but you are not open to the possibility that Enosis could be a nobel result of the circumstances of Cyprus. Besides partition can also be considered as Turkish nationalist idea, also independency a Cypriot nationalist idea. We only get rid of Nationalist idea if we all became global citizens!
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| I do agree with you that Turkey had (and has) strategic interests and that it's motive was essentially to ensure that Cyprus did not come under direct control of Athens or sole control of Greek Cypriot alone. That is true and it certainly has played it's part in the disasters that have befallen Cyprus. However to try and claim this is the (sole) root of our joint suffering as Cypriots is just (to me at least and with all due respect) propagandist nonsense. |
ok, something that we agree on |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
I don't believe Turkish Cypriots were going to be effected greatly by becoming Citizens of Greece rather than Cyprus and it was possible that you could progressed more as community under a Greek state rather than a Cypriot state.
|
Yeah, progressed as Turks in Western Thrace who cannot call themselves Turkish and referred as Muslim Greeks? Or progressed as Greeks in Istanbul who were sacked from Istanbul one night because Turks felt like it?
We both know that both Greece and Turkey have horrible track record when it comes to minorities and Turkish Cypriots had every night and reason to resist against a Cyprus part of Greece 1950s onwards.
See, this might not have been clear to people like you in 1950s and 1960s and I kind of understand those people if they didn't understand why Turkish Cypriots opposed Enosis back then. But given all we know about the Cyprus tragedy, it baffles me to see people like you singing the same song half a century later. That's my main concern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
I think we should keep in mind that the early parts of the enosis movement took part at the same time as the events in Thrace, Smyrna, Crete, Rhodes, ... and in none of those cases was independence an option - it was just a matter of if Greece or Turkey would take it.
So, in those times 'independence' must have seemed a bit fabricated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
polis
Warnings : 3
Villager
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 72
|
|
| Mete wrote: |
Yeah, progressed as Turks in Western Thrace who cannot call themselves Turkish and referred as Muslim Greeks? Or progressed as Greeks in Istanbul who were sacked from Istanbul one night because Turks felt like it?
We both know that both Greece and Turkey have horrible track record when it comes to minorities and Turkish Cypriots had every night and reason to resist against a Cyprus part of Greece 1950s onwards. |
Hold on a second! You are comparing the situtation of the Turkish minority of Greece who "cannot call themselves Turkish and referred as Muslim Greeks" (actually they can call themselves whatever they like, it is just that Greek authorities foolishly continue to refuse to formally register associtions that include the appellation "Turk" in their title) to that of the Greeks of Turkey who were "sacked from Istanbul one night because Turks felt like it" as you said (in other words were attacked, victimized, deported into work camps, had their homes and businesses destroyed by porgroms organised by the Turkish government itself no less, faced provisions which in effect led to their beeing dispossessed of all their properties summarily and without compensation and were finally deported outright on a 48 hour notice or forced to leave their homes and flee to Greece). Is this what "people like you", to use your own phrasiology, understand as an objective comparison of the two situations?
In fact, with regard to your single concern regarding the Turks of Greece - the restrictions in the formal use of the word Turk in the names of their associations - did you know that from the end of WWII and right up to the 1980's, the Greek state not only formally recognised all members of the muslim minority of Greece as Turks but also imposed the Turkish language as the language of instruction in the minority schools which resulted in the Pomak and Roma muslim communities (which make the other half of the 90.000 strong muslim minority of Greece) into acquiring a Turkish identity? During the same period, Turks prohibited Greek minority students from speaking Greek at their schools even during breaks.
Coming back to the actual issue of this discussion, yes, Mete, Turkish Cypriots had every right to be concerned about their future as a minority in a Greek dominated society and to demand guarantees that they would not be victims of discrimination, what they did not have the right to do was turn Cyprus into a blood bath and finally ethnically cleanse a large chunk of Cyprus in order to create their own backward, intollerant, pirate, Turkish pseudstate, and then expect sympathy and understanding for their actions.
On the other hand, supporters of the Greek national cause in Cyprus (and when we are talking about the 50's, 60's and 70's this refers to all Greek Cypriots) based their arguments in favour of self-determination on the UN Charter and principles of human rights and international law in full honesty and with the complete understanding that these also necessarily implied full respect of the minority rights of the Turkish population of Cyprus with respect to which they never raised the slightest objection or qualification. If you ask us why did we, as Greek Cypriots, wholeheartedly supported the cause of self-determination/union, the answer is because - among others - this also involve respect of the rights of Turkish Cypriots as a minority in Cyprus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| polis wrote: |
| On the other hand, supporters of the Greek national cause in Cyprus (and when we are talking about the 50's, 60's and 70's this refers to all Greek Cypriots) based their arguments in favour of self-determination on the UN Charter and principles of human rights and international law in full honesty and with the complete understanding that these also necessarily implied full respect of the minority rights of the Turkish population of Cyprus with respect to which they never raised the slightest objection or qualification. If you ask us why did we, as Greek Cypriots, wholeheartedly supported the cause of self-determination/union, the answer is because - among others - this also involve respect of the rights of Turkish Cypriots as a minority in Cyprus. |
I am not sure what concerns me more, that you actually believe the above or you know it to be a gross distortion of reality yet still try and portray it as truth  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
 
 
Link Partners
605057 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home 
