The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


By Yiannis Papadakis

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby insan » Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:14 pm

observer wrote:
Nikitas wrote:"the GC ruling elite "

I do not know the class origins of the TMT people, but it is a fact that most EOKA fighters were peasant boys so the last word to describe them would be "elite". In fact part of our problem is that the elite never got actively involved.


Ruling elites rarely get their own hands dirty. They get "peasant boys" to do the dirty work for them.


It's not abt getting their hands dirty. Every group in a ruling elite choose its role according to its abilities and talents. :wink:
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby insan » Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:40 pm

Piratis wrote:
So if we present the Ottoman rule negatively, Papadakis points this out. The question is: Should we change our books and present the Ottoman rule in a positive way just so we would appease the TCs?


No. U don't need to do this but u might try to put forward the events and facts of the past in a correlation; reason-result relationship. By looking at only the cover of the GC history books one may think that it's all abt how Greeks persecuted by the Turks. Feeding the young brains with any kind of hatred is not good for their psychological health thus their future life.
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby Piratis » Fri Jan 16, 2009 5:12 pm

insan wrote:
Piratis wrote:
So if we present the Ottoman rule negatively, Papadakis points this out. The question is: Should we change our books and present the Ottoman rule in a positive way just so we would appease the TCs?


No. U don't need to do this but u might try to put forward the events and facts of the past in a correlation; reason-result relationship. By looking at only the cover of the GC history books one may think that it's all abt how Greeks persecuted by the Turks. Feeding the young brains with any kind of hatred is not good for their psychological health thus their future life.


The history books present the whole history, not just those parts. Also you should not forget that today Turkey is occupying 1/3rd of our island and we should always be prepared to take our land back. We are willing to forgive but not willing to forget or give up any part of our land and rights. When the Cyprus problem will be fairly solved then those parts of history could be less emphasized.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby insan » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:06 pm

Piratis wrote:
Dear Piratis, inter-communal conflict emerged inevitably by itself as a consequence of the clashes of Greek and Turkish nationalism in 1930s. After the GC ruling elite armed to struggle for Enosis, TC ruling elite also prepared to struggle for Taksim. That's why TC ruling elite took side with Brits against GC ruling elite.


You are wrong Insan. The desire of the Cypriot people, like every other Greek, for the creation of a free Greek state goes back to 1821 to the time of the Greek revolution. We had no "ruling elite" at that time, since we were ruled by foreigners. Just like today the Cypriot people desire democracy, freedom and self-determination. This is what is desired by the vast majority of the ordinary Cypriot people, not by any elite.

Are you going to tell me that the Cypriot people asking for democracy, freedom and self-determination was something wrong insan? If it was wrong for Cypriots, then it must be wrong for everybody, right? So every nation should have been content to live under some Colonial empire, be it British, Ottomans or any other.

Union with Greece was a right for the Cypriot people if this is what they would have chosen in a democratic referendum. We have been asking for a democratic peaceful referendum so the Cypriot people could decide in a democratic and peaceful way the destiny of their own island, but this was denied to us by the British and the Turks.

The UN resolution about de-colonization clearly defines "integration into an independent State" as one of the "three legitimate options" for the people being decolonized to choose in a democratic way.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

If the Cypriot people had democratically chosen union with Greece, then the Greek Cypriot majority and the Turkish Cypriot minority in Cyprus would continue to live on this island as they used to live under Ottoman or British rule, but this time as free equal citizens of the state they democratically chose to be part of, and not as subjects of a foreign empire imposed on them by force.

This is what happened in Rhodes island a few years earlier (1947) when it was united with the rest of Greece and the Greek majority and Turkish minority continues to live there in the way they lived during the Ottoman and Italian rule. No conflicts, no wars, no suffering.

So tell me what was wrong with union with Greece and how any of the human rights of the TC minority would be violated if Cyprus became part of Greece, as opposed to be part of the British or Ottoman empires.

Now lets look at Taksim (partition):

Greek Cypriots are the 5 to 1 majority in all areas of Cyprus. In order to achieve partition, crimes such as ethnic cleansing and stealing of lands are required. This means that the demand for partition not only it was illegitimate, but it required the human rights violations of 100s of thousands of innocent people.

So back to the inter-communal conflict:

The Cypriot people had revolted against the British Colonialists demanding their freedom and self-determination. There were no attacks against TCs and no threats or anything else against them. All that the Cypriot wanted was the right to decide the destiny of their own island in a democratic way as opposed to having some foreign empire deciding for us. It was an anti-colonial struggle, a revolution, like those that happened in many other places.

