Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz3]

Classifications are not inherently racist.

Classifications are not inhernetly racist. How you choose to use classifications gives insight into your world view and can show it as racist or not.

You chose to define who is and who is not SA according to you based on race. Something not even the oppressed SA did or do. In your desciption there are SA - who are the natives and there are foreigners, by defintion not SA. You choose to divide SA up by race with yout classifcations. Its your choice to do this but to deny that doing this is racist is futile. It is also simply not the way SA themselves and espcially those of historicaly oppressed groups have ever themselves defined who is and who is not SA. It is entirely your own choice of classification.

[Oracle]

Classifications are not inherently racist.

Classifications are not inhernetly racist. How you choose to use classifications gives insight into your world view and can show it as racist or not.

Exactly! This is exactly what Turkey is doing by segregating the Greek Cypriots out of the north. Hence, Turkey is racist.

Mostly, Erolz3, it's about tolerance. Being tolerant that differences (in classification) exist without wanting to destroy them as Turkey does to the Kurds and ... ?

You chose to define who is and who is not SA according to you based on race.

I don't actually believe Humans have "races". Bacteria do. But we do fall into cultural-social groups according to our behaviour and preferences (mostly from nurture, not genetics).

The terms "foreign" and "native" do not imply "race". But, politics can give one more rights over the other through slavery, ethnic cleansing, military force ... all the things Turkey carries out against the Greek Cypriots because they have the 'wrong' social-cultural classification (something which we both agree is not inherently racist).

Something not even the oppressed SA did or do. In your desciption there are SA - who are the natives and there are foreigners, by defintion not SA. You choose to divide SA up by race with yout classifcations. Its your choice to do this but to deny that doing this is racist is futile. It is also simply not the way SA themselves and espcially those of historicaly oppressed groups have ever themselves defined who is and who is not SA. It is entirely your own choice of classification.

And it's entirely your choice to ignore what I wrote earlier, and avoid answering any of the questions which I put to you.

South Africa is sorted and well on the way to equality. It's Cyprus we are supposed to be discussing. The point where the parallels end. The point, in this day and age, despite your preference for dissecting classifications, is that Turkey is doing exactly what you condemn in theory from the SA example, yet have not once voiced any opposition towards. You disregard the degradation of our Humanity caused by the application of Apartheid via Ankara, in Cyprus.

[Gasman]

Just been listening to the President's speech where Mandela was the Guest of Honour. He did not once mention 'foreigners' or other nationalities. Just ALL South Africans, black and white.

[Oracle]

Just been listening to the President's speech where Mandela was the Guest of Honour. He did not once mention 'foreigners' or other nationalities. Just ALL South Africans, black and white.

It's great when Apartheid ends .... and equality and democracy can rule!

But, we still have 43,000 Turkish troops treating us like sub-humans ... depriving us access to our homeland.

[erolz3]

It's Cyprus we are supposed to be discussing.

Just as your world view that defines South Africans as being (only) the native people and all other 'non natives' in SA as 'foreigners' is divisive to SA attemtps to build a unitary nation based not on these differences, so to is the same world view that defines Cypriots as the 'native' (in your mind GC) and all others in cyprus as 'foreigners' divisive to the creation of a unitary Cyprus.

Mandellas creed is one of inclusiveness of all south africans. To him the very people you classify as 'foreigners' are as SA as the ones you classify as SA. Claming that white south africans are in fact foreigners in SA, as you did is an anthema to this inclusive philosophy of Mandellas.

If you believe that the 'non native' people in SA are foreigners in their own country, then by the same world view you believe that TC are 'foreigners' in Cyprus.

It is this idea that only 'native' peoples are part of a country and all others are by your defintion 'foreign' that is divisive rather than inclusive, inherently racist as a world view and a block on building an inculsive unitary state, be it in SA or in Cyprus.

[boomerang]

a native will embrace culture heritage a foreigner will destroy it...anything left in the north?...or the destruction goes uninhibited or spinning tales to tourists?...just wondering...

[Gasman]

But, we still have 43,000 Turkish troops treating us like sub-humans - depriving us access to our homeland.

I keep reading over and over and over that GCs have nothing against TCs, it is just Turkish Settlers and Turkish Troops in the TRNC they object to, that they don't want 'division', they want all of Cyprus to be unified with GCs and TCs getting back whatever they lost - presumably returning to how it was before the 'bad people' came.

So what do they consider caused all this problem in the first place? If GCs all embrace TCs and see them as their equals - why are the Turkish Troops and Settlers there now?

Almost everything I read refers to the property issue. But this property issue came about AFTER the Turkish Troops and Settlers came onto the Island. If everything would be hunky dory if only the Troops and Settlers left and all property was returned to rightful owners and TCs and GCs were left mingling together over the whole of the island why wasn't it hunky dory in the past?

Just that it seems senseless to me to demand a return to what was in place BEFORE as it was obviously that situation that caused the problems!

