Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

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

Using your logic, WWII Nazi crimes cannot constitute genocide because the convention hadn't been in place until 1948.

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.

The references for the table presented is provided under the link…

Source: Based on information from L.W. St. John-Jones, The Population of Cyprus, Hounslow, Middlesex, United Kingdom, 1983, 33; and Republic of Cyprus, Ministry of Finance, Department of Statistics and Research, Statistical Abstract, 1987 and 1988, Nos. 33-34, Nicosia, 1989, 33.

Take it up with the above scholars...

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.

If the Ottoman way was "effective" they'd still be around today wouldn't they?

(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' ?

From the Library of Congress:

“In the summer of 1570, the Turks struck again, but this time with a full-scale invasion rather than a raid. About 60,000 troops, including cavalry and artillery, under the command of Lala Mustafa Pasha landed unopposed near Limassol on July 2, 1570, and laid siege to Nicosia. In an orgy of victory on the day that the city fell--September 9, 1570--20,000 Nicosians were put to death, and every church, public building, and palace was looted. Word of the massacre spread, and a few days later Mustafa took Kyrenia without having to fire a shot.”

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?f ... CID+cy0017)

That's 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.

All your questions have been addressed so now let's see how YOU fair...

[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.

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.?

Kikapu,
This is probably a discussion for a different/new thread and I agree at one level with much of what you say. The problem with using the term genocide is twofold. First, its modern form derives more or less from the 1948 Genocide Convention which was a direct response to the holocaust and takes a legalistic form. There is always a problem in historical analysis of using a legal understanding of cause and responsibility and then applying it retrospectively. Its a double whammy of errors. Second, by adopting the mid-twentieth century definitions, with some updates, there is a tendency to describe almost all forms of mass killings as genocidal. If you take this definition and shine it on the pre-1948 past then virtually every decade of every major society could be described as genocidal.

In general I'm opposed to the idea that one should judge (and analyse) one historical epoch by the criteria of a different and later historical epoch. In formal legal terms it seems to me a straightforward contradiction to judge (approve/disapprove, condemn/condone, etc) the actions of a set of people by applying a set of criteria or test which those people were simply not working to nor even cognisant. For example, what possible use is it to attempt to explain the actions of 13th century Lusignan peasants in terms of 1940s San Francisco-drafted human rights ?

You might say - and I'd be sympathetic in one sense - that, most human history has been genocidal. The trouble is that we then debase the notion of genocide - which was exactly the opposite of what the Genocide Convention was meant to convey. I.e, genocide is a violence which is exceptional and not routine.

There's another problem with the modern definition of genocide. It is mostly rooted in the idea of policy and intent (though there is some room for unintended effect). In other words genocide is a reference to a deliberate, wilful and pre-meditated public policy. Hence the Nazis clearly had a genocidal intent evidenced by the Wannsee conference for example. The slave trades that you refer to, on this count, were genocidal in effect BUT it is difficult (I'd say impossible) to argue that the trade itself was genocidal in purpose and intent, and Spanish, French, English, or Hausa public slave trade policy was not genocidal in ambition.

On the Armenian genocide I'd not agree with the reasoning of your friend. Here I'd argue that the Armenian catastrophe should be properly called a genocide because (a) it was exceptionally large and intensive in killing and extensive in letting die, i.e, it was a different order of magnitude of mass killings; and (b) I think that there is sufficient evidence of the killings being a more or less systematic public policy of killing to merit a broad description like genocide. I applaud and support the recent initiative by Turkish citizens to recognise and acknowledge the genocide of Armenians.

I'l not get into the question of whether a rose is a rose by any other name - but basically my response would be it depends on who does the naming and why they have named it so

[Cem]

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

The tax is/was to be levied on able bodied adult males of military age and affording power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

Does occur to you that islanders with meager resources are prone to emigrate ? Couldn't it be that becoming Ottoman subjects, the islanders may have sought to settle elsewhere ? Any emigration statistics ?

Neglect constitutes GENOCIDE...

How come GC outnumbered Ottoman remnants (TCs) then and still now under ......GENOCIDE ??

(d) Imposing [/i]measures intended to prevent births within the group;

How ? Castrating males ? Removing ovaries of females? Forcing the use of condoms ? Joseph Mengele must have learned the state of art from the Ottomans, then

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.

For 300+ years the Ottoman rulers must have poked a lot of the local women and some got mixed with the settlers. This island had already seen the occupation of Latins, Greeks, etc as well.Beyond a certain point, there can be no such a thing like indigenous population anymore.

Numbers ALWAYS tell the real story.

Provided that they are not manipulated to tell more than what they actually represent. And all they represent is a declining population growth during Ottoman rule, nothing else. The rest is your imagination working up......And still no detailed statistics...

[CopperLine]

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

Using your logic, WWII Nazi crimes cannot constitute genocide because the convention hadn't been in place until 1948.

As I said Get Real,

the silliness of using mid-twentieth century legalisms of genocide to account for early modern demographic changes.

