Cyprus-Forum.com

[Mills Chapman]

Cypezokyli,

Thank you for your encouraging message.

Others have tried to tell me that this type of school exists in Israel, but those schools are not designed to attract the children of the Israeli Knesset leaders and the children of the Palestinian authority in Ramallah, one specific school trying to attract the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of each side's leaders. A school in Jerusalem is actually my long-term goal, one that would try to draw in the descendants of Sharon and Abbas. I think the schools you are thinking of lie solely in Israel and tend to draw children of parents who are already oriented to peace.

By trying to draw in all types of children simply because it would aim to be the best school in Nicosia, this school could then gradually trigger cognitive dissonance in the minds of parents who are not peace-oriented. To understand this, see my paper for explanations of cognitive dissonance, the psychology of inevitability, and "upwards" cognitive dissonance.

My website is indeed one page only. I have not yet figured out how to make proposals available there for downloading - at a minimal cost to me. There are no links in the table of contents. However, I created a Yahoo! account, and I attached my proposal to a message that I sent to that account. The proposal is in MS Word, and I left instructions at the top of www.cyprussolution.org on how to log in and download the proposal. I checked that Yahoo account an hour ago, and the proposal is still there. Please let me know through a private message if you can't download it. Send me your e-mail address through a pm, and I will send it to you directly then. (But first try doing it yourself, if possible. I'm trying to make an option available that won't require my own hands each time. )

Regarding language, I am about to post answers to questions that someone asked me through a private message. My answers will hopefully explain why the bulk of the courses should be in English. I also state that each child will still spend a period each day learning his or her own native language while classmates of the other ethnicity will be next door in another classroom learning their own native language. In my proposal I state that each child can have the opportunity to study the other community's language beginning in the early secondary-level years. I'm sure this age for learning the third language could be moved up to the primary-level years; I only said secondary in case there were scheduling problems for other important classes such as math and history. Actually, I'm sure it could be arranged for all three languages to be learned at a very young age; there just needs to be an emphasis, however, on one's native language and on English - not on the third language.

[Mills Chapman]

Someone asked me these two questions through a private message. (Feel free to post them here if you would like.)

In response to your questions:

Quoting the questioner, "1. you (Mills) write: 'Annually admitting only two-year-olds from families with a governmental employee and from some in the general public through a lottery'.

i can see the reasons why you want this but i dont get why it should be a "must" for the school to succeed?"

Answer to 1. There are several parts to this answer: the need for two-year-olds, the need for those from families with a governmental employee, and the need for a lottery.

The need for two-year-olds: The school would still work if it began with three-year-olds, and it is not necessarily a "must" for it to begin with two-year-olds, but the school's chances for succeeding would be relatively greater if it started with two-year-olds. This has to do with A) becoming "proficiently" bilingual, B) weakening the possibility of ethnic "out-group" mental constructs from predominating over the non-Cypriot "out-group" construct ("He's Greek but not Cypriot"), and C) an extra year of CRE education.

A) In this school, for a reason I will describe in response to your question #2, all subjects will be in English except those for the native languages. These subjects include math, music, science, social studies (history), etc. Some of the vocabulary words will be tough, regardless of whether the students are proficient in English itself. So, by the time students are ready for what we call "kindergarten" in the U.S., their English abilties should be comparable to their kindergarten contemporaries in the U.S. or the U.K. who are native speakers.

Though I am not a developmental psychologist by training, I believe that it is easiest for a child to learn a second langauge when they are extremely young. For example, the amount of a language that a child can learn from the age of 2 years and 0 months to the age of 3 years and 0 months is a lot more than the amount a child can learn studying with the same intensity from the age of 3 years and 0 months to the age of 4 years and 0 months. It is almost as if the exponent itself - that determines the shape of the curve of a child's language learning - increases as the age of the child decreases. Since we need to ensure that these students can learn school material using English in all sorts of subjects at the kindergarten level, it might be wise to start them with the target language as early as possible

B) Child psychologists say that children begin to develop racial, ethnic, and gender constructs by the time they are 4 or 5. (Who looks like me and who doesn't?) Some psychologists say that even three-year-olds begin to do this. Fortunately, positive experiences - that include achieving superordinate goals - with a person from a different background than you can cause you to minimze the importance of that social characteristic (such as ethnicity or race) and look for another social characteristic that the two of you share (such as "We're both Cypriots" or more broadly, "We're both people.") As child psychology researchers are definitely in agreement that these out-group constructs are still unformed by the age of 2, it makes sense to get the young children together for positive experiences before any of them start to naturally form these out-group constructs based on visible or auditory differences.

