The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


CYPRUSAND THE ClASH OF GREEK AND TURKISH NATIONALISMS

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby Tim Drayton » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:41 pm

Oracle wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:
Oracle wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:
Oracle wrote:I used the term "harem" in the loosest sense. Not just to denote the Royal Harems, but as Zan has explained, the run-of-the-mill collections of woeful women the Ottoman-Turks took along, to help them spread their demon seeds :roll:

They were not necessarily the delightful dens of your dreams :lol:


The Ottomans were not nomads, you ignorant woman.


So where was their original homeland, from which they began their (nomadic) expansions?

Virtually all peoples were nomadic early in their history, but the Ottomans (and the various subdivisions they absorbed) continued this for longer ...

The Rise of the Ottoman Empire

A group of nomads that lived in the Middle East, known as the Turks, began to form small states during the chaos following the Mongol capture of Baghdad in 1258. The Turks, descendents of earlier Mongol nomads, eventually built up a sizeable force. Interaction with Mongol warriors would likely have given the Turks knowledge of gunpowder. This would have given the Turks, under the rule of a small group of men known as the Ottomans, a clear advantage. With the destruction of the Byzantine city of Constantanople in 1453, the Ottomans created their empire. Under the rule of Suleiman the I, the Ottoman Empire expanded into Europe. The print at the right shows the prominance of artillery in his campaigns. Suleiman used gunpowder heavily to bring about the expansion of the Ottoman empire in the 1500s. It is very possible that Suleiman could have helped to bring the cannon into mainstream uses in Europe because of his extensive campaigns there. In any event, gunpowder made a large impact on the Middle East when it was brought by the Mongol invaders.


http://www.bangorschools.net/hs/SR/Gunp ... 0Page.html


You are confusing the Ottomans with the Turks, my dear. Turkish-speaking peoples have at various times in their history been nomadic warriors and have at the same time established great sedentary civilisations, as the architectural wonders of, say, Bukhara bear witness to. You should realise that the Turks converted to Islam at a relatively late historical stage. Over the sweep of time, the vast majority of nomadic Turks have been shamanists or Buddhists, and even those that converted to Islam managed to incorporate features of their pre-Islamic belief systems into their faith and practices - the survivial of the Alevi religion, a kind of synthesis of Islam and ancient Turkish shamanism, in Anatolia despite centuries of persecution bears testament to the enduring strength of these old beliefs. Amongst Alevis, who probably make up 25% of the population of Anatolia there is equality of the sexes. To claim in general terms that nomadic Turks kept harems or suppressed their women is merely to display one's total ignorance of Turkish history and identity.

The first Turks to venture into Anatolia were nomads. However, their progeny went on to establish powerful states, such as the Seljuk and Ottoman Empires. Anatolia at the time was such a melting pot that it is hard to state categorically whether these were Turkish states or not. Certainly a large proportion of the population spoke a Turkic language that was the predecessor of modern standard Turkish. The Ottoman empire became increasinly muticultural as it expanded, and over time the ruling elite became completely divorced from the ordinary people. The Turkish-speaking populace was simply one group of subjects of this empire. The term "Tourkokratia" used by the Greeks to decribe OTTOMAN rule is, for this reason, totally specious and only helps to engender the kind of misunderstanding that one sees in your above posts.

Yes, Ottoman Sultans acquired huge harems of women at their palaces, but their lives were far removed from those of the Turkish-speaking nomads who first migrated to Anatoila centuries earlier and with whom these Sultans, many of whose mothers came from European royal families, shared few if any genes.

Hope this helps to put things in a bit of context.


You only confirm what I said, but in greater detail. The origins of most of the groups of people were nomadic, and the Ottomans carried on for longer, as you say by absorbing other nomadic groups, far later in history than, say, Europeans.

The Ottoman Turks : nomad kingdom to world empire
by C Max Kortepeter
Type: Book; English
Publisher: Istanbul : Isis Press, 1991.
ISBN: 9754280304 9789754280302


I suggest that you actually READ the book you so gleefully quote, and then come back and past judgment on the Turks based on at least of glimmering of factual knowledge.
User avatar
Tim Drayton
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8799
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:32 am
Location: Limassol/Lemesos

Postby Oracle » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:51 pm

Tim Drayton wrote:
Oracle wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:
Oracle wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:
Oracle wrote:I used the term "harem" in the loosest sense. Not just to denote the Royal Harems, but as Zan has explained, the run-of-the-mill collections of woeful women the Ottoman-Turks took along, to help them spread their demon seeds :roll:

They were not necessarily the delightful dens of your dreams :lol:


The Ottomans were not nomads, you ignorant woman.


