Cyprus-Forum.com

[reportfromcyprus]

I've realised that there isn't a book on Cyprus' modern history that can claim with any credibility to present the period between 1963-2000 in an unbiased way.

By that I mean in a balanced, non-propaganda style that sticks to the facts.

I'm thinking of writing one - if you have any stories that you can corroborate with evidence, written or photographic, I'd love to hear from you.

[reportfromcyprus]

You can email me: [email protected] or send me letters:
Sarah Fenwick c/o ReportFromCyprus.com
P.O.Box 54924, Limassol, CY 3729

[devil]

I suggest that 1954 is the critical date when modern history starts. At least, make it 1960.

To find impartial historic data must be like the proverbial needle. I lived here 1952-3 and 1956 and I can witness as a callow youth the changes between 53 and 56 as being enormous.

[Piratis]

Some questions:

1) Why "modern Cyprus history" starts in 1963 according to you? Why not 1983 or 1974, or 1950? And if you want to examine the roots of the Cyprus problem then why not to start earlier, when Turks first started killing GCs by the 1000s?

2) What is your definition of "balanced". In the middle of two opposing views? For example Turkey claims that there is a legal state in the northern part of Cyprus called "trnc", and they do not recognize the Republic of Cyprus. Would this (and similar) outrageous crap from the Turkish side "balance" out the true facts? As you understand the resulting "balance" will have nothing to do with the truth.

3) There are many books written about the recent history of Cyprus. Why would yours be better? What special qualifications do you have?

[reportfromcyprus]

Some questions:

1) Why "modern Cyprus history" starts in 1963 according to you? Why not 1983 or 1974, or 1950? And if you want to examine the roots of the Cyprus problem then why not to start earlier, when Turks first started killing GCs by the 1000s?

2) What is your definition of "balanced". In the middle of two opposing views? For example Turkey claims that there is a legal state in the northern part of Cyprus called "trnc", and they do not recognize the Republic of Cyprus. Would this (and similar) outrageous crap from the Turkish side "balance" out the true facts? As you understand the resulting "balance" will have nothing to do with the truth.

3) There are many books written about the recent history of Cyprus. Why would yours be better? What special qualifications do you have?

I'll answer your questions in reverse order, Piratis:

3) My experience as a journalist who was trained to see both sides of the story and corroborate assertions with quotes; either from experts or relevant sources, qualifies me to write this book if I decide to do it. In a real sense, journalists are historians since they write the record of the times. In addition, I'm half Greek Cypriot and half English, that has always given me the ability to see both sides of the story, and even if this has confused me and upset me at times, it's still the only way to get to a different perspective that could contribute in a constructive way to positive change.

2) My definition of balanced is to get the facts, and then get quotes, viewpoints or sources that corroborate them - on both sides of the story. I leave interpreting what truth is to you as a reader, and since 'truth' is such a subjective term, I prefer to use the words 'supported facts'. To use your example, Turkey's claim that the 'trnc' is a legal state is not supported by any other country in the world than Turkey. However, there is a large community of Turkish Cypriots which need to have their status clarified and their human rights protected, as much as the Greek Cypriots have that right. That's a supported fact - no community member has any less right than another.

1) 'Modern', in the sense of finding the causes of our current situation stems from 1963 in my opinion, although I agree with you that the 1950's were also pivotal. However, I'm only really interested in the 20th century which is when colonialism and the Cold War left its marks on the whole of the Mediterranean and shaped our future as a country. Going to the 1000's doesn't interest me.

[reportfromcyprus]

I suggest that 1954 is the critical date when modern history starts. At least, make it 1960.

To find impartial historic data must be like the proverbial needle. I lived here 1952-3 and 1956 and I can witness as a callow youth the changes between 53 and 56 as being enormous.

Well, I'd love to hear about them from you!

[reportfromcyprus]

Some questions:

1) Why "modern Cyprus history" starts in 1963 according to you? Why not 1983 or 1974, or 1950? And if you want to examine the roots of the Cyprus problem then why not to start earlier, when Turks first started killing GCs by the 1000s?

2) What is your definition of "balanced". In the middle of two opposing views? For example Turkey claims that there is a legal state in the northern part of Cyprus called "trnc", and they do not recognize the Republic of Cyprus. Would this (and similar) outrageous crap from the Turkish side "balance" out the true facts? As you understand the resulting "balance" will have nothing to do with the truth.

3) There are many books written about the recent history of Cyprus. Why would yours be better? What special qualifications do you have?

I'll answer your questions in reverse order, Piratis:

3) My experience as a journalist who was trained to see both sides of the story and corroborate assertions with quotes; either from experts or relevant sources, qualifies me to write this book if I decide to do it. In a real sense, journalists are historians since they write the record of the times. In addition, I'm half Greek Cypriot and half English, that has always given me the ability to see both sides of the story, and even if this has confused me and upset me at times, it's still the only way to get to a different perspective that could contribute in a constructive way to positive change.

2) My definition of balanced is to get the facts, and then get quotes, viewpoints or sources that corroborate them - on both sides of the story. I leave interpreting what truth is to you as a reader, and since 'truth' is such a subjective term, I prefer to use the words 'supported facts'. To use your example, Turkey's claim that the 'trnc' is a legal state is not supported by any other country in the world than Turkey. However, there is a large community of Turkish Cypriots which need to have their status clarified and their human rights protected, as much as the Greek Cypriots have that right. That's a supported fact - no community member has any less right than another.

1) 'Modern', in the sense of finding the causes of our current situation stems from 1963 in my opinion, although I agree with you that the 1950's were also pivotal. However, I'm only really interested in the 20th century which is when colonialism and the Cold War left its marks on the whole of the Mediterranean and shaped our future as a country. Going to the 1000's doesn't interest me.

Misread your post, thought you meant going back to 1000 - I see you meant going back to a point in history when the Turks started killing GC in their thousands.

Simply, because that's not my direction, I don't want to lay blame, I want to show cause and effect starting with the most viable period in the 20th century. By viable I mean modern record keeping such as reliable and factual newspaper reports from the time and so on.

[cypezokyli]

there are numerous books about the cyprus history....really numerous... especially from politicians and journalists.
only lately some professors of different academic backrounds (politics , history, sociology) started writing some really scientic papers - where the dont just repeat the same old things, but also do some real analysis with the tools they pocess from their academic speciality.

the question is: what new will this book bring ?
and what kind of approach will it follow ?

[pitsilos]

However, there is a large community of Turkish Cypriots which need to have their status clarified

thats an easy one, the ones that carry RoC passports, claim medical benefits and work in the RoC know exactly what their status are. the rest are settlers.

20th century as you put it doesn't start from 1963, but from 12:01AM, Jan 1st, 1900.

It will be better if you were to concetrate from the start of the struggle for liberation up to the 1974 events.

[reportfromcyprus]

there are numerous books about the cyprus history....really numerous... especially from politicians and journalists.
only lately some professors of different academic backrounds (politics , history, sociology) started writing some really scientic papers - where the dont just repeat the same old things, but also do some real analysis with the tools they pocess from their academic speciality.

the question is: what new will this book bring ?
and what kind of approach will it follow ?

New: unbiased, questioning and balanced. Name me one book that you can trust that isn't plugging one side or the other. I'd like to read it.

Approach: journalistic; find the facts, support them through sources and present what happened from both sides of the story so you can make up your own mind.