Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

Cultural identity is the identity or feeling of belonging to, as part of the self-conception and self-perception to nationality, ethnicity, religion, social class, generation, locality and any kind of social group that have its own distinct culture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_identity

National identity is a person's identity and sense of belonging to one state or to one nation, a feeling one shares with a group of people, regardless of one's citizenship status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity

Erolz can not come to terms with the fact that for thousands of years the identity of Cypriots includes many things which are not part of his own identity... such as being Greek or being Christian. Being Cypriot is just one of the elements of our identity... that of "locality". Erolz wants to oppress the full extent of our identity because that makes us different than what he is... while what he should do is accept and respect our identity.

[erolz66]

That way of thinking sounds like the "No true Scotsman Fallacy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman What you are saying is basically: "No true Cypriot will not want Cyprus to exist as an independent entity. If you don't want Cyprus to exist as independent entity this means you are not true Cypriots". Funnily enough the same can be said for the Scottish ... i.e. those that voted against Scottish independence are not true Scotsmen and therefore the true Scotsmen (those who wanted Scottish independence) can disrespect the choice of the majority. Unfortunately you can't see how this undemocratic way of thinking leads directly to conflict.

The referendum in Scotland was a choice between if Scotland as a nation would remain part of the union of nations that make up the UK or if as a nation it would leave that union. It was NOT a choice between if Scotland as a nation would remain in the union of nations that make op the UK or cease to exist as a nation at all and simply become a region of England. If the choice had of been between staying as a nation within the UK or the non existence of Scotland as a nation at all with it becoming a region of England, then yes absolutely and without question one could say that those that supported it becoming a region of England were not true Scots.

The principle is a general one... it is not just about Greece. The principle is that Cyprus belongs to the Cypriot people and that the Cypriot people should be free to democratically decide what to do with their own island INCLUDING choosing NOT to be an independent state if that would serve the interests of Cypriots better. Like what the Scots did. Or like what might happen in the future if EU countries want to became a single country. Cypriots HAVE the right to take such decisions by democratic means. I accept to make an EXCEPTION specifically for Greece just to satisfy you... not because there is anything wrong with the principle.

The principal is indeed a general one. For something to validly be the will of a people there has to be something that joins all those within that group that makes them a single people / thing. The only thing that could have been and can be the commonality that made us one people, is us all being Cypriots in a Cypriot nation ahead of and despite our other differences. It is because enosis sought the non existence of the one thing that could of (and can) make us a single people, that it therefore can not be a valid expression of the will of a commonality it says does not and should not exist.

Your EU example is a good one. If 90% of all those within the EU today voted to become a single country and yet 90% of Cypriots voted NOT to become a single country , what should happen ? Would democracy not demand that Cypriots acquiesce to the majority will of Europeans ? If not why not ?

Partition is a crime Turkey committed by ethnically cleansing the majority of the population and stealing our lands and NOTHING can justify it.

I have NEVER argued otherwise. Never have I argued that what happened before 74 JUSTIFIES what happened since. Never , not once. If all we can do here is argue about things I have NOT said, then what is the point ? I have said that what happened in 74 can only be understood by understanding what happened before 74, because that is true. I have argued that we can not hope to address the 'wrong' of what has happened in Cyprus since 74 without understanding and addressing the events and actions that led up to 74, because that is true.

If we assume that two groups of people who are different can not live on the same territory (which is wrong assumption) and that they should be divided by ethnic cleansing (which is a crime) then the least bad way to do it would be by ethnically cleansing the least possible amount of people (i.e. the minority) and who also have a far lesser history in Cyprus.

You think that because of the events of 74 no TC lost everything, their homes their livelihoods and access to lands they had lived on for generations and had to move and start over from scratch ? That so many of such TC considered such a catastrophe the lesser of two evils compared to the GC who also suffered similarly just speaks about the real state of 'unitary' Cyprus before this cataclysmic event.