So where was their original homeland, from which they began their (nomadic) expansions?

Virtually all peoples were nomadic early in their history, but the Ottomans (and the various subdivisions they absorbed) continued this for longer ...

The Rise of the Ottoman Empire

A group of nomads that lived in the Middle East, known as the Turks, began to form small states during the chaos following the Mongol capture of Baghdad in 1258. The Turks, descendents of earlier Mongol nomads, eventually built up a sizeable force. Interaction with Mongol warriors would likely have given the Turks knowledge of gunpowder. This would have given the Turks, under the rule of a small group of men known as the Ottomans, a clear advantage. With the destruction of the Byzantine city of Constantanople in 1453, the Ottomans created their empire. Under the rule of Suleiman the I, the Ottoman Empire expanded into Europe. The print at the right shows the prominance of artillery in his campaigns. Suleiman used gunpowder heavily to bring about the expansion of the Ottoman empire in the 1500s. It is very possible that Suleiman could have helped to bring the cannon into mainstream uses in Europe because of his extensive campaigns there. In any event, gunpowder made a large impact on the Middle East when it was brought by the Mongol invaders.


http://www.bangorschools.net/hs/SR/Gunp ... 0Page.html


You are confusing the Ottomans with the Turks, my dear. Turkish-speaking peoples have at various times in their history been nomadic warriors and have at the same time established great sedentary civilisations, as the architectural wonders of, say, Bukhara bear witness to. You should realise that the Turks converted to Islam at a relatively late historical stage. Over the sweep of time, the vast majority of nomadic Turks have been shamanists or Buddhists, and even those that converted to Islam managed to incorporate features of their pre-Islamic belief systems into their faith and practices - the survivial of the Alevi religion, a kind of synthesis of Islam and ancient Turkish shamanism, in Anatolia despite centuries of persecution bears testament to the enduring strength of these old beliefs. Amongst Alevis, who probably make up 25% of the population of Anatolia there is equality of the sexes. To claim in general terms that nomadic Turks kept harems or suppressed their women is merely to display one's total ignorance of Turkish history and identity.

The first Turks to venture into Anatolia were nomads. However, their progeny went on to establish powerful states, such as the Seljuk and Ottoman Empires. Anatolia at the time was such a melting pot that it is hard to state categorically whether these were Turkish states or not. Certainly a large proportion of the population spoke a Turkic language that was the predecessor of modern standard Turkish. The Ottoman empire became increasinly muticultural as it expanded, and over time the ruling elite became completely divorced from the ordinary people. The Turkish-speaking populace was simply one group of subjects of this empire. The term "Tourkokratia" used by the Greeks to decribe OTTOMAN rule is, for this reason, totally specious and only helps to engender the kind of misunderstanding that one sees in your above posts.

Yes, Ottoman Sultans acquired huge harems of women at their palaces, but their lives were far removed from those of the Turkish-speaking nomads who first migrated to Anatoila centuries earlier and with whom these Sultans, many of whose mothers came from European royal families, shared few if any genes.

Hope this helps to put things in a bit of context.


You only confirm what I said, but in greater detail. The origins of most of the groups of people were nomadic, and the Ottomans carried on for longer, as you say by absorbing other nomadic groups, far later in history than, say, Europeans.

The Ottoman Turks : nomad kingdom to world empire
by C Max Kortepeter
Type: Book; English
Publisher: Istanbul : Isis Press, 1991.
ISBN: 9754280304 9789754280302


I suggest that you actually READ the book you so gleefully quote, and then come back and past judgment on the Turks based on at least of glimmering of factual knowledge.


