Cyprus-Forum.com

[Talisker]

Any thoughts from Down Under?

[vaughanwilliams]

I'm currently reading Bruce Chatwin's book 'The Songlines', the subject of the book being aboriginal songs describing ancient tracks connecting communities throughout Australia. The songlines also relate to the creation of the land and secrets of its past. Near the beginning of the book Chatwin gets into conversation with an aborigine in a bar in Alice Springs.

'Are you English' asked the aborigine.
'Yes,' I said.
'Why don't you go back home?'
He spoke slowly, in clipped syllables.
'I just arrived,' I said.
'I mean all of you.'
'All of who?'
'White men,' he said.
The whites had stolen his country, he said. Their presence in Australia was illegal. His people had never ceded one square inch of territory. They had never signed a treaty. All Europeans should go back to where they came from.

Captain James Cook is credited with claiming Australia for King George III in 1770, and the first European colonisation occurred in 1788. However, there is evidence of European ships sailing close to Australia much earlier, around 1606.
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/ ... anhistory/

Only a few decades earlier than this Cyprus was invaded by the Ottomans, the longterm consequences of which contribute to the current division, and political and military stalemate, on the island.

Does the aborigine in the bar in Alice Springs have a valid point? And if he does, then is there merit to the arguments of some on this forum that TCs, who are not the indigenous people of Cyprus, 'should go home to Turkey'? And in the general sense, has the mass migration of humans to different parts of the globe in recent centuries been to the overall benefit or detriment of mankind? Or is the cost to indigenous populations too high?

Where the the Greeks the original inhabitants of Cyprus then?

No. The (original) inhabitants of a place are usually named after the place... In the case of Cyprus, it's Cypriots.

If the answer is no, then maybe you should go back home?

What? Cypriots in Cyprus are home.

So Maoris come from Maoriland? No, they don't. In fact they were not even the original inhabitants of New Zealand, but it is accepted that the Brits "took" NZ from them. It is also thought that the Maoris took "NZ" from the Moriori, who had arrived some 700 years earlier, when they arrived in the 16th century.

Should NZ be returned to the Maoris or should everyone leave returning it to its uninhabitated state?

If we want to go back far enough, no-one inhabited anywhere, so where would you like to draw the line?
Present day Cyprus doesn't "belong" to Cypriots any more than anywhere else "belongs" to anyone if you want to go back far enough.

What you are talking about is history, and history is bunk, as Henry Ford said.
Look it up.

[Tim Drayton]

I'm currently reading Bruce Chatwin's book 'The Songlines', the subject of the book being aboriginal songs describing ancient tracks connecting communities throughout Australia. The songlines also relate to the creation of the land and secrets of its past. Near the beginning of the book Chatwin gets into conversation with an aborigine in a bar in Alice Springs.

'Are you English' asked the aborigine.
'Yes,' I said.
'Why don't you go back home?'
He spoke slowly, in clipped syllables.
'I just arrived,' I said.
'I mean all of you.'
'All of who?'
'White men,' he said.
The whites had stolen his country, he said. Their presence in Australia was illegal. His people had never ceded one square inch of territory. They had never signed a treaty. All Europeans should go back to where they came from.

Captain James Cook is credited with claiming Australia for King George III in 1770, and the first European colonisation occurred in 1788. However, there is evidence of European ships sailing close to Australia much earlier, around 1606.
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/ ... anhistory/

Only a few decades earlier than this Cyprus was invaded by the Ottomans, the longterm consequences of which contribute to the current division, and political and military stalemate, on the island.

Does the aborigine in the bar in Alice Springs have a valid point? And if he does, then is there merit to the arguments of some on this forum that TCs, who are not the indigenous people of Cyprus, 'should go home to Turkey'? And in the general sense, has the mass migration of humans to different parts of the globe in recent centuries been to the overall benefit or detriment of mankind? Or is the cost to indigenous populations too high?

In 1571 - hardly "a few decades" earlier than Cook's discovery of Australia - the Ottoman Empire wrested control of Cyprus from the Venetians. In other words, Cyprus passed from the control of one imperialist power to another. The parallels between the two events are not very strong, in my view.

[laptachap]

why do you all not just sod off to england and leave cyprus to us brits??

