Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Are Turkish Cypriots indigenous to Cyprus ? Does it matter, or when and how does it matter ? If the prefix Turkish before Cypriot refers to language and the prefix Greek before Cypriot refers to Hellenic Cyprus then consider this :

If the minimal definition of Hellenic culture is language and religion - Greek and Orthodox - and the numerical majority of Cypriots are part and parcel of hellenic culture, and then one says to that 'you don't have to leave Cyprus if you're Turkish Cypriot, just assimilate as a Cypriot', what real choices do I have if the language of my house is Turkish, and the religion of my home is Muslim ? I can lose Cyprus and being a Cypriot by going, say, to Turkey; or I can lose my language and religion by remaining in Cyprus. Either way I've lost something extremely precious. Remember the humanitarian disaster that was the 1922-23 'population exchange' between Greece and Turkey all in the (confused and contradictory) name of language and religion. All peoples lost.

If on the other hand the speaking and teaching of Turkish was supported across the island (similarly that the teaching and speaking of Greek), if mosque and church were actually open to all (personally I'm an atheist so am not too keen on promoting religious mumbo-jumbo, but I love religious architecture) then the inherent dangers of assimilation could give way to a richer multiculturalism.

Have a listen to Nina Simone's brilliant civil rights song, "Missisippi goddam', [find a version here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LOkNUaLjT4 and a longer one here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckarOiWLLtY ] [/size] it is telling how the Cyprus problem is strikingly reminiscent of the 1860-1960s US civil rights struggle -

"you don't have to live next to me
just give me my equality

CopperLine, the argument here so far wasn’t whether the TCs are indigenous to Cyprus, but, believe it or not, whether the Greek Cypriots are! If you were to ask me, yes, the TCs are also indigenous to Cyprus! However, the argument here derives from the efforts of some Turks (they do not deserve the title of TCs) to convince us that we GCs are not indigenous to Cyprus!

This effort of theirs has a reason and a purpose! It is based on the historical by now propaganda claim of the official Turkish side that there are no Cypriot people and no Cypriot nation, but only two different and separate nations in Cyprus, the Turks and the Greeks, who both (peoples or nations) have an equal separate right to Cyprus, as two separate peoples. This invention of theirs is made so that they can justify the notion that (a.) as a TC community they do not constitute a minority but a separate people and therefore they are entitled to a separate self-determination right, and (b.) so that based on a., they can more easily promote their irredentist pro-partition thesis, by convincing the international community that they are entitled to such a separate self-determination right.

Even when they now talk about a solution of the Cyprus issue on the basis of a bi-zonal and a bi-communal federation, under the umbrella of the UN; in reality what they are aiming is for a virgin birth instant recognition of their status as a separate nation with its own “inherited” (read usurped) territory in the north of Cyprus (read vindication of the 1974 invasion and ethnic cleansing of the GCs from there,) and through this virgin birth instant recognition to enter into a confederation type of agreement with the “counterpart GC nation-state in the south.”

I hope you now understand where it all stems from!

PS: Be careful when you use notions such as “equality” in Cyprus. No one single GC denies one single human, political, cultural, religious, linguistic and democratic right of any one single TC! We believe that every TC should enjoy every one of the all the above rights, just like every single GC will do! However, you have to know that when the Turks use the concept of equality in Cyprus, what they basically mean is that we should more or less accept the grouping of the 82% of Cypriots into one set, and the groping of the remaining 18% of Cypriots into another set, and then “level-out” and “equate” the larger group with the smaller, in a "procrustean bed's" fashion!

[bigOz]

Are Turkish Cypriots indigenous to Cyprus ? Does it matter, or when and how does it matter ? If the prefix Turkish before Cypriot refers to language and the prefix Greek before Cypriot refers to Hellenic Cyprus then consider this :

If the minimal definition of Hellenic culture is language and religion - Greek and Orthodox - and the numerical majority of Cypriots are part and parcel of hellenic culture, and then one says to that 'you don't have to leave Cyprus if you're Turkish Cypriot, just assimilate as a Cypriot', what real choices do I have if the language of my house is Turkish, and the religion of my home is Muslim ? I can lose Cyprus and being a Cypriot by going, say, to Turkey; or I can lose my language and religion by remaining in Cyprus. Either way I've lost something extremely precious. Remember the humanitarian disaster that was the 1922-23 'population exchange' between Greece and Turkey all in the (confused and contradictory) name of language and religion. All peoples lost.

If on the other hand the speaking and teaching of Turkish was supported across the island (similarly that the teaching and speaking of Greek), if mosque and church were actually open to all (personally I'm an atheist so am not too keen on promoting religious mumbo-jumbo, but I love religious architecture) then the inherent dangers of assimilation could give way to a richer multiculturalism.