But you confirmed what I said also; as do many other sources. Unless you are going to tell me the book says any different, I really do not see why I should add further to my sum of knowledge on the nomadic habits of the expansionist Ottoman-Turks.
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby Paphitis » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:51 pm

insan wrote:
Oracle wrote:
insan wrote:
paliometoxo wrote:and abortion is illogal in cyprus only for the war in 1974 they made an exeption to these women that where raped by the turkish and allowed them to have abortions imagine a 13 year old girl raped by the army having to have an abortion the youngest was 12??? all the way to the old ladies, the army not getting enough sex raping anything with two legs?


When i put the keywords(rape, Turkish, Cyprus) into google search, just a bunch of Hellenic propaganda websites appear in the results page. Where is that so-called ECHR report that charged Turkey bcz of the mass rapes in 1974 war? I couldn't even find such a report on official gov.cy websites. Waging propaganda to create impressions in favour of ur self-interests haven't led u to what u desire and won't lead u ever...


http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... sc&start=0



I asked, where is the report regarding the mass rapes of GC females by Turkish soldiers? u put a link to another propganda crap by someone. I googled abt Iain Walker and came up 2 different versions of the almost same story but with different dates; on again some bunch of Hellenic propaganda websites. One of them states that it was reported to The Sun newspaer on 5th of August while the other one states that it was reported on 8th of August. In fact there's no such The Sun reporter comes up from google search.

Here is the source of propaganda:
Enotita - A pan-orthodox organization with the stated goal of defending the values of Hellenism and all of Orthodoxy from Islam and the West.
-- http://enotitanpride.tripod.com/enotita/ Regional: Europe: Greece: Society and Culture: Politics
http://enotitanpride.tripod.com/turks1.doc
http://enotitanpride.tripod.com/enotita/id11.html
http://enotitanpride.tripod.com/enotita/id1.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=tr&q=en ... thodox&lr=
http://www.neobyzantine.org/movement/statute.php


Hope this is enough for you?

The following article appeared in The Sunday Times of London on 23 January 1977, written by the newspaper's Insight team:


"The terrible secrets of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus
The plight of Cyprus, with 40 per cent of the island still occupied by Turkish troops who invaded in the summer of 1974, is well known. But never before has the full story been told of what happened during and after the invasion. This article is based on the secret report of the European Commission of Human Rights. For obvious reasons, Insight has withdrawn the names of witnesses who gave evidence to the Commission.

INSIGHT

Killing

Relevant Article of Human Rights Convention: Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.

Charge made by Greek Cypriots: The Turkish army embarked on a systematic course of mass killings of civilians unconnected with any war activity.

Turkish Defence: None offered, but jurisdiction challenged. By letter dated November 27, 1975, Turkey told the Commission it refused to accept the Greek Cypriot administration's right to go to the commission, "since there is no authority which can properly require the Turkish government to recognise against its will the legitimacy of a government which has usurped the powers of the state in violation of the constitution of which Turkey is a guarantor." No defence therefore offered to any other charges either.

Evidence given to the commission: Witness Mrs K said that on July 21, 1974, the second day of the Turkish invasion, she and a group of villagers from Elia were captured when, fleeing from bombardment, they tried to reach a range of mountains. All 12 men arrested were civilians. They were separated from the women and shot in front of the women, under the orders of a Turkish officer. Some of the men were holding children, three of whom were wounded.

Written statements referred to two more group killings: at Trimithi eyewitnesses told of the deaths of five men (two shepherds aged 60 and 70, two masons of 20 and 60, and a 19-year-old plumber). At Palekythron 30 Greek Cypriot soldiers being held prisoner were killed by their captors, according to the second statement.

Witness S gave evidence of two other mass killings at Palekythron. In each case, between 30 and 40 soldiers who had surrendered to the advancing Turks were shot. In the second case, the witness said, "the soldiers were transferred to the kilns of the village where they were shot dead and burnt in order not to leave details of what had happened."

Seventeen members of two neighbouring families, including 10 women and five children aged between two and nine were murdered in cold blood at Palekythron, reported witness H, a doctor. Further killing described in the doctor's notes, recording evidence related to him by patients (either eye-witnesses or victims) included:

Execution of eight civilians taken prisoner by Turkish soldiers in the area of Prastio, one day after the ceasefire on August 16, 1974.
Killing by Turkish soldiers of five unarmed Greek Cypriot soldiers who had sought refuge in a house at Voni.
Shooting of four women, one of whom survived by pretending she was dead.
Further evidence, taken in refugees camps and in the form of written statements, described killings of civilians in homes, streets or fields, as well as the killing of people under arrest or in detention. Eight statements described the killing of soldiers not in combat; five statements referred to a mass grave found in Dherynia.