A good analogy here is the weed in a garden. The visible part of the weed represents the adult with the ugly attitudes, and the underground roots of the weed represent the child who has already formed maladaptive out-group constructs. We want to reach into the soil to a depth that is deeper than the deepest roots of any weed.

C) The answer here will be similar to A, but to a lesser degree. The Peaceful Kids ECSEL program, which is a pre-primary-level CRE program, starts with two-year-olds and then spirals upwards. If we were to start this school with three-year-olds, we would have to begin the CRE component of the curriculum with concepts that could have been introduced at the two-year-old level. Though the long-term differences would not be as great as they would be between those who began learning English at the age of 2 and those at the age of 3, there would still be some difference, simply because one group received an extra year of CRE training, training that was purposely designed for the two-year-old's mind.

In all fairness, I myself might have started nursery school at the age of 3 and been at home when I was 2. However, if I have a child of my own someday and considering how receptive the minds of young children are to learning, I will certainly look for an active learning experience for my child from ages 2 to 3. He or she will not be sitting at home watching television.

The need for those two-year-olds from families with a governmental employee: The goal of the school is not to create future politicians of Cyprus but to maximize the possibility that if these students do become the politicians, then their inter-ethnic/inter-communal attitudes towards Cypriots of the other ethnicity will be more positive than the attitudes that the existing politicians have towards their counterparts. The more positive the attitude is, the more positive the working relationship will be, and the more positive the working relationship will be, the greater chances there are of finding a creative solution to the political problem.

Not all two-year-olds in Cyprus (or in any country) are born with the same chances to one day be a leading politician. A lot of it has to do with the political connections that that family has. This can be measured by both the position on the government's hierarchy of the family member's job and the position on the family tree of that individual in relation to the two-year-old. For example, if President George Bush in the United States were to have a two-year-old child, that two-year-old would have a much better chance than any other two-year-old of becoming President in the future. I am controlling for family money and other variables; I am only looking at the political connections that any two-year-old might have. As a two-year-old in the school matures, those closest to him or her (including those with the strong political connections) will gradually have their own attitudes affected (imagine loving a parent while hating homosexuals and then having the parent reveal their homsexuality). This can expedite the time it will take for a political solution. Look in my paper to read about coginitive dissonance, the psychology of inevitability, and "upwards" cognitive dissonance. Until you read those sections, this paragraph right here probably won't make much sense.

The goal is to "systematically sweep" both sides of the Nicosia area each year for the Greek and Turkish Cypriot two-year-olds who have the most politically influential relatives. I know there are others in Cyprus (such as a Sri Lankan community, I believe), but from what I understand, they are not high up in either side's political administration, and thus these families' two-year-olds would probably not be seen as politically influential.

The need for a lottery: The school can not be seen as a school for just the existing political elite. If every two-year-old who was offered free admission came from one of these families, the school would reek of political elitism. Also, not all of the current politicians in Cyprus have relatives who were politicians several decades ago. So, the school needs to account for this possibility in the future. That is why one-third of the new spaces each year would not be offered to the most politically influential two-year-olds but rather to the two-year-olds in the entire general public on each side through a lottery.

2. Quoting the questioner, "2. why should the language of teaching be english? wouldnt it be to the advantage of the children to be taught in a bilingual way? "

Yes, the use of English as the school's main language for students of such a young age would be a bit controversial, but remember, we are trying to draw in skeptical parents from both sides, parents who might be high up in their side's administration. We are also trying to create a learning environment where the children from each ethnicity can learn the majority of their subjects in the same classroom together, in a classroom where the ethnic/inter-communal difference is 50/50. Hard-line TC parents can easily say that they don't want to force their child to speak Greek for 75% of his or her classes, and hard-line GC parents can easily say that they don't want their child to speak Turkish for 75% of his or her classes. Since secondary schools on both sides use English as the medium for most of their subjects, why not do this at the primary and pre-primary levels too?

The problem with just using Greek and Turkish in a heterogeneous classroom is the issue of which language do you use for each subject. Do we use Greek for math and Turkish for science, or vice versa? Then a big debate sets in where folks say, "No, Greek is a smarter language for science. Turkish should be used for unnecessary classes, like the physical exercise class," etc. That can be avoid this way. Most crucially, the language used for history will be a concern, especially when it is time to talk about very sensitive historical events. If some insisted that the teacher use both Greek and Turkish in the history classroom, then some parents will ask their children each day, "So for how many minutes did the instructor use Greek? How many minutes for Turkish?" Some parents might even keep a running log if this were to occur and then angrily present it to the administrator at the end of the year.

(A disclaimer: English is the only modern language I know. I want to be impartial, but maybe subconsciously I'm too biased in favor of English.)

The children would still be learning their own native language in a homogenous classroom for one period a day (when their classmates of the other ethnicity are in the next-door classroom learning their native language). Just as GC children would not have to learn Turkish, TC children would not have to learn Greek. Since the children would be receiving formal training in their native language at a very young age and since they will be fully be exposed to it at night and on weekends in their own communities, they will still have ample opportunity to become fluent in it. In the U.S., there are a lot of French schools where the American children speak French for most of the day (in math class, science class, etc.) They learn English for a period as well and become proficient in it.

[Mills Chapman]

I was just asked me a series of questions in an e-mail, and I split my response into five parts. I feel like I covered this in my paper, and what I say here might be repetitive, but I want to make sure that I'm leaving nothing to chance. Here, I try to respond with different metaphors than before (to make it easier to understand). Bear me with me if you find my answers verbose. I'm just trying to get my thoughts out in any way that I can. Later in the future I will come back and edit this.

Part one: The selection of the students and why at least 50% (if not 66%) of them should come from political famlies

First of all, this school would be co-ed (both boys and girls). I’m not sure if you knew that.

I did not mean to say that there are political dynasties in the Cypriot politics of today. I was just trying to convey the idea that families in which one of the members is a politician have more “social capital related to the political realm” than families where nobody in the family is a politician. By “social capital related to the political realm,” I mean an understanding of how politics works (informal conversations at the dinner table with the parent who is a politician, friends of parents who are also politicians; their family’s network of friends who might be politicians). If a child wants to become a politician just like an older family member, that child will have more exposure and social connections to politics than a child of a family where everyone is a banker. Thus, with all else equal, this child has a greater chance of becoming a politician than other children, and it is the politicians who negotiate potential settlements for the Cyprus problem.

For example, I was born with a lot of social capital related to investment advising (helping families pick the right financial investments). My father, uncle, and grandfather were all in this profession. If I wanted to go into investment advising, I would have a great advantage over other people my age because I have already heard a lot about it at the dinner table and because I have contacts within the field who can get me a job for it. School or no school, I have an advantage for this profession over my contemporaries.

More importantly, the real reason for targeting political families for this school is to spark cognitive dissonance in the parents’ mindsets, whether or not they are politicians. A good image here is jumping the dead battery of a car by using the live battery of another car. The dead battery in this analogy is the search for a political solution to the Cyprus problem, the live battery is the school, and the electrical charge is cognitive dissonance. By not focusing on the children of politicians as some of the children for this school, you might still create future Cypriot citizens who are oriented to peace and positive relations between the two communities, but there will be a very weak connection between these people and the people in the two sides’ administrations who are negotiating for a settlement. Just because you have peace-oriented civilians does not mean that the politicians will be any more effective at reaching a settlement.

You have to find a way to send an electrical charge from this school to the negotiation process in a way that will be agreeable to all parties. If there is no connection from the school to the political process, you will not get the massive amount of funding from outside governments who need to see a logical connection between this proposed school and the chances for finding a settlement. Other peace-oriented schools don’t focus on the children of existing politicians, and as a result, they create a peace lobby in the constituents that wants peace but doesn’t have any real political power. Regarding the hardliners, all you are doing is trying to build a school similar to The English School (and even academically superior to it – yes, that is possible) to which they would want to send their children to. If those hard-liners who also have political power are ignored, then there will still be a significant hard-line presence in the future, significant enough to prevent a political settlement.

Again, I don’t think Cyprus will get the massive amount of funding from outside needed to build a school such as this if there is not a clear connection to the politicians’ families.

Social classification already exists with or without this school. As the school wouldn’t want to institutionalize it; it would accept at least one-third (maybe half) of its students from the general public. I hope you saw that part in my paper about the lottery.

