Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Generally I'm against history being 'authorised' by any authority. It should be not for government departments, in any country in the world, to approve or censor history books since it is in this way that inevitably nationalist histories are passed from one generation to another.

However I know that I'm in a tiny 'libertarian' minority on this point, and in that light I do agree that a fundamental task is to open up the histories of Cyprus and break the nationalist and racist stranglehold which has informed most authorised histories, north and south. The move by teachers in the north a few years ago was a step in the right direction, moves to throw-off nationalist history in the south is more than welcome as well.

Near enough impossible, the mentality of the only member state who flies the flag and sings the national anthem of another country will never change. You can place a saddle on a donkey doesnt make it a race horse.

[Piratis]

Bananiot, I always talk with facts, unlike you.

As I said I have no problem in teaching in detail the inter-communal conflict, which was started by TCs in 1958 with the aim to help the British colonialists to oppress our revolution and impose on us the 1960 agreements by force and blackmail. I just don't see how this truth can help reconciliation.

The truth is that if our students are taught in detail the crimes that TCs committed against us and their share of responsibility then reconciliation would become harder, not easier. In our schools today they put most of the blame on Turkey, exactly because they do not want to emphasize the role of TCs in the crimes against us, and their colaboration with the UK and Turkey.

So how can the truth help the reconciliation process in this case? I think saying the truth to our students about the role of TCs will just have the exact opposide result, and I am sure those that proposed changes to the books are fully aware of this. Therefore I suspect the changes they want to make are not related with the truth, but have a sole aim to create a better image for the TCs.

As I said, I don't agree with faking history just for the sake of liking each other more. But if we are going to do such thing, then obviously it has to be done after a solution is found, and not while the Turks and TCs continue to occupy 1/3rd of our country.

Regarding the TC books, I personally don't buy the reforms claims. Are you telling me that the TC books today do not blame the GCs for the inter-communal conflct when in fact it is the TCs who started it? Are you going to tell me that TC books today are not saying the usual lie that Turkey invaded in 1974 to save the TCs who were being killed by the evil GCs, when in fact no TC was killed in 1974 before they started their invasion against us?

I believe Get Real posted a link once about the lies in the TC books and I believe they were about the "new" ones.

[zan]

Generally I'm against history being 'authorised' by any authority. It should be not for government departments, in any country in the world, to approve or censor history books since it is in this way that inevitably nationalist histories are passed from one generation to another.

However I know that I'm in a tiny 'libertarian' minority on this point, and in that light I do agree that a fundamental task is to open up the histories of Cyprus and break the nationalist and racist stranglehold which has informed most authorised histories, north and south. The move by teachers in the north a few years ago was a step in the right direction, moves to throw-off nationalist history in the south is more than welcome as well.

Near enough impossible, the mentality of the only member state who flies the flag and sings the national anthem of another country will never change. You can place a saddle on a donkey doesnt make it a race horse.

Too bloody true!!!


Copperline:

I am with you all the way on what you say but don't you think that it is a little idealistic, not in its conception but practically. It is only when lies are spread about, as in the case of Greek history that the idea of control becomes abhorrent. Then when the truth is exposed and the majority of political groups in the "RoC" protest against it can we be truly horrified with the intentions of these people....

[zan]

Bananiot, I always talk with facts, unlike you.

As I said I have no problem in teaching in detail the inter-communal conflict, which was started by TCs in 1958 with the aim to help the British colonialists to oppress our revolution and impose on us the 1960 agreements by force and blackmail. I just don't see how this truth can help reconciliation.

The truth is that if our students are taught in detail the crimes that TCs committed against us and their share of responsibility then reconciliation would become harder, not easier. In our schools today they put most of the blame on Turkey, exactly because they do not want to emphasize the role of TCs in the crimes against us, and their colaboration with the UK and Turkey.

So how can the truth help the reconciliation process in this case? I think saying the truth to our students about the role of TCs will just have the exact opposide result, and I am sure those that proposed changes to the books are fully aware of this. Therefore I suspect the changes they want to make are not related with the truth, but have a sole aim to create a better image for the TCs.

As I said, I don't agree with faking history just for the sake of liking each other more. But if we are going to do such thing, then obviously it has to be done after a solution is found, and not while the Turks and TCs continue to occupy 1/3rd of our country.

Regarding the TC books, I personally don't buy the reforms claims. Are you telling me that the TC books today do not blame the GCs for the inter-communal conflct when in fact it is the TCs who started it? Are you going to tell me that TC books today are not saying the usual lie that Turkey invaded in 1974 to save the TCs who were being killed by the evil GCs, when in fact no TC was killed in 1974 before they started their invasion against us?

I believe Get Real posted a link once about the lies in the TC books and I believe they were about the "new" ones.

GR and Piratis claiming to tell the truth....

[Piratis]

Zan, we have nothing to be afraid from the truth. You are.

Would you, for example, dispute that:

1) Cypriots never ventured out of their island to harm anybody
2) That it is the Turks who invaded our island killing 1000s and oppressing us
3) That we had every right to be free from the Ottoman (and later British) oppressors like every other Greek island
4) That the inter-communal conflict was started by the TCs in 1958
5) That the 1960 constidution was not a result of the free and democratic will of the Cypriot people but a result of force and blackmail of the British and the Turks against us
6) That in 1963 you withdrew from the goverment restarting the conflict just because we dared to propose democratic reforms to the constidution of our own country
7) That in 1974 no TC was killed until after the Turkish invasion had started and you started killing us.
8) That GCs suffered way more casualties and suffered for way more time than TCs did.

