Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

How can woman get pregnant when Greek man like to use back door. in that time it was mans favorite, specialy greek man to make back door visit.

GET OFF the CyProb!

[lovernomore]

How can woman get pregnant when Greek man like to use back door. in that time it was mans favorite, specialy greek man to make back door visit.

GET OFF the CyProb!

who/what are you? Forum Polis? You start stupid thret, what has Ottoman got with today Cyprus problme? I know the Robot Piratis balme them for today trouble but I didnt now you are another Robot. NOW YOU GET OFF YOIR PC AND WROK. YOUR BOS PAYING YOU MONEY TO WORK.

[paliometoxo]

nice avar fred

[CopperLine]

Get Real,
I won't address the silliness of using mid-twentieth century legalisms of genocide to account for early modern demographic changes.

I will however repeat two basic points : first, demographic data prior to the twentieth century is, everywhere, extremely unreliable. This is why any reputable publication will refer to 'estimates' and emphasise their unreliability. This all makes comparative analysis very difficult and to be treated cautiously. For example, many population estimates were based on households not capita, others were based on taxable units, others based on tax farmers, and it makes longitudinal and comparative analysis extremely difficult. Second, mass killing is not an effective method of rule and the history of the Ottoman empire was no more bloody and considerably less bloody than the overseas empires of the west. Why ? Because of the economics of Ottoman rule - a point I made earlier but which you studiously ignored.

More than this though, as I said before, the response to your thread title is one of historical investigation. (a) Did the Ottoman's engage in mass killings of Cypriots ? When ? Where ? In what numbers ? (b) If so, what demographic effect did this have ? How does it compare with the effect of changes in nutrition, environmental health, medical developments, economic productivity, labour migration, etc (c) what evidence is there from the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries for a deliberate and systematic killing which might warrant the twentieth century legal term 'genocide' ?


The above questions - which you fail to address - are a reflection of your approach to history. History for you is, I suggest, simply a storehouse of 'evidence' for a pre-supposed moral judgement. Historical moralising is a cheap trick that any fool can spew.

[Cem]

Get NumbSkull What a moron you are !

The slowdown in the rate of population growth may be attributable to many issues. (with reference to Ottoboys reign in Cy)

Possibilities:

1) Some islanders converted to islam to evade Jizya tax and/or subsequently may have left the island to settle for a living in other places under Ottoman rule, i.,e Anatolia. Just as the first wave of Ottoman settlers (mark my word, I said Ottoman, not Turkish, as Greeks, Serbs, Albanians and many other nations were under their rule at that time) were settled there by order of the Sultan.

2) Unlike Ottoman empire,British empire's exploitation of the administered areas was ALSO an Economic one. While on one hand, the Britts economically exploited the nations, on the other hand they have contributed to their standarts of living, infrastructure, etc in order to maximize their gain. Don't forget that by 1800s the life expectancy due to improvements in healthcare was pretty advanced vis-a-vis 1600s.
Note that if India today has an excellent railway network and Arabs can boast themselves with a strong radio broadcasting (Cairo for example) at all times, it is thanks to British rule. High living standarts under the british colonial rule may helped to increase the population growth even attracting other people around the island.

Palestine was a swamp and one of the most destitute areas in the world. Why do you think most Zionists have chosen to settle there under the British rule rather than the Ottoman rule. ? Don't tell me they would have been killed if they had attempted, for it was the Ottomans who first helped the Spanish Jewry fleeing the inquisition.

3) As Nikitas said, Ottoman rule is generally marked with neglect rather than a genocide. For one thing, if they had truly genocided the indigenous people of Cyprus,as a small community, Cypriots today would have long become an extinct people.

In http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus19625.html thread, I asked the following to Piratis:

Question:
If the Tcs, as you said, had the backing of millions of turks behind them, then how come:
They could not become more populous than GCs over time ?
I mean, since Ottos were running the island for centuries, they could have brought in more and more of their kind so as to outnumber the locals, the true Cypriots GCs.
There was nothing to prevent them from putting this into action..

Piratis' reply:

And how do you think the TC minority was created in Cyprus? If there was no such policy of forcefully Turkifying Cyprus then there would be 0% of Turks in Cyprus today.

They brought many 1000s of people in Cyprus, but bringing them was not that easy since they had to be forced to come. Cyprus back then was not what it is today. People didn't want to come here. Also they tried to make many Cypriots muslims by offering several advantages to being a muslim rather that a christian. But they didn't want to eliminate all Cypriots because then there would be nobody to exploit. Also many Turks left from Cyprus when the Ottoman rule was over, and many Cypriots who were forced to become muslims turned back to Christianity.

Now, If I am to take his words for granted, then it is not possible that Ottomans both genocided the locals at the same time exploited them so that today GCs outnumber TCs. Either one of you is farting or more likely none of your allegations are entirely correct.

Piratis claims that Ottoboys left locals untouched in order to exploit them.
I wonder what the locals had got worth exploiting at that time given that Piratis also admited that the Ottoman settlers were brought in against their will to this arid and barren island.
What was so dear and precious that Cyprus got at that time other than donkey riding, goat herding peasants ?
You can make a mountain of lies and disinformation based on sheer numbers, also forgetting that the more you back in history, the less accurate become the figures.