Also, parents of classmates in the same school will be relatively more cordial to each other when compared to parents of children who aren’t classmates. The more cordial the parents are, the warmer the relationship; the warmer the relationship, the more of a win-win orientation in joint decision-making situations (such as high-level negotiations). So, if in a hypothetical example, Papadoupolos and Talat both had children in the same grade at this school, they would see each other not just as political adversaries but also as parents of children in the same school. This latter description describes a social “in-group” (in the same boat together). For example, my parents made some of their current friends by meeting adults who had children in my own grade when I was in primary school. My parents and their parents eventually became friends. If two political adversaries are on the same side in another context (two classmates’ parents who want the best for their kids at that school), they will have relatively more justification than before to negotiate with each other from a win-win perspective than from a zero-sum perspective.

Politicians’ children still need to go to school somewhere. If the school, through cognitive dissonance, is going to affect the attitudes of the parents, why not ensure that some of these parents are the politicians who are deciding how much effort to make in finding a political settlement?

There might be some politicians on each side who see an advantage in not finding a settlement. Perhaps they can maintain a higher salary if the status quo continues, etc. Sending their child to this school will not necessarily make them want to find a settlement, but again, they will be relatively more motivated to find a settlement if their child is growing up with this dichotomy (unity in the classroom but not in politics) than if it is someone else’s child who is going through this. By not making an attempt to draw these particular politicians into supporting the school, we will not be making them more motivated to find a settlement. They will still have the same amount of incentive to block reconciliation efforts.

[Mills Chapman]

Part two: School’s mission

The school’s mission is not to produce future politicians of Cyprus but to maximize the likelihood that if its alumni do become politicians, they will favor Cypriots of the other ethnicity more than people of their own ethnicity who live in Greece or Turkey. The goal is to build a superordinate Cypriot identity. Also, another goal is to ensure that these Cypriots can talk calmly and productively with Cypriots of the other ethnicity, regardless of their future occupation. Lastly, with all else equal, schooling together the children of two opposing political groups will have a more peaceful effect on future relations than the existing schooling situation will, regardless of what the political impact on the Cyprus problem will be and regardless of whether these children grow up to be politicians themselves.

[Mills Chapman]

Part three: Expected duration before settlement

I don’t think it will take 50 years to achieve a settlement after this school’s opening; the figure is probably closer to 30 years. Yes, politicians in any country do not usually have a lot of clout until they are in their 50’s; that part is true. However, I ask you to think about the concept of the psychology of inevitability. When you realize that something in the future will most likely happen, you start to put more and more time into preparing for it. The translation is, 30 years after the school’s opening, the politicians in power will begin to realize that the people one generation younger them have a more positive view of the other ethnicity and – hopefully – are more determined to find a settlement. This growing awareness of the inevitable will lead the politicians (30 years after the school’s opening) to look more deeply at finding a resolution.

Look at death for example. We all know we are going to die at some point, so we think about what it’s going to be like. The more we think about what it’s going to be like, the more we prepare for it in the back of our minds. The more we prepare for it, the more we are willing to handle it when it comes. With designing the school, the challenge is to shape it in such a way that it will create a psychology of inevitability among Cypriot politicians. For example, it might lead to more schools that are evenly integrated, and this might increase the odds of finding a solution, etc.

Also consider the price of a securities bond (a eurobond for example). You may be familiar with bond curves. As the maturity date of the bond approaches, the price of the bond approaches its par value (100 euros). When the bond is initially sold, the company sponsoring the bond might seem like a risky venture; this would decrease the price of the bond to a level far below par value, to a point that matches the risk involved. But if the company reliably pays its interest commitments every six months, more and more people will see the company as stable, and this will drive the price of the bond towards par value.

Regarding this proposed school, a lot of people in the first decade or so might not see a connection between it and the chances of finding a political settlement. Therefore, the degree of psychology of inevitability affecting both communities will be very low. But over time, as people hear good things about the school (teaching sensitive Cypriot history issues in a productive way that has never been seen before; a conflict-resolution education program that leads to better discussions over other sensitive issues, etc.), they will begin to think that maybe this school can be a partial contributor to the political settlement that has evaded everyone so far. If the school continues to do a good job and systematically enrolls for some of its students the children of politicians, people might begin to think that this school is sub-consciously affecting their politicians’ attitudes towards reconciliation. This will heighten the degree of psychological inevitability on both sides, and as a result, people will be more open to discussing a resolution. The more openness there is in the discussions, the greater the likelihood there is in finding a creative solution.

Also think about this:

Which is worse: A) building a school where 50-66% of the students are the children of the politicians or B) no solution 30 years from now?

Which is also worse: A) planning for a solution that might not occur for another 50 years (but meeting most of each side’s demands) or B) granting the North independence and seeing a permanent presence of Turkish troops there? Which is the worse of two evils if you had to pick one?

