Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Another interesting quote from Ronald Stores, governor of Cyprus in 1926:

"On the legislative council I found eight lawyers, of whom three were also moneylenders, one landowner, who was also a moneylender, a Greek Orthodox bishop, a merchant and a farmer. And so, while the interests of the Colony were identical to the interests of the small farmers, the representatives, as reflected in the council makeup, belonged exclusively to the numerically insignificant class of parasites who profiteered at the expense of the farmers."

Look around Cyprus today and ask yourself how much things changed since 1926. In the north they have stolen land and favors granted by the invaders, in the south there is the stock exchange and the cult of the "developer". And also note that the British did not do much to curb the problem of money lending which in turn was responsible for much of the emigration from Cyprus.

[zan]

Another interesting quote from Ronald Stores, governor of Cyprus in 1926:

"On the legislative council I found eight lawyers, of whom three were also moneylenders, one landowner, who was also a moneylender, a Greek Orthodox bishop, a merchant and a farmer. And so, while the interests of the Colony were identical to the interests of the small farmers, the representatives, as reflected in the council makeup, belonged exclusively to the numerically insignificant class of parasites who profiteered at the expense of the farmers."

Look around Cyprus today and ask yourself how much things changed since 1926. In the north they have stolen land and favors granted by the invaders, in the south there is the stock exchange and the cult of the "developer". And also note that the British did not do much to curb the problem of money lending which in turn was responsible for much of the emigration from Cyprus.

Parasites only cling on to deserving hosts Nikitas. If you lay with dogs you are bound to get fleas.....

[Nikephoros]

Cultural anthropologists always say that a given society can only think in its own terms and concepts and transpose these concepts to other societies(when analyzing them). So Greeks cannot understand truly how sinister modern Turkey and modern Turkish society is, because the average Greek does not know the ethos of the Turkish state and the concepts of Turkish/Islamic society.

I will help give understanding with correct historical knowledge so you can better understand the thinking of the society that produced Fazil Kuck and Denktash.

The period of reform and centralization known as the Tanzimat, or "Reorder¬ing," put an end to the existing paternalistic type of intergroup relations, whereby both the inferior and superior groups internalize the subservient status of the subordinate community, and led to the emergence of racism. In¬deed, the two imperial decrees central to this era, the Hatt-i Sherif-i Gulhane (the Noble Rescript of the Rose Chamber), promulgated in 1839, and es¬pecially the Hatt-i Humayun (the Imperial Rescript) of 1856 polarized the relations between the dominant and subordinate groups by putting forward the concept of Ottomanism (Osmanhlik), namely, equality between Muslims and non-Muslims. This principle of equality undermined the established relations of power and paved the way for a potential end to the supremacy of the ruling element, the Muslim Ottomans in general and, by the end of the nineteenth century, the Turks in particular. Ahmed Jevdet Pasha (1822-95), the distinguished Ottoman historian and jurist, aptly captured the deep Muslim resentment against the newly proclaimed Hatt-i Hiimayun: "Many among the people of Islam began complaining thus: 'Today we lost our sacred national rights [hukuk-i mukaddese-i milliyyemizi] which were earned with our ancestors' blood. The Muslim community [millet-i islamiyye], while it used to be the ruling religious community [millet-i hakime], has [now] been deprived of such a sacred right. For the people of Islam, this a day to weep and mourn'."8

8. Cevdet Pasa, TezAkir (Memoranda), I, ed. Cavid Baysun, 2d ed. (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu, 1986), 68. In this study, most proper names, geographical names, and administrative terms are transliterated in the text itself, but left in their original Turkish alphabet in the notes and bibliography. The names of twentieth-century Turkish authors of secondary sources, articles, or monographs about Ottoman history are not transliterated. Longer quotations in Turkish, such as full sentences, are spelled in the Turkish alphabet. Ottoman expressions, names, or terms have been assimilated to modern Turkish orthography. With a few exceptions, the orthographic reference for this chapter is Redhouse Yeni Turkce-ingilizce Sozltik (New Redhouse Turkish-English dictionary), 2d ed. (Istanbul: Redhouse Press, 1974). 9. Carter V. Findley, Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: The Sublime Porte, 1789-1922 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 207-8.

Source:
"Modern Turkish Identity and the Armenian Genocide: From Prejudice to Racist Nationalism" by STEPHAN H. ASTOURIAN

"Halil Inalcik. a highly-respected historian of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, wrote an article in 1964. titled "Osmanlı Devrinde Türk Ordusu" (The Turkish Military in the Ottoman Period) where he argued that "the Turkish nation has conserved its military-nation characteristic from the beginning of history till today" and that Turks are used to living as hakim (dominant) and efendi (master). İnalcık 1964. 56. This article appeared in the journal Türk Kültürü (Turkish Culture) and was re-printed in the same journal in 1972 and in 1994.

