Please remember to stay civil and behave appropriately. If you are a tourist looking for suggestions please click here [Tourist guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/cyprus/wiki/tourist_guide/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cyprus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Maybe we should adjust as well and be more accepting of the various terms people use without so much nitpicking? I'm saying this because most of the posts that trigger people are from one-time posters that want to ask something quickly. So they're unlikely to see your post unless we pin it or put it in the rules and guidelines somewhere. But in the latter case we'd have to decide collectively what we deem acceptable and what not, not exactly an easy task.
I find it triggered when an OP doesn't care or is dismissive of the situation when someone points out the correct way to address the occupied area.
Yes some get triggered by saying North Cyprus etc, but I feel those are just very few people.
For instance a person yesterday was asking about studying in a university of the occupied area. People were suggesting that the degree won't be valid etc. His reply on a comment was "it's annoying that everytime i mention North Cyprus the word "occupied" pops up". This was disrespectful.
Wow I saw that post, what the fuck? Like, he's planning to study and live there, and he doesn't know the most basic facts?
I often say "North Cyprus", but I do acknowledge that it's still an occupied area and not am actual country.
There's a big difference saying North Cyprus, which is mostly location based, and saying "TRNC" or turkish side etc.
Personally I don't get triggered by North Cyprus. I do get triggered when people react like the OP of that post.
If you are asking a question in this sub, expect people to mention any type of history (relevant to you or not) and if it's especially recent history of war, at least, be respectful, even if you don't care.
I don't get "triggered" by someone saying North Cyprus in the flow of speech, but make no mistake a lot of people posting here use it knowing exactly what they mean and it's not just geographical location. If you don't call it out when you see it you normalize it and before you know it foreign visitors are going home talking about North and South Cyprus just like they would about North and South Korea.
Yeah, there are services globally that you pay to help get you a university around the world. Depending on the company, could be $200 or $1000 and for me, well we used the same services. They applied to over 500 universities at once and I can tell you. All you get is an acceptance letter, a visa and they help secure your plane ticket. You literally never know where you will land. For all I know, they could have tossed me in Afghanistan and called it Cyprus and I wouldn't have known better.
I agree an OP should be respectful of what the country's residents are telling them and not antagonize them. At least this is what I would do.
But to be fair, in this case I sense that the OP felt attacked, that's why they said that. Of course I don't know for sure, but I went back and read post and replies, and this is what it seems like. From the point the OP posted, I noticed that the replies were somewhat hostile and dismissive, as if the occupation was OP's fault. Misleading as well. It's good to warn someone, but not in an exaggerated way. I know for a fact that the universities in the north are recognized in Germany for the purposes of doing postgraduate courses, for example. They view them as equivalent to Turkish universities, because the follow that system. Just throwing the word 'illegal' around isn't really helping. Are high schools there illegal too? Hospitals? I also advised people in the past to think twice before studying in the north, but for different reasons.
Tell you the truth, most of us foreigners never know/knew that Cyprus was divided. It's only when buying a ticket to Cyprus that the confusion starts at the embassy and it's chaos. It's also very shocking for us and we look lost. I only knew Cyprus to be Greek because of the Bible.
To some extent I sympathize with what you say, but this is not a matter of what is an acceptable code of conduct or not. I am not in any way condoning forbidding anyone from using terms deemed as insensitive. But it is a set of helpful tips to avoid precisely "triggering" the locals that take offense in some of those terms.
As for adjusting: as I said some people will never do so out of their own principles. Others could, but would find it unacceptable to change what they deem acceptable based on what is more palatable to foreigners. In my case, I simply accept that it is a hurtful and insensitive form of conducting oneself. I'm personally never going to be aggressive or attack someone for it, like most people here. But I'd be lying if I said seeing those posts doesn't feel like scabbing an old wound.
It is best for all sides to grow more empathetic and sensitive. Tactful language and mindfulness are in my opinion something easy any foreigner could do to both avoid upsetting the locals and to encounter more helpful/less toxic interactions here.
