Cyprus-Forum.com

[alexISS]

(1) The GCs have mixed with no one and remained as they were- with minor exceptions. (2) The Turks took the island from the Venetian, where the Greek inhabitants were heavily oppressed. Both events occured at different tmes within a different historical context, nevertheless the common denominator is that both Greeks and the Turks have arrived afterwards as settlers.

Again, it's WHAT they settled that makes the Greek and Turkish settlement of Cyprus different. If the GCs mixed with noone it's because either (1) there was noone there to mix with or (2) the Greek culture was so more influencial that it was fully adopted by the few locals

[Murataga]

(1) The GCs have mixed with no one and remained as they were- with minor exceptions. (2) The Turks took the island from the Venetian, where the Greek inhabitants were heavily oppressed. Both events occured at different tmes within a different historical context, nevertheless the common denominator is that both Greeks and the Turks have arrived afterwards as settlers.

Again, it's WHAT they settled that makes the Greek and Turkish settlement of Cyprus different. If the GCs mixed with noone it's because either (1) there was noone there to mix with or (2) the Greek culture was so more influencial that it was fully adopted by the few locals

It is not a matter of "ifs" and "buts". Other people WERE here when the Greeks arrived; this is a well-documented and established fact. Whose culture was more infleuntial at what time and to what extent is open for debate. The bottom line is that the GCs are settlers just like we are, period.

[alexISS]

(1) The GCs have mixed with no one and remained as they were- with minor exceptions. (2) The Turks took the island from the Venetian, where the Greek inhabitants were heavily oppressed. Both events occured at different tmes within a different historical context, nevertheless the common denominator is that both Greeks and the Turks have arrived afterwards as settlers.

Again, it's WHAT they settled that makes the Greek and Turkish settlement of Cyprus different. If the GCs mixed with noone it's because either (1) there was noone there to mix with or (2) the Greek culture was so more influencial that it was fully adopted by the few locals

It is not a matter of "ifs" and "buts". Other people WERE here when the Greeks arrived; this is a well-documented and established fact. Whose culture was more infleuntial at what time and to what extent is open for debate. The bottom line is that the GCs are settlers just like we are, period.

Settlers -yes. Invaders -no. Period.

[bigOz]

BigOZ,

In this forum I stated my thought that whatever the number of settlers is, it has already reached its maximum limit. Because there are no empty/free properties to get anymore. What do you think about that?

Other Tcs feel free to reply.

I am afraid that would be a wrong approach P because:

- There is a lot of empty land in TRNC to build on, if room for settlers is intended. Not a problem if a population shift policy was to be followed.

- Not all Turkish people are construction workers or cheap labourers. There are many wealthy Turks who can probably afford to buy half the land for sale in Cyprus and build villas or Hotels on them. Every year for the past 20 years new hotels and villas enough to fill the whole of Cyprus is being built on along the Aegean coast of Turkey by wealthy land developers. It was another GC who quoted a month ago or so that a Turkish guy had just purchased a whole street in the South!

- No one in their right mind would be uprooted from where they live to go and live in a foreign country (especially where work opportunity would be very limited) just because their family will be offered a house to live in if they did.

You must realise that having a roof over your head is far from having a secure economic future or being able to look after your family.

[Murataga]

(1) The GCs have mixed with no one and remained as they were- with minor exceptions. (2) The Turks took the island from the Venetian, where the Greek inhabitants were heavily oppressed. Both events occured at different tmes within a different historical context, nevertheless the common denominator is that both Greeks and the Turks have arrived afterwards as settlers.

Again, it's WHAT they settled that makes the Greek and Turkish settlement of Cyprus different. If the GCs mixed with noone it's because either (1) there was noone there to mix with or (2) the Greek culture was so more influencial that it was fully adopted by the few locals

It is not a matter of "ifs" and "buts". Other people WERE here when the Greeks arrived; this is a well-documented and established fact. Whose culture was more infleuntial at what time and to what extent is open for debate. The bottom line is that the GCs are settlers just like we are, period.