Commission's verdict: By 14 votes to one, the commission considered there were "very strong indications" of violation of Article 2 and killings "committed on a substantial scale."

Rape

Relevant article: No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Charge by Greek Cypriots: Turkish troops were responsible for wholesale and repeated rapes of women of all ages from 12 to 71, sometimes to such an extent that the victims suffered haemorrhages or became mental wrecks. In some areas, enforced prostitution was practised, all women and girls of a village being collected and put into separate rooms in empty houses where they were raped repeatedly.

In certain cases members of the same family were repeatedly raped, some of them in front of their own children. In other cases women were brutally raped in public.

Rapes were on many occassions accompanied by brutalities such as violent biting of the victims causing severe wounding, banging their heads on the floor and wringing their throats almost to the point of suffocation. In some cases attempts to rape were followed by the stabbing or killing of the victims, victims included pregnant and mentally-retarded women.

Evidence to commission: Testimony of doctors C and H, who examined the victims. Eyewitnesses and hearsay witnesses also gave evidence, and the commission had before it written statements from 41 alleged victims.

Dr H said he had confirmed rape in 70 cases, including:

A mentally-retarded girl of 24 was raped in her house by 20 soldiers. When she started screaming they threw her from the second-floor window. She fractured her spine and was paralysed;
One day after their arrival at Voni, Turks took girls to a nearby house and raped them;
One woman from Voni was raped on three occassions by four persons each time. She became pregnant;
One girl, from Palekyhthrou, who was held with others in a house, was taken out at gunpoint and raped;
At Tanvu, Turkish soldiers tried to rape a 17-year-old schoolgirl. She resisted and was shot dead;
A woman from Gypsou told Dr H that 25 girls were kept by Turks at Marathouvouno as prostitutes.
Another witness said that his wife was raped in front of their children. Witness S told of 25 girls who complained to Turkish officers about being raped and were raped again by the officers. A man (name withheld) reported that his wife was stabbed in the neck while resisting rape. His grand-daughter, aged six, had been stabbed and killed by Turkish soldiers attempting to rape her.

A Red Cross witness said that in August 1974, while the island's telephones were still working, the Red Cross Society recieved calls from Palekyhthrou and Kaponti reporting rapes. The Red Cross also took care of 38 women released from Voni and Gypsou detention camps: all had been raped, some in front of their husbands and children. Others had been raped repeatedly, or put in houses frequented by Turkish soldiers.

These women were taken to Akrotiri hospital, in the British Sovereign Base Area, where they were treated. Three were found to be pregnant. Reference was also made to several abortions performed at the base.

Commission's verdict: By 12 votes to one the commission found "that the incidents of rape described in the cases referred to and regarded as established constitute 'inhuman treatment' and thus violations of Article 3 for which Turkey is responsible under the convention."

Torture

Relevant article: see above under Rape.

Charge by Greek-Cypriots: Hundreds of people, including children, women and pensioners, were victims of systematic torture and savage and humiliating treatment during their detention by the Turkish army. They were beaten, according to the allegations, sometimes to the extent of being incapacitated. Many were subjected to whipping, breaking of their teeth, knocking their heads against walls, beating with electrified clubs, stubbing of cigarettes on their skin, jumping and stepping on their chests an hands, pouring dirty liquids on them, piercing with bayonets, etc.

Many, it was said, were ill-treated to such an extent that they became mental and physical wrecks. The brutalities complained of reached their climax after the ceasefire agreements; in fact, most of the acts described were committed at a time when Turkish armed forces were not engaged in any war activities.

Evidence to Commission: Main witness was schoolteacher, one of 2,000 Greek Cypriot men deported to Turkey. He stated that he and his fellow detainees were repeatedly beaten after their arrest, on their way to Adana (in Turkey), in jail in Adana and in prison camp at Amasya.

On ship to Turkey - "That was another moment of terrible beating again. We were tied all the time. I lost sense of touch. I could not feel anything for about two or three months. Every time we asked for water or spoke we were being beaten."