[Talisker]

I'm currently reading Bruce Chatwin's book 'The Songlines', the subject of the book being aboriginal songs describing ancient tracks connecting communities throughout Australia. The songlines also relate to the creation of the land and secrets of its past. Near the beginning of the book Chatwin gets into conversation with an aborigine in a bar in Alice Springs.

'Are you English' asked the aborigine.
'Yes,' I said.
'Why don't you go back home?'
He spoke slowly, in clipped syllables.
'I just arrived,' I said.
'I mean all of you.'
'All of who?'
'White men,' he said.
The whites had stolen his country, he said. Their presence in Australia was illegal. His people had never ceded one square inch of territory. They had never signed a treaty. All Europeans should go back to where they came from.

Captain James Cook is credited with claiming Australia for King George III in 1770, and the first European colonisation occurred in 1788. However, there is evidence of European ships sailing close to Australia much earlier, around 1606.
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/ ... anhistory/

Only a few decades earlier than this Cyprus was invaded by the Ottomans, the longterm consequences of which contribute to the current division, and political and military stalemate, on the island.

Does the aborigine in the bar in Alice Springs have a valid point? And if he does, then is there merit to the arguments of some on this forum that TCs, who are not the indigenous people of Cyprus, 'should go home to Turkey'? And in the general sense, has the mass migration of humans to different parts of the globe in recent centuries been to the overall benefit or detriment of mankind? Or is the cost to indigenous populations too high?

In 1571 - hardly "a few decades" earlier than Cook's discovery of Australia - the Ottoman Empire wrested control of Cyprus from the Venetians. In other words, Cyprus passed from the control of one imperialist power to another. The parallels between the two events are not very strong, in my view.

Don't get distracted by the timing - I was just making the point that we are talking about events several hundred years ago - the important point is that in the case of Australia the indigenous people did not ask for or accept the colonisation of their country by Europeans, and in the case of Cyprus the indigenous Cypriots did not ask for or accept the invasion and occupation of their island by the Ottomans. Chatwin's conversation with the aborigine indicates a preference for the Australian immigrants to leave and highlights a continuing lack of acceptance of the consequences of colonisation of Australia by Europeans (and others) since 1788. In Cyprus the lonterm consequences of the Ottoman invasion are still felt today with the fact that the island is divided and at least some of the indigenous (lineage from before 1571) Cypriots expelled from their homes and lands, likely to have been within their families for generations possibly even from before the Ottoman invasion. Some members of this forum (not me!) also express a preference for the 'unwanted invaders' of Cyprus to leave - in my opinion the parallels are very strong!

[denizaksulu]

I'm currently reading Bruce Chatwin's book 'The Songlines', the subject of the book being aboriginal songs describing ancient tracks connecting communities throughout Australia. The songlines also relate to the creation of the land and secrets of its past. Near the beginning of the book Chatwin gets into conversation with an aborigine in a bar in Alice Springs.

'Are you English' asked the aborigine.
'Yes,' I said.
'Why don't you go back home?'
He spoke slowly, in clipped syllables.
'I just arrived,' I said.
'I mean all of you.'
'All of who?'
'White men,' he said.
The whites had stolen his country, he said. Their presence in Australia was illegal. His people had never ceded one square inch of territory. They had never signed a treaty. All Europeans should go back to where they came from.

Captain James Cook is credited with claiming Australia for King George III in 1770, and the first European colonisation occurred in 1788. However, there is evidence of European ships sailing close to Australia much earlier, around 1606.
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/ ... anhistory/

Only a few decades earlier than this Cyprus was invaded by the Ottomans, the longterm consequences of which contribute to the current division, and political and military stalemate, on the island.

Does the aborigine in the bar in Alice Springs have a valid point? And if he does, then is there merit to the arguments of some on this forum that TCs, who are not the indigenous people of Cyprus, 'should go home to Turkey'? And in the general sense, has the mass migration of humans to different parts of the globe in recent centuries been to the overall benefit or detriment of mankind? Or is the cost to indigenous populations too high?

In 1571 - hardly "a few decades" earlier than Cook's discovery of Australia - the Ottoman Empire wrested control of Cyprus from the Venetians. In other words, Cyprus passed from the control of one imperialist power to another. The parallels between the two events are not very strong, in my view.

