Cyprus-Forum.com

[Andros]

Zan:

What will the GCs lose by letting us have our partnership in Cyprus.

Sorry Zan, but Power-Sharing, to the level that you Turkish Cypriots want - in the form of two-constituent states according to your Turkish Cypriot leader - is unfortunately a no-go.

Why?
Because of two very simple reasons. Firstly, you want the Republic of Cyprus dissolved and replaced with a United ROC - Never in a million years. Secondly, you want to have Equal "VOTING" rights as the clear Greek Cypriot majority - which I must add out numbers the Turkish Cypriots by more numbers than, let's say the ethnic minorities in the UK compared to the English.

Your so-called equal right demands are actually a smoke screen for reducing the democratic significance of our majority population against your minority population - clearly a situation that has never been demonstrated in any other country around the world.

Thus, I am not saying that Partition will be better, but given the democratic and ethical facts here, I would prefer the ROC being left with us GCs and you, TCs, handing over a large area of land and living with your country buddies - Turkey.

You demands are just not going to happen - even if President Christofias the Socialist. I predict a serious breakdown in UN talks and then a Give and Take scenarios leading to Partition - The Republic of Cyprus with more land and compensation, while the TCs will a lot less than what they believe to have today. In my opinion - that would be a better compromise that us giving up on the ROC and signing a disgraceful Annan Plan.

Kind regards,
Andros.

[Expatkiwi]

Man, reading this thread makes me wonder just what the point is in debating this issue! GC's are saying to the TC's: 'Don't let what some people said 40 years ago still govern your way of thinking'. The trouble with that is that intercommunal conflicts are still here in the good old twenty-first century and people's attitudes can take a LONG time to change. People just don't forget what they see as an injustice, and its unreasonable for Turkish Cypriots to forget the Intercommunal struggles of 1963-65 and the attempted coup d'etat of 1974 as 'things that could never happen again' (just as GC's would not be expected to forget injustices committed against their community). It could very well happen again, and if the island ever did reunify purely on GC terms, there are going to be a number of GC's who would be interested in inflicting 'payback'... Its because of this threat that I support partition. The example of Yugoslavia only reinforces this view. Still, if Christofas and Talat can work something out, maybe there could be hope for reconciliation. I'm not hopeful, and both sides would have to stomach things they would not like to concede. A rather large hurdle - if not insurmountable...

[Get Real!]

Man, reading this thread makes me wonder just what the point is in debating this issue! GC's are saying to the TC's: 'Don't let what some people said 40 years ago still govern your way of thinking'. The trouble with that is that intercommunal conflicts are still here in the good old twenty-first century and people's attitudes can take a LONG time to change. People just don't forget what they see as an injustice, and its unreasonable for Turkish Cypriots to forget the Intercommunal struggles of 1963-65 and the attempted coup d'etat of 1974 as 'things that could never happen again' (just as GC's would not be expected to forget injustices committed against their community). It could very well happen again, and if the island ever did reunify purely on GC terms, there are going to be a number of GC's who would be interested in inflicting 'payback'... Its because of this threat that I support partition. The example of Yugoslavia only reinforces this view. Still, if Christofas and Talat can work something out, maybe there could be hope for reconciliation. I'm not hopeful, and both sides would have to stomach things they would not like to concede. A rather large hurdle - if not insurmountable...

I would support partition if the Turkish Cypriots were indigenous to the island but they are NOT... in fact they came here uninvited and with the worst intentions (mass murders & destruction of historical proportions) that any uninvited foreigner could ever have!

As far as I’m concerned they have no segregation rights or entitlements over Cypriot territory whatsoever except for the land they have worked and paid for, in which case they can build a fence around it.

[utu]

Sorry Zan, but Power-Sharing, to the level that you Turkish Cypriots want - in the form of two-constituent states according to your Turkish Cypriot leader - is unfortunately a no-go.

Why?
Because of two very simple reasons. Firstly, you want the Republic of Cyprus dissolved and replaced with a United ROC - Never in a million years. Secondly, you want to have Equal "VOTING" rights as the clear Greek Cypriot majority - which I must add out numbers the Turkish Cypriots by more numbers than, let's say the ethnic minorities in the UK compared to the English.

Your so-called equal right demands are actually a smoke screen for reducing the democratic significance of our majority population against your minority population - clearly a situation that has never been demonstrated in any other country around the world.

Thus, I am not saying that Partition will be better, but given the democratic and ethical facts here, I would prefer the ROC being left with us GCs and you, TCs, handing over a large area of land and living with your country buddies - Turkey.

You demands are just not going to happen - even if President Christofias the Socialist. I predict a serious breakdown in UN talks and then a Give and Take scenarios leading to Partition - The Republic of Cyprus with more land and compensation, while the TCs will a lot less than what they believe to have today. In my opinion - that would be a better compromise that us giving up on the ROC and signing a disgraceful Annan Plan.

Kind regards,
Andros.

Andros, you think that there will be partition - albeit with more land for the south than is currently the case? Sounds like you're signalling defeat.

Man, reading this thread makes me wonder just what the point is in debating this issue! GC's are saying to the TC's: 'Don't let what some people said 40 years ago still govern your way of thinking'. The trouble with that is that intercommunal conflicts are still here in the good old twenty-first century and people's attitudes can take a LONG time to change. People just don't forget what they see as an injustice, and its unreasonable for Turkish Cypriots to forget the Intercommunal struggles of 1963-65 and the attempted coup d'etat of 1974 as 'things that could never happen again' (just as GC's would not be expected to forget injustices committed against their community). It could very well happen again, and if the island ever did reunify purely on GC terms, there are going to be a number of GC's who would be interested in inflicting 'payback'... Its because of this threat that I support partition. The example of Yugoslavia only reinforces this view. Still, if Christofas and Talat can work something out, maybe there could be hope for reconciliation. I'm not hopeful, and both sides would have to stomach things they would not like to concede. A rather large hurdle - if not insurmountable...

You're certainly right in that both sides suffered from zealots in each other's camps, Expatkiwi. And it is true that people have long memories. The problem that I see is that if TRNC is recognized, eventually it will go the same way as Hatay and be absorbed into the Turkish Republic. And if that happens, what will happen to the south. It would provide a positive boost for reviving the enosis ideal. No. In order for Cyprus to maintain an independent existance, then there will have to be reconciliation between the communities. Given the historical emnities, plus its geographical location, it is going to be hard - as you pointed out, but don't give up hope.

[utu]

I would support partition if the Turkish Cypriots were indigenous to the island but they are NOT... in fact they came here uninvited and with the worst intentions (mass murders & destruction of historical proportions) that any uninvited foreigner could ever have!

As far as I’m concerned they have no segregation rights or entitlements over Cypriot territory whatsoever except for the land they have worked and paid for, in which case they can build a fence around it.

Is there any such thing as 'indigenous Cypriots'? While you point out that Turkish Cypriots come from Turkey, it also means that Greek Cypriots came from Greece, and this goes for the Armenian and Marionite communities as well. You may need to choose your words a little more carefully.

[Get Real!]

I would support partition if the Turkish Cypriots were indigenous to the island but they are NOT... in fact they came here uninvited and with the worst intentions (mass murders & destruction of historical proportions) that any uninvited foreigner could ever have!

As far as I’m concerned they have no segregation rights or entitlements over Cypriot territory whatsoever except for the land they have worked and paid for, in which case they can build a fence around it.

Is there any such thing as 'indigenous Cypriots'? While you point out that Turkish Cypriots come from Turkey, it also means that Greek Cypriots came from Greece, and this goes for the Armenian and Marionite communities as well. You may need to choose your words a little more carefully.

To answer your question I'll direct you to the appropriate thread as I don't like to repeat myself...

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=12399

[utu]

From what I have read, you regard the term 'indigenous' by means of a time scale. If that 10,000 year mark is correct, it still does not make you indigenous (as per the proper definition of the word). All you could claim is 'prior settlement'. And there could well be other peoples who came to that island earlier. As I suggested earlier: choose your words carefully.

[Get Real!]

From what I have read, you regard the term 'indigenous' by means of a time scale. If that 10,000 year mark is correct, it still does not make you indigenous (as per the proper definition of the word). All you could claim is 'prior settlement'. And there could well be other peoples who came to that island earlier. As I suggested earlier: choose your words carefully.

The answers to all your questions are in that 28-page thread including this response...

Murataga, it appears that you do not understand the meaning of the word “indigenous”.

When Australia talks of her indigenous population she is referring to the Aboriginals. When the US talks of their indigenous population they are referring to the American Indians.

The white American is NOT indigenous to the US and neither is the white Australian. By the same token the Turkish Cypriot is a descendant of the Ottomans who again ARE NOT indigenous to Cyprus but Anatolia.

These are basic fundamentals of indigenousness agreed worldwide so please stop wasting everyone’s time with your unfounded theories. The wikipedia states…

“…any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection”

…to describe who is indigenous and nothing could be clearer.

Let's repeat that in case you still don't understand...

"they have the earliest historical connection"

The Greek Cypriots have the earliest historical connection to Cyprus so they are the UNDISPUTED INDIGINOUS PEOPLE OF CYPRUS!

And all you can do Murataga is pour yourself a glass of vinegar and drink it!

CASE CLOSED!

[utu]

From what I have read, you regard the term 'indigenous' by means of a time scale. If that 10,000 year mark is correct, it still does not make you indigenous (as per the proper definition of the word). All you could claim is 'prior settlement'. And there could well be other peoples who came to that island earlier. As I suggested earlier: choose your words carefully.

The answers to all your questions are in that 28-page thread including this response...

Murataga, it appears that you do not understand the meaning of the word “indigenous”.

When Australia talks of her indigenous population she is referring to the Aboriginals. When the US talks of their indigenous population they are referring to the American Indians.

The white American is NOT indigenous to the US and neither is the white Australian. By the same token the Turkish Cypriot is a descendant of the Ottomans who again ARE NOT indigenous to Cyprus but Anatolia.

These are basic fundamentals of indigenousness agreed worldwide so please stop wasting everyone’s time with your unfounded theories. The wikipedia states…

“…any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection”

…to describe who is indigenous and nothing could be clearer.

Let's repeat that in case you still don't understand...

"they have the earliest historical connection"

The Greek Cypriots have the earliest historical connection to Cyprus so they are the UNDISPUTED INDIGINOUS PEOPLE OF CYPRUS!

And all you can do Murataga is pour yourself a glass of vinegar and drink it!

CASE CLOSED!

Not from my university studies. In the pure meaning of the word, 'Indigenous' means 'coming from that same location'. In that context, Africa is the indigenous home of humanity. Expatkiwi's home of New Zealand is a good case in point. The Maori were there before the Europeans, but the Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand as they migrated from other Pacific Islands. As I said, earlier, if ancient Greeks were indeed the undisputed first inhabitants of Cyprus - and there is probably a great deal of debate as to that, given the fact that Cyprus is closer to Syria, Israel and Turkey (the Near East, in ther words) than Greece, then the correct term is indeed PRIOR SETTLEMENT. Thus the claim 'finders keepers' rather than 'always been here' is historically the more accurate.

[Get Real!]

From what I have read, you regard the term 'indigenous' by means of a time scale. If that 10,000 year mark is correct, it still does not make you indigenous (as per the proper definition of the word). All you could claim is 'prior settlement'. And there could well be other peoples who came to that island earlier. As I suggested earlier: choose your words carefully.

The answers to all your questions are in that 28-page thread including this response...

Murataga, it appears that you do not understand the meaning of the word “indigenous”.

When Australia talks of her indigenous population she is referring to the Aboriginals. When the US talks of their indigenous population they are referring to the American Indians.

The white American is NOT indigenous to the US and neither is the white Australian. By the same token the Turkish Cypriot is a descendant of the Ottomans who again ARE NOT indigenous to Cyprus but Anatolia.

These are basic fundamentals of indigenousness agreed worldwide so please stop wasting everyone’s time with your unfounded theories. The wikipedia states…

“…any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection”

…to describe who is indigenous and nothing could be clearer.

Let's repeat that in case you still don't understand...

"they have the earliest historical connection"

The Greek Cypriots have the earliest historical connection to Cyprus so they are the UNDISPUTED INDIGINOUS PEOPLE OF CYPRUS!

And all you can do Murataga is pour yourself a glass of vinegar and drink it!

CASE CLOSED!

Not from my university studies. In the pure meaning of the word, 'Indigenous' means 'coming from that same location'. In that context, Africa is the indigenous home of humanity. Expatkiwi's home of New Zealand is a good case in point. The Maori were there before the Europeans, but the Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand as they migrated from other Pacific Islands. As I said, earlier, if ancient Greeks were indeed the undisputed first inhabitants of Cyprus - and there is probably a great deal of debate as to that, given the fact that Cyprus is closer to Syria, Israel and Turkey (the Near East, in ther words) than Greece, then the correct term is indeed PRIOR SETTLEMENT. Thus the claim 'finders keepers' rather than 'always been here' is historically the more accurate.

Time you attended university again...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indigenous

“having originated in and being produced, growing, living, or occurring naturally in a particular region or environment”

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/di ... indigenous

“Originating and living or occurring naturally in an area or environment.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples

“...any ethnic group who inhabit the geographic region with which they have the earliest historical connection”