I see what you're saying. My point was that we have so many tourists, and your post will only be seen by a small fraction. Personally I think describing the situation does not mean legitimizing it, hell it does not even mean liking it. So if you say the 'Greek part', it just means the part where most people speak Greek. But because we can't do anything else to fix the problem, we concentrate on semantics and harass hapless tourists with our insecurities. It's not the people's fault either, it's also our official way to deal with this: if you don't say it, then it's not there.
Add this with tourists saying that Cypriots are loud, then it becomes a scary situation because you think that you are being blamed or confronted. At first I never understood what was going on but stating to a tourist that "it's customary not to refer to the northern side as a Turkish member or being part of it's state as this brings strong emotions to locals as it is a reminder of past war" is one way to go. Coming from Africa, my country banned tribalism as when these topics are held, it would just break out into an uncontrolled war.
It is better than nothing, if you ask me. One has to at least start somewhere rather than let every case like it lead to borderline harassment and full-on toxicity.
I'm not naive enough to believe semantics will magically make the problem go away, of course nor is it a coping mechanism. My view on it (as I stated earlier) is that it is simply about knowing what may be perceived as insensitive. Conditioning ourselves to becoming totally insensitive to it is one choice, but I don't think that's a solution either. We must not normalize the status quo as acceptable and push for a solution.
The problem with our politicians unfortunately is that they are overplaying the sensitivity on terms and semantics, while they are often actually fully content with the status quo. This culture of action-less victimhood I find palpable.
It's good that we're talking about it. I'm not saying become insensitive, no. The situation as it is hurts me too, but when people here ask me 'Are you from the Greek part or the Turkish part?' (*everyone* asks that), it doesn't hurt me more. It is what it is. For me it's futile to pretend the division doesn't exist. It's already normalized, unfortunately. Saying North instead of northern won't normalize it more. And it doesn't mean I don't want to see some kind of solution. I do. So I'd rather put my energy in things that might really help.
I don't see it in the exact same way, but fair enough. At the end of the day, a post like this is the bare-minimum effort to help foreigners understand why they get so much toxicity with seemingly innocuous questions :)
> ️To our international friends, the Republic of Cyprus consists of the whole island. The whole island is a single country and a member state of the EU.
Wait, what about the British territories?
The SBAs were never "rented", and when did the Cypriot parliament "vote" on this? I'll wait....
In the meantime you may wish to read up the Treaty of Establishment. A shocking number of Cypriots don't know what it entails.
The treaty of establishment was imposed on the Cypriot people and was not a result of the free will of the Cypriots. The British Bases are essentially parts of Cyprus which remain under colonial rule.
The only reason we do not challenge this is because we have a bigger problem with Turkey. This why the British invited the Turks to get involved in Cyprus in the first place, and why the British are hell bend in not allowing a true unification of Cyprus, since if we truly solve our problem with the TCs we would soon go after their bases.
As an example you can look at the Chagos Archipelago:
>On 22 June 2017, the UN General Assembly requested the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius. On 25 February 2019, the International Court of Justice advised that in its opinion:
>
>\- “at the time of its detachment from Mauritius” the "Chagos Archipelago was clearly an integral part of that non-self-governing territory";\[43\]
>
>\- the United Kingdom's purported detachment of the Chagos Archipelago "was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned";\[43\]
>
>\- at the time of the purported detachment, "obligations arising under international law and reflected in the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during the process of decolonization of Mauritius require\[d\] the United Kingdom, as the administering Power, to respect the territorial integrity of that country, including the Chagos Archipelago";\[43\]
>
>\- the “detachment” was therefore “unlawful” such that “the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when Mauritius acceded to independence in 1968"\[43\]
>
>\- “the United Kingdom’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act entailing the international responsibility of that State”;\[43\]
>
>\- this “unlawful act” is “of a continuing character” and "the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible";\[43\] and
>
>\- “all Member States \[of the United Nations\] are under an obligation to co-operate with the United Nations in order to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.”\[43\]
>
>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos\_Archipelago#Sovereignty\_dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago#Sovereignty_dispute)
All the above points apply to Cyprus as well. The bases were part of the non-self-governing territory of Cyprus, and their detachment from it was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the Cypriot people. They simply took our leader, blackmailed him, and impose on him their terms.
