The truth to all this is divide and conquer, we all know this but my debate is with those that back this ideology with their own sides propoganda and relevant retort to the situation.
Like piratis says turkey denies us our human rights of return and our properties but he fails to see that the gc administration is doing the exact same thing with the added bonus that the tc that did stay in the south after 1974 have even been stripped of the most basic human right to vote.
Second Turkish-speaking group faces defeat in Greece
28 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by pantelis » Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:07 pm
All I said is that the Moslems of Greece are making waves in order to disrupt the peace atmosphere that has been cultivated between the Turkish and Greek governments.
These groups are not complaining about jobs, poverty, unequal treatment by the Greek government, under-representation in the Greek parliament etc, etc. They make waves to stand out as different that the rest of the citizens of Greece. The do not fight for equality but for division, in order to make their situation and position worse, among the rest of the people of Greece. Why all these? To serve themselves, or some other deeper cause?
The same things happened in Cyprus, by both sides. Division was seeded, cultivated and the fruits brought the disaster we have today.
Killing such seeds or up-rooting such plants early, will prevent another disaster. It takes two, both sides, to watch for these bad seeds. That's all I said.
Some of you take what I say... one-sided.... and that's how the problems begin......
These groups are not complaining about jobs, poverty, unequal treatment by the Greek government, under-representation in the Greek parliament etc, etc. They make waves to stand out as different that the rest of the citizens of Greece. The do not fight for equality but for division, in order to make their situation and position worse, among the rest of the people of Greece. Why all these? To serve themselves, or some other deeper cause?
The same things happened in Cyprus, by both sides. Division was seeded, cultivated and the fruits brought the disaster we have today.
Killing such seeds or up-rooting such plants early, will prevent another disaster. It takes two, both sides, to watch for these bad seeds. That's all I said.
Some of you take what I say... one-sided.... and that's how the problems begin......
- pantelis
- Contributor
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:41 am
- Location: USA
by brother » Wed Feb 02, 2005 3:38 pm
pantelis i did get what you are saying, so do not get me wrong either.
But i do not think that these people want anything as dramatic as you are suggesting but to be more than the label of religon.
How would you like to live in turkey and be refered to as just the christian minority, would you not rather be a greek who lives in turkey or dare i say greek turk or something like that.
Its all about identity, and these people feel there identity is turkish, and for the record i am british born and raised but i still identify myself as a cypriot brit.
But i do not think that these people want anything as dramatic as you are suggesting but to be more than the label of religon.
How would you like to live in turkey and be refered to as just the christian minority, would you not rather be a greek who lives in turkey or dare i say greek turk or something like that.
Its all about identity, and these people feel there identity is turkish, and for the record i am british born and raised but i still identify myself as a cypriot brit.
-
brother - Main Contributor
- Posts: 4711
- Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:30 pm
- Location: Cyprus/U.K
by insan » Wed Feb 02, 2005 4:22 pm
Some of you take what I say... one-sided.... and that's how the problems begin......
As usual Pantelis... some of us take what some others say one-sided. Some of us have never talked about one-sided; some of us have always taken it one-sided. I think you consider yourself one of the unbiased of the forum. And you claim that's how the problem begins...
Amen, brother Pantelis
-
insan - Main Contributor
- Posts: 9044
- Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]
by pantelis » Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:49 pm
Something outside politics, but in my opinion, well related to our discussion. It is about people like us, people who could be our children, brothers, sisters, etc and also be different.
What we call these "different" than us people, characterizes more what we are, than what they are.
What's in a Name?
by Len Leshin, MD, FAAP
Copyright 2003, All rights reserved
The "Mongol" Debate
In 1866, Dr John Langdon Down published his first work on a group of children in his care at the Earlswook Asylum in Surrey, England. It was an intuitive paper for his discovery that there was a subset of people with mental retardation that had a common appearance and characteristics; however, it was also shortsighted as Down characterized the appearance of these people as greatly resembling people of the Mongoloid race. At the time, the popular thinking of the races were that there were five distinct races: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, Malaysian and Native American.(1) In Down's first paper (2), he describes one child as:
"The boy's aspect is such, that is difficult to realize that he is the child of Europeans; but so frequently are these characters presented, that there can be no doubt that these ethnic features are the result of degeneration."