The TCs on the other hand, instead of accepting that the destiny of Cyprus should finally be decided by the Cypriots themselves in a democratic way, they instead sided with the colonialists in order to defeat the Cypriot revolution. Not only that but they started to threaten that 100s of thousands of Greek Cypriots should be annihilated from their homeland in order to achieve partition. And in 1958 they started to put into action their partition plan by attacking and killing innocent Greek Cypriots, looting shops and homes, and starting the inter-communal conflict. It is only after all these threats and murders of innocent GCs that EOKA responded against the TCs.

So stop trying to avoid the fact that it is the TCs who started the inter-communal conflict.

Furthermore, our desire for freedom and self-determination does not even provide a good excuse to either your attacks against innocent people, or to your demands for the annihilation of 100s of thousands of Cypriots from their towns and villages in order to achieve partition.


From ur point of view on democracy and majority-minority concepts; u r right, dear Piratis. However either intentionally or unintentionally u skip the significant historical and strategical backgorund of Cyprus. As an open-minded person, and highly tended to read from other sources than which officially provided u by ur government; i'm sure u will read some more get a wider point of view upon democracy and (numerical/political) majority-minority concepts.

'Democracy' is notoriously a highly emotive word without a fixed descriptive meaning.'Government by the people' is not the same as 'Government by the majority of the people.' And,while the Turkish Cypriots are undoubtedly a numerical minority in Cyprus it does not follow from this that they are a political minority. The 1960 Accords did not see them as a political minority nordoes the UN Secretary-General today. In his report of 8 March 1990 (S/21183), the then Secretary-General, Perez de Cuellar, said it was understood that the relationship between the two Cypriot communities "is not one of majority and minority, but one of two communities in the State of Cyprus." For a useful discussion about democracy see Anthony Arblaster, Democracy, 2ndedition, Open University, Buckingham, 1994.

http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volum ... oran03.PDF

Besides, dear Piratis, u need to take into consideration the globalization of the world. In a globalized world we all will become political minorities in our regions... so, keep ur idealistic thoughts alive but on the other hand try to prepare yourself for a future world where all of us will be considered as political minorities. Till then, TCs wish to get their political safeguards for in any case not being abused by the numerical majority of Cyprus. Hope an intelligent person like u, will soon get how things going around. How much US, UK, EU(mostly non-Christian Democrats) even Russia are accurate on not to crash the fragile stability between Turks and Hellenes.
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby Piratis » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:39 pm

Yes insan, my info is from many sources, but that does not include the Turkish government ;)

Terms such as democracy, majority, minority, human rights etc mean the same everywhere. The Turks can not apply one rule for their own country and their own numerical minorities (Kurds, Greeks etc) and then force a different rule to our country. That is double standards and it is not something I accept. The same rules should be applied everywhere.

If for example some "safeguards" should be given to the TC minority in Cyprus then the same "safeguards" should be given to the Greek minority in Turkey.

Furthermore you can not violate the human and democratic rights of people, and ethnically cleanse them, with the excuse of "safeguards".

Here is democracy in brief:
http://www.america.gov/media/pdf/books/ ... -brief.pdf
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby insan » Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:57 pm

CYPRUS AND THE 1960 ACCORDS: NATIONALISM AND INTERNATIONALISM*
MICHAEL MORAN
Michael Moran was formerly a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Sussex in England and is
the author of several books on Cyprus.
* A paper originally read at a bi-communal gathering organised by the Oslo International Peace
Research Institute at the Fulbright Centre in Nicosia on 5 April 2001.

The source is Michael Moran, dear Piratis. The document being located in a website of Turkish government does not change the source into a Turkis source neither makes it pro-Turkish. :wink:
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby Piratis » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:05 pm

insan wrote:CYPRUS AND THE 1960 ACCORDS: NATIONALISM AND INTERNATIONALISM*
MICHAEL MORAN
Michael Moran was formerly a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Sussex in England and is
the author of several books on Cyprus.
* A paper originally read at a bi-communal gathering organised by the Oslo International Peace
Research Institute at the Fulbright Centre in Nicosia on 5 April 2001.

The source is Michael Moran, dear Piratis. The document being located in a website of Turkish government does not change the source into a Turkis source neither makes it pro-Turkish. :wink:


Of course. As we all know the Turkish government is such a supporter of free speech, that not only will allow anybody within Turkey to freely express an opinion against the national interests of Turkey, but they would even host and promote that opinion in their own website.

So I guess I was wrong that if something is hosted at the website of the Turkish government must be fully aligned with the Turkish position. ;)
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Previous

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest