Natty wrote:Hey cypezokyli, sorry I didn't quite understand what you meant, do you mean the TC and GC leadership, or the British leadership, or all three?
Sorry, brains all muddled today!
Peace!
sorry natty, i guess i was not clear.
my questions :
did the british created the conflict between the two communities , or simply took advantage of sth already existing ?
was there ever a cypriot identity , or anyone who ever spoke about cypriots before 1960s (gc or tc) ? in short do we expect from an imperial power to construct such an ideology , that would obviously be against its interests ?
did the british created a two-gear system of did they simply follow the existing ottoman millet system (albeit not discriminating when it came to taxes) ?
what would you say, if i told you that the tcs spoke to the british empire, against the prospect of enosis in 1880-81 , 1902, 1911 etc etc ? or that in the mid-40s thousand of tcs protested against enosis ? were those also british creations ?
as to the tcs policemen. first , why do you think that british would need to put any effort to convince the tcs to join the police force against an organisation which was obviously working against their interests ? besides , after grivas started attacking policemen , what incentives did the gcs have to join the police force ? Moreover why would the british trust the gcs in allowing them to join the the policeforce ?
i am not saying the british (the westerners) did not used the situation for their interests. but now tell me, is there any party , that didnot work for its interest at that point in time (gcs , tcs or the british) ? unless you are in a position to convince even one tc that EOKA was fighting for their benefit as well
if you manage to do that, you will have my etternal respect..
...
the same things can be argued for england bringing turkey in the game. thats also ambivalent , and for sure not the whole truth. but i ll write later for that.
in short , what i am trying to say, is that using (or even recycling) some quotes from british diplomats, we end up overemphasizing the role of the british . no doubt there was a role, but its way exagurated imo.
the simple proof of that is :
in the past we were illiterate and the british could take advantage of that and use divide and conquer tactics for their own interests. now that we KNOW their tactics, and we know that fighting is not in our interests , why dont we strike an agreement ?