[Oracle]

It's Cyprus we are supposed to be discussing.

Just as your world view that defines South Africans as being (only) the native people and all other 'non natives' in SA as 'foreigners' is divisive to SA attemtps to build a unitary nation based not on these differences, so to is the same world view that defines Cypriots as the 'native' (in your mind GC) and all others in cyprus as 'foreigners' divisive to the creation of a unitary Cyprus.

Mandellas creed is one of inclusiveness of all south africans. To him the very people you classify as 'foreigners' are as SA as the ones you classify as SA. Claming that white south africans are in fact foreigners in SA, as you did is an anthema to this inclusive philosophy of Mandellas.

If you believe that the 'non native' people in SA are foreigners in their own country, then by the same world view you believe that TC are 'foreigners' in Cyprus.

It is this idea that only 'native' peoples are part of a country and all others are by your defintion 'foreign' that is divisive rather than inclusive, inherently racist as a world view and a block on building an inculsive unitary state, be it in SA or in Cyprus.

You seem unwilling to release the idea that these distinctions were only kept alive and well by the very act of Apartheid!

Why do you deny the evil that continued Apartheid propagates?

Perhaps it is this tool that Turkey uses, constantly juxtaposing 'causes and solutions' to confuse the fearful of change... I don't know, you don't strike me as the archetypal trembling peasant and yet, your ideas are not far from the farm!

The "native" and "foreign" parallel in Cyprus, if it can be argued ever applied (though god knows how considering the 300 years you enslaved us and the rest spent trying to restore that "ideal" it doesn't apply) ... then it certainly applies NOW ... with the continuation of Apartheid by a not only "foreign" but EXTREMELY foreign and aggressive invader! To deny the Turks are "foreigners" to Cyprus is to admit acceptance that you have brought your homeland to us once again and hence prove that you were always foreigners!

Anyway, despite all that, once there was little hope in SA; once despite what you circumlocute upon, "foreigners" and "natives" were at each others throats, and Mandela not only used rhetoric but violence against the perceived "foreigners" .... so not in the (sad but true) relatively benign way we were in Cyprus even at the relative heights of one or two anni horribiles .... BUT, you have to take a Leap of Faith (to use a phrase from a dear friend) and abandon, maybe even help disable Ankara's imposed Apartheid in order to see the fruits at the end ... i.e what they have NOW in SA. Just South Africans. I'm pleased to see you praise what Mandela has achieved for SA. But you must realise, you are describing a post-Apartheid SA and not the equivalent of what we have at present in the midst of an Apartheid-ridden Cyprus.

It's this unwillingness, from the most "educated" of you forum paradigms, to dispel any possible negative thoughts and ideas which are of the past, or even present, and embrace the VISION Mandela had of a free land where all are equal which makes me wonder (most times) why on Earth we Greeks/Cypriots were given the worst of evils from one of the most tenacious bunch of nomads ever to traverse the planet!

Change yourselves for goodness sake before you ruin Humanity, forever more, for the rest of us!

[erolz3]

You seem unwilling to release the idea that these distinctions were only kept alive and well by the very act of Apartheid!

I am simply pointing out the fact that for South Africans themselves and indeed the rest of the world apartheid was about one group of SA oppressing another group of SA, yet for YOU it was about foriegners oppressing natives.

The difference between the two is profound and affects directly the possiblility of creating a new better inclusive SA with the removal of the oppression.

[Oracle]

You seem unwilling to release the idea that these distinctions were only kept alive and well by the very act of Apartheid!

I am simply pointing out the fact that for South Africans themselves and indeed the rest of the world apartheid was about one group of SA oppressing another group of SA, yet for YOU it was about foriegners oppressing natives.

Oh, now it's some random nameless group oppressing another random group with nothing in coming between the specific group members? What a joke! Did the two groups not have definitive identities? One, the native population (Black/African) and the other the Colonialists?

Here's a simple example of how wrong you are:

He was expelled from college for helping to organize a strike against the white colonial rule of the institution. He then became involved in other protests against the white colonial rule.

http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312702 ... andela.htm

Not only that, but the ANC initially even used the term "Native":

African National Congress

South African political party and black nationalist organization. Founded in 1912 (as the South African Native National Congress), the ANC was long dedicated to the elimination of apartheid. In response to government massacres of demonstrators at Sharpeville (1960) and Soweto (1976), it carried out acts of sabotage and guerrilla warfare.

Source: Britannica

Apartheid in SA has ended. Ankara and its supporters still practice Apartheid in Cyprus. Your tacit approval of Apartheid in Cyprus contradicts any fawning you may now attempt at a humane solution. You have (inadvertantly) demonstrated how you know Ankara applies Apartheid in Cyprus. Your fiasco at trying to divert discussion from a call to its dissolution does not bode well for Humanity if Turkey is not tackled about this practice!