Arriving at Adana - "...then, one by one, they led us to prisons, through a long corridor ... Going through that corridor was another terrible experience. There were about 100 soldiers from both sides with sticks, clubs and with their fists beating every one of us while going to the other end of the corridor .I was beaten at least 50 times until I reached the other end.

In Adana anyone who said he wanted to see a doctor was beaten. "Beating was on the agenda every day. There were one or two very good, very nice people, but they were afraid to show their kindness,as they told us."

Witness P spoke of:

A fellow prisoner who was kicked in the mouth. He lost several teeth "and his lower jaw came off in pieces."
A Turkish officer, a karate student, who exercised every day by hitting prisoners.
Fellow prisoners who were hung by the feet over the hole of a lavatory for hours.
A Turkish second lieutenant who used to prick all prisoners with a pin when they were taken into a yard.
Evidence from Dr H said that prisoners were in an emaciated condition on their return to Cyprus. On nine occasions he had found signs of wounds.

The doctor gave a general description of conditions in Adana and in detention camps in Cyprus (at Pavlides Garage and the Saray Prison in the Turkish quarter of Nicosia) as reported to him by former detainees. Food, he said, consisted of one-eighth of a loaf of bread a day, with occasional olives; there were two buckets of water and two mugs which were never cleaned, from which about 1,000 people had to drink; toilets were filthy, with faeces rising over the basins; floors ere covered faeces and urine; in jail in Adana prisoners were kept 76 to a cell with three towels between them and one block of soap per eight persons per month to wash themselves and their clothes.

One man, it was alleged, had to amputate his own toes with a razor blade as a consequence of ill-treatment. Caught in Achna with another man, they had been beaten up with hard objects. When he had asked for a glass of water he was given a glass full of urine. His toes were then stepped on until they became blue, swollen and eventually gangrenous. (The other man was said to have been taken to hospital in Nicosia, where he agreed to have his legs amputated. He did not survive the operation.)

According to witness S, "hundred of Greek Cypriots were beaten and dozens were executed. They have cut off their ears in some cases, like the case of Palekythro and Trahoni..." (verbatim record).

Verdict by commission: By 12 votes to one, the commission concluded that prisoners were in a number of cases physically ill-treated by Turkish soldiers. "These acts of ill-treatment caused considerable injuries and in at least one case, the death of the victim. By their severity they constitute 'inhuman treatment' in the sense of Article 3, for which Turkey is responsible under the convention."

Looting

Relevant article: Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.

Charge by Greek Cypriots: In all Turkish-occupied areas, the Turkish army systematically looted houses and business premises of Greek Cypriots.

Evidence to the commission: Looting in Kyrenia was described by witness C: "...The first days of looting of the shops was done by the army, of heavy things like refrigerators, laundry machines, television sets" (verbatim record).

For the weeks after the invasion, he said, he had watched Turkish naval ships taking on board the looted goods.

Witness K, a barrister, described the pillage of Famagusta: "At two o'clock on organised, systematic, terrifying, shocking, unbelievable looting started... We heard the breaking of doors, some of them iron doors, smashing of glass, and we were waiting for them any minute to enter the house. This lasted for about four hours."

Written statements by eyewitnesses of looting were corroborated by several reports by the secretary-general of the United Nations.

Verdict of the commission: The commission accepted that looting and robbery on an extensive scale, by Turkish troops and Turkish Cypriots, had taken place. By 12 votes to one, it established that there had been deprivation of possessions of Greek Cypriots on a large scale.

Other charges

On four counts: the commission concluded that Turkey had also violated an Article of the Convention asserting the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. The commission also decided that Turkey was continuing to violate the Article by refusing to allow the return of more than 170,000 Greek Cypriot refugees to their homes in the north.

On three counts: the commission said Turkey had violated two more articles that specify that the rights and freedoms in the Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground, and that anyone whose rights are violated "shall have an effective remedy before a national authority.""


http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org/press/pre ... 230177.htm

Apart from the 70 reported cases for rape mentioned above, there were also numerous other rapes which were not reported to the perceived cultural stigma or shame.

