Cyprus-Forum.com

[BirKibrisli]

The historical perspective is important, agreed. Personally I think that the class aspect has not been sufficiently analysed. The EOKA foot soldiers were peasant boys, rural class. The professionals and middle class was missing in this sgtruggle, and undertandably so, they were civil servants mostly and the British were their employers. We often overlook this, and forget how this factor influenced later developments.

I can see where this thread is leading. To utter chaos.

BK best left to finish his project before any comments, otherwise it will get stuck in a quagmire.

Thanks,Deniz,but I really hope this will be a team effort.
It is as much as anything an exercise is learning to think in new ways, dig up and absorb information from different sources,and be CONSTRUCTIVE, instead of repeating the same old stuff learned from official propaganda manuals...

[denizaksulu]

The historical perspective is important, agreed. Personally I think that the class aspect has not been sufficiently analysed. The EOKA foot soldiers were peasant boys, rural class. The professionals and middle class was missing in this sgtruggle, and undertandably so, they were civil servants mostly and the British were their employers. We often overlook this, and forget how this factor influenced later developments.

I can see where this thread is leading. To utter chaos.

BK best left to finish his project before any comments, otherwise it will get stuck in a quagmire.

Thanks,Deniz,but I really hope this will be a team effort.
It is as much as anything an exercise is learning to think in new ways, dig up and absorb information from different sources,and be CONSTRUCTIVE, instead of repeating the same old stuff learned from official propaganda manuals...

BK, I dont get it. Sorry mate. You are writing a story of a struggle, and you will call it a team effort? How will you achieve this with all these shenanigans on the side.

I can only wish you good luck. Ofcourse I will be following with 'four eyes'. (sounds weird in English -Dort gozle)

Selamlar

[BirKibrisli]

Birkibrisli,
I loved you 'Cyprus diary' so I'm not sure whether you want interruptions or questions (especially after just one post !) If you, don't ignore this question; otherwise, when you say on the first line,

This island was home mainly to two ethnically distinct communities.

is this a conclusion or a premise ? To my way of thinking, communities are formed historically, they do not present themselves ready-formed and distinct. If that is the case then what interest me is how people differentiated themselves to such an extent that we can identify clearly 'distinct' communities. (Of course just because communites are distinct doesn't necessarily mean that they are fated to conflict). As I write this, it occurs to me that there may be a difference between whether and how outside people see distinct communities (for example, British colonial administrators) as opposed to the internal community/ies themselves who might not see or experience the same distinction.

CopperLine,
I think this will work best if people jump in whenever they feel the need to make a comment or ask a question. Or challenge me on something or other. The idea is to try to have an objective look at how we got to the mess we are in,without the emotional and propaganda based accusations and counter-accusations...

I mentioned the two main communities as they were the founding partners in the 1960 Agreements. I agree that communities are formed historically,and perhaps not recognised or named by the communities themselves. During Ottoman times,for example,there would have been no mention of anyone being "Turkish" Cypriot. The Ottomans classifed their subjects as MUslims and Non-Muslims...So it would be interesting if someone jumps in here and tells us when and how the notion of "Turkishness" begun in Cyprus.

If you are telling the truth Bir and there were Muslims and Non-Muslims in the Ottoman era then maybe you can tell us how the notion of "Greekness" begun in Cyprus?

Selamlar,Eric Dayi..
It is widely known and accepted that ethnicity and nationality played little part in the Ottoman Empire. It was always religion which was used to differentiate the Ottoman subjects. I wish you'd taken my suggestion and jumped in to tell us when,in your objective opinion, the notion of "Turkishness" begun in Cyprus. That would be a constructive way to contribute to this thread...

I am not a historian. I have no wish to recreate Cyprus history. I am just trying to dig up those interesting bits of our common history which are buried deep under piles of official propaganda...With the hope that it will make us all better informed about our past...So,please,come and help by being constructive,and show us your more tolerant,compassionate, human side...

[BirKibrisli]

The historical perspective is important, agreed. Personally I think that the class aspect has not been sufficiently analysed. The EOKA foot soldiers were peasant boys, rural class. The professionals and middle class was missing in this sgtruggle, and undertandably so, they were civil servants mostly and the British were their employers. We often overlook this, and forget how this factor influenced later developments.

I can see where this thread is leading. To utter chaos.

BK best left to finish his project before any comments, otherwise it will get stuck in a quagmire.

Thanks,Deniz,but I really hope this will be a team effort.
It is as much as anything an exercise is learning to think in new ways, dig up and absorb information from different sources,and be CONSTRUCTIVE, instead of repeating the same old stuff learned from official propaganda manuals...

BK, I dont get it. Sorry mate. You are writing a story of a struggle, and you will call it a team effort? How will you achieve this with all these shenanigans on the side.