For the lesser evil, you should be willing to embrace it now if it means that you can avoid the greater evil. Approach this from the perspective of paying insurance premiums. I hate paying insurance premiums, particularly for my automobile. However, I would rather have insurance than no insurance if I got into a horrible crash. This school is the insurance that there will be a highly likely chance of finding a political solution 50 years from now. However, you have to start paying the premiums now for the insurance to be there 50 years from now. If you don’t, there is always the chance that in 50 years, permanent partition will be a certainty. The political leaders can still look for a solution as this school is educating their children. Just because the school is running doesn’t mean that other solution options should not be considered. But, it will be a wonderful security blanket in 30-50 years if a solution hasn’t been found through another avenue. Remember, I proposed that a lot of the funding for this school would come from outside Cyprus. If it were close to being tuition-free for Cypriots, and if it were a better school than the English School, what cost would it be to Cypriots to send their children there? The psychology of inevitability would then be set into motion.

Lastly on this topic, how would the situation in Cyprus be now if this school had started back in 1975, 30 years ago? Don’t you think the two sides would be relatively closer to a settlement with all else equal? One has to sow the seed now to harvest the crops of the faraway future.

[Mills Chapman]

Part four: Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance might not be a target for some schools of peace, but bear in mind that no two schools of peace are the same. The specifics behind this proposed school make it different from others.
Try to take the role of a prospective parent of this school who must make a decision as to whether they want to send their child here. Look at the school as an educational product, comparable to any other product on the “market shelf.” If this school is logically a better model than any other and also for a lower price, it is desirable. However, if I have strong emotional reservations about sending my child to such a school, then I will experience cognitive dissonance. Do I send my child to such a strong school, or do I want my child to have the same nationalist feelings and attitudes that I currently hold? The cognitive dissonance would actually start after the parent decides to send their child to this school (if they do that and don’t decide to give their child an inferior education).

One small change that I have to make is that parents will feel the cognitive dissonance before their children would. That is different than in my original paper.

You mentioned that in Ireland, the government will build a school for Catholics and Protestants to send their kids to if they first ask for it. Here, the order would be the opposite. Don’t wait for the parents to ask. First build as strong a school as you can (in educational terms), and lower the price drastically in comparison to schools such as The English School and The Junior School.

The home attitude would adapt if the child attended the school. Just like the young brother is a sponge off of big brother when learning the language, so will family members be affected in attitude terms by the child’s attendance at the school.

Regarding upwards cognitive dissonance, the effects in any family will be hardly noticeable (parent’s attitude might change 10% in relation to the child’s attitude, and the grandparent’s attitude might change only 1%), but when you aggregate it across all families that have a politician in them and also a student at the school, there could be noticeable effects.

[Mills Chapman]

Part five: Bilingualism/Trilingualism

It might be logistically too tough to schedule class time for the students to learn the other’s native language. Yes, I agree that they would teach other their own language informally. Hmm, maybe this could be done in the pre-primary years (before primary school where subjects such as science and social studies would be covered). Yes! I actually think this could work for pre-primary: all three languages could be taught (with an emphasis on one’s native tongue and English). However, come primary school, there might not be space in the schedule for the others’ native language (there would have to be periods for science, arts, computers, math, social studies, etc.)

In that Israeli school that was described in that paper, they said nothing about how the two languages were used for the non-language subjects. That school also doesn’t make an effort to link its processes to the processes needed to find a lasting political settlement there.

[blackley]

Congratulations on such a comprehensive approach to the Cyprus problem. Unfortunately most people will not read it due to its length and academic approach. I will take issue with some of your observations on the Background - The Cyprus Problem:-
"In late 1963 the constitution collapsed"
This is a simplistic statement that accords no blame to why the constitution collapsed. Despite signing on to the Constitution only 3 years earlier, Makarios broke his promise and set off a train of events that led to the division of the island.
"The military Junta in Athens in July 1974 authorized the overthrow of the Greek Cypriot leader, who they suspected was a secret communist"
There is no evidence to substantiate this claim. Makarios was a prominent member of the non-alligned nations who used both sides for their own gain.
"Replacing him was a right-wing Greek Cypriot, a man suspected by Turkey of committing atrocities against Turkish Cypriots"
Sampson was a known murderer who by his own admission admitted to his crimes both against British civilians and troops as well as Turkish Cypriots.
As with many other observers and writers on Cyprus you talk about skirmishes between the two communities but in reference to Turkey's military operation to save the Turkish Cypriots from extermination you note "many Greek Cypriots are killed or pushed out of their homes"
So an uninformed reader is not made aware of the massive numbers of Turkish Cypriots massacred.
Also no mention is made of the murder of many Greek Cypriots by Sampson and EOKA B after the overthrow of Makarios.
I am a Scottish-born Australian. I served in Cyprus 1957-1959. I have written and recently published a 440-page novel "Love and Death in Cyprus" that gives a fictional account of events on the island from 1950-1975.
It's available on www.lovedeathcyprus.com

[Alexis]

Hi Blackley,
I have a few observations on your post:

"In late 1963 the constitution collapsed"
This is a simplistic statement that accords no blame to why the constitution collapsed. Despite signing on to the Constitution only 3 years earlier, Makarios broke his promise and set off a train of events that led to the division of the island.

Agreed, it's not a simple as that, but the statement is at the end of the day is true and is the best way of describing the events that led to the violence that ensued. That is, to someone unfamiliar with the Cyprus Problem, I feel it is the best way of explaining what happened.

"The military Junta in Athens in July 1974 authorized the overthrow of the Greek Cypriot leader, who they suspected was a secret communist"
There is no evidence to substantiate this claim. Makarios was a prominent member of the non-alligned nations who used both sides for their own gain.

You are probably correct here, Makarios did play both sides but there is no doubt that at the time many right-wingers would have regarded him as a communist, not least because he was friendly with the Soviets. That is not to say that the Junta really believed this, but he was certainly ideologically not aligned with the Junta's views at this time (early seventies), giving the Junta ample motive for backing his removal.

"Replacing him was a right-wing Greek Cypriot, a man suspected by Turkey of committing atrocities against Turkish Cypriots"
Sampson was a known murderer who by his own admission admitted to his crimes both against British civilians and troops as well as Turkish Cypriots.

Yes, again true but he was most vocal about his crimes after the events of 1974. I think the point being made is that he was the worst possible candidate for a coup given his crimes against TCs in omorfita and elsewhere in 1963/64 which were widely known about at the time. This of course made the grounds for Turkish intervention even greater.

As with many other observers and writers on Cyprus you talk about skirmishes between the two communities but in reference to Turkey's military operation to save the Turkish Cypriots from extermination you note "many Greek Cypriots are killed or pushed out of their homes"
So an uninformed reader is not made aware of the massive numbers of Turkish Cypriots massacred.
Also no mention is made of the murder of many Greek Cypriots by Sampson and EOKA B after the overthrow of Makarios.
I am a Scottish-born Australian. I served in Cyprus 1957-1959. I have written and recently published a 440-page novel "Love and Death in Cyprus" that gives a fictional account of events on the island from 1950-1975.

The events of 1974 are at best confusing. So to state categorically what events took place and when is in my view speculation, especially as things happened so fast. I do not say this to excuse massacres of TCs which did indeed take place. There can be no doubt, however, that the GCs came out of this particular episode worse off. I think that the uninformed reader should be told both sides of this story, that the grounds of Turkey's intervention were indeed valid, but that its implementation was spectacularly botched to the detriment of both communities.

I look forward to reading your book especially as you served in Cyprus at what was obviously a very difficult time for the British Army.

[Mills Chapman]

Dear blackley,

Thank you for your post and for your congratulations. I had a chance to visit your site, and I already know that I want to read your book. I just have to find time for doing so.

As for your comments on the section, "The Background: The Cyprus Problem," I don't pretend to have even a loose grasp on the history. I have tried to read accounts from both sides, but in the end, I hope that my own views are inconsequential. To be honest, I don't really care if I myself learn what “really happened.” What I do care about is that students in any history classroom - whether it is in Cyprus, Jerusalem, Inverness, or Brisbane - learn more than one side of any controversy through a multi-perspective approach such as Academic Controversy. If the students are left to determine the quality of each side's evidence and reasoning for that particular issue and are then asked to argue aloud for both sides in a structured format before striving for a synthesis, then they will get a resulting view of history that is as objective as possible, whether the topic is about the constitution, the Athens junta, Sampson, or William Wallace.

After reading what both you and Alexis wrote, I decided to edit just the part about the Athens junta and Makarios. This is the revision:

The ruling military junta in Athens in July 1974 authorizes the overthrow of the Greek Cypriot leader, whose views were not as close to theirs as they would have liked.