Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

The Ottoman Genocide of the indigenous people of Cyprus…

In 1878, the Ottomans ceded the administration of Cyprus to Britain in exchange for Britain’s support against suspected Russian aggression.

From the Library of Congress…

“Table 5. Population of Cyprus, Selected Years, 1491-1973”

Year - Population - Increase - Ruler

1491 - 168,000 ??? (Venetian)
1575 - 180,000 +12,000 in 84 years (Ottoman)
1881 - 186,200 +6,200 in 306 years (Ottoman)
1891 - 209,300 +28,000 in 10 years (British)
1901 - 237,000 +28,000 in 10 years (British)
1911 - 274,100 +37,000 in 10 years (British)
1921 - 310,700 +36,000 in 10 years (British)
1931 - 348,000 +38,000 in 10 years (British)
1946 - 450,100 +102,000 in 15 years (British)
1960 - 573,600 +123,000 in 14 years (British)
1973 - 631,800 +58,000 in 13 years (Cypriot)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cyprus/cy_appen.html


As can be seen from the table above, in three whole centuries of Ottoman rule, the population of Cyprus “grew” by just 6,200 people!!! If that’s not an Ottoman genocide of the indigenous people of Cyprus, I don’t know what is…


Regards, GR.

[CopperLine]

Get Real,
I'm afraid that you've just leapt to an unwarranted and prejudiced conclusion. On the assumption that these population figures are broadly correct - which in the absence of reliable census data until the twentieth century is a big assumption - there are many perfectly plausable explanations for either static popoulation levels or even substantial population decline which are NOT a function of genocide or mass killing.
That Cyprus as an island that was a primarily agricultural economy, with some external commercial exchange, beyond the marches of regular warfare is good reason to expect a relatively stable demographic pattern. Indeed the very absence of warfare, including mass killings, is typically associated with slow population growth rates.

For example, that the net rate of native Italian population increase has been zero or even negative over the last twenty years does not point to an explanation couched in terms of genocide of Italians !

I'm not dismissing the possibility that the low growth rate may be accounted for by mass killings, but there are much more likely explanations - and whichever explanation is offered they should be measured against the historical record. There is no serious evidence of what you call genocide in the period you refer to.

I ask you to consider the structure of the Ottoman empire and the taxation system. The welfare of tributary taxation system typical of the Ottoman empire, and including Ottoman Cyprus, was dependent on simple production, accumulation and taxation in which - crudely put 0- the greater the number of taxable producers the greater was the potential taxable product. Killing direct producers is a sure-fire way of reducing (permanently) the taxable population. In whose interests would such a policy be ? Not in the interests of either Ottoman rulers or of local Cypriot overseers or tax-farmers.

The Ottoman empire, like other empires of its kind, had to play a delicate balancing game : squeeze as much taxation out of the subject population but not so much that open rebellion was incited (rebellions which were expensive to suppress and costly in terms of loss of taxable heads).

But this, in the end, is a historical question which requires hard evidence. When and where were the genocides you refer to and what was their demographic effect ? Evidence please.

[YFred]

What ever it was, your figures as inaccurate as they may be, clearly show that it affected both sides the same. TC population did not increase either.

Find a better subject that would cause a bit of agro between the two communities. I can see that you are rather aggravated about the fact that moderates on both sides are getting on and must be stopped.

[Get Real!]

Get Real,
I'm afraid that you've just leapt to an unwarranted and prejudiced conclusion. On the assumption that these population figures are broadly correct - which in the absence of reliable census data until the twentieth century is a big assumption - there are many perfectly plausable explanations for either static popoulation levels or even substantial population decline which are NOT a function of genocide or mass killing.
That Cyprus as an island that was a primarily agricultural economy, with some external commercial exchange, beyond the marches of regular warfare is good reason to expect a relatively stable demographic pattern. Indeed the very absence of warfare, including mass killings, is typically associated with slow population growth rates.

For example, that the net rate of native Italian population increase has been zero or even negative over the last twenty years does not point to an explanation couched in terms of genocide of Italians !

I'm not dismissing the possibility that the low growth rate may be accounted for by mass killings, but there are much more likely explanations - and whichever explanation is offered they should be measured against the historical record. There is no serious evidence of what you call genocide in the period you refer to.

I ask you to consider the structure of the Ottoman empire and the taxation system. The welfare of tributary taxation system typical of the Ottoman empire, and including Ottoman Cyprus, was dependent on simple production, accumulation and taxation in which - crudely put 0- the greater the number of taxable producers the greater was the potential taxable product. Killing direct producers is a sure-fire way of reducing (permanently) the taxable population. In whose interests would such a policy be ? Not in the interests of either Ottoman rulers or of local Cypriot overseers or tax-farmers.

The Ottoman empire, like other empires of its kind, had to play a delicate balancing game : squeeze as much taxation out of the subject population but not so much that open rebellion was incited (rebellions which were expensive to suppress and costly in terms of loss of taxable heads).

But this, in the end, is a historical question which requires hard evidence. When and where were the genocides you refer to and what was their demographic effect ? Evidence please.

Having a close official look at what constitutes “genocide” should clarify that of the Ottomans against the people of Cyprus…

In accordance with the UN General Assembly’s resolution 260 A (III) of 1948, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide has the following explanation:

Article 1

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm

[Get Real!]

What ever it was, your figures as inaccurate as they may be, clearly show that it affected both sides the same. TC population did not increase either.

GET OFF the CyProb!