Settlers -yes. Invaders -no. Period.

Can you proove that no conflict occured between the existing inhabitants of the island and the Myceneans? Additionally, if you want to look at it from that point of view: Ottomans invaded and fought the Venetians. After that they settled in Cyprus.

[Pyrpolizer]

...

[Get Real!]

(1) The GCs have mixed with no one and remained as they were- with minor exceptions. (2) The Turks took the island from the Venetian, where the Greek inhabitants were heavily oppressed. Both events occured at different tmes within a different historical context, nevertheless the common denominator is that both Greeks and the Turks have arrived afterwards as settlers.

Again, it's WHAT they settled that makes the Greek and Turkish settlement of Cyprus different. If the GCs mixed with noone it's because either (1) there was noone there to mix with or (2) the Greek culture was so more influencial that it was fully adopted by the few locals

It is not a matter of "ifs" and "buts". Other people WERE here when the Greeks arrived; this is a well-documented and established fact. Whose culture was more infleuntial at what time and to what extent is open for debate. The bottom line is that the GCs are settlers just like we are, period.

The bottom line is that you're as thick as a brick because you are too LAZY to research anything so you just post your WISH LIST! Isn't that right Murataga?

[Get Real!]

(1) The GCs have mixed with no one and remained as they were- with minor exceptions. (2) The Turks took the island from the Venetian, where the Greek inhabitants were heavily oppressed. Both events occured at different tmes within a different historical context, nevertheless the common denominator is that both Greeks and the Turks have arrived afterwards as settlers.

Again, it's WHAT they settled that makes the Greek and Turkish settlement of Cyprus different. If the GCs mixed with noone it's because either (1) there was noone there to mix with or (2) the Greek culture was so more influencial that it was fully adopted by the few locals

It is not a matter of "ifs" and "buts". Other people WERE here when the Greeks arrived; this is a well-documented and established fact. Whose culture was more infleuntial at what time and to what extent is open for debate. The bottom line is that the GCs are settlers just like we are, period.

Settlers -yes. Invaders -no. Period.

Can you proove that no conflict occured between the existing inhabitants of the island and the Myceneans? Additionally, if you want to look at it from that point of view: Ottomans invaded and fought the Venetians. After that they settled in Cyprus.

I think it will be more interesting if you can prove that you have the intellect of an adult because when it comes to history for something to be accepted as fact there has to be preserved traces of evidence and/or recorded accounts of events on wood, stone, and other ancient media. There is no evidence of any Cypriot Vs Mycenaean conflict so quit farting.

The Mycenaean influence in Cyprus is testimony of the RIGHT way to influence people and spread one's culture whereas the Ottoman way is testimony of the WRONG way to go about it because it obviously failed miserably on Cyprus.

[Piratis]

The Mycenaean influence in Cyprus is testimony of the RIGHT way to influence people and spread one's culture whereas the Ottoman way is testimony of the WRONG way to go about it because it obviously failed miserably on Cyprus.

Murataga simply can not understand the difference between a great civilization and a big empire.

The great Greek civilization founded new cities on uninhabited land, and greatly developed the sciences and the arts. Other peoples simply adopted what the Greek civilization created, not because they were forced, but simply because it was good for them.

On the other hand the Turks were nomadic hordes of warriors who simply invaded and stole what others had created. They made a big empire by brute force, but thats about it.

Cyprus has benefited from the Greek civilization (just like the whole western world) while it suffered under the Ottoman oppression.

[alexISS]

Can you proove that no conflict occured between the existing inhabitants of the island and the Myceneans? Additionally, if you want to look at it from that point of view: Ottomans invaded and fought the Venetians. After that they settled in Cyprus.

Yes, they "settled" IN Cyprus but they did not SETTLE Cyprus, Cyprus was not virtually uninhabited when the Turks arrived, as was the case with the Greeks. That's the difference between settlers and invaders. The fact that Cyprus was under Venetian rule makes no difference, it was the Cypriot people that Turks were oppressing, not the Venetians