Source:
Altinay, Ayse Gul. Myth Of The Military Nation. (Palgrave, 2004; 1st Edition) p. 13.

This is Turkish pscyhe and it applies to even Turkish Cypriots. Turks cannot just live as normal people respecting human rights and international law, they have to live dominant(hakim) and be efendi by:

not allowing Kurds self-expression
not accepting to be a minority when they are one(Turkish Cypriots)
making constant military threats and provocations to Greece and the ROC
etc., etc.

The problem is Greeks and Greek Cypriots do not want to see Turkish society for what it is. Instead we see Turkish society as an angelic projection of how a society should function under leftist assumptions.

[Salonikios]

I would say it is a triumphant speech of the defeat of the evil that was ENOSIS by the TCs.

ENOSIS was the democratic free will of the vast majority of Cypriots.But you don't regard democracy too high in Turkey as it's obvious.

[miltiades]

I have on many occasions referred to the two cancers afflicting OUR island , the cancers that are the foreign bodies who have penetrated our island and have caused ALL the problems we have endured. Would it not be sensible for those whose allegiance and motherland is a foreign nation to seek greener pastures and leave Cyprus , not Turkish and Greek , to us the true Cypriots.
Future generations will still be killing each other in the name of a foreign bloody country . Cant they get it in their brainwashed stupid heads that this island has a history going back some 10 thousand years and it bloody well never had a Turkish or a Greek f..ng flag flying .
To all motherland bullshitters , GO FORTH , JOIN YOUR BELOVED MOTHERLAND , CLEAR OFF FROM MY MOTHERLAND , YOU BLOODY FOREIGNERS .

[BirKibrisli]

The speeches by the TC leaders at the down of the Republic shows only too well how successful the Turkification/ ultra-nationalisation of the the TC people at the time....But you cannot absolve Makarios of the same guilt on the other side...As we all know the Church in Cyprus was probably the most ardent supporter of ENOSIS...And Makarios was its head...I think it wasn't till the end of 60s that reality finally forced Makarios to consider the viability of Enosis given the circumstances at the time...A pity some politicians(on both sides) are still trying the same old tricks now...

I am afraid we will never be allowed to choose the only truly foolproof way towards lasting peace in our homeland...Putting our Cypriotness above all else,showing the middle finger to the fanatics and ultra Turkish/Greek nationalists,and embrace each other as one people, one nation of Cypriots....

[BirKibrisli]

Cultural anthropologists always say that a given society can only think in its own terms and concepts and transpose these concepts to other societies(when analyzing them). So Greeks cannot understand truly how sinister modern Turkey and modern Turkish society is, because the average Greek does not know the ethos of the Turkish state and the concepts of Turkish/Islamic society.

I will help give understanding with correct historical knowledge so you can better understand the thinking of the society that produced Fazil Kuck and Denktash.

The period of reform and centralization known as the Tanzimat, or "Reorder¬ing," put an end to the existing paternalistic type of intergroup relations, whereby both the inferior and superior groups internalize the subservient status of the subordinate community, and led to the emergence of racism. In¬deed, the two imperial decrees central to this era, the Hatt-i Sherif-i Gulhane (the Noble Rescript of the Rose Chamber), promulgated in 1839, and es¬pecially the Hatt-i Humayun (the Imperial Rescript) of 1856 polarized the relations between the dominant and subordinate groups by putting forward the concept of Ottomanism (Osmanhlik), namely, equality between Muslims and non-Muslims. This principle of equality undermined the established relations of power and paved the way for a potential end to the supremacy of the ruling element, the Muslim Ottomans in general and, by the end of the nineteenth century, the Turks in particular. Ahmed Jevdet Pasha (1822-95), the distinguished Ottoman historian and jurist, aptly captured the deep Muslim resentment against the newly proclaimed Hatt-i Hiimayun: "Many among the people of Islam began complaining thus: 'Today we lost our sacred national rights [hukuk-i mukaddese-i milliyyemizi] which were earned with our ancestors' blood. The Muslim community [millet-i islamiyye], while it used to be the ruling religious community [millet-i hakime], has [now] been deprived of such a sacred right. For the people of Islam, this a day to weep and mourn'."8

8. Cevdet Pasa, TezAkir (Memoranda), I, ed. Cavid Baysun, 2d ed. (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu, 1986), 68. In this study, most proper names, geographical names, and administrative terms are transliterated in the text itself, but left in their original Turkish alphabet in the notes and bibliography. The names of twentieth-century Turkish authors of secondary sources, articles, or monographs about Ottoman history are not transliterated. Longer quotations in Turkish, such as full sentences, are spelled in the Turkish alphabet. Ottoman expressions, names, or terms have been assimilated to modern Turkish orthography. With a few exceptions, the orthographic reference for this chapter is Redhouse Yeni Turkce-ingilizce Sozltik (New Redhouse Turkish-English dictionary), 2d ed. (Istanbul: Redhouse Press, 1974). 9. Carter V. Findley, Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire: The Sublime Porte, 1789-1922 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 207-8.

