Kifeas wrote:Dear TurkCyp,
Unfortunately I will not comment on all of your last posting because I find it to be outside both the letter and the spirit of what I tried to show in my relevant postings. Instead, I would kindly ask you to peek up any one of my postings and quote piece by piece the issues that you wish to comment on. In this way I will be able to counter comment your comments on my comments. I think this is the fairest way out.
I have my biggest failure, if you wanna call it, as to write long end tedious posts. And when I was writing that post, there was no other post by you in this topic. And that post was written in response to your posts that starts as “mikkie and others…” and continue to stay that you should stop being annoyed with TCs because we are brainwashed with Kemalist ideology. And made comments like we being in complete denial in our ancestry” (posted on Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:01 am)
I usually try to refrain from taking parts out of somebody’s post and reply each part separately because I believe that by doing that we can loose the big meaning in the post. That is why you have not seen me doing that for your post as well. I like to debate about the ideas not specific sentences or paragraphs. Sometimes I do that with big concern and I try to partition the posts very careful so that each partition has its own idea.
Your posts however was not easily partitioned because it was all about Kemalism, and bashing the nationalistic tendencies in Kemalism, and how we TCs are brought up with that ideology (politely implying that we are brainwashed with it) etc. etc. There were only half of first paragraph referring nation and ethnicity. That is why I have chosen to give you one big long post.
Now about Kemalism
Kifeas wrote:On Kemalism.
Although Kemalism is a political ideology and Christianity is a relegion and therefore there is little relation between the two, you are free to comment or even attack Christianity, provided you use examples that carry some controversy or justify your claims. In my posting, I did attack Kemalism but with specific examples in order to justify my claims. You also admit that there are negative issues in it.
I never made any such generalizations that a.) Everything about Kemalism is wrong. b.) Anyone who claims to accept or believe in Kemalism is bad.
However, since you admit yourself that Kemalism is interpreted and practiced in many different ways, do you accept that it is a gross mistake for it to have been quoted in the TCCS constitution? If yes, please say it!
Do you recognize that these slogans that children are called upon saying in schools and also painted on mountains and other places, are rightfully a cause of misunderstandings on the aims of Kemalism as an ideology? If yes, please say it!
If you realize in my post I have already mentioned that Kemalism is not a religion but Christianity (or any other religion or school of thought which is not religion for that matter) can be compared to it because they all contain set of ideas, that are accepted as dogma by some parts of its followers. That is the similarity I was referring between Kemalism and Christianity. (That is why sometimes they call Kemalism official religion of Republic of Turkey) So my comparing between Kemalism and Christianity if you look from that aspect of the subject still well stands.
IF you want I can also attack the specific portions of Christianity (or any religion for that matter) that is accepted as dogma and never interpreted in current climate (like stem cell research, abortion etc. etc.) but if you realize that is what exactly I was trying to stay away from. Unfortunately you are asking me to do just that. I was trying to emphasize the fact that I do not make generalization about Christinatity (by looking to those cases) so neither should you about Kemalism.
You can criticize Kemalism if you want by attacking certain portions of it. I do that all the time. But that is not what you were doing. What you were doing was taking sentences and portion from antiquated parts of Kemalist ideology and instead of simply criticizing them, saying that this is what Kemalism is all about and therefore anybody who supports it is brainwashed, without even mentioning the possibility that some people may interprets Kemalism differently, drop some parts of it in order to make it fit to todays circumstances. You were simply making generalizations.
I know you will come and tell me right now, show me a part of my post which I specifically did that and accuse you like that. I can’t. But that is exactly why I respond to the whole post. Because even though you do not write specifically, and openly if you read the whole post its main idea is that. “Kemalism is bad, so TCs are educated and brainswshed in it, so forgive their mistakes” kind of general opinion. Full of generalizations. That is why I have said I respond to the whole post as one big idea instead of looking into all sentences and paragraphs.
Now about nation,
Kifeas wrote:On the definition of what is a nation.
You have only chosen to comment on the second definition that I posted, although I specifically mentioned that this is the traditional and outdated definition. My intention was to concentrate on the first definition, which is the one that is generally accepted nowadays, when someone refers to this term. What are your comments on the first (contemporary) definition, which by the way was given as an answer to MeteCyp’s previous comments on my posting. Do you agree on that?
Lastly, my intention here is not to cause anger to anyone, or insult anyone’s believes or ideology. My intention is to bring up issues, in a critical spirit, that are of some significance and concern to both communities, but more importantly to the Greek Cypriot community.
As I have said when I first wrote my post your definitions were not simply there. But now that you have asked I can comment on your definition of nationality.
There is not one definition of nationality or nation. As you have said even you have put down two definitions one you agree with and one you do not. And the one you have agreed with are labeled as modern and one which is not is labeled as outdated.
The fact is none of them is modern or outdated. The fact in some cases the second definition suits better than the first definition and in other the first definition suits more than the first one.
Your first definition almost equates nationality with citizenship. Which I totally agree. If you define nationality that way then I am a part of Cyprus nation, simply because I am a Cypriot citizen. This also makes all the British citizens of Cyprus also Cyprus national. And there is nothing wrong with that. But it fail to capture the nuances that makes all those individuals different.
And one more thing, I guess I have not made myself clear when I have said there is no such thing is Cyprus nation. I thought it was obvious that I was talking about Cypriots (humans, individuals) not the state itself. If you realize in my sentence I have said “there is not a nation called Cypriots”. I was simply referring to individuals that make the nation of Cyprus. Of course the nation of Cyprus do exist, but its citizens are coming from very distinct backgrounds and if you lump all them together and call them Cypriots then you loose the differences in those individuals ethnic background. I was merely trying to state the fact that there is not one Cypriot nationality but rather two or may be even more. GCs are Cypriot nationals, TCs are Cypriot nationals, Maronites are Cypriot nationals, but there is not one big Cyprus nationality that can describe them at once. If you try to do that you are simply describing Cyprus citizenship not Cyprus nationality.
I guess I should have made myself clear by saying that there is not ONE Cypriot nationality, instead of saying there is not a Cypriot nationality. I realize how it makes the difference right now, but that is what was intended to say. There is not A Cyprus nationality there are more than A Cyprus nationality. But on the other hand there is one Cypriot citizenship the way you have defined it in the first description.
That is why I think your definition is better described with citizenship not nationality. Every citizen of a country is also the national of that country but the opposite is not true. Not every national of a country is also a citizen of that country. There are plenty of GCs and TCs that are born outside Cyprus and still consider themselves Cypriot but do not have Cypriot citizenship. Now are these people a part of Cyprus nation. According to your definition it is not, because your definition equates nationality with citizenship.