The six to ten or so years before 1948 does not constitute the early modern period !

With regards the logic, read my response to Kikapu.

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.
The references for the table presented is provided under the link…

Source: Based on information from L.W. St. John-Jones, The Population of Cyprus, Hounslow, Middlesex, United Kingdom, 1983, 33; and Republic of Cyprus, Ministry of Finance, Department of Statistics and Research, Statistical Abstract, 1987 and 1988, Nos. 33-34, Nicosia, 1989, 33.

Take it up with the above scholars...

No Get Real it is not these other scholars who are making the claim that there was a genocide of Cypriots: it is you. If you are serious in making this charge then have the decency to establish the reliability of these figures

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.

If the Ottoman way was "effective" they'd still be around today wouldn't they?

(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' ?

From the Library of Congress:

“In the summer of 1570, the Turks struck again, but this time with a full-scale invasion rather than a raid. About 60,000 troops, including cavalry and artillery, under the command of Lala Mustafa Pasha landed unopposed near Limassol on July 2, 1570, and laid siege to Nicosia. In an orgy of victory on the day that the city fell--September 9, 1570--20,000 Nicosians were put to death, and every church, public building, and palace was looted. Word of the massacre spread, and a few days later Mustafa took Kyrenia without having to fire a shot.”

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?f ... CID+cy0017)

That's genocide!

Or you could say 'that's siege warfare of the sixteenth century'. Your use of genocide here (adjective, noun or verb) - and you only give one instance for several centuries - demonstrates exactly what I was saying to Kikapu. If we say that any act of mass killing in war is genocide then the term genocide is debased - the holocaust of the Jews, the killing of Catholics in northern Ireland, the selling of alcohol to aboriginal australians, the Armenian killings of 1915, the looting of Russian Orthodox churches by Russian communists, the killing of Gaelic or Basque speakers, and the elimination of Hohentots are all genocide. Was the battle of Stalingrad or Monte Cassino or Deir Yassin or Little Big Horn or Dien Bien Phu also genocide. Tragedies yes, unfortunate yes, crimes even yes, but 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.
All your questions have been addressed so now let's see how YOU fair...

Except all the questions I asked about taxation or other explanations of demographic change !!!

[Get Real!]

Quote from “Excerpta Cypria”…

“Then followed three centuries of Ottoman rule, characterized mainly by the almost complete spiritual and cultural isolation of Cyprus from Europe. As a small and relatively out-off province of the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus was left to fall into a state of economic, social and cultural decline. Almost the entire population, including the church leaders, could neither read nor write.”

http://www.cypruscollector.net/aavr1.html

[Get Real!]

The tax is/was to be levied on able bodied adult males of military age and affording power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya

In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens

What is relevant is that some indigenous people were converting from one religion to another and the contents of the Quoran had nothing to do with it!

The REASONS for which they were converting to Islam constitutes GENOCIDE.

Does occur to you that islanders with meager resources are prone to emigrate ? Couldn't it be that becoming Ottoman subjects, the islanders may have sought to settle elsewhere ? Any emigration statistics?

You just don't get it do you? The SEVERE DECLINE (NEGATIVE GROWTH) of the indigenous people of Cyprus during that 300 year period, be it due to neglect, harsh socio-economic conditions, or ANY other, that caused mass emigration, or death, or infertility, or anything else that led to this result is… GENOCIDE!

[Get Real!]

early modern demographic changes.

I get it... you get to decide what's in and what's out. You win on this point.

No Get Real it is not these other scholars who are making the claim that there was a genocide of Cypriots: it is you. If you are serious in making this charge then have the decency to establish the reliability of these figures

Again, the reliability of pre-20th century demographic data (as you categorize it) is something that you’ll have to take up with the scholars who have conducted their research and provided us with their results. I cannot speak on their behalf.

The genocide convention clearly stipulates that...

"....genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..."

So your argument about numbers becomes irrelevant.

Or you could say 'that's siege warfare of the sixteenth century'. Your use of genocide here (adjective, noun or verb) - and you only give one instance for several centuries - demonstrates exactly what I was saying to Kikapu....

There are ENTIRE volumes written about the 300 year tyranny the Cypriots were subjected to by the Ottomans. I just gave you the start...

[YFred]

Quote from “Excerpta Cypria”…

“Then followed three centuries of Ottoman rule, characterized mainly by the almost complete spiritual and cultural isolation of Cyprus from Europe. As a small and relatively out-off province of the Ottoman Empire, Cyprus was left to fall into a state of economic, social and cultural decline. Almost the entire population, including the church leaders, could neither read nor write.”

http://www.cypruscollector.net/aavr1.html

No change there then. Whats new?

[Oracle]

The pain must be less, the human crime ignored because it happened before CopperLine can deem it worthy of the label Genocide.

Tough luck 1.5 Million doomed, massacred Armenians ... according to CopperLine, all you did was die a natural death ....

[CopperLine]

Oracle you are an idiot