Have a listen to Nina Simone's brilliant civil rights song, "Missisippi goddam', [find a version here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LOkNUaLjT4 and a longer one here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckarOiWLLtY ] [/size] it is telling how the Cyprus problem is strikingly reminiscent of the 1860-1960s US civil rights struggle -

"you don't have to live next to me
just give me my equality

CopperLine, the argument here so far wasn’t whether the TCs are indigenous to Cyprus, but, believe it or not, whether the Greek Cypriots are! If you were to ask me, yes, the TCs are also indigenous to Cyprus! However, the argument here derives from the efforts of some Turks (they do not deserve the title of TCs) to convince us that we GCs are not indigenous to Cyprus!

This effort of theirs has a reason and a purpose! It is based on the historical by now propaganda claim of the official Turkish side that there are no Cypriot people and no Cypriot nation, but only two different and separate nations in Cyprus, the Turks and the Greeks, who both (peoples or nations) have an equal separate right to Cyprus, as two separate peoples. This invention of theirs is made so that they can justify the notion that (a.) as a TC community they do not constitute a minority but a separate people and therefore they are entitled to a separate self-determination right, and (b.) so that based on a., they can more easily promote their irredentist pro-partition thesis, by convincing the international community that they are entitled to such a separate self-determination right.

Even when they now talk about a solution of the Cyprus issue on the basis of a bi-zonal and a bi-communal federation, under the umbrella of the UN; in reality what they are aiming is for a virgin birth instant recognition of their status as a separate nation with its own “inherited” (read usurped) territory in the north of Cyprus (read vindication of the 1974 invasion and ethnic cleansing of the GCs from there,) and through this virgin birth instant recognition to enter into a confederation type of agreement with the “counterpart GC nation-state in the south.”

I hope you now understand where it all stems from!

PS: Be careful when you use notions such as “equality” in Cyprus. No one single GC denies one single human, political, cultural, religious, linguistic and democratic right of any one single TC! We believe that every TC should enjoy every one of the all the above rights, just like every single GC will do! However, you have to know that when the Turks use the concept of equality in Cyprus, what they basically mean is that we should more or less accept the grouping of the 82% of Cypriots into one set, and the groping of the remaining 18% of Cypriots into another set, and then “level-out” and “equate” the larger group with the smaller, in a "procrustean bed's" fashion!

Copperline! I hope the above reply has given you some insight to what we are dealing with here. The likes of Kifeas are the self-proclaimed Gods who can declare who IS and who IS not a Cypriot when in their hearts Hellenism and a Greek (Cyprus) island is what really lies.

No one tried to convince anyone that "Greek Cypriots" are not indigenous to Cyprus as this compulsive liar claims, but the argument put forward had always been both Greek and Turkish Cypriots are not indigenous to the island. We are dealing with couple of word "hokkabaz" here, but if you go back and see what's been written in my posts on the subject and the replies - you'll see I am absolutely right.

As for the "waffle" (more tear jerking lies) that is supposed to be a devious reply to your post; What you are really being told is "You can have all the human rights you can have if you accept that this is a Greek island and assimilate into being a member of a Greek identity.

When this idiot claims "No one single GC denies one single human, political, cultural, religious, linguistic and democratic right of any one single TC! We believe that every TC should enjoy every one of the all the above rights, just like every single GC will do!" - rest assured he is trying to line you up to fuck you because it is a laughable lie that anyone can see from many GC posts in this forum!

Furthermore when he makes a flawed and laughable claim like "propaganda claim of the official Turkish side that there are no Cypriot people and no Cypriot nation, but only two different and separate nations in Cyprus, the Turks and the Greeks..." - just go and look at what he has been claiming about indigenousness of the Greek Cypriots, its purpose and whether anything he wrote in this thread (or many others) ever actually support Cypriots or Cyprus people as one! As far as I am concerned he is an obsessed Greek Nationalist with traces of EOKA-B fascism in his blood! And he then accuses others of being partitionists.

[Get Real!]

You still have not answered my accusations and questions regarding Greek Cypriot Settlements, and Greek Cypriot culture that existed before the cultures in Greece and Turkey! Until you have an answer to those flawed allegations I have no intentions of taking any of your claims seriously...