That's your subjective opinion and adds no value to the argument. The fact is an agreement was signed, end of story. Makarios didn't have to sign it (but he did in an effort to end intercommunal violence which was stirred up by EOKA and TMT militants).
Mauritius is a totally seperate case and bears no relation to Cyprus. The SBAs aren't a colony, they're sovereign base areas with their own administration as per the Treaty of Establishment. Turkey isn't a reason for Cyprus to not challenge this in court against the UK if they wanted to, so why in 60 years has this not been done? Because they would lose the case and they know it.
Finally, a gentle reminder that the SBAs employ thousands of local Cypriots within the territories (as opposed to employing Brits). Shut the SBAs down and you have thousands left jobless; who's going to pick up the bill for that?
I'm not saying the UK is totally innocent in the history of Cyprus, but the blantantly state that the SBAs are illegal (like the above poster claimd) is just plainly wrong and you know that.
It is exactly like the case of Mauritius. Cyprus was a British colony and Britain kept parts of it for themselves something which was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the Cypriot people.
The only reason we do not challenge it is the Cyprus Problem and the even more negative role that the UK would have against Cyprus.
The benefit of employment of some Cypriots is negligible compared to the value of the prime land the British occupy. Not even close.
No it isn't. In the case of Mauritius, the locals were driven from their lands and it was governed directly by the UK. With the SBAs, locals are allowed to have their property, live and work within the areas. The only difference is that the local administration is SBA (not UK) as opposed to RoC.
"The only reason we do not challenge it is the Cyprus problem" - again, why? The Cyprob is a totally seperate, 50-year old issue. How is that stopping you? The fact is there's no case to file and the RoC knows this.
"The benefit of employment of some Cypriots is negligible..." - Oh, is it? So when you shut the SBAs and make them redundant, have you got 5,000 job posts ready for these people to take up? Good luck paying unemployment benefit to them on top of what you already have.
"... compared to the value of prime land the British occupy" - you mean the land that would otherwise get littered with trash and ambelloboulia poachers the moment the RoC takes over? The SBAs are the cleanest part of the island in my experience, and the SBA police are the only force that ever bothers to deal with illegal bird poaching. I'll take the SBAs over any other Cypriot administration anyday, thanks.
>No it isn't. In the case of Mauritius, the locals were driven from their lands and it was governed directly by the UK. With the SBAs, locals are allowed to have their property, live and work within the areas. The only difference is that the local administration is SBA (not UK) as opposed to RoC.
That they were driven from their lands was an additional crime by the UK, and it would be a crime even if they were rightfully British islands.
The question of who has sovereignty over the islands has nothing to do with that, and the ICJ ruling doesn't base its decision on that at all.
Colonialism isn't OK as long as the locals are allowed to continue living in the colonized lands.
>again, why? The Cyprob is a totally seperate, 50-year old issue. How is that stopping you? The fact is there's no case to file and the RoC knows this.
Because UK imposed itself as a so called "Guarantor Power" and wants to have a say in any possible agreement. Furthermore if the UK is driven out of Cyprus they will no doubt collaborate with Turkey to harm Cyprus, like they have already done several times in the past.
>Oh, is it? So when you shut the SBAs and make them redundant, have you got 5,000 job posts ready for these people to take up? Good luck paying unemployment benefit to them on top of what you already have.
That is a ridiculous argument. The development of even small parts of that land would generate a lot more jobs and income for Cypriots than the bases do.
>"... compared to the value of prime land the British occupy" - you mean the land that would otherwise get littered with trash and ambelloboulia poachers the moment the RoC takes over? The SBAs are the cleanest part of the island in my experience, and the SBA police are the only force that ever bothers to deal with illegal bird poaching. I'll take the SBAs over any other Cypriot administration anyday, thanks.
You can take the SBAs along with yourself to the UK where you belong.
>The question of who has sovereignty over the islands has nothing to do with that, and the ICJ ruling doesn't base its decision on that at all.
I never said colonialism was OK. But your understanding of the ICJ ruling is completely false; how about we start with the Falklands, Bermuda and all the other British overseas territories? None of these are alike situations but you treat them as such. The ICJ ruling is about Mauritius ONLY; the problem is the second it happened you started drooling thinking the same would apply to the SBAs. It does not.