This reflects upon the popular notion of the day among Europeans that the "Caucasian race" was superior to the "Mongoloid race" in intellect. While this racial division disappeared years later, the terms "Mongolism" and "Mongoloid" persisted till the 1970s.
While it is almost impossible to determine when the term "Down's Syndrome" was first used, scientific publications in the 1960s make it very clear that there was a debate in the scientific community about the name at that time. In 1961, a letter was written to the prestigious British scientific journal Lancet by 19 scientists requesting that the term "mongolism" be abandoned in favor of one of the following terms: "Landon-Down's anomaly," "Down's syndrome or anomaly," "congenital acromicria (medicalese for "growth deficiency"), or "trisomy 21 anomaly(3)." The authors of the letter pointed out that "the increasing participation of Chinese and Japanese investigators in the study of the condition imposes on them the use of an embarrassing term."(4) By 1964, Lancet editors had agreed to call the condition "Down's syndrome."
The debate still went on through the decade. In 1966, a group of specialists met in London to commemorate the centennial anniversary of Down's paper; the results of the symposium were published under the title Mongolism.(5) Included in the volume was a transcript of some of the discussions, including one on the name of the condition; I include parts of it here as to give an example of the thinking on this topic at the time:
Cummins: The terms applied to mongolism are inconsistently used: "mongolism", "Down('s) syndrome" (possessive or non-possessive), "Langdon(-)Down('s) syndrome" (hyphenated or non-hyphenated, possessive or non-possessive). Concerning the use of possessive or non-possessive forms in the eponyms of syndromes, one of the standard medical dictionaries lists 140 eponyms for syndromes; of these 67 are in the possessive and 73 in the non-possessive form. Our group might well formulate a statement on terminology. Objections have been raised against the terms "mongolism", "mongol" and "mongoloid" because it is said that they resurrect the idea of racial affinity. I think this is an imagined difficulty. We use many terms containing embalmed errors from the past. The words "aorta" and "artery" never arouse in us thoughts of these vessels as air tubes as it was with the ancients; we just use the words as words. And the same applies to the word mongolism.
Matsunaga: I am not happy with the words mongol, mongolism and mongoloid, although I agree that they are convenient to use. The basic question is this: is it ever justified in medical terminology to misapply a name, especially a geographical one, to a disease when this name becomes inappropriate because of increased understanding of the underlying pathology? I think, also, that most physicians, as an ethical principle, avoid the use of nicknames. If this is true, we must decide on a suitable alternative for mongolism. Down's syndrome or anomaly, like Klinefelter's and Turner's syndromes, are perfectly acceptable terms. I can fully understand the difficulty of changing already well-established names, but the English-speaking peoples have a responsibility to resolve this technical problem.
Forssman: I do not think we should use nicknames, they may be both misleading and derogatory. For example, the word cretin originally described a man who came from Crete, and gargoyle is a terrible nickname when we consider its origin. Attempts to discard the word mongol have been unsuccessful. I use Down's syndrome, but when I do I am often questioned by physicians about this "new" syndrome! This is in spite of the vast quantity of literature published on the subject over the past ten years.
Benda: I am surprised that in the United Kingdom the term mongol rather than mongoloid is used: mongoloid is at least a descriptive expression indicating the mongol-like appearance; it is certainly inappropriate to identify patients with Down's syndrome with a racial group - the Mongols...The term Down's syndrome at least gives the idea that this is a condition which may affect a child to different degrees. We need a new dynamic concept of this syndrome to further our scientific research.