We have already talked about all that ages ago when you were not around. Here’s an interesting piece…

Writing a brief history of Cyprus is challenging, if only because there's so much of it. When writing about Cyprus in The Road to Oxiana, Robert Byron said:

History in this island is almost too profuse. It gives one a sort of mental indigestion.
This was written back in 1937, before the shit really hit the fan, so I hope this short history doesn't prove too indigestible, or too brief.

http://www.moxon.net/cyprus/a_brief_his ... yprus.html

With regards to civilizations the earliest discovered in Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus are:

Turkey (Hittite Empire) 1900-1300 BC
Greece (Minoan in Crete) 2700..1450 BC
Greece (Mainland Helladic) 2800..2100 BC.
Cyprus (Choirokoitia) * 3,500 BC

* Added to Unesco's World Heritage List in 1998.

[CopperLine]

CopperLine, the argument here so far wasn’t whether the TCs are indigenous to Cyprus, but, believe it or not, whether the Greek Cypriots are! If you were to ask me, yes, the TCs are also indigenous to Cyprus! However, the argument here derives from the efforts of some Turks (they do not deserve the title of TCs) to convince us that we GCs are not indigenous to Cyprus!

This effort of theirs has a reason and a purpose! It is based on the historical by now propaganda claim of the official Turkish side that there are no Cypriot people and no Cypriot nation, but only two different and separate nations in Cyprus, the Turks and the Greeks, who both (peoples or nations) have an equal separate right to Cyprus, as two separate peoples. This invention of theirs is made so that they can justify the notion that (a.) as a TC community they do not constitute a minority but a separate people and therefore they are entitled to a separate self-determination right, and (b.) so that based on a., they can more easily promote their irredentist pro-partition thesis, by convincing the international community that they are entitled to such a separate self-determination right.

Even when they now talk about a solution of the Cyprus issue on the basis of a bi-zonal and a bi-communal federation, under the umbrella of the UN; in reality what they are aiming is for a virgin birth instant recognition of their status as a separate nation with its own “inherited” (read usurped) territory in the north of Cyprus (read vindication of the 1974 invasion and ethnic cleansing of the GCs from there,) and through this virgin birth instant recognition to enter into a confederation type of agreement with the “counterpart GC nation-state in the south.”

I hope you now understand where it all stems from!

PS: Be careful when you use notions such as “equality” in Cyprus. No one single GC denies one single human, political, cultural, religious, linguistic and democratic right of any one single TC! We believe that every TC should enjoy every one of the all the above rights, just like every single GC will do! However, you have to know that when the Turks use the concept of equality in Cyprus, what they basically mean is that we should more or less accept the grouping of the 82% of Cypriots into one set, and the groping of the remaining 18% of Cypriots into another set, and then “level-out” and “equate” the larger group with the smaller, in a "procrustean bed's" fashion!

Kifeas, although it doesn't address many of my questions and I don't agree with much of your interpretation, it was clear and categorical. I appreciate that, and I do think that I now understand where you think it all stems from. Please remember, I'm relatively new to this forum and I do not know the histories of different posters, although I'm still astonished at the volume of abuse that is thrown around.


Just one question though, if as you say that the origins and source of "propaganda claim [is] of the official Turkish side that there are no Cypriot people and no Cypriot nation, but only two different and separate nations in Cyprus, the Turks and the Greeks, who both (peoples or nations) have an equal separate right to Cyprus, as two separate peoples", then how come the recognition of two communities, with specifically apportioned representation was a central element of the 1960 Constitution ? That was a Constitution that was negotiated by GCs, TCs, Britain, Greece and Turkey, and not just Turkey. I don't understand therefore when you say this is a Turkish idea and Turkish propaganda, please explain.

[Piratis]

then how come the recognition of two communities, with specifically apportioned representation was a central element of the 1960 Constitution ? That was a Constitution that was negotiated by GCs, TCs, Britain, Greece and Turkey, and not just Turkey. I don't understand therefore when you say this is a Turkish idea and Turkish propaganda, please explain.

The 1960 constitution was never negotiated. It was made by the British to serve their own interests, they threatened Greece into accepting it, threating that otherwise they would partition Cyprus, and then they brought GCs and TCs just to sign it. Makarios wanted to negotiate and make changes, but they didn't allow him.
If you want there is a BBC documentary that deals with the events of that time and I can send it to you. Of course it a British documentary so it is still quite one sided, but the events are still described in quite detail.

Basically Britian and Turkey wanted a piece of Cyprus, and they used the TC minority of Cyprus as a way to get what they wanted.

[bigOz]

then how come the recognition of two communities, with specifically apportioned representation was a central element of the 1960 Constitution ? That was a Constitution that was negotiated by GCs, TCs, Britain, Greece and Turkey, and not just Turkey. I don't understand therefore when you say this is a Turkish idea and Turkish propaganda, please explain.