[Nikitas]

GR,

Your figures reflect the state of health as it was before the advances of the late 19the century which happend to have coincided with the arrival of the British. Infant mortality and life expectancy changed drastically once the role of bacteria was understood and vaccines invented. The same phenomenon of population stability before the lae 19th century was evident in the world population in general.

The point is not whether the Ottomans massacred people, but that they maintained a sysem of benign neglect which sapped the creativity of the occupied populations. Famagusta was a world famous center of trade and culture during Venetian times, it was a dump afterwards. The same can be said of Athens, Bucharest, Baghdad and other places where culture had flourished before the advent of the Ottomans. The Ottomans effectively kept the Rennaissance out of their domain, a paradox considering that the Rennaissance was only possible because of the stewardship of cultural knowledge by the Arabs in this same geographical area.

[YFred]

What ever it was, your figures as inaccurate as they may be, clearly show that it affected both sides the same. TC population did not increase either.

GET OFF the CyProb!

Y oh Y oh Y dear sir. Did I say something to upset you.
Or is your Blue crayon broken now. You pointless git.

[miltiades]

The Ottoman Genocide of the indigenous people of Cyprus…

In 1878, the Ottomans ceded the administration of Cyprus to Britain in exchange for Britain’s support against suspected Russian aggression.

From the Library of Congress…

“Table 5. Population of Cyprus, Selected Years, 1491-1973”

Year - Population - Increase - Ruler

1491 - 168,000 ??? (Venetian)
1575 - 180,000 +12,000 in 84 years (Ottoman)
1881 - 186,200 +6,200 in 306 years (Ottoman)
1891 - 209,300 +28,000 in 10 years (British)
1901 - 237,000 +28,000 in 10 years (British)
1911 - 274,100 +37,000 in 10 years (British)
1921 - 310,700 +36,000 in 10 years (British)
1931 - 348,000 +38,000 in 10 years (British)
1946 - 450,100 +102,000 in 15 years (British)
1960 - 573,600 +123,000 in 14 years (British)
1973 - 631,800 +58,000 in 13 years (Cypriot)

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cyprus/cy_appen.html


As can be seen from the table above, in three whole centuries of Ottoman rule, the population of Cyprus “grew” by just 6,200 people!!! If that’s not an Ottoman genocide of the indigenous people of Cyprus, I don’t know what is…


Regards, GR.

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the British not only gaves us sholia they also gave us pedia

[Piratis]

What ever it was, your figures as inaccurate as they may be, clearly show that it affected both sides the same. TC population did not increase either.

The figures were provided by insan to make the silly claim that during Ottoman rule the TCs have been 35%. So if they are correct, that means that:

From 1491 until 1881 the population of Turks had an infinite increase (starting in 1571), from zero going to 45.000 by 1881.

On the other hand, the native population between 1491 and 1881, instead of being multiple times more (and it should, under normal circumstances, during a period of over 3 centuries!) it was actually reduced.

The figure of 1881 includes 45.000 Turks in it. This means the native population in 1881 was only 141.000!!!!

Indeed the very absence of warfare, including mass killings, is typically associated with slow population growth rates.

For example, that the net rate of native Italian population increase has been zero or even negative over the last twenty years does not point to an explanation couched in terms of genocide of Italians !

You are talking total bollocks. The reason of what happens in Italy is due to changes in society. In Western countries today both parents often want to have a career, they get married late, they use condoms and other methods of contraception, abortions are readily available, and in general they don't want to make more than 1-2 kids. These are the reasons for the slow growth rates. Not the "absence of war".

In Cyprus of the 16th-19th century the people where uneducated peasants, they got married from their teens and had no condoms or abortions. They also waned to have many kids to work in the fields. The normal would be to have 5-6 kids each minimum. And when there was no war to kill off the males, that number should be even higher.

Just look at the population increase immediately after the Ottomans left. The only thing that changed was the ruler, from Ottoman to British, and the population started to grow normally again.

[YFred]

What ever it was, your figures as inaccurate as they may be, clearly show that it affected both sides the same. TC population did not increase either.

The figures were provided by insan to make the silly claim that during Ottoman rule the TCs have been 35%. So if they are correct, that means that:

From 1491 until 1881 the population of Turks had an infinite increase (starting in 1571), from zero going to 45.000 by 1881.

On the other hand, the native population between 1491 and 1881, instead of being multiple times more (and it should, under normal circumstances, during a period of over 3 centuries!) it was actually reduced.

The figure of 1881 includes 45.000 Turks in it. This means the native population in 1881 was only 141.000!!!!

Indeed the very absence of warfare, including mass killings, is typically associated with slow population growth rates.

For example, that the net rate of native Italian population increase has been zero or even negative over the last twenty years does not point to an explanation couched in terms of genocide of Italians !

You are talking total bollocks. The reason of what happens in Italy is due to changes in society. In Western countries today both parents often want to have a career, they get married late, they use condoms and other methods of contraception, abortions are readily available, and in general they don't want to make more than 1-2 kids. These are the reasons for the slow growth rates. Not the "absence of war".

In Cyprus of the 16th-19th century the people where uneducated peasants, they got married from their teens and had no condoms or abortions. They also waned to have many kids to work in the fields. The normal would be to have 5-6 kids each minimum. And when there was no war to kill off the males, that number should be even higher.

Just look at the population increase immediately after the Ottomans left. The only thing that changed was the ruler, from Ottoman to British, and the population started to grow normally again.

Piratis please try and prove to me that the colour of milk is blue, it must have originated from greece. I know you can.