British SBA clinics were also conducting abortions for GC women who were pregnant after being raped. There is a report about this but I cannot find it.
User avatar
Paphitis
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 32303
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 2:06 pm

Re: CYPRUSAND THE ClASH OF GREEK AND TURKISH NATIONALISMS

Postby halil » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:30 pm

insan wrote:
TABLE 1. Ratio of Greeks to Turks in Cyprus in



Census Years

Census year Ratio of Greeks to Turks

1881 3.3: 1

1891 3.3: 1

1901 3.561

1911 3.8: 1

1921 3.99: 1

1931 4.3: 1

1946 4.48: 1

1956 4.52: 1

1960 4.3: 1

1973 4.3: 1



Source:"Population by Location, Race and Sex, and Demographic Report,» in Censusof Papulation and Agriculture,Vol. 1, Republic of Cyprus, State Archives, Vol. 7/9, No.4 (Nicosia: Department of Statistics and Research, Republic of Cyprus, State Archives).



Turks on the island was 3.03 to 1. In subsequent years, there was adrop in the Turkish population due to emigration to the mainlandso that, by the time Cyprus achieved its independence in 1960, theratio of Greeks to Turks was 4.3 to I-Greeks constituted 78.2 percentof the populati<;m and Turks 18.13 percent-the remaining3.66 percent consisting of Armenians, Lebanese Maronites andEuropeans (see Table 1).Most of the Greek Cypriots and many mainland Greeks alsoclaimed that the island should be united with Greece for demographicreasons and portrayed this simply as a question of the rightto self-determination for the majority of the island's inhabitants.As a result of the settlement of Turks in Cyprus by theOttomans, nearly all areas on the island came to have mixed Greco-Turkish populations. This was due to the Ottoman policy of settlingMuslim peasants on the lands of the dispossessed Venetianaristocracy. While the land was initially owned by Ottoman militaryand administrative officials, it passed, over time, into the hands ofpeasants.4 Most of the Turkish population lived in mixed villagesor in Turkish quarters of towns. Life in many of the mixed villageswas characterized by close ties and even intermarriage betweenGreeks and Turks.5The peasantry, both Muslim and Christian, had very little incommon with their respective religious and social elites and didjnotidentify with or relate to the large landowners, Orthodox andIslamic religious hierarchies, or the ruling Ottoman oligarchy.6In other words, the average Christian (Greek) peasant had muchmore in common with their Muslim (Turkish) counterpart thanwith members of their own national group belonging to highersocio-economic classes.


This article seeks to explain which factors played a central role in the developmentof rival Greek and Turkish Cypriot national identities and how geograPhy, modernization,and colonial policies came to playa critical role in this development.The article argues that the development of rival nationalisms on Cyprus must beanalyzed by looking at seven factors: (1) the geograPhic and topograPhic s.etting;(2) demograPhic changes and realities; (3) socio-culturalfactors, such as education,language, symbolism, religion, and links to the mainlands; (4) economicand class factors; (5) the internal impact of the colonial power; and, after theachievement of statehood in 1960 (6) Cypriot governmental organization; and(7) the geopolitical position of the island.




CYPRUSAND THE ClASH OF GREEK

AND TURKISH NATIONALISMS

NADAV MORAG

University of ]udaism, Los Angeles, CA, USA

http://cpo.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUni ... u=5381&t=0


Insan,
Last night in my birth village spor club i found this book on the shelfs of the library .
book title is :
Cyprus
The Problem
In The Light Of Truth .
Issued by the Turkish Information Center -Nicosia
September,1967

İn book Introductory says:

A booklet entitled ''Cyprus:The Problem in Perspective'' has recently been published by the Greek Public Information Office.
In the introductory chapter of this booklet it is is stateed that ''there isonly one royal way to achieving a proper solution of any problem ,how ever difficult:To have the facts right,toknow the truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth'',at first glance this statement inspired in us the hope that dictates of conscience had at last propted the Greeks to tell ''the truth and nothing but truth''.On reading further,however,it became clear that the Greek Information Office was once again at pains to coenceal and distort facts.In an endeavour to acquaint readers with the true sutiation and help them evaluate the facts we tought that we should print''the truth and nothing but the truth'2 using the same headings as those used by the Greeks.

YES Intrductory of the book starts with above wordsç

lets and see what the TC's side was puting down their arguments in this book.