Do you have emigration figures ? Do you have mortality rate statistics broken down according to the cause ?
U r just spitting shit ...

[Kikapu]

Get Real,
I won't address the silliness of using mid-twentieth century legalisms of genocide to account for early modern demographic changes.

I will however repeat two basic points : first, demographic data prior to the twentieth century is, everywhere, extremely unreliable. This is why any reputable publication will refer to 'estimates' and emphasise their unreliability. This all makes comparative analysis very difficult and to be treated cautiously. For example, many population estimates were based on households not capita, others were based on taxable units, others based on tax farmers, and it makes longitudinal and comparative analysis extremely difficult. Second, mass killing is not an effective method of rule and the history of the Ottoman empire was no more bloody and considerably less bloody than the overseas empires of the west. Why ? Because of the economics of Ottoman rule - a point I made earlier but which you studiously ignored.

More than this though, as I said before, the response to your thread title is one of historical investigation. (a) Did the Ottoman's engage in mass killings of Cypriots ? When ? Where ? In what numbers ? (b) If so, what demographic effect did this have ? How does it compare with the effect of changes in nutrition, environmental health, medical developments, economic productivity, labour migration, etc (c) what evidence is there from the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries for a deliberate and systematic killing which might warrant the twentieth century legal term 'genocide' ?


The above questions - which you fail to address - are a reflection of your approach to history. History for you is, I suggest, simply a storehouse of 'evidence' for a pre-supposed moral judgement. Historical moralising is a cheap trick that any fool can spew.

CopperLine,

The term "Genocide" may well be a 20th century term, but actions that produces the same results as today's Genocides, is only splitting hair, is it not?. Just like my Turkish friend said to me recently, that he accepts the death of the Armenians at the hands of the Turks, but it cannot be called a Genocide, because the word "Genocide" was introduces after the WWII, therefore that word cannot apply to the deaths of the Armenians.!

When the blacks were uprooted from Africa and shipped to America as slaves, in which millions of young men and women were stripped of that continent to cultivate their land into prosperity can also be considered to be a act of Genocide , because a lot of Africa’s poor state of affairs today can be attributed to the acts of those times. What if the Ottomans in Cyprus actually did not do a mass killing, but the young were removed from the island, just like the young blacks from Africa to serve in their armies far away from Cyprus and also had them converted into another religion. Does all this not account as cultural Genocide, even if you used another name for it. Isn't a Rose a Rose, even if you use another name for it.?

[denizaksulu]

As I said earlier, it would be unlikely that the Ottomans would 'kill the goose that lay the golden eggs', unless ofcourse they had 'just' reason.

The removal of children to serve Ottoman interests, the atrocious conditions which the Cypriot locals were made to endure, the cold blooded murders by the thousands, etc, all constitute to GENOCIDE, and if the unjustifiable severe population decline doesn’t tell the tale then I don’t know what does…

For you it is the easy way out to blame everything on the Ottomans or Turks. I am trying to look at these figures realistically. There was nothing wrong for Ottomans to join the Ottoman navy. Succeed and you get to the top, like many viziers and Admirals. They were also very well paid for their services.

We know your point in these threads GR. Not exactly historical facts but to show the Ottomans and by proxy the Turks, (not personally perhaps, because I know you like me ) in the worst possible light. You have become a worse Partitionist than the TC ones (together with Piratis)

[YFred]

nice avar fred

Thanks.

[YFred]

As I said earlier, it would be unlikely that the Ottomans would 'kill the goose that lay the golden eggs', unless ofcourse they had 'just' reason.

The removal of children to serve Ottoman interests, the atrocious conditions which the Cypriot locals were made to endure, the cold blooded murders by the thousands, etc, all constitute to GENOCIDE, and if the unjustifiable severe population decline doesn’t tell the tale then I don’t know what does…

For you it is the easy way out to blame everything on the Ottomans or Turks. I am trying to look at these figures realistically. There was nothing wrong for Ottomans to join the Ottoman navy. Succeed and you get to the top, like many viziers and Admirals. They were also very well paid for their services.

We know your point in these threads GR. Not exactly historical facts but to show the Ottomans and by proxy the Turks, (not personally perhaps, because I know you like me ) in the worst possible light. You have become a worse Partitionist than the TC ones (together with Piratis)

Deniz,
Its not just that. He is worried about the vote in the near future.
Thats all it is. I can read his mind from a million miles.

[Get Real!]

1) Some islanders converted to islam to evade Jizya taxand/or subsequently may have left the island to settle for a living in other places under Ottoman rule, i.,e Anatolia

Article 2 of the Genocide convention states...

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Manipulating income tax to the point were people change religion or move altogether constitutes GENOCIDE.

3) As Nikitas said, Ottoman rule is generally marked with neglect rather than a genocide.

Article 2 of the Genocide convention states...

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Neglect constitutes GENOCIDE...

For one thing, if they had truly genocided the indigenous people of Cyprus,as a small community, Cypriots today would have long become an extinct people.

Based on the population figures in the table provided, the indigenous Cypriot population was well on its way to extinction until the miraculous British takeover of 1878.

You can make a mountain of lies and disinformation based on sheer numbers, also forgetting that the more you back in history, the less accurate become the figures.

Numbers ALWAYS tell the real story.