Source:
"Modern Turkish Identity and the Armenian Genocide: From Prejudice to Racist Nationalism" by STEPHAN H. ASTOURIAN

"Halil Inalcik. a highly-respected historian of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey, wrote an article in 1964. titled "Osmanlı Devrinde Türk Ordusu" (The Turkish Military in the Ottoman Period) where he argued that "the Turkish nation has conserved its military-nation characteristic from the beginning of history till today" and that Turks are used to living as hakim (dominant) and efendi (master). İnalcık 1964. 56. This article appeared in the journal Türk Kültürü (Turkish Culture) and was re-printed in the same journal in 1972 and in 1994.

Source:
Altinay, Ayse Gul. Myth Of The Military Nation. (Palgrave, 2004; 1st Edition) p. 13.

This is Turkish pscyhe and it applies to even Turkish Cypriots. Turks cannot just live as normal people respecting human rights and international law, they have to live dominant(hakim) and be efendi by:

not allowing Kurds self-expression
not accepting to be a minority when they are one(Turkish Cypriots)
making constant military threats and provocations to Greece and the ROC
etc., etc.

The problem is Greeks and Greek Cypriots do not want to see Turkish society for what it is. Instead we see Turkish society as an angelic projection of how a society should function under leftist assumptions.

I am afraid your prejudice is naked,Nikephoros....
You cannot talk about :"Turkish military" in the Ottoman period...
The Ottoman period goes back to Year 1200,and for most of this period Turks were a very much oppressed minority...The main permanent Ottoman army ,The Janissaries were a collection of Devshirmes,people from all parts of the empire gathered as children and raised to be loyal to the Ottoman sultan...All of their commanders were chosen from their own ranks,hardly any Turks amongst them...

I am glad you have solved the riddle that is the Turkish psyche,because most people of Turkish origins are still trying to come to terms with the legacy of the Ottomans,Islam,Mustafa Kemal and his reforms,the role of the Military in modern Turkish society,the role of Kemalism,and the present day ascendance of "Warm" Islamic politicians,and cold winds of European style democracy...not to mention the effects of European style fascism,colonialism and imperialism of the past few centuries...

[Nikitas]

Bir said:

"As we all know the Church in Cyprus was probably the most ardent supporter of ENOSIS..."

Bir, it probably was the only supporter for the most part. My investigation shows that the major call for Enosis did not come till after WWII when the veterans returned and there were great expectations that the British would see the light.

The puzzle is why the Cyprus church does not declare Enosis with the church of Greece, thus abolishing its status as an autonomous (autocephalus in church talk) status and why it did not do this way back then. IT would be an internal church matter with no perceptible political repercussions. You mention this to a priest and he gets a horrified look on his face. It is unthinkable that HIS church would lose its independence. In fact they will tell you that even if Enosis were achieved yesterday the Cyprus church would retain its autonomy.

Now you go figure.

[CopperLine]

Another interesting quote from Ronald Stores, governor of Cyprus in 1926:

"On the legislative council I found eight lawyers, of whom three were also moneylenders, one landowner, who was also a moneylender, a Greek Orthodox bishop, a merchant and a farmer. And so, while the interests of the Colony were identical to the interests of the small farmers, the representatives, as reflected in the council makeup, belonged exclusively to the numerically insignificant class of parasites who profiteered at the expense of the farmers."

Look around Cyprus today and ask yourself how much things changed since 1926. In the north they have stolen land and favors granted by the invaders, in the south there is the stock exchange and the cult of the "developer". And also note that the British did not do much to curb the problem of money lending which in turn was responsible for much of the emigration from Cyprus.

Nikitas,
Class state, class politics. And so it shall remain so (But most see it as national politics and a nationalist struggle).

[BirKibrisli]

Bir said:

"As we all know the Church in Cyprus was probably the most ardent supporter of ENOSIS..."

Bir, it probably was the only supporter for the most part. My investigation shows that the major call for Enosis did not come till after WWII when the veterans returned and there were great expectations that the British would see the light.

The puzzle is why the Cyprus church does not declare Enosis with the church of Greece, thus abolishing its status as an autonomous (autocephalus in church talk) status and why it did not do this way back then. IT would be an internal church matter with no perceptible political repercussions. You mention this to a priest and he gets a horrified look on his face. It is unthinkable that HIS church would lose its independence. In fact they will tell you that even if Enosis were achieved yesterday the Cyprus church would retain its autonomy.

Now you go figure.

His Church should not lose its independence but his Country could...
Can anyone tell me if the Cyprus Church comes under the Partiarch in Istanbul?????