Don't get distracted by the timing - I was just making the point that we are talking about events several hundred years ago - the important point is that in the case of Australia the indigenous people did not ask for or accept the colonisation of their country by Europeans, and in the case of Cyprus the indigenous Cypriots did not ask for or accept the invasion and occupation of their island by the Ottomans. Chatwin's conversation with the aborigine indicates a preference for the Australian immigrants to leave and highlights a continuing lack of acceptance of the consequences of colonisation of Australia by Europeans (and others) since 1788. In Cyprus the lonterm consequences of the Ottoman invasion are still felt today with the fact that the island is divided and at least some of the indigenous (lineage from before 1571) Cypriots expelled from their homes and lands, likely to have been within their families for generations possibly even from before the Ottoman invasion. Some members of this forum (not me!) also express a preference for the 'unwanted invaders' of Cyprus to leave - in my opinion the parallels are very strong!

Taliskers quote, 'Some members of this forum (not me!) also express a preference for the 'unwanted invaders' of Cyprus to leave '- At risk of beginning the cycle of 'I was here first', those people should 'learn to live and let live together.' Then we would not be in this ****. (mess).

[Talisker]

I'm currently reading Bruce Chatwin's book 'The Songlines', the subject of the book being aboriginal songs describing ancient tracks connecting communities throughout Australia. The songlines also relate to the creation of the land and secrets of its past. Near the beginning of the book Chatwin gets into conversation with an aborigine in a bar in Alice Springs.

'Are you English' asked the aborigine.
'Yes,' I said.
'Why don't you go back home?'
He spoke slowly, in clipped syllables.
'I just arrived,' I said.
'I mean all of you.'
'All of who?'
'White men,' he said.
The whites had stolen his country, he said. Their presence in Australia was illegal. His people had never ceded one square inch of territory. They had never signed a treaty. All Europeans should go back to where they came from.

Captain James Cook is credited with claiming Australia for King George III in 1770, and the first European colonisation occurred in 1788. However, there is evidence of European ships sailing close to Australia much earlier, around 1606.
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/ ... anhistory/

Only a few decades earlier than this Cyprus was invaded by the Ottomans, the longterm consequences of which contribute to the current division, and political and military stalemate, on the island.

Does the aborigine in the bar in Alice Springs have a valid point? And if he does, then is there merit to the arguments of some on this forum that TCs, who are not the indigenous people of Cyprus, 'should go home to Turkey'? And in the general sense, has the mass migration of humans to different parts of the globe in recent centuries been to the overall benefit or detriment of mankind? Or is the cost to indigenous populations too high?

In 1571 - hardly "a few decades" earlier than Cook's discovery of Australia - the Ottoman Empire wrested control of Cyprus from the Venetians. In other words, Cyprus passed from the control of one imperialist power to another. The parallels between the two events are not very strong, in my view.

Don't get distracted by the timing - I was just making the point that we are talking about events several hundred years ago - the important point is that in the case of Australia the indigenous people did not ask for or accept the colonisation of their country by Europeans, and in the case of Cyprus the indigenous Cypriots did not ask for or accept the invasion and occupation of their island by the Ottomans. Chatwin's conversation with the aborigine indicates a preference for the Australian immigrants to leave and highlights a continuing lack of acceptance of the consequences of colonisation of Australia by Europeans (and others) since 1788. In Cyprus the lonterm consequences of the Ottoman invasion are still felt today with the fact that the island is divided and at least some of the indigenous (lineage from before 1571) Cypriots expelled from their homes and lands, likely to have been within their families for generations possibly even from before the Ottoman invasion. Some members of this forum (not me!) also express a preference for the 'unwanted invaders' of Cyprus to leave - in my opinion the parallels are very strong!

Taliskers quote, 'Some members of this forum (not me!) also express a preference for the 'unwanted invaders' of Cyprus to leave '- At risk of beginning the cycle of 'I was here first', those people should 'learn to live and let live together.' Then we would not be in this ****. (mess).

I can't speak for those who express that opinion, but I'd suggest that if the communities had integrated and the island was not divided then this view would not be expressed.

[Malapapa]

What? Cypriots in Cyprus are home.

So Maoris come from Maoriland? No, they don't. In fact they were not even the original inhabitants of New Zealand, but it is accepted that the Brits "took" NZ from them. It is also thought that the Maoris took "NZ" from the Moriori, who had arrived some 700 years earlier, when they arrived in the 16th century.