If you dispute any of the above then I am willing to discuss with facts every single one of them.

And no, I do not dispute that TCs suffered as well during the intercomunal conflict. When there is a conflict usually both sides suffer and both sides have casualties many times innocent. The question is who started the conflict and what were the chain of events. Just talking about your suffering, without mentioning the suffering you inflicted to us, and without admitting that you were the ones who started the conflict in which we both suffered, is called one sided propaganda, not the truth.

[zan]

Zan, we have nothing to be afraid from the truth. You are.

Would you, for example, dispute that:

1) Cypriots never ventured out of their island to harm anybody
2) That it is the Turks who invaded our island killing 1000s and oppressing us
3) That we had every right to be free from the Ottoman (and later British) oppressors like every other Greek island
4) That the inter-communal conflict was started by the TCs in 1958
5) That the 1960 constidution was not a result of the free and democratic will of the Cypriot people but a result of force and blackmail of the British and the Turks against us
6) That in 1963 you withdrew from the goverment restarting the conflict just because we dared to propose democratic reforms to the constidution of our own country
7) That in 1974 no TC was killed until after the Turkish invasion had started and you started killing us.
That GCs suffered way more casualties and suffered for way more time than TCs did.

If you dispute any of the above then I am willing to discuss with facts every single one of them.

And no, I do not dispute that TCs suffered as well during the intercomunal conflict. When there is a conflict usually both sides suffer and both sides have casualties many times innocent. The question is who started the conflict and what were the chain of events. Just talking about your suffering, without mentioning the suffering you inflicted to us, and without admitting that you were the ones who started the conflict in which we both suffered, is called one sided propaganda, not the truth.

Here we go again... Greeks came from the soil of Cyprus or with flowers sticking out of their butts.....You are pathetic little man Piratis...Half truths are about as whole as you can get.....What some of you are trying to say now is that those facts ALONG with others will be told in which you do not come out of smelling as sweet as you perceive yourselves to be and that the Cyprob should be decided accordingly and without the prejudices you have fed the world. Now that more countries have shown an interest in Cyprus, you have no choice....Not all are as stupid as you would want them to be.....Bad luck...

[CopperLine]

As I acknowledged, Zan, I know that I'm in a tiny minority, idealist or not. But the most difficult lies to counter are those that have been authorised by government, and have the full power of the state mobilised in their support. The spreading of 'historical lies' of individuals here and there is nothing compared with the organised lying conducted by the state from primary schools to government ministries.

[Piratis]

I see you are not willing to take the challenge of truth. You just prefer to talk crap. Fine.

But since you said something about "Greeks coming from the soil..." I will again reply to your nonsense with facts:

Greeks were among the first people who came to Cyprus when Cyprus was mostly uninhabited. They didn't conquer or oppress any others, but they created their own cities.

First Greeks in Cyprus:

After 1400 B.C., Mycenaean and Mycenaean-Achaean traders from the northeastern Peloponnesus began regular commercial visits to the island. Settlers from the same areas arrived in large numbers toward the end of the Trojan War (traditionally dated about 1184 B.C.). Even in modern times, a strip of the northern coast was known as the Achaean Coast in commemoration of those early settlers. The newcomers spread the use of their spoken language and introduced a script that greatly facilitated commerce. They also introduced the potter's wheel and began producing pottery that eventually was carried by traders to many mainland markets. By the end of the second millennium B.C., a distinctive culture had developed on Cyprus. The island's culture was tempered and enriched by its position as a crossroads for the commerce of three continents, but in essence it was distinctively Hellenic.

First Turks in Cyprus:

Throughout the period of Venetian rule, Ottoman Turks raided and attacked at will. In 1489, the first year of Venetian control, Turks attacked the Karpas Peninsula, pillaging and taking captives to be sold into slavery. In 1539 the Turkish fleet attacked and destroyed Limassol. Fearing the ever-expanding Ottoman Empire, the Venetians had fortified Famagusta, Nicosia, and Kyrenia, but most other cities were easy prey.

In the summer of 1570, the Turks struck again, but this time with a full-scale invasion rather than a raid. About 60,000 troops, including cavalry and artillery, under the command of Lala Mustafa Pasha landed unopposed near Limassol on July 2, 1570, and laid siege to Nicosia. In an orgy of victory on the day that the city fell--September 9, 1570--20,000 Nicosians were put to death, and every church, public building, and palace was looted.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cytoc.html

[Piratis]

As I acknowledged, Zan, I know that I'm in a tiny minority, idealist or not. But the most difficult lies to counter are those that have been authorised by government, and have the full power of the state mobilised in their support. The spreading of 'historical lies' of individuals here and there is nothing compared with the organised lying conducted by the state from primary schools to government ministries.

You mean like the lie that Turkey invaded in 1974 to "save the TCs who were being massacred" ?

[CopperLine]

Piratis,
I mean that public schools should not be obliged to teach only authorised history. So indeed if a history book described the Turkish invasion of 1974 as a humanitarian action, because that was the officially authorised interpretation of the state/education authorities, then yes I would (and have) objected to it.

Neither school childern nor citizens should be fodder for nationalist histories. then general point is that histories are numerous, varied and constantly to be debated. There is not a single 'true' history, though I know that you think otherwise.