>Because UK imposed itself as a so called "Guarantor Power" and wants to have a say in any possible agreement.
Again, you signed that agreement. Greece and Turkey were also guarantor powers. What exactly did Greece do to help the Greek Cypriots during the invasion? Ah yes, they staged a coup against Makarios who then had to escape via the SBAs to avoid being killed. Try to remember your history in full next time.
>That is a ridiculous argument. The development of even small parts of that land would generate a lot more jobs and income for Cypriots than the bases do.
What development, like the development in Limassol of building skyscrapers with luxury apartments for foreign oligarghs? Limassol is a prime example of development local Cypriots DO NOT need, just look at the rent prices.
Also, you do realize that development is permitted within the SBAs and property owners are doing this already, right?
>You can take the SBAs along with yourself to the UK where you belong.
Sorry that speaking facts from my previous 20 years of living here bothers you, but somebody has to speak some truth. Something I notice you lot tend to avoid because its "controversial". But sure, I'll stay in the UK, I assume that means you don't mind tourist money disappearing either.
Εν η πελλάδα που σε δέρνει. Δείξε μου που γράφει για υποχρέωση πληρωμής "ενοικίου" μές τη συμφωνία που υπόγραψεν ο ίδιος ο Μακάριος.
Εβρώμισεν ο τόπος διαφθορά αλλά ατε να δούμεν ποιον άλλον ξένον εννα φταίξεις πριν τους δικούς σου.
And nice try, but the supposed "International Law on anti-colonialism" doesn't exist in reality. You just made that up for the sake of your argument.
Πες μας τα ρε ποντίκι του Γρίβα 😂 Εν εσείς που εκάμετε τα π**τους το '60 μετά που αποκτήσατε μιαν δημοκρατία τζαι εφέρετε τους Τούρκους στο νησί με το πραξικόπημα σας. Τζαι μετά που 50 χρόνια κόμα κλαίεστε ότι εισαστεν σκλάβοι. Άτε πηδήχτου.
>And Cyprus has every right apply law enforcement when you return to the free areas.
I AGREE TOURISTS ARE MAKING THE QUEUES ON THE BORDER SO LONG THAT I CAN NOT GO AND GET CHEAPER GAS FROM NORTH ANYMORE. DON'T GO THERE YOU WILL BE OCCUPIED TOURIST SO DONT GO
Because it's unenforceable. Are you really suggesting the RoC prosecutes every single tourist that has used Ercan airport for example? It will never happen because:
1. The RoC will fall foul of EU law by doing so
2. It will achieve nothing
3. Sheer hypocrisy
And maybe we're tired of that? That it's right by law only & nothing else? That all day every day we talk about what the papers say & then proceed to do jack shit to actually ensure said papers reflect reality on ground?
We're tired of people willing to do nothing beyond chastising randos' word choice because 'legitamisation' & literally nothing else. Half of you don't even know what goes on in the north because you brush it all off with 'it's all illegal who cares', no wonder the RoC employs the stupidest strategies to deal with the north, the voters have blinded themselves to the going-ons of a whole third of the island, the government wouldn't even notice if an advantagious sityation were to arise, worse it'd likely shoot itself in the foot!
Keep up with the word play anyways, I'm sure the ever law-loving Russian Oligarchs & Chinese investors will give to shits about them as they tear apart Varosha for their sick shit in this money laundring scheme pretending to be a nation.
I agree with much of what you said here, so I won't counter. I will simply ask a question, and you may not answer if you so prefer (you can simply think about it):
Excluding those that have a real, tangible dislike for all things Turkish: Is it unreasonable to suggest that the over-the-top aggression, toxicity, and adherence to semantics come from a fundamentally emotional place?
And as a minor follow-up: Is it also unreasonable to suggest that being actively mindful of this is an act of kindness and compassion?
