Piratis wrote:samarkeolog wrote:Piratis wrote:samarkeolog wrote:Piratis wrote:See? This is our disagreement; it's not about language. You think Greek Cypriots are Greeks in Cyprus; I think Greek Cypriots are Cypriots.
Yes, but you see, what
you think on this issue doesn't count because you are not Cypriot. I am Cypriot and what I think counts. And the vast majority of Greek Cypriots are amazingly
Greek Cypriots!! Its in the
name. Greek for ethnicity, and Cypriot because we are native of Cyprus. If we were not Greek, then we wouldn't call ourselves Greek Cypriots right?
As I've said before (should I include the "as I've said before" again as well, because I've said this more than once?), I'm not telling you what to feel or what to be. You can believe you are whatever you want. I can tell you how I
perceive things. Both things can happen.
Exactly. Isn't this why we started this discussion. Because of some preconceived notions that you have? So continue if you want. Disregard all the historical and scientific evidence, and choose some baseless politically motivated claims to base your views.
Do I need to provide you with the definitions of perception and preconception? Assuming that you're not doing this
deliberately, I do.
Perception: 'the ability to see, hear, or
become aware of something through the senses.... ORIGIN Latin, from percipere 'seize,
understand''.
Conception: 'ability to imagine or
understand'.
Preconception: 'a preconceived idea or prejudice', where
prejudice is 'preconceived opinion that is
not based on reason or experience'.
And in your case it is Preconception, since obviously you didn't personally experience the history of Cyprus (so it is not a Perception) and you base some of your ideas on things that are not supported by historical or scientific facts but by your own ideological beliefs.
You might want to call it a
conception rather than a
perception, but it's still not a
preconception; it may not be based upon experience, but it is based upon reason and evidence.
The people you perceive as English are a mix of people-who-never-had-an-ethnic-identity (European hunter-gatherers and farmers who lived on or passed through in the distant past) and people-who-are-given-an-ethnic-identity (Romans, Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Normans, et al). During the Roman period, communities from Africa and the Middle East were introduced into the mix. (There were probably individuals from lots of places before and after that, but we can only talk about the recorded ones we know arrived.) "The Vikings" - the Norse communities - were themselves mixed, as they lived and worked from North America to Asia. The Normans - the "North Men" - were Norse mixed with people-in-what-is-now-northern-France; and they became the even more mixed Anglo-Normans after they arrived on the Rainy Isles. The Anglo-Saxons' name is a mixture of two.
It is your country, you decide. I have no problem. Be whatever you want to be and call your country whatever you want to call it.
That wasn't the point. You said,
I am still waiting for an example of another ethnicity which is created by people who speak different languages and have different religions! Do you have any such example?
I had. I gave it. That was it.
I didn't realize you were answering that question. The vast majority of English are Christian and speak English. Those who don't are consider as parts of ethnic minorities. You know your own country better of course (as I know mine better), but I don't think I am wrong in this, am I?
You're not wrong, but it's more complicated.
Only
57% of Britons consider themselves Christian, which is more than 50%, and so a majority, but that includes the more religious populations of Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as all of the people who consider themselves "culturally Christian". I know an English
priest who is atheist! And even most of the practising Christians wouldn't say it was an essential part of Englishness. So, Christianity isn't really part of the definition of Englishness.
Not speaking English would be an obvious sign that someone was an ethnic minority, but effectively all minority Britons can speak English, too; so speaking English isn't part of the definition of Englishness either. Englishness is basically "not being not English". It is a negative identity. Of course, English nationalists would insist that England was a white, Christian nation, but they're the kind of people who go clubbing in Agia Napa for a holiday.
The link you gave shows Christians as 67% not 57%.
Yeah, sorry. My screen's tiny; I should have zoomed in to check before I wrote.
But what you are saying is really beyond the point. My initial question was: "I am still waiting for an example of another ethnicity which is created by people who speak different languages and have different religions!". So in the UK, a person who is Muslim and doesn't speak the language of the Majority, does he not belong in an ethnic minority? Could you say that the ethnicity of that person is the same as the ethnicity of an English speaking white Christian?
Well, I
did say that they would be an ethnic minority. But there are lots of Europeans who have settled in England and learned English, and their children are considered English.
The only reason a lot of ethnic minorities are categorised as ethnic minorities is because they have darker skin, or because their names tell their family background (like Irish O'Whatevers), so English nationalists treat them differently. (So,
because they are
categorised by others as a group, and because they are treated by others as a group, they feel like a group,
then they identify with each other as a group, and act more like a group.)
You can be English and Muslim. There are English Muslims. There are other non-Christian English (but, admittedly, fewer than I thought!
). Christian English do not say than non-Christians are non-English. Religion is irrelevant (in England).
I have already posted about the Turkish Cypriots' false flag operations, including the 7th June 1958 bombing.
we responded to the attacks of TCs when they joined the Colonialists and attacked us?
After the explosion of violence, Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lennox-Boyd reported that,
So, if the Turkish Cypriot nationalist extremists hadn't caused the outbreak of violence, the Greek Cypriot nationalist extremists would have caused it instead. Both sets of nationalist extremists and the British colonial government share responsibility.
I couldn't care less whether Britain splits up or not. Most English people don't care. Some Scots and Welsh want independence (but not that many, and only when their economy is doing well; when the crisis started, they got a lot quieter... So much for it being a matter of principle!). I'm not trying to split anything up, or to keep anything together. I simply don't care. I care that people in a country can go to school, see a doctor, make a life for themselves; I don't care in which country they do those things, or, indeed, in which country they do not do those things.
So maybe we should have all stayed subjects your empire and be happy with it?
So, because I don't care whether Scotland becomes independent of England, or whether it stays in a unified state with it... I think Cyprus should have stayed under colonial rule...? No.
The Republic of Cyprus was overthrown in a coup by Greek Cypriot nationalist extremists and Greek imperialists. Their coup caused the Turkish invasion. The British crime was not intervening to end the coup, not protecting the Cypriots' from their own nationalists and from other foreign imperialists...
Many coups happened in Turkey as well. The coup was no reason for a foreign invasion, ethnic cleansing and occupation. Just a lame excuse that the Turks gave to put into action the plan they had since the 50s.
And by saying that Britain's crime was not protecting Cypriots' from both Cypriot nationalists and foreign imperialists, I was justifying the Turkish occupation...? No.
Just like with the TCs, these Greek and GC fascists were only a small minority, and without foreign support they wouldn't be able to cause any serious problem.
Yes, but their foreign support was from Greece and the U.S., as TMT's support was
mostly from Turkey and the U.S. And the British support to TMT was from the secret services, not from the British army. It's all Operation Gladio bullshit.
EOKA turned the Turkish Cypriots against the Greek Cypriots. EOKA forced them to arm themselves. Don't blame the British for Greek Cypriot nationalist extremists' murder of Turkish Cypriots. Blame the British for a lot of crimes, but blame them for their own, not for EOKA's.