Penrose: I use the term mongol and have taken refuge from the accusation of racial discrimination because the Down's-syndrome type of mongol is not spelt with a capital letter, whereas the racial type of Mongol is. The difficulties start over what to call a particular patient. One needs a clear and short expression. and everybody knows what is meant by a mongol; otherwise one may have to use circumlocution, as Professor Polani noted, and people just will not do this. The Russians have said Down syndrome for fifty or sixty years and even call the patients "Downs"!
Mellman: The term used for this disorder by scientists should not be an eponym or a nickname but should convey information. Expressions such as "trisomy 21" or "translocation-type trisomy 21'' are neither eponymous nor euphemistic.
As you can well guess, no formal statement on terminology came out of this meeting.
However, one of the key events leading to the disappearance of the term "mongolism" occurred in 1965, when Dr. L. S. Penrose, the British geneticist, was awarded a prize by the World Health Organization for his contributions to the understanding of "mongolism." The delegation from the nation of Mongolia, which had become a member of the World Health Organization in 1962, made an informal request to the WHO director that the objectionable terms "mongolism" and "mongol" be dropped. They never again appeared in WHO publications.(6) The same trend continued in scientific journals and textbooks through the rest of the 1960s.
's?
Many medical conditions and diseases have been named after a person; this type of name is called an eponym. There has been a long-standing debate in the scientific community over whether or not to add the possessive form to the names of eponyms. For quite a long time, there was no established rule as to which to use, but general usage decided which form is acceptable. So you saw both possessive and non-possessive names in use.
In 1974, a conference at the US National Institute of Health attempted to make a standard set of rules regarding the naming of diseases and conditions. This report, printed in the journal Lancet, stated: "The possessive form of an eponym should be discontinued, since the author neither had nor owned the disorder."(7) Since that time, the name has traditionally been called "Down syndrome" in North America (note that "syndrome" isn't capitalized). However, the change has taken longer to occur in Great Britain and other parts of Europe, for reasons that aren't quite clear to me.
What we call these "different" than us people, characterizes more what we are, than what they are.
What's in a Name?
by Len Leshin, MD, FAAP
Copyright 2003, All rights reserved
The "Mongol" Debate
In 1866, Dr John Langdon Down published his first work on a group of children in his care at the Earlswook Asylum in Surrey, England. It was an intuitive paper for his discovery that there was a subset of people with mental retardation that had a common appearance and characteristics; however, it was also shortsighted as Down characterized the appearance of these people as greatly resembling people of the Mongoloid race. At the time, the popular thinking of the races were that there were five distinct races: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, Malaysian and Native American.(1) In Down's first paper (2), he describes one child as:
"The boy's aspect is such, that is difficult to realize that he is the child of Europeans; but so frequently are these characters presented, that there can be no doubt that these ethnic features are the result of degeneration."
This reflects upon the popular notion of the day among Europeans that the "Caucasian race" was superior to the "Mongoloid race" in intellect. While this racial division disappeared years later, the terms "Mongolism" and "Mongoloid" persisted till the 1970s.
While it is almost impossible to determine when the term "Down's Syndrome" was first used, scientific publications in the 1960s make it very clear that there was a debate in the scientific community about the name at that time. In 1961, a letter was written to the prestigious British scientific journal Lancet by 19 scientists requesting that the term "mongolism" be abandoned in favor of one of the following terms: "Landon-Down's anomaly," "Down's syndrome or anomaly," "congenital acromicria (medicalese for "growth deficiency"), or "trisomy 21 anomaly(3)." The authors of the letter pointed out that "the increasing participation of Chinese and Japanese investigators in the study of the condition imposes on them the use of an embarrassing term."(4) By 1964, Lancet editors had agreed to call the condition "Down's syndrome."