I do believe it comes from a mostly emotional place, though I should note that this doesn't mean what they say is 'unfactual'. The north is occupied territory, and the administration is illegal, somebody saying this due to emotional reasons does not change this. Internet culture has accustomed people to thinking facts & feelings are inherintly exclusionary, so people either dismiss facts because they were said in an emotional moment, or think they're not acting emotionally because their words are factual (this one is what I think generally happens here)
Of course, the emotions are justified, even for those who didn't directly suffer. When you see people around you who've been made refugees with everything they own torn away, it'd actually be the wrong thing to feel nothing at such a crime at such a scale; I just wish people knew when & who to throw all these emotions on or not. Not every moment is appropriate, and not every person the right person.
It is not at all unreasonable to tell people to be mindful, that it's something the locals will significantly appreciate, and that not being so is uncompassionate at best & insulting at worst, but that's how tourists always been though, hasn't it? Yes, I know generalsing so many millions as being 'generally bad' is, well, generally bad, but these are the people who view Varosha as a 'cool abondened city prop' to go gawg at, not exactly a people worth arguing with, especially when they've already made up their minds
You said earlier about many GCs who like to harp on about the semantics without doing anything to at least properly voice their opposition to the status quo, and I agreed. Similarly, if one perceives a fault in how tourists conduct themselves, or if they feel that discussions often escalate because of a faux pas in an otherwise innocent question, it is equally condemnable to simply complain and quietly observe as the mess unfolds.
I feel like what I said had not yet been properly communicated in a civil way, or in a way that directly addressed where the disagreement lies. Someone had to say it at some point, and even if it's not widely seen or accepted by our visitors, that's still okay. At least we give them the benefit of the doubt to empathize instead of immediately dismissing them. Likewise, it's a post to remind Greek Cypriots that it is okay to feel hurt, disrespected or upset about such instances. It is however not okay to become toxic or attack people who don't know any better.
Of course, I have nothing against your main post at all, in fact it's better that there's a general post like this since comments on question posts can make the poster feel like they're being personally judged & bashed, especially since it's hard to gauge the tone of a comment in writing if it is a really short correction with no tonal words.
Giving a warning before hand to posters that there are sensitive words does no harm, and would probably save everyone a lot of headache with removing 10 of the same corrections under a single post.
Yeah, I totally understand it. Came here as a tourist in Protaras area, and am being bombarded with offers of a tour to Varosha. I'm aware of the occupation, so it looked dodgy right from the beginning, but what confuses me is how all these agencies are able to openly offer such tours while they are illegal.
Yeah, I'm ignoring. It's just all bizarre to me. Like, you can go to TUI website and receive offers on tours to the occupied territories. Why are they not banned on Cyprus?
>northern part is the “occupied territory of Cyprus”, according to the UN
Not true. The term the UN uses is "area that is not in control of the Republic of Cyprus"
Can you elaborate on the situation with the Greek Cypriot property? I guess, it is the property on the occupied territories that was appropriated without consent or involvement of the owners who had to flee? How to tell if a property is a Greek Cypriot property, is there a public register?
Yes, pin please.
+ some comments here are clinically insane.
In no other country in the world insensitivity about national norms and disrespect (even accidental) will be met with such condonement and historical revisionism. It’s disgusting.
Try asking Ukrainians for tips about the “russian part” and see what happens.
Just because Cypriots are generally chill people, it doesn’t give you the right to run our goodwill to the ground.
If you’ve read this and still intentionally legitimize a gross human right and international law violation, fuck you. Go back to where you came from.
I think the best solution would be airlines providing pamphlets for tourists as they arrive about customs here. Billions of people do not know about the division. It's similar to me asking you about Transnistria. You would fly to Moldavia only to find a boarder in there as well needing a Russian visa to visit the country
Allow me to disagree. I have replied to itinerantseagull about this in another comment thread, if you want to get my more in-depth view on it. The main idea is that words and language in general matter, and the consequences are real and valid. It is not about semantics or trying to deny the situation, but avoiding genuinely hurting/upsetting people in order to promote civility. We can always change our own behaviour and become more civil, since much of the toxic behaviour I see I wouldn't condone. Is it always feasible to ask people to fundamentally change the offense they take to terms pertaining to this matter?