I can only wish you good luck. Ofcourse I will be following with 'four eyes'. (sounds weird in English -Dort gozle)

Selamlar

Thanks,Deniz...My hope is that there will be more people who will embrace this thread in the right,objective spirit than the other kind.And base their arguments on known or little known or as yet unknown facts they have dug up from reliable sources...

I am now off to do my daily walking meditation,and will write some more of the story when I get back...Have a good night,and I look forward to your contributions tomorrrow.

[utu]

Birkibrisli, you say 'Long Live the True Republic of Cyprus'. Yet, the 'true republic' is based upon the Constitution of 1960. To all intents and purposes, the constitution has not properly functioned since December 1963. As long as the Turkish Cypriot elements are not part of it (and I won't get into the argument of who is to blame for that), the de jure Republic of Cyprus is de facto the Hellenic Cypriot Republic. It makes a mockery of the RoC flag and state arms, though the use of the Greek National Anthem seems to be very apt to describe the situation on the island.

[BirKibrisli]

Birkibrisli, you say 'Long Live the True Republic of Cyprus'. Yet, the 'true republic' is based upon the Constitution of 1960. To all intents and purposes, the constitution has not properly functioned since December 1963. As long as the Turkish Cypriot elements are not part of it (and I won't get into the argument of who is to blame for that), the de jure Republic of Cyprus is de facto the Hellenic Cypriot Republic. It makes a mockery of the RoC flag and state arms, though the use of the Greek National Anthem seems to be very apt to describe the situation on the island.

You are right,Utu..the True Republic of Cyprus is the one and only one which was established in 1960...That is the one I wish a long life...The present ROC is missing one vital element,the TCs sharing the power. My solution to the Cyprob is very simple. Lets go back to the 1960,negotiate and agree(or compromise) on the 13 changes Makarios was suggesting,and get on with building our nation of Cypriots...But that seems to be too simple for some people.

[Eric dayi]

Birkibrisli,
I loved you 'Cyprus diary' so I'm not sure whether you want interruptions or questions (especially after just one post !) If you, don't ignore this question; otherwise, when you say on the first line,

This island was home mainly to two ethnically distinct communities.

is this a conclusion or a premise ? To my way of thinking, communities are formed historically, they do not present themselves ready-formed and distinct. If that is the case then what interest me is how people differentiated themselves to such an extent that we can identify clearly 'distinct' communities. (Of course just because communites are distinct doesn't necessarily mean that they are fated to conflict). As I write this, it occurs to me that there may be a difference between whether and how outside people see distinct communities (for example, British colonial administrators) as opposed to the internal community/ies themselves who might not see or experience the same distinction.

CopperLine,
I think this will work best if people jump in whenever they feel the need to make a comment or ask a question. Or challenge me on something or other. The idea is to try to have an objective look at how we got to the mess we are in,without the emotional and propaganda based accusations and counter-accusations...

I mentioned the two main communities as they were the founding partners in the 1960 Agreements. I agree that communities are formed historically,and perhaps not recognised or named by the communities themselves. During Ottoman times,for example,there would have been no mention of anyone being "Turkish" Cypriot. The Ottomans classifed their subjects as MUslims and Non-Muslims...So it would be interesting if someone jumps in here and tells us when and how the notion of "Turkishness" begun in Cyprus.

If you are telling the truth Bir and there were Muslims and Non-Muslims in the Ottoman era then maybe you can tell us how the notion of "Greekness" begun in Cyprus?

Selamlar,Eric Dayi..
It is widely known and accepted that ethnicity and nationality played little part in the Ottoman Empire. It was always religion which was used to differentiate the Ottoman subjects. I wish you'd taken my suggestion and jumped in to tell us when,in your objective opinion, the notion of "Turkishness" begun in Cyprus. That would be a constructive way to contribute to this thread...

I am not a historian. I have no wish to recreate Cyprus history. I am just trying to dig up those interesting bits of our common history which are buried deep under piles of official propaganda...With the hope that it will make us all better informed about our past...So,please,come and help by being constructive,and show us your more tolerant,compassionate, human side...

Ok Bir, so you refuse to answer my question about "when and how the notion of Greekness begun", but will you tell me why you only made a reference to Turkisness and not to Greekness?

[BirKibrisli]

Lets jump-cut to 1954...We are at the UN and Greece has just applied for the recognition of the rights of GCs to self-determination, allowing for Enosis to happen...

Alarmed by this the TCs sent a committee to Ankara to meet with Adnan Menderes,PM..The delegation is led by Mr Faiz kaymak, the Head of Federation of Turkish Cypriot Associations,and included two lawyers,Ahmet Mithat Berberoglu and Ahmet Zaim..

On the 15 September 1954 the delegation meet the Turkish PM at Florya palace...FAiz kaymak himself describes the talks in his 1968 book "How Did TCs find themselves in this Situation" :

" We talked for one-and -half hours about the political situation in Cyprus,the fears of the TCs,and Turkey's opinion on the matter...At one point The Prime Minister took a sheet of paper out of his pocket and handed it to me. 'here...read this...it's from the US...You have nothing to fear,there will be NO ENOSIS...Greece might be making demands at the UN,but the US has promised me,THERE WILL BE NO ENOSIS'...

