Cyprus-Forum.com

[Mills Chapman]

In case some of you haven't seen this site on teaching history in Cyprus, I decided to put a link to it: http://www.hisdialresearch.org/

Best, Mills

[Alexandros Lordos]

As a first step in rewriting history i propose EOKA A

EOKA A didn't come out of the blue. History didn't start in 1955. History is a chain of events.

History: "Chronology of people and events since humans have kept written records."

So we have to start much earlier. The latest we can start is 1571 when the Ottomans invaded Cyprus.

Piratis is write. 1571 is the year when Greek-speaking people and Turkish-speaking people began to co-exist in Cyprus. If we wish to understand the history of the relations between the two communities, we cannot start any later than that.

[MicAtCyp]

Not a great start How can you know it was orderd by Turkey? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that it was TC who persued the idea and convinced Turkey of it's merits?

Erol I think you did not get my point.That was an example.Of course the truth might me along the line you said above.Who is going to verify it? And what if e.g Sertar says it was his decision.Is he telling the truth or is he telling lies? See how impossible it is to write history that extends beyond just events?

[garbitsch]

As a first step in rewriting history i propose EOKA A

EOKA A didn't come out of the blue. History didn't start in 1955. History is a chain of events.

History: "Chronology of people and events since humans have kept written records."

So we have to start much earlier. The latest we can start is 1571 when the Ottomans invaded Cyprus.

Piratis is write. 1571 is the year when Greek-speaking people and Turkish-speaking people began to co-exist in Cyprus. If we wish to understand the history of the relations between the two communities, we cannot start any later than that.

I dont think Piratis really meant that Alex. He is trying to play the game of "you started oppressing us long before we did the same to you". Let's hope he won't use this as an excuse for what was done to T.Cs.

I suggest, why don't we ignore everything, and put new courses that will create a very good image of the "other". This the biggest step for a long lasting peace. You cannot expect unification of two peoples who think the other is barbarian.

[Piratis]

I dont think Piratis really meant that Alex. He is trying to play the game of "you started oppressing us long before we did the same to you". Let's hope he won't use this as an excuse for what was done to T.Cs.

No, I meant exactly what Alex said. It is you that want to play games by declaring all your actions of centuries as irrelevant, and start history exactly at the point were we have more of the blame in order to present GCs as the ones who started everything, while in fact this could not be further from the truth.

The equivalent from our side would be to claim that history starts on the 20th of July 1974 since this is when the Cyprus problem as we know it today started.

History of the two communities in Cyprus is from 1571 until 2005.

[gabaston]

Cyprus as an independent nation was established in 1960, hence un membership. In that year pen went to paper, signed by all. Had you any agenda other than to observe the agreements you then signed, you had no right in signing them.

The whole thing was corrupt before it was even signed.

[erolz]

Piratis is write. 1571 is the year when Greek-speaking people and Turkish-speaking people began to co-exist in Cyprus. If we wish to understand the history of the relations between the two communities, we cannot start any later than that.

And if we are writting a book about the History of Cyprus as an independent nation exploring why we failed so miserably? As I have said before the actions of the Ottomans is not irrelevant to this study, but the question I have, is in such a book how many chapters should / would deal with the actions of the ottomans (or subsequent colonial powers) and how many should deal with the actions of Cypriots since the end of WWII. To me it seems clear that the futher back the history the less degree of relevance it has vs recent history. Thus for me such a book , whilst not ignoring ottoman rule, would not contain 15 chapters of the 500+ years of ottoman rule and only one on the action of Cypriots in the last 40 years. That has always been my point. The rule of ottomans has some relevance to the situation today but it does not have the same relevance as the acts of Cypriots since the end of WW2.

[erolz]

Erol I think you did not get my point.That was an example.Of course the truth might me along the line you said above.Who is going to verify it? And what if e.g Sertar says it was his decision.Is he telling the truth or is he telling lies? See how impossible it is to write history that extends beyond just events?

I understand the problems with any 'objective' version of History. However we live in an environment of virulent propaganda, from both sides and we should make efforts to stop and undo the undoubted damage this has done.

Not quite the same as an 'agreed history' but on a similar theme I am also an advocate of some kind of 'truth and reconcillation' process for Cyprus. We need to find a way to lay to rest the horrors of the past. This is impossible to do when each side denies the horrors comitted against the other.

There are no magic answers just as there is no objective history. However I still think we need to make more effort on this front if we are sincere about reconillation between GC and TC as indivduals and as communites.

[Piratis]

To me it seems clear that the further back the history the less degree of relevance it has vs recent history.

I disagree. History is a chain (or better a tree) of events. While a recent event affects only the last part of the tree, an older event is closer to the root and therefore is far more responsible for the shaping of the tree.

For example if the Ottomans didn't invade Cyprus in the first place, the "branch" of conflict between the two communities wouldn't even exist.

And if we are writting a book about the History of Cyprus as an independent nation exploring why we failed so miserably?

And if we write a book about the invasion of Turkey? Do we start from July 20th 1974? I am sure you wouldn't do that in a book about the Turkish invasion right?

So isn't just better to take everything from the beginning so we will not leave anything behind?

[gabaston]

piratis

to be honest if i bought a book about the invasion and half of it was about 63-74, id take the book back and get a refund.

i'll accept a bit of preamble but if i buy a book about the invasion the most preamble id expect is the coup and political to and fro just before.

I wouldnt wish to know about Aphrodite or any ottoman sultans.