CYPRUS BEFORE 1955.
halil
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8804
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: nicosia

Postby halil » Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:58 pm

Cyprus,The Problem In The Light of Truth
VS
Cyprus,the problem in Perspective

Cyprus Before 1955

Cyprus was part of Turkey from 1571 until 1914 when Great Britain by a unilateral action annexed the island to the British Crown.The unilateral British action was subsequently ratified by by the Turkish and Greek Goverments in 1923 at the Traty of Lausanne.As a result , a great number of Turks were forced to emigrate Turkey.It is interesting to note that up to the begining of the 19th century the Turks constituted the biger community numerically than the Greek-speaking people on theisland.Accordind to Census of 1777 as reported by Kyprianou , a native of Cyprus and Archimandrite of the Church ,The total population of the island was 84000 of which 47000 were Turks and 37000 Greeks-See Handbook of Cyprus 1913.p.33 Though the rate of birth is greater amongs Turks.
The poulation progressivfely decreaset ,especially after British occupation.For istance at the begining of the British occupation the population ratio between Greeks and Turks was 3:1 at the end of British occupation the ratio was 4 :1

I will write rest of the book later on.
halil
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8804
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:21 pm
Location: nicosia

Postby Oracle » Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:54 pm

Phucking blatant Propagandists ... how could a book issued by the Turkish Information Centre ... be of ANY use to anyone but a blind, deaf and dumb Anatolian!
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby insan » Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:07 pm

Oracle wrote:Phucking blatant Propagandists ... how could a book issued by the Turkish Information Centre ... be of ANY use to anyone but a blind, deaf and dumb Anatolian!


Dear, :roll: you can be against anything. Even u may have evidences that prove u right abt waht u r against. However, u never have the right to insult anyone... :(
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby growuptcs » Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:34 pm

insan:
Dear, you can be against anything. Even u may have evidences that prove u right abt waht u r against. However, u never have the right to insult anyone...


Does any Turk on this site know what the word right means? Take a break from all the Turkish rebuttals, and listen to yourselves. Insan claims Oracle has no right to insult anyone, even after taking her familys house, property and heritage. If you can't see the asshole in yourselves, why is that the GC's problem? Growup already you Ottoman remnants.
growuptcs
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:40 pm

Postby insan » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:03 am

halil wrote:Cyprus,The Problem In The Light of Truth
VS
Cyprus,the problem in Perspective

Cyprus Before 1955

Cyprus was part of Turkey from 1571 until 1914 when Great Britain by a unilateral action annexed the island to the British Crown.The unilateral British action was subsequently ratified by by the Turkish and Greek Goverments in 1923 at the Traty of Lausanne.As a result , a great number of Turks were forced to emigrate Turkey.It is interesting to note that up to the begining of the 19th century the Turks constituted the biger community numerically than the Greek-speaking people on theisland.Accordind to Census of 1777 as reported by Kyprianou , a native of Cyprus and Archimandrite of the Church ,The total population of the island was 84000 of which 47000 were Turks and 37000 Greeks-See Handbook of Cyprus 1913.p.33 Though the rate of birth is greater amongs Turks.
The poulation progressivfely decreaset ,especially after British occupation.For istance at the begining of the British occupation the population ratio between Greeks and Turks was 3:1 at the end of British occupation the ratio was 4 :1

I will write rest of the book later on.



Oliver P. Richmond http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oliver_P._Richmond

Oliver P. Richmond, in his book named "Mediating in Cyprus" stated the same facts regarding the population of 2 communities respectively.


Image

http://books.google.com/books?id=RV32qs ... =0#PPP1,M1
Last edited by insan on Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby denizaksulu » Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:03 am

[quote="YFred"][quote="Nikitas"]This dude talks of intermarriage between GCs and TCs. So far I have come across three cases of intermarriage, and in my experience the event is very rare.The assertion that many TCs emigrated to Turkey would entail the establishment of a TC community in Turkey, pretty much like the TC community in any other country. Does anyone know of such a community in Turkey? From my casual research TCs in Turkey are limited to a few professionals (doctors, professors etc) and some artists.[/quote]You will find them in Adana.[/quote]I do have relatives in Adana, whom I last visited in 1968. In the neighborhood were a few other Cypriot families who had migrated there after 1923. Also some had went to Nazilli near the Aegean. Only met them once. Of the two brothers, one a doctor and the other a general.
User avatar
denizaksulu
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 36077
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 11:04 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests