Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

When the very first non Cypriot, Greek speaking, person arrived in Cyprus, all those hundreds of years ago, ...

THOUSANDS!

And still not native, by definition.

Whose definition? The one that says the Anglo Saxons or Celts have been in the UK for centuries and still they are not native?
Turkish apologist not to mention historical revisionist. Overall, pathetic idiot!

You are the minority - the minority that thinks Cyprus should not be ruled by Cypriots.

And you are the idiot/Turkish-slave that fails to understand that Cyprus does NOT have to be *ruled* by anyone other than the individuals that vote in a democratic election.

As I said, you have no concept of freedom, democracy and individual rights - valueless floater.

How entrenched your brainwashing seems to be ...

[erolz66]

Whose definition?

Just the dictionary definition.

The one that says the Anglo Saxons or Celts have been in the UK for centuries and still they are not native?

Oh the irony and the ignorance.

Gildas (c. 500–570)[a][b] (also known as "Gildas the Wise" or Gildas Sapiens) was a 6th-century British monk best known for his scathing religious polemic De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, which recounts the history of the Britons before and during the coming of the Saxons.

Gildas called them Saxons, which was probably the common British term for the settlers

Bede identifies the migrants as Angles, Saxons and Jutes, reporting (Bk I, Ch 15) that the Saxons came from Old Saxony and the Angles from 'Anglia', which lay between the homelands of the Saxons and Jutes.[24] Anglia is reasonably taken to be the old Schleswig-Holstein Province (straddling the modern Danish-German border), and containing the modern Angeln. Jutland was the homeland of the Jutes, and the coast between the Elbe and Weser rivers is the Saxon area of origin.

Historical evidence suggests that following the Anglo-Saxon transition, people of indigenous ethnicity were at an economic and legal disadvantage compared to those having Anglo-Saxon ethnicity. This has led to the development of the "apartheid-like social structure" theory to explain this high contribution to the modern gene pool, where the proportion of settlers would be smaller

I could go on and on

And you are the idiot/Turkish-slave that fails to understand that Cyprus does NOT have to be *ruled* by anyone other than the individuals that vote in a democratic election.

You perhaps should look up what enosis means.

As I said, you have no concept of freedom, democracy and individual rights - valueless floater.

You have said many things and most of them are totally disconnected from any actual reality, so nothing new here.

How entrenched your brainwashing seems to be ...

Projection - again nothing new here then.

[Sotos]

The Greek Cypriots, who love this land ... deep .... and not for the superficial comings and goings above the soil.

You love this land so deep that you think it is should belong and be ruled by a majority of people who have never even stepped on to it, lived here or worked this land. You do not love this land, you love the irredentist concept of Greek nationalism.

Actually you are wrong, because Cyprus being part of Greece wouldn't be the same as Cyprus being under British or Ottoman rule where Cypriots had no say. As part of Greece Cyprus would elect its own MPs who would be nearly the 10% of the MPs in the Greek parliament and the Greek Prime Minister would definitely "step on" the biggest Greek island (and he could even be a Cypriot). If your argument is that Cyprus should necessarily be ruled ONLY by people who "lived here or worked this land" then if we follow your logic it necessarily follows that:

(a) No island should be part of Greece
(b) No island should be part of any other country

But since there is nothing really special about islands apart from that they are surrounded by water the same could be applied to all other territories. They should also be ruled exclusively by people who "lived here or worked this land". So it also follows that:

(c) No city or village should be part of a greater country, but it should be a country on its own.

I am sorry but your argument doesn't hold true for ANY country, apart maybe from tiny ones like Monaco. In all other countries the majority of those who rule a locality did not live or work the land of that specific place and a country is made up of many cities and villages (and often islands as well)

[Sotos]

Whether a territory (island or otherwise) should be part of a greater country should ideally be decided democratically by the local population. The people of the territory can democratically decide how their interests are served best. Like the Falklands, Gibraltar and Scotland did in the case of the UK. It doesn't mean that everybody should agree on what is "best" but the democratic choice of the majority should be respected. It is the fact that the democratic choice of Cypriots was not respected that led to the conflicts and bloodshed.

[Get Real!]

At the end of the day we should all be grateful that Cyprus never was and most likely never will be ruled by Greece or we’d be fucked even worse that with the Ottomans!

[Sotos]

.... Greek language and culture came to Cyprus from outside Cyprus and thus by definition is not native to Cyprus.

Bollocks. The people, language, culture, temples, art, history, religion etc all co-evolved between the Greek states and islands -over thousands of years!

The tortuous semantic and logical hoops your warped ideology forces you to have to try and jump through is genuinely amusing to watch. When the very first non Cypriot, Greek speaking, person arrived in Cyprus, all those hundreds of years ago, the people they encountered in Cyprus that were already there there before them, they were already Greek were they ? Utter nonsense. Greek culture arrived in Cyprus from outside of Cyprus and thus can not be described as native. That there was ongoing cultural evolution after Greek culture arrived in Cyprus, from outside Cyprus, does not make that Greek culture native to Cyprus.

If we follow your logic then nobody is native to Cyprus because everybody arrived to Cyprus from somewhere else bringing their language and culture with them. The same would be true for nearly the whole world since human migrations were constant. The Greek language and culture that came to Cyprus 1000s of years ago were very very different than the Greek language and culture that exists today... it wasn't even called "Greek" back then. Cyprus played an important role in the development of what later became known as the Greek civilization. Some even say that the Greek Alphabet was actually developed in Cyprus through the interaction of Greeks with the Phoenicians. We have our own dialect and distinct culture that incorporates elements from all peoples that ever lived in Cyprus, but it is undeniable that it is the Hellenic culture that has the longest and greatest presence in Cyprus. You need to respect the culture and the history of Cyprus if you want to call yourself a Cypriot. Coming here with your British made mindset to teach us what being Cypriot should mean is arrogant and ignorant.

[Sotos]

At the end of the day we should all be grateful that Cyprus never was and most likely never will be ruled by Greece or we’d be fucked even worse that with the Ottomans!

If the British had agreed to allow Cyprus to be part of Greece in 1950 instead of using the Turks to achieve their aims then in Cyprus we would have no refugees, no Turkish occupation and no Cyprus Problem. Do you think that Crete or Rhodes are in a worst situation than Cyprus is?

[Get Real!]

At the end of the day we should all be grateful that Cyprus never was and most likely never will be ruled by Greece or we’d be fucked even worse that with the Ottomans!

If the British had agreed to allow Cyprus to be part of Greece in 1950 instead of using the Turks to achieve their aims then in Cyprus we would have no refugees, no Turkish occupation and no Cyprus Problem. Do you think that Crete or Rhodes are in a worst situation than Cyprus is?

In hindsight, what the British should’ve done in the 1920s and 30s was to blockade all Greek shipping until Greece cut the crap in Cyprus.

They foolishly allowed Greece to interfere in Cyprus and we all know the catastrophic results of that today.

Please go ahead and move to Greece Sotos... it's not too late for Enosis with your family.

[erolz66]

Actually you are wrong, because Cyprus being part of Greece wouldn't be the same as Cyprus being under British or Ottoman rule where Cypriots had no say.

No one said it was the same.

As part of Greece Cyprus would elect its own MPs who would be nearly the 10% of the MPs in the Greek parliament and the Greek Prime Minister would definitely "step on" the biggest Greek island (and he could even be a Cypriot).

Yes decisions about Cyprus would be decided by a majority of 90% that did not live in Cyprus, were connected to Cyprus only via some tenuous cultural link to the largest group in Cyprus . That is why claiming that the desire for this was a valid expression of the right of CYPRIOTS to SELF determination is absurd. The necessity to claim that such a desire IS a valid expression of the right of CYPRIOTS to SELF determination has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with trying to suppress the rights of TC who are not Greek to have an effective say in what happens to them in their own homeland. Without being able to understand what SELF means, you remain unable to understand what SELF determination means.

If your argument is that Cyprus should necessarily be ruled ONLY by people who "lived here or worked this land" then if we follow your logic it necessarily follows that:

That is not my argument. My argument was and is that the desire for enosis was not an expression of the will of a unitary Cypriot people. It was the desire only of those living in Cyprus who choose to want to Greek, not just culturally, but in every sense. As such it was not the will of a unitary Cypriot people and by GC choosing that they made and make TC a separate people from them who also live in Cyprus and ALSO have a valid right to their SELF determination. This is what you refuse to accept. You insist that the right has to apply to a all the people in a territory, not because that makes any sense or is in any way compatible with the ideals of the right to SELF determination but only because it means you can have your 'Greek' way without having to pay any regard for the wishes of those in Cyprus who are not Greek, do not want to be Greek and do not want Cyprus to be a part of Greece.

I am sorry but your argument doesn't hold true for ANY country, apart maybe from tiny ones like Monaco. In all other countries the majority of those who rule a locality did not live or work the land of that specific place and a country is made up of many cities and villages (and often islands as well)

Only because you have totally distorted what my 'argument' is. What does not hold any water is your assertion that "Whether a territory (island or otherwise) should be part of a greater country should ideally be decided democratically by the local population." It does not hold any water because it ignores the fundamental concept of what can be said to constitute a 'people' - namely some shared commonality. Could a majority all the people on the continent of America, north and south, decided my majority vote what the status of all those people will be and should be ? Could they 'democratically' decide to dissolve the USA if enough people in that 'territory' wanted that ? No of course not. What makes a Mexican people distinct from the Canadian people and the Brazillian people, is the commonality that Mexicans share with each other that they do not share with other peoples in that same 'territory'. The boarders between these states is a function of that commonality, it is not the case that these boarders define this commonality. You have it entirely ass about tit. In Cyprus GC and TC did not have commonality of language, or religion, or cultural ancestry. The ONLY commonality we had and have that can and could validly makes us a single people IS being Cypriot. That is why you choosing to NOT want to be Cypriot, but to be Greek, defined us as separate peoples and as such we have a separate and equal right to self determination to you as Greeks.

You are way to intelligent to not be able to understand this Sotos.

Some form of greater commonality is what makes 'one person one vote' a valid form of democracy. Without that commonality there is no meaning to your word 'territory' and no sense in it being used as the basis for which groups get self determination and which do not. It is you denial of the central role of 'commonality' in such matters that leads you in to your dead ends with 'villages' and 'towns' having a right to self determination.

You are way to intelligent to not be able to understand this Sotos.

That is why all you end up left with is 'well we are the native people of Cyprus' so therefore we can alone decided what happens to all Cypriots, those that we define as a different people from us as well as those we define as the same people as us, because we are the 'real' Cypriots and they are not - so there is no need to care about their wants in Cyprus as a people separate from us, because they are not really Cypriot and we are.

[erolz66]

If the British had agreed to allow Cyprus to be part of Greece in 1950 instead of using the Turks to achieve their aims then in Cyprus we would have no refugees, no Turkish occupation and no Cyprus Problem. Do you think that Crete or Rhodes are in a worst situation than Cyprus is?

Do I as a TC think Cyprus, even in the mess it is in today, is a better situation than what happened to Turkish speaking people of Crete ?