The debate still went on through the decade. In 1966, a group of specialists met in London to commemorate the centennial anniversary of Down's paper; the results of the symposium were published under the title Mongolism.(5) Included in the volume was a transcript of some of the discussions, including one on the name of the condition; I include parts of it here as to give an example of the thinking on this topic at the time:
Cummins: The terms applied to mongolism are inconsistently used: "mongolism", "Down('s) syndrome" (possessive or non-possessive), "Langdon(-)Down('s) syndrome" (hyphenated or non-hyphenated, possessive or non-possessive). Concerning the use of possessive or non-possessive forms in the eponyms of syndromes, one of the standard medical dictionaries lists 140 eponyms for syndromes; of these 67 are in the possessive and 73 in the non-possessive form. Our group might well formulate a statement on terminology. Objections have been raised against the terms "mongolism", "mongol" and "mongoloid" because it is said that they resurrect the idea of racial affinity. I think this is an imagined difficulty. We use many terms containing embalmed errors from the past. The words "aorta" and "artery" never arouse in us thoughts of these vessels as air tubes as it was with the ancients; we just use the words as words. And the same applies to the word mongolism.
Matsunaga: I am not happy with the words mongol, mongolism and mongoloid, although I agree that they are convenient to use. The basic question is this: is it ever justified in medical terminology to misapply a name, especially a geographical one, to a disease when this name becomes inappropriate because of increased understanding of the underlying pathology? I think, also, that most physicians, as an ethical principle, avoid the use of nicknames. If this is true, we must decide on a suitable alternative for mongolism. Down's syndrome or anomaly, like Klinefelter's and Turner's syndromes, are perfectly acceptable terms. I can fully understand the difficulty of changing already well-established names, but the English-speaking peoples have a responsibility to resolve this technical problem.
Forssman: I do not think we should use nicknames, they may be both misleading and derogatory. For example, the word cretin originally described a man who came from Crete, and gargoyle is a terrible nickname when we consider its origin. Attempts to discard the word mongol have been unsuccessful. I use Down's syndrome, but when I do I am often questioned by physicians about this "new" syndrome! This is in spite of the vast quantity of literature published on the subject over the past ten years.
Benda: I am surprised that in the United Kingdom the term mongol rather than mongoloid is used: mongoloid is at least a descriptive expression indicating the mongol-like appearance; it is certainly inappropriate to identify patients with Down's syndrome with a racial group - the Mongols...The term Down's syndrome at least gives the idea that this is a condition which may affect a child to different degrees. We need a new dynamic concept of this syndrome to further our scientific research.
Penrose: I use the term mongol and have taken refuge from the accusation of racial discrimination because the Down's-syndrome type of mongol is not spelt with a capital letter, whereas the racial type of Mongol is. The difficulties start over what to call a particular patient. One needs a clear and short expression. and everybody knows what is meant by a mongol; otherwise one may have to use circumlocution, as Professor Polani noted, and people just will not do this. The Russians have said Down syndrome for fifty or sixty years and even call the patients "Downs"!
Mellman: The term used for this disorder by scientists should not be an eponym or a nickname but should convey information. Expressions such as "trisomy 21" or "translocation-type trisomy 21'' are neither eponymous nor euphemistic.
As you can well guess, no formal statement on terminology came out of this meeting.
However, one of the key events leading to the disappearance of the term "mongolism" occurred in 1965, when Dr. L. S. Penrose, the British geneticist, was awarded a prize by the World Health Organization for his contributions to the understanding of "mongolism." The delegation from the nation of Mongolia, which had become a member of the World Health Organization in 1962, made an informal request to the WHO director that the objectionable terms "mongolism" and "mongol" be dropped. They never again appeared in WHO publications.(6) The same trend continued in scientific journals and textbooks through the rest of the 1960s.
's?
Many medical conditions and diseases have been named after a person; this type of name is called an eponym. There has been a long-standing debate in the scientific community over whether or not to add the possessive form to the names of eponyms. For quite a long time, there was no established rule as to which to use, but general usage decided which form is acceptable. So you saw both possessive and non-possessive names in use.
In 1974, a conference at the US National Institute of Health attempted to make a standard set of rules regarding the naming of diseases and conditions. This report, printed in the journal Lancet, stated: "The possessive form of an eponym should be discontinued, since the author neither had nor owned the disorder."(7) Since that time, the name has traditionally been called "Down syndrome" in North America (note that "syndrome" isn't capitalized). However, the change has taken longer to occur in Great Britain and other parts of Europe, for reasons that aren't quite clear to me.
- pantelis
- Contributor
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:41 am
- Location: USA
by pantelis » Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:50 am
A State of Citizens, not Kins
Turkish Land Forces Commander Gen.Yasar Buyukanit stated during his meeting with the president of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), Rauf Denktas, on January 24 that: "Without a definite and permanent agreement, not even a single soldier will go from here."
The next day Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Ilker Basbug made various political assessments on Turkish foreign policy at a press conference broadcast live on TV. Turkish society is, unfortunately, accustomed to military authorities making statements on issues, which normally in a democratic regime, are in the responsibility area political authorities. That is why almost nobody thought there was anything odd about these statements. It looks like it will take quite some time for amendments made in the Constitution and in the laws to be reflected in practice and for relations between military - civilian authorities will be based on democratic principles.
It was not clear whether or not Gen. Buyukanit's remarks concerning "not a single soldier" leaving Cyprus without a definite and permanent agreement reflected the Turkish government's view. The Foreign Ministry's spokesperson avoided questions posed by the press on this issue. Statements made consecutively by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul indicated; however, to full agreement between the government and military authorities over their assessment of recent developments in Iraq. Ankara seems to be concerned primarily over these two issues: 1) Settlement of about 350 thousand Kurds in Kirkuk following the U. S. occupation in place of the 100 to 120 thousand Kurds exiled from there as a result of the Arabization policies of Saddam Hussein implemented between 1991 and 2000 poses the threat of triggering civil war. 2) Changing of the special status of Kirkuk and including the city in the Kurdish region may pave the way for Iraq's disintegration, and the establishment of an independent Kurdish state.
Ankara has every right to be concerned about Iraq being dragged into a civil war and disintegration. A civil war, similar to the one that occurred in former Yugoslavia may indeed have grave consequences for the region and its peoples. Ankara's continuous warnings to occupying forces in Iraq, and especially to the United States, which has assumed responsibility for this country, is certainly most appropriate and justified. Forming of a government, in which all the ethnic and religious groups in Iraq will be fairly represented, common ownership of the country's resources by all Iraqis, and an end to the occupation within a specified timetable, are the main conditions of ensuring stability in Iraq, and hence, in the region as a whole. The main goal of Turkey's Iraq policy should certainly be helping to achieve those conditions as soon as possible.
It should be remembered, however, that there are limits to what Turkey can do in this respect. Speculations about a possible Turkish military intervention in Iraq to prevent Iraq's disintegration (and in the process, the emergence of an independent Kurdish state) are product of wild imagination. Basically for the following reasons: The duty of the Turkish armed forces is to protect the country's borders. There are no international agreements or rules of law that authorize Turkey to intervene militarily in Iraq. Such an intervention would leave Turkey not only confronted with the United States, but also with the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN), and would have grave consequences for the country. Most importantly, such an intervention would not only deepen the current chaos in Iraq, it would lead to the domestic internal conflict in Iraq to spread into Turkey. The Turkish Parliament's decision of March 1, 2003, which prevented Turkey from getting involved in Iraq, is of vital importance especially from this perspective.
Statements that we have responsibility towards our "kin" in Iraq by Gen. Basbug, and towards our "relatives" by Mr. Gul, referring to the Turkmens of Iraq, are extremely unfortunate. Not only Turkmens, but also the Kurds, Arabs and others living in Iraq are also our kins and relatives. The Turkish Republic is based not on kinship, but citizenship.
February 3, 2005
05.02.2005
SAHIN ALPAY
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=columnists&alt=&hn=16269
- pantelis
- Contributor
- Posts: 391
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:41 am
- Location: USA
28 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
