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"
Even by this definition you cannot prove to be ethnically 'Greek'. Cypriot racial characteristics are more like the Semitic people of the Middle East, while large parts of our culture is closer to Egypt and Lebanon than it is to either Greece or Turkey.
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.
This is not a good definition since Greek Cypriots share a religion with people who are not Greeks. Ever heard of the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria in Egypt where there are 1.2 million Greek Orthodox Christians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orth ... AlexandriaThat was for!
I know its a myth but did you? Was it not you who claimed the Greek Cypriots descended solely from the Mycaeneans?
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.
So...you still believe in your myth? Apparently the museums now hold the evidence....
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.
But you cannot give them a name that they never used to identify themselves. Like the Anglo-Saxons etc you must call them by their original name, which is Mycaeneans. It is questionable whether they became Greeks. Certainly it can be argued that their language survived and became Cypriot-Greek but to assume the Greek Cypriots descend from these people alone is baseless.
Let me ask you, if the Greek Cypriots all become Turkish in 2000 years time, would you like it if 'experts' starting calling you Turkish because you became one?
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.
I am not arguing that they settled or that they didnt settle. I dont know. Since racial purity is not our goal it doesnt matter. What matters is that even if they did settle, since it was such a long time ago it does not and cannot possibly make you Greek. You are forgetting all the other influences linguistic, cultural, religious etc etc on the Cypriots in between their arrival and now. That is a huge amount of time you are dismissing!
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?
Not really. DNA research reveals that the Anglo Saxons mixed with the local Celts in England and many English are a mixture. Surprisingly though, a great number of English also showed signs of having no Anglo-Saxon connection at all, indicating that there was only limited Anglo-Saxon input and that the Celts had simply assimilated. This destroys past expert theories that the Celts were massacred or pushed towards Wales and Scotland.
To prove my point again on why
you can never claim a single ancestry, not all French descend from the Gauls. Many have Germanic and Latin origins as well as Basque. The majority of French are mixture of all of these with the exception of those living in the most remote areas like Finistere in Brittany.
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.
My point is and I cant believe you haven't got it, is that
you cannot rely on a single ancestry! So your claim to be Greek is utter rubbish. See above, you still seem caught up on this racial pure thing.
Its not a racial thing. You cannot claim to be Greek because of the Mycaeneans but then turn around and say, but mind you I have so many other ingredients too. Its a bit like a road sweeper saying: "I've had this broom for 25 years, but I've changed the brush 47 times and the stick 51 times since then!"
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.
This is a different issue as the land is called England and it has an official status. You're claiming that Greek Cypriots (who are Cypriots) are ethnically Greek (another country), which is baloney.
Using your own argument one can claim with justification that there are many origins and immigrants in Cyprus and people of mixed marriages, does this mean we are not all Cypriots?
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.
How did you measure that? Nobody knows, even historians and experts claim they do not fully know but you do...
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?
Once the majority of the word thought the world was flat.