Six Markers of Ethnicity
From John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, eds. Ethnicity. Oxford Readers.
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.), 67. [GN495.6.E8845]
Firstly, do you believe that what this man has written is the only way you can define ethnicity? Who gave him the monopoly? There are several ways you can define ethnicity, here is one of them:
•an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial
or cultural ties; "ethnicity has a strong influence on community status relations"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Here is another one:
'Designating a social group within a cultural and social system, often with common traits including religious, linguistic, ancestral or physical characteristics.'
Universal Dictionary.
However, let us look at the definition you have given:
Common proper name - Gives “essence of community”
e.g. Kikuyu, Luhya, Tusti, etc.
Common Ancestry- usually a myth about common descent
e.g. myth about Mumbi for the Kikuyu, and myth About Musimbi and Kanyoro for the Luhya.
Shared historical memory - group shared memory e.g. movement from the Congo forest (Luhya), from Egypt (Israel), Mau Mau (kikuyu)
- Commemorations of Exodus, Passover, Sabbath, Feast of Weeks and Tabernacles for the Jews
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:xA ... ent=safari 1. Sharing ethnicity requires a common ancestry! You cannot even prove yours!
Did you read your own quote? It states that common ancestry is usually a myth!!
You shot yourself in the foot there! So what am I supposed to prove, a myth! If it helps, the Greek Goddess Aphrodite was born from Cyprus' shores, Cypriots believed in all the same myths as the Greeks, and King Evagoras of Salamis (410-374 BC) believed he was the half brother of Ajax, the mythical Trojan hero. Further, if the settlement of Mycenaeans was a myth as you claim, then there you go, we have our myth!
Moreover, what would you consider proof of common ancestry? Bearing in mind we're talking about so long ago. We can't go back in time, so all we can go by is what we have found in Cyprus. It appears that the world's historians believe they have found enough proof about Mycenaean and other Greek colonisation of Cyprus, so that is enough for me. Forgive me if I decide to believe the world's experts and museums over you and GR.
2. Common proper name - This is impossible since the Mycaeneans did not refer to themselves as "Greeks". But you could call them Anatolian if you like since that is the land mass from which they came.
We have had a common name ("Greeks") for thousands of years and ever since the word was used. That makes us as Greek as anyone else. Just because the Mycenaeans never used the actual word "Greek" it doesn't mean they weren't. "Greek" is only a label or description. Does an idiot have to be called an idiot, before he is one?
Further, it was not only the Mycenaeans that colonised Cyprus, but other Greeks as well from the Dorian invasions onwards.
3. There is no memory of Greek migration to Cyprus. All we have are a few ruins. In fact, I dispute that Greek Cypriots are descended from the Mycaeneans. Why not? You can't prove it. Language means nothing. They speak English in Tonga and Jamaica, it doesn't mean they are the same ethnicity as the English.
Greek migration happened thousands of years ago, so of course there is no memory! What a silly comment. What we have is archeological evidence, which is all we can have, unless you have a time machine? And the archeological evidence matches the written records and the cultural identity of Cyprus. Where is your proof that Mycenaeans did not settle? We have plenty of proof showing their existence. We also have the evidence that Cyprus emerged as a culturally Greek island, that was speaking Greek and shared all the same religious and cultural beliefs and customs as other Greeks, so how did all that happen? What about the accounts following the apparent Dorian invasions of other Greeks fleeing to Cyprus? They speak English in Jamaica because the British ruled the island, so there is still obviously a connection. But the Greeks didn't rule Cyprus as such, but colonised it instead, and founded various city-states. This is all historically accepted.
You claim the Mycaeneans were "Greek" even though "Greek" was not a term recognised then... how is that possible? Shall I call the Anglo-Saxons English? Or the Vikings - Norwegians? Or the Gaulish French? Or the Urartians Armenians? And what of the Etrusians, shall we call them Italian-Slovenes? Do you see how stupid your argument is?
The Anglo-Saxons became known as the English, the Franks, French etc, just like the Mycenaeans became known as Greeks. You actually again shoot yourself in the foot here, because if you're saying that the GCs are not Greek because the Mycenaeans were not called Greeks, then by your own example, the English can't be English, because Anglo-Saxons never heard the term 'English', or the French can't be Franks, because 'French' was not a recognised term to the original Franks etc etc. Do you now see how stupid your argument is? Again I ask you, do you have to call an idiot an idiot before they actually are?
And so what if the Mycaeneans did come to Cyprus? How about the arrival of many other people after the Mycaeneans? How about the Jews of the Roman period, Nestorian Christians (Copts, Assyrians, Chaldeans) who fled to Cyprus, which was a refuge for Christians after the fall of Jerusalem? How about the Arab and Turkish slaves prior to 1571 who were forced to convert to Christianity? How about the Armenians too who settled here or the Templar knights, Franks, Latins, or Maronites?
Yes, all these people did come to Cyprus, but what is your point? Are you again having reading difficulties as previously when you thought I said that all TCs were GC converts? I stated previously that there is no such thing as being racially pure, the GCs are a mixture of different peoples like every other ethnicity. But regardless of how many people settled on Cyprus, GCs maintained their Greek language, culture and identity. It is actually a miracle when you think about it, considering all the invasions Cyprus has had. But it is a testament to Hellenism.
There were over 60 Maronite villages recorded on the island in the 14th century - that is a lot of villages my dear Simon and do you really think they kept themselves to themselves and didnt mix with the other Cypriots? Most of them assimilated into the Greek Orthodox Christian and later the Muslim communities.
See above, you still seem caught up on this racial pure thing.
How about the Ottomans where so many different people came to settle in Cyprus? Or how about modern day immigrants / those born of mixed marriages?
See above.
Look how many immigrants/those born of mixed marriages in England, does this mean the English are not English? Again, you're just talking about racial purity, which is not relevant.
All these people settled in Cyprus well after the Mycaeneans, constantly adding to the Cypriot DNA pool, how can you dismiss them but emphasize the Mycaeneans?
I don't dismiss anybody. It seems you struggle to read and understand basic English. Further, there was never a mass colonisation of Cyprus, which supplanted the overwhelming majority of GCs, but just small additions, the largest being Turkish Ottomans, now known as TCs. This is why genetic evidence does in fact show a similarity with all Greeks including GCs as I pointed out to you earlier but you ignored.
You cannot be so selective about your history or try to rewrite it Simon because it suits your political goals or the present trends.... ok?
You cannot deny the reality on the ground today, which is that the majority of Cypriots identify as Greek Cypriots no matter what you say, and have done for a long time, ok?