"The next day we met with Turkish President,Celal Bayar...He had this advice for us -' You must demand that the British rule continues in Cyprus... You have to support the British or they are headed for a fall '...

In a previous meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister,Fuat Koprulu,the delegation got a message which was most disturbing : " It is Turkey's principle not to interfere in other nations' internal affairs...Since Cyprus is a British colony we have no policy or claim on her..."

The TC delegation was dismayed. They were leaving for England the next day,and they decided to take direct action. They visited the influential editor of the Hurriyet Newspaper,Sedat Semavi,and told him about Fuat Koprulu's statement...The next day the delegations fears and dilemma were front page news all over Turkey...

It would be interesting of course to be able to search Hurriyet's archives,and find out exactly was was written,and how it was received.
But we can safely assume this was the beginning of the awakening of the Turkish public opinion regarding the "Cyprus Problem"...

The TC delegation,on a mission to derail Enosis,continues on to England where they meet the Minister for Colonies,Henry Hopkinson,on 17 September 1954.
Let's hear it from the leader of the TC delegation,Faiz Kaymak himself:

" ...Our talk with the British minister lasted for over an hour...We told him what Menderes and Bayar told us to say : 'We want the British rule in Cyprus to continue...' His reply surprised us, "It is shameful for you to say you want the colonial rule to continue in this day and age,said Minister Hopkinson," what you want to say is 'we want Cyprus returned to her previous ruler'"... We said 'fine,that's what we want'.
'I am not the one you have to say it to,' continued minister Hopkinson,'You must go to the US and say it to the Americans'...

We said we had no tickets or visas to go to the US.
He said not to worry,they would fix everything up for us..

Hence,on 24 September,1954 the TC delegation found themselves on an unexpected trip to the United States. In New York they were met by a British official to the UN and taken to the Commodore Hotel.The following day the same British official accompanied the delegation to the UN building where they met the Americans and made their wish known: They wanted Cyprus to be returned to her previous ruler,if and when the British withdrew from the island.

And on 27 September,1954,again on the advice of the British official,they met the Turkish Amabassador to UN,Selim Sarper,to request that in his coming UN address he includes a new demand by Turkey,namely that Cyprus to be returned to her previous ruler,when the British rule ends.
Mr Sarper told the delegation he could not possibly made such a demand without the authorisation of his government. Faiz Kaymak recounts how they went back and informed the British of Mr Sarper's dilemma.Soon the Turkish ambassador to UN recalls the TC delegation for urgent talks.
And Selim Sarper's official address to the UN general council now includes an unexpected new demand : At the end of British rule Cyprus must be returned to her previous ruler!

And before long Greece's official request for the right to self determination to be extended to Cypriots as One nation was defeated at the UN...

[BirKibrisli]

Ok Bir, so you refuse to answer my question about "when and how the notion of Greekness begun", but will you tell me why you only made a reference to Turkisness and not to Greekness?

It is my belief,Eric,that the Ottoman's did not bring the notion of "Turkishness" to Cyprus. And there was no mention of Turkishness or anything do do with the Turkish people during the Ottoman rule. On the other hand,it is a historical fact that Hellenism,symbolised by the Greek Orthodox religion, the Greek language,and the Greek culture and civilisation, has been a part of Cyprus landscape for thousands of years.

I would stand corrected if you can provide any evidence that there was any mention of Turks or Turkishness before 1878...

[Jerry]

Ok Bir, so you refuse to answer my question about "when and how the notion of Greekness begun", but will you tell me why you only made a reference to Turkisness and not to Greekness?

It is my belief,Eric,that the Ottoman's did not bring the notion of "Turkishness" to Cyprus. And there was no mention of Turkishness or anything do do with the Turkish people during the Ottoman rule. On the other hand,it is a historical fact that Hellenism,symbolised by the Greek Orthodox religion, the Greek language,and the Greek culture and civilisation, has been a part of Cyprus landscape for thousands of years.

I would stand corrected if you can provide any evidence that there was any mention of Turks or Turkishness before 1878...

This "Turkishness" and "Greekness" is what I find really interesting. Is there any reliable information on the ethnic mix on the island from Venitian times until today. I read somewhere that Turkish Cypriots/muslims were at one time the majority, if so was this because of conversion or movement of population. I recall that many TCs left Cyprus because of the First World War, how did this affect the population mix? Is it possible that, genetically, Turkish Cypriots are more likey to be related to Julius Caesar or Plato than Ataturk?

Fascinating stuff about the sequence of events leading up to the UN Resolution, I wonder how many people were aware if it. It looks like the Colonial Power has a lot to answer for.