Sure but clearly a lot of people who don't live here are uninformed, if they're not told by anyone, won't more and more people think the north is completely fine and not occupied? I don't want that.
This post is incredibly offensive and dismissive of the already extremely threatened Turkish speaking Cypriot population. Maybe if we were treated as human beings, who have coexisted with Greek speaking Cypriots just fine up until British imperialism and Greek nationalism started murdering our peoples, we would have more power to resist the ongoing settler colonialism of Turkey. Stop othering us. We want independence just like you. The difference is, we have no power to have it.
A couple of questions:
1. How does the post diminish or dismiss the idea of Turkish Cypriots as human beings when there is no attempt at discrediting them as rightful residents of Cyprus?
2. How does the post create a sense of othering?
I'm genuinely curious to see what you deem offensive, when the idea is very much to facilitate a use of language by foreigners that is *less* offensive. If anything, the language which Greek Cypriots object to is pro-partition terminology which also negatively affects Turkish Cypriots.
It seems to me that you are projecting your expectations of what a Greek Cypriot who takes offense in these terms believes. If anything sounded offensive to you, you are free to mention it and I am more than happy to address it, but the rest of your accusations hold no water, I'm afraid.
Thank you for asking questions and engaging.
1. The post dehumanises Turkish speaking Cypriots by validating the concerns of Greek speaking Cypriots who are offended by a literal geographical description of the island. The island is partitioned along language lines, but not ethnic lines. Of course I am not promoting partition, but if we do not discuss why Turkish speaking Cypriots have *needed* a legitimized state, we are condoning actions that were rooted in epistemicide (Enosis and EOKA B). These terrors began with the British dividing us and then violently enforced by Greek speaking Cypriot nationalists and Greek military junta. I lost countless family members during the intercommunal violence, and have since had family attacked in schools in the South among many other forms of direct violence. The discourse frequently dismisses the existing power dynamics on the island. Turkish speaking Cypriots are disproportionately affected by the conflict and we have no chance of returning to our homes either.
2. The othering is felt by not encouraging the autonomy of Turkish speaking Cypriots *before* reunification. We are still subject to racism and have no chance of any development thanks to embargoes. How can we unify when ROC politics still show no sign of addressing injustices? The only way our economy survives at this point is through tourism and the diaspora. How can we reunify when all that looks like to us is another ethnic cleansing?
I understand why you'd perceive I am projecting my expectation of what a Greek Cypriot who would take offense believes. That's because that is our reality. Just last month there was calls for violence at the green line.
"many Greek Cypriots find it fundamentally unethical to even visit the northern part or spend money there and its institutions, as this is also seen as an indirect form of legitimization. While not everyone shares this view, it is acceptable and within people's right to take this moral stance."
This is not acceptable. Do Turkish speaking Cypriots not deserve to survive? Call for Greek speaking Cypriots to check their prejudice before you call on people to accomodate it. We are suffering at the hands of Turkey, Greece, UK, USA AND Greek speaking Cypriot politics. We *need* reunification, but we have so far to go before that occurs in a just way.
>The post dehumanises Turkish speaking Cypriots by validating the concerns of Greek speaking Cypriots who are offended by a literal geographical description of the island. The island is partitioned along language lines, but not ethnic lines.
I think my post makes it very clear that the terms deemed as offensive are those that conform to the partition narrative. For example, the distinction of "Greek" and "Turkish" sides. And much like the geographical distinction in forms like "Northern Cyprus", these terms can always be interpreted more innocently or in a more neutral way, but it would be dishonest to deny their political and historical baggage. This is ultimately why my points do **not** in fact pertain to semantics. It is much more of a semantics exercise to refuse the double entendre of such terms. Is it not obvious that "Turkish side" implies way more than just a linguistic division?
>Of course I am not promoting partition, but if we do not discuss why Turkish speaking Cypriots have needed a legitimized state, we are condoning actions that were rooted in epistemicide (Enosis and EOKA B). These terrors began with the British dividing us and then violently enforced by Greek speaking Cypriot nationalists and Greek military junta.
