Lupusdiavoli, you seem to be spot on in your analysis! It is for this reason that the Greek Cypriots cannot claim any rights in Cyprus, simply because they cannot claim to be the indigenous people! They are in fact invadors, occupiers and colonizers! The mainland Turks are perfectly legitimate to have liberated at least the northern part of Cyprus (hopefully they will soon liberate the rest of Cyprus) from the for nearly 4 millenniums illegitimate, brutal and oppressive Greek Cypriot occupation of that part of the island; and to have helped the only real indigenous population of this country, the for 400 years enslaved Turks of Cyprus, to finally achieve their freedom and independence!
After reading your very scientific analysis, I as a GC have at last also become convinced that I was not ethnically cleansed from my ancestral lands in the north of Cyprus, and none of my human rights (what a dirty term) have being violated; but in fact I was legitimately evicted for being an illegal occupier of the Turk’s now liberated homeland!
I'm not sure why my posting seemed to provoke a sarcastic reply from Kifeas, none of the sarcastically or tongue-in-cheek points made by him had any bearing on what I'd posted. None of what I'd argued privileges Turks over Greeks, Turkish Cypriots over Greek Cypriots, or vice versa. I didn't say that Greek Cypriots had occupied part of the island nor that they'd enslaved the Turks of Cyprus. Equally I didn't say anything about ethnic cleansing, still less justify it, and nor did I say anything about Turks liberating a homeland. I don't really see the point of attempting to engage in any kind of dialogue or conversation, any kind of investigation, any attempt to tease out and make sense of an already complex history, if we simply invent and caricature what the other has said. Any fool can set up a straw man just so it is easy to knock down.
Let's put that aside and turn to the issue at hand, namely 'are Turkish Cypriots indigenous to Cyprus ?' My earlier postings were a simply an effort to work out what 'indigenous' might mean and how one could identify an indigenous when one saw one. Generally speaking any turn to Wikipedia is, in my view, not a help to clarity but but an additional confusion which, at best, simply defers the problems that we have to confront. Wikipedia is weak in the way that all attempts at lexical definitions are doomed to failure. As Nietzche argued, 'only that which has no history can be defined.' Cyprus and Cypriots have a history and so are necessarily beyond lexical definition and and settlement. So when people say 'X is the definition and that's the end of it, no more discussion' , they are sooooo mistaken ... that's only the beginning of it !
Just one final tangential point that your response brought to my attention, you churlishly write "that the Greek Cypriots cannot claim any rights in Cyprus", but if you consider the rights enshrined in the 1960 Constitution combined with the rights acquired through membership of the EU and contrast this with the rights that TCs should have enjoyed from the 1960 Constitution but have lost through the actions of Turkey combined with the fact that TCs cannot actually enjoy the rights enjoyed by EU members then at face value, at least, GCs enjoy a greater set of rights than TCs. Yes ?