And please please please can we not just bury this 'lesser Cypriot' notion once and for all. I (we) are either Cypriot or we are not. If we are then just accept that we are not 'lesser' Cypriots than you. If you can not then at least be honest enough to say I/we are not Cypriot at all as far as you are concerned.

I am not against creating a Cypriot identity that would "bind us together", but even if that doesn't happen (mostly because TCs don't want anything "unitary" but instead everything divided in 2) that doesn't mean you have any right to partition.

Once more I have NEVER said that we have a right to partition, even if and when you choose to act not as Cypriots (that includes us) but as Greeks that excludes us. All I have said is accept that if you CHOOSE to act not as Cypriots that includes us but as Greeks that happen to live in Cyprus , you accept that you can not then validly claim to be doing so in the name of a unitary Cypriot people that includes us. That if you choose to act as and seek objectives for yourselves that are based on your differences from us as a people, you then accept that we also have rights as a separate people from you. Such rights absolutely and explicitly do NOT confer on us in such a scenario a right to our own separate state or a right to drive you from your homes. They do however exist in such a scenario and need to be respected and considered and that is what 'you' could not accept at the end of British rule and seem unable to accept even today. It is why you continue to insist even now that there is no paradox in trying to say in the name of a unitary Cypriot people we declare there is no such thing as a unitary Cypriot people and there is just Greeks who live in Cyprus and some others who live there who are not Greek.

It is my personal most earnest belief that there can be no better future for all of Cyprus and all Cypriots unless we can find a way to build a Cypriot identity that binds us together ahead of and despite our other differences. That there can only be division and separation in one form or another if we fail to do this. Be that the kind of separation we have now or the kind that GiG would like, namely a separation where no TC remained in Cyprus at all. Either way it would be division and separation and represent a failure. If we believe in hope of a unitary Cyprus that contains within it both GC and TC then we must WORK at creating such a shared common identity, despite out other differences and despite our past failures and do so by learning from our past failures not denying them.

[erolz66]

if 80% of a country's population vote for a situation, then democracy is about following the will of the majority.

Not when what they are voting for is the non existence of that country at all. You can not vote for the non existence of something and claim such a vote is the valid will of the very thing you are voting to not exist.

[Lordo]

you gcs are really just beyond belief. look at north america. for thousands of years north america had nothing to do with christianity, and of course after killing millions of local inhabitants, i do not see anybody doubting their place in usa and canada.

boy, what happened thousands of years a go has no relevance to today. in cyprus there are mainly two communities which mostly wish to live in peace. if you dont like it piss of to greek lands, i am sure they will love you over there. they love suckers dumb enough to believe all the crap they churn out.

[erolz66]

Erolz can not come to terms with the fact that for thousands of years the identity of Cypriots includes many things which are not part of his own identity... such as being Greek or being Christian. Being Cypriot is just one of the elements of our identity... that of "locality". Erolz wants to oppress the full extent of our identity because that makes us different than what he is... while what he should do is accept and respect our identity.

It is easy to knock down 'my' arguments when you simply make up what it is I have said and am saying, divorced from anything I have actually said and am saying.

I have no problem with GC being different from me. I have no wish that those GC that want to revel in and celebrate their Greekness should be prevented from doing so. What I am saying I want is for those GC who want to place their Greekness that makes them different from me above and ahead of the commonality of us both being Cypriot, they do not so and having chosen to do so, also then try and claim such is a vaild expression of the will of a unitary Cypriot people. A GC who wants to place their Greekness above and before our shared Cypriotness has every right to do so but they do NOT then have the right to say that is a valid expression of a unitary Cypriot people. By choosing to place their Greekness above and ahead of our shared Cypriuotness they loose the right to claim such is the valid will of a unitary Cypriot people.

[GreekIslandGirl]

if 80% of a country's population vote for a situation, then democracy is about following the will of the majority.

Not when what they are voting for is the non existence of that country at all. You can not vote for the non existence of something and claim such a vote is the valid will of the very thing you are voting to not exist.

Cyprus would still be Cyprus (unoccupied and free for all) even if the 80% voted for enosis with Greece. After all, Cyprus still exists even now that it has enosis with the EU.

What you don't like is that Cyprus has a bigger voice now it is part of a bigger entity and Turkey cannot easily bully and ethnically cleanse any more Greeks from Cyprus.

[erolz66]

Cyprus would still be Cyprus (unoccupied and free for all) even if the 80% voted for enosis with Greece.

Had enosis been achieved after the end of British rule then Cyprus would not still be Cyprus. It would not exist at all as a nation and a state. There would be no such thing as Cypriot nationality. There would be no such thing as Cypriot representation in the UN or the EU. No Cypriot veto within the EU. Cyprus would not be ruled by Cypriots from Nicosia but would be ruled by Greeks from Athens. In exactly the same way that if Scotland was to be made a region of England and cease to exist as a nation it would NOT 'still be Scotland' just because the physical land did not disappear from the face of the earth.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Cyprus would still be Cyprus (unoccupied and free for all) even if the 80% voted for enosis with Greece.

Had enosis been achieved after the end of British rule then Cyprus would not still be Cyprus. It would not exist at all as a nation and a state. There would be no such thing as Cypriot nationality. There would be no such thing as Cypriot representation in the UN or the EU. No Cypriot veto within the EU. Cyprus would not be ruled by Cypriots from Nicosia but would be ruled by Greeks from Athens. In exactly the same way that if Scotland was to be made a region of England and cease to exist as a nation it would NOT 'still be Scotland' just because the physical land did not disappear from the face of the earth.

But Scotland voted to remain being ruled by a bigger nation - that was their democratic choice. Just as they would have voted to remain within the EU (by all accounts).

You still have trouble accepting the notion of democracy over imposing your own personal preference. Such a shame - but you have the government that best suits you at the moment, ruled by Erdogan et al., maintaining an illegal occupation which most "TCs" prefer over freedom, fraternity and democracy.

[erolz66]

You still have trouble accepting the notion of democracy over imposing your own personal preference. Such a shame - but you have the government that best suits you at the moment, ruled by Erdogan et al., maintaining an illegal occupation which most "TCs" prefer over freedom, fraternity and democracy.

No you have trouble accepting the notion that democracy can only validly express the will of some 'group' is there is a wider commonality that defines and binds that group as a group. That when the thing one sub group wants is to end the very and only thing that could be that wider commonality, they can no longer do so as a valid expression of that wider commonality but only as a valid expression of the sub group. That to say otherwise is not to want democracy but is actually to want a RIGHT to impose that numerically larger sub groups will on the numerically smaller one, despite the fact that there is no commonality left that binds the two groups together.

But Scotland voted to remain being ruled by a bigger nation - that was their democratic choice. Just as they would have voted to remain within the EU (by all accounts).

Remaining in the UK or leaving it, there still remains a wider commonality that bound and still binds Scots together as Scots. You CAN be Scottish and support Scotland staying in the Union. You can not support that Scotland should become a region of England (because for example you consider yourself as an English person who lives in a place called Scotland) and cease to exist as a nation and then validly claim that such is the will of a unitary Scottish people. You can not do this because by saying that Scotland is and should be a region of England you also say that, in your belief, there is no such thing as a Scottish people - there is just some people living in that locality who are English and some others who also live there who are not.

[GreekIslandGirl]

No you have trouble accepting the notion that democracy can only validly express the will of some 'group' is there is a wider commonality that defines and binds that group as a group.

Democracy is about individuals. It's you who is stuck on "groups" and "communities". That individuals, despite their wide interests (when educated), can vote freely and a majority view formed is what is so beautiful and fair about democracy - but that irks Turks (lol) as they are told what to think and do and can follow only one path.

You see this individualism among the Greeks on this forum (we disagree) - whereas Turkish posters all duck and dive disparaging democracy as one voice.