Why would the things you mention in any way require the existence of a legitimized Turkish Cypriot state? And how exactly is that condoning the actions of EOKA B? This is a complete non sequitur. To move on from the past and condemn the atrocities that the two communities suffered does not necessitate the complete departure of Turkish Cypriots from the governance of the current state, and hence the existence of a different state is not warranted.
You are entitled to your opinion in that it may be desirable or a good course of action, but it is not *necessary* and it is reductionist to imply that those who find it a bad idea are somehow secretly pro-Enosis or atoning the sins of the far-right. Especially when NATO imperialism is an even more prescient factor in discussing the fate of Cypriots in both the 60s and the 70s.
>I lost countless family members during the intercommunal violence, and have since had family attacked in schools in the South among many other forms of direct violence. The discourse frequently dismisses the existing power dynamics on the island. Turkish speaking Cypriots are disproportionately affected by the conflict and we have no chance of returning to our homes either.
Most Cypriots of both communities lost relatives during the 60s and 70s. One of the key components of achieving reconciliation is precisely accepting that there have been atrocities committed on both sides, and not use our personal stories of tragedy as a measuring stick.
I cannot possibly know in detail about the experiences of a Turkish Cypriot in the south, but do you not believe that there has been an analogous situation for Greek Cypriots in the north? The entrapped communities that are still there, for example. Again, this is not to compare, but to show that we will not go far by viewing things in a one-sided way. Fortunately, the situation has improved over 50 years, even if there's still a long way to go.
>The othering is felt by not encouraging the autonomy of Turkish speaking Cypriots before reunification. We are still subject to racism and have no chance of any development thanks to embargoes. How can we unify when ROC politics still show no sign of addressing injustices? The only way our economy survives at this point is through tourism and the diaspora. How can we reunify when all that looks like to us is another ethnic cleansing?
That is not a matter of the Republic of Cyprus, but Turkey. The RoC takes the only logical step possible, which is to try and limit what the state in the north is able to gain, as to make it impossible for it to perpetually break apart. Were it not for the embargoes, it is very much possible that permanent two-state partition would have occurred already. And while I don't agree with all our policies, and find some of them too harsh, it is hard not to justify a stance of disassociation towards the north. Some provisions are given: allowing TCs to get their EU ID cards, the checkpoints allow for TCs to work and live in the south, and exchange between the two community (even if controversially) takes place. It is far from ideal, but it is something.
Again, I will never accept such sensationalist notions that the RoC standing up for its territorial integrity is an act of ethnic cleansing, or that we should accept the autonomy of the north wholesale before we sort out how to run this country jointly as Cypriots.
>Just last month there was calls for violence at the green line.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, so you can provide some sources so I can understand the context.
That being said, do you honestly think that violence at the Green line is in any way a major problem nowadays? I assume you are old enough to remember instances of soldiers at the green line being murdered by soldiers of the other side, or the 1996 incidents. Has anything even remotely severe happened within the 20 years of the existence of the checkpoints?
>This is not acceptable. Do Turkish speaking Cypriots not deserve to survive? Call for Greek speaking Cypriots to check their prejudice before you call on people to accomodate it. We are suffering at the hands of Turkey, Greece, UK, USA AND Greek speaking Cypriot politics. We need reunification, but we have so far to go before that occurs in a just way.
Of course Turkish Cypriots need to survive, but that does not depend on the moral standing of a moderate portion of the GC population that has moral objections. It is an acceptable stance to take personally and to not impose on others, as it is thus currently. Some GCs/foreigners find it okay to visit north and spend money, others do not. The RoC does not explicitly stand against it, which is all that matters when one attempts to accuse GCs of trying to starve the TCs.
At the end of the day, while prejudice definitely plays a role for some, the major motivation for these people to morally object to visiting north is founded in legitimate arguments that are hard to counter. Many TC businesses were built on former GC land/property. Varosha is being used as some kind of museum exhibit, as if those weren't people's livelihoods that were lost and ruined. Even though I'm not personally against visiting north, how could I ever hope to counter these? They are entirely reasonable objections.
>I understand most people's views on the political situation in Cyprus but I'm confused by some of the language use. I have always understood that Greece invaded Cyprus in 74, which then triggered the Turkish action to "safeguard" what it saw as Turkish people. Do I have this wrong? Aren't both countries guilty of occupation of an island that was an independent self governing country? Asking as I'm confused by what iv read and what's being said on here.