Should NZ be returned to the Maoris or should everyone leave returning it to its uninhabitated state?

What are you drivelling on about? You're comparing Cyprus, which has been inhabited for 12,000 years with New Zealand, barely inhabited for only 700 years before the Brits arrived?

Present day Cyprus doesn't "belong" to Cypriots any more than anywhere else "belongs" to anyone if you want to go back far enough.

The place you're living in, in the north, certainly doesn't belong to you.

[Paphitis]

I'm currently reading Bruce Chatwin's book 'The Songlines', the subject of the book being aboriginal songs describing ancient tracks connecting communities throughout Australia. The songlines also relate to the creation of the land and secrets of its past. Near the beginning of the book Chatwin gets into conversation with an aborigine in a bar in Alice Springs.

'Are you English' asked the aborigine.
'Yes,' I said.
'Why don't you go back home?'
He spoke slowly, in clipped syllables.
'I just arrived,' I said.
'I mean all of you.'
'All of who?'
'White men,' he said.
The whites had stolen his country, he said. Their presence in Australia was illegal. His people had never ceded one square inch of territory. They had never signed a treaty. All Europeans should go back to where they came from.

Captain James Cook is credited with claiming Australia for King George III in 1770, and the first European colonisation occurred in 1788. However, there is evidence of European ships sailing close to Australia much earlier, around 1606.
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/ ... anhistory/

Only a few decades earlier than this Cyprus was invaded by the Ottomans, the longterm consequences of which contribute to the current division, and political and military stalemate, on the island.

Does the aborigine in the bar in Alice Springs have a valid point? And if he does, then is there merit to the arguments of some on this forum that TCs, who are not the indigenous people of Cyprus, 'should go home to Turkey'? And in the general sense, has the mass migration of humans to different parts of the globe in recent centuries been to the overall benefit or detriment of mankind? Or is the cost to indigenous populations too high?

In 1571 - hardly "a few decades" earlier than Cook's discovery of Australia - the Ottoman Empire wrested control of Cyprus from the Venetians. In other words, Cyprus passed from the control of one imperialist power to another. The parallels between the two events are not very strong, in my view.

Don't get distracted by the timing - I was just making the point that we are talking about events several hundred years ago - the important point is that in the case of Australia the indigenous people did not ask for or accept the colonisation of their country by Europeans, and in the case of Cyprus the indigenous Cypriots did not ask for or accept the invasion and occupation of their island by the Ottomans. Chatwin's conversation with the aborigine indicates a preference for the Australian immigrants to leave and highlights a continuing lack of acceptance of the consequences of colonisation of Australia by Europeans (and others) since 1788. In Cyprus the lonterm consequences of the Ottoman invasion are still felt today with the fact that the island is divided and at least some of the indigenous (lineage from before 1571) Cypriots expelled from their homes and lands, likely to have been within their families for generations possibly even from before the Ottoman invasion. Some members of this forum (not me!) also express a preference for the 'unwanted invaders' of Cyprus to leave - in my opinion the parallels are very strong!

European settlement in Australia and the Ottoman invasion of Cyprus are 2 completely different things. Firstly, Europeans arrived in Australia in 1788. They came in peace, traded with the Aborigines and the Dutch East Indies Company. Relations between the Europeans and the Aborigines was cordial to begin with. So it would be more correct to compare the parallels between European Colonization in Australia, with let's say Hellenic, Phoenician, and Sea Pirate colonization of Cyprus since Cyprus too had its own Aborigines (Eteo-Cypriots) or the Anlgo-Saxon colonization of the British Isles since there were native peoples there as well.

Furthermore, if all 'migrants' and their offspring were to leave Australia, then the continents population will dwindle to 200,000. What will be the ramifications? The ramifications would be that all of Asia will collapse overnight. Markets will crash, China, India, Japan, Taiwan etc will collapse since they are reliant on our resources. And the knock on effect. The US will decay into depression and become insolvent, Canada will as well, and it will be the end of the EU and you can kiss Greece goodbye(lights out). Billions of people will be unemployed around the world, and famine will claim millions. That is how important Australian resources are to the world economy. They drive pretty much the entire Asian economy.