The 1960 constitution was never negotiated. It was made by the British to serve their own interests, they threatened Greece into accepting it, threating that otherwise they would partition Cyprus, and then they brought GCs and TCs just to sign it. Makarios wanted to negotiate and make changes, but they didn't allow him.
If you want there is a BBC documentary that deals with the events of that time and I can send it to you. Of course it a British documentary so it is still quite one sided, but the events are still described in quite detail.

Basically Britian and Turkey wanted a piece of Cyprus, and they used the TC minority of Cyprus as a way to get what they wanted.

Before you drift further into your imaginary world - can you please prove your above claims Piratis?

[CopperLine]

Piratis, Is there a weblink to the documentary you refer to ? If not do you have the title, I'd be able to get hold of a copy next time I'm in UK.

[Piratis]

This is a fact everybody of that time knows. But since you will dispute just anything it doesn't suit you, there is also the BBC documentary that I talked about that talks about the events, from the British viewpoint, but the facts are there.

[Piratis]

Piratis, Is there a weblink to the documentary you refer to ? If not do you have the title, I'd be able to get hold of a copy next time I'm in UK.

wait, I will search for it. I have it saved on some CD i think

[bigOz]

You still have not answered my accusations and questions regarding Greek Cypriot Settlements, and Greek Cypriot culture that existed before the cultures in Greece and Turkey! Until you have an answer to those flawed allegations I have no intentions of taking any of your claims seriously...

We have already talked about all that ages ago when you were not around. Here’s an interesting piece…

Writing a brief history of Cyprus is challenging, if only because there's so much of it. When writing about Cyprus in The Road to Oxiana, Robert Byron said:

History in this island is almost too profuse. It gives one a sort of mental indigestion.
This was written back in 1937, before the shit really hit the fan, so I hope this short history doesn't prove too indigestible, or too brief.

http://www.moxon.net/cyprus/a_brief_his ... yprus.html

With regards to civilizations the earliest discovered in Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus are:

Turkey (Hittite Empire) 1900-1300 BC
Greece (Minoan in Crete) 2700..1450 BC
Greece (Mainland Helladic) 2800..2100 BC.
Cyprus (Choirokoitia) * 3,500 BC

* Added to Unesco's World Heritage List in 1998.

This is exactly what UNESCO World Heritage site says about Choirokoita:
see: http://www.worldheritagesite.org/sites/ ... oitia.html

Choirokoitia (also known as Khirokitia) is one of the most important prehistorical sites in the eastern Mediterranean area. The site is only partly recovered, and archaelogical work is still going on.

Human life in Choirokoitia started around 7000 BC, in the Neolithicum. Where the people came from is not known for sure. It is possible that the neolithic villages on Cyprus were a result of colonization from the Middle East.

What do we know about the people that lived here? The village probably had about 300 inhabitants. They practised agriculture and animal husbandry, and didn't usually live longer than 35 years. One of their most remarkable customs was to bury their dead under the floors of the houses of the living relatives. In this way the dead remained close to the living.

Do you see anything there that says this was a "Greek Cypriot" culture? I believe that was our original disagreement! Please read the bold text above...

As for the civilisations in Turkey (especially Anatolia) you are being evasive and not honest again. Either that or you are totally ignorant of the history! The Neolithan civilisations existed there between 7000-5600 BC that is 2-3500 years before the one in Cyprus. Just for your eyes, I quote:

Villages and towns of this era appear at Siirt, Diyarbaker, and Urfa (southeastern Anatolia); Tarsus and Mersin in the Cicilian Plain; the Amuq Plain; at CATAL HUYUK (southeast of Konya); Hacilar (southwestern Anatolia); and Suberde (southwest of Konya). The 13-ha (32-acre) site at Catal Huyuk (c. 7000-5600 BC) has produced outstanding artifacts revealing it as a metalworking, specialized-craft, and religious center. Individual city-states abound during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze ages (3d to early 2d millennium BC). Between 1940 and 1780 BC, Assyrian merchants from Mesopotamia peacefully established a score of trading colonies in central and eastern Anatolian cities, thereby drawing the region into wider politico-economic focus.

see: http://www.turkishnews.com/DiscoverTurk ... story.html

I am not interested in what you discussed and agreed in the flawed posts that existed prior to my joining CF - but please be rest assured I shall be correcting any misinformation on such subjects without fail!

In the meantime I apologise to the big mistake I made relating to Myceans, I was totally wrong because I always confuse Mionans with Myceans - so my apologies on that subject (Greek history was never my best subject ) However alexISS should note that the the Myceaneans are also often referred to as Myceans by many historians/history books - so I was not wrong there!