Quoting an Aboriginal at the Alice Springs pub on social welfare payment day, after a gut full of booz, is not to be taken too seriously. Yes, Aboriginal Australia has many problems to this day. Alcohol abuse, domestic violence, Aboriginal health concerns, welfare, and even petrol sniffing and drug abuse. Some may well want 'Europeans' to leave. Others won't. An aboriginal tracker in the Army, Ernie Dingo and Aboriginal Elders would want things to remain as they are. So why is this the case? Well, the Aboriginal Community is the wealthiest community in Australia by far, thanks to mining royalties, and that is still the case when you compare them as a collective community to the world's wealthiest city, Perth.

[denizaksulu]

I'm currently reading Bruce Chatwin's book 'The Songlines', the subject of the book being aboriginal songs describing ancient tracks connecting communities throughout Australia. The songlines also relate to the creation of the land and secrets of its past. Near the beginning of the book Chatwin gets into conversation with an aborigine in a bar in Alice Springs.

'Are you English' asked the aborigine.
'Yes,' I said.
'Why don't you go back home?'
He spoke slowly, in clipped syllables.
'I just arrived,' I said.
'I mean all of you.'
'All of who?'
'White men,' he said.
The whites had stolen his country, he said. Their presence in Australia was illegal. His people had never ceded one square inch of territory. They had never signed a treaty. All Europeans should go back to where they came from.

Captain James Cook is credited with claiming Australia for King George III in 1770, and the first European colonisation occurred in 1788. However, there is evidence of European ships sailing close to Australia much earlier, around 1606.
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/ ... anhistory/

Only a few decades earlier than this Cyprus was invaded by the Ottomans, the longterm consequences of which contribute to the current division, and political and military stalemate, on the island.

Does the aborigine in the bar in Alice Springs have a valid point? And if he does, then is there merit to the arguments of some on this forum that TCs, who are not the indigenous people of Cyprus, 'should go home to Turkey'? And in the general sense, has the mass migration of humans to different parts of the globe in recent centuries been to the overall benefit or detriment of mankind? Or is the cost to indigenous populations too high?

In 1571 - hardly "a few decades" earlier than Cook's discovery of Australia - the Ottoman Empire wrested control of Cyprus from the Venetians. In other words, Cyprus passed from the control of one imperialist power to another. The parallels between the two events are not very strong, in my view.

Don't get distracted by the timing - I was just making the point that we are talking about events several hundred years ago - the important point is that in the case of Australia the indigenous people did not ask for or accept the colonisation of their country by Europeans, and in the case of Cyprus the indigenous Cypriots did not ask for or accept the invasion and occupation of their island by the Ottomans. Chatwin's conversation with the aborigine indicates a preference for the Australian immigrants to leave and highlights a continuing lack of acceptance of the consequences of colonisation of Australia by Europeans (and others) since 1788. In Cyprus the lonterm consequences of the Ottoman invasion are still felt today with the fact that the island is divided and at least some of the indigenous (lineage from before 1571) Cypriots expelled from their homes and lands, likely to have been within their families for generations possibly even from before the Ottoman invasion. Some members of this forum (not me!) also express a preference for the 'unwanted invaders' of Cyprus to leave - in my opinion the parallels are very strong!

Taliskers quote, 'Some members of this forum (not me!) also express a preference for the 'unwanted invaders' of Cyprus to leave '- At risk of beginning the cycle of 'I was here first', those people should 'learn to live and let live together.' Then we would not be in this ****. (mess).

I can't speak for those who express that opinion, but I'd suggest that if the communities had integrated and the island was not divided then this view would not be expressed.

I do agree with you.

One thing that bothers me is the use of these 'scientific' studies to prove something. I cant but help thinking that it is similar to Hitlers mind-set and the Mein Kampf. Use these differences to justify a 'wrong-doing'. What matters now is that Cypriots are there and where do we go from here. Telling one part of the population to 'go home' only inflames any serious discussion. For real Turkish Cypriots, the only home they know, even for their fore-fathers is Cyprus.

I must add that all the scientific studies involving the haplogroups etc(not my cup of tea btw) although interesting, belongs to a more serious discussion forum, and should not be used to prove a point re: the Cyprob.It is easy to cut and paste these documents, but to the average person it is all gobble-de-gook.