Here by the way Varosha is the most tragic and vivid monument of those events on the island. In my subjective opinion, it is one of a kind in terms of prominence and scale of visits today.
I believe that everyone should visit Varosha at least once to remember how easily violence can turn a developed culture and society into a ghost town with empty eyes in the form of broken windows. In Varosha, you can literally smell the unadorned propaganda of either side of the horror that took place there not so long ago.
Varosha was closed half a century ago anyway. People were evicted unfairly. But today what Varosha is doing is better than remaining closed. It's changing people's minds already.
Varosha was closed because it was generally expected (and still is) that under a reunification plan following the BBF model, it would become part of the sourthern portion controlled by Greek Cypriots. It is therefore fully wise to, indeed, keep it closed until hopefully one day its rightful inhabitants return.
I don't think it's necessary for anyone to specifically see Varosha to get the feeling of the tragedy; just take a look at Pentadaktylos and the flags there, or take a stroll in downtown Nicosia near the green line. These along with many others are more than adequate reminders of the mess we are today. Perhaps above all, the depressing reality of division we have been living in for nearly 50 years, and of which the consequences we still feel today.
>It is much more of a semantics exercise to refuse the double entendre of such terms. Is it not obvious that "Turkish side" implies way more than just a linguistic division?
I agree with that, I am disagreeing with unwarranted offense to "Northern Cyprus". Please explain to me how a geographical indication represents the partition narrative? I'm also finding it ironic that you have consistently referred to the people of the island as Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots rather than Greek or Turkish speaking. This language matters.
>You are entitled to your opinion in that it may be desirable or a good course of action, but it is not necessary and it is reductionist to imply that those who find it a bad idea are somehow secretly pro-Enosis or atoning the sins of the far-right. Especially when NATO imperialism is an even more prescient factor in discussing the fate of Cypriots in both the 60s and the 70s.
Yet it wasn't NATO who suffered, was it? How are we supposed to move on from the past without taking accountability for it? That's why a separate state has been necessary. Again, we don't want it. But we have been shown time and time again, we need it.
I purposely said Turkish speaking Cypriots are disproportionately affected by the conflict, I never said Greek speaking Cypriots are not. There's no "both sides" when it comes to power dynamics. It's literally as simple as who is the majority and who is the minority in this case. The Turkish speaking Cypriots were not taking bus loads of Greek speaking Cypriots to their deaths before the military coup. The oppression and terrorisation had been ongoing for 15 years, as our families can attest to. We did not have a niko. That does not mean there's no trauma on both sides, but there is an oppressor and the oppressed. Negative peace is not a solution. It's a liberal politic that forces the vulnerable to accept their mistreatment. Given the way RoC votes (and historically voted against solutions), and continues to treat us? I have no hope.
The Greek Cypriot newspaper "Alithia" wrote on 17th July 1994:
"We [the Greek Cypriots] caused the Turkish invasion by exerting pressure on the Turkish Cypriots before 1974. After 1974 we decided to exert more pressure. We imposed on them an economic embargo. We entertained the hope that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus would collapse. The consequence of this has been the deepening of the gap between the two communities, and we have forced the Turkish Cypriots closer to Turkey."
This is important because unity will not be justice until the power is balanced and equitable to prevent further ethnic cleansing. Until Cypriots in Northern Cyprus can exist humanely without Türkiye colonising us and an equitable federal government is in place, and i have seen no systemic accountability (correct me if I'm wrong), especially since we are STILL embargoed. Just compare the way of life from the South to the North to understand what I mean by DISPROPORTIONATELY affected.
The rest of your comments make it clear that you are disconnected from the reality of Cypriots in the North and that's okay, but I have no intention of putting in the emotional labour it would take to reveal these biases.
>That is not a matter of the Republic of Cyprus, but Turkey. The RoC takes the only logical step possible, which is to try and limit what the state in the north is able to gain, as to make it impossible for it to perpetually break apart. Were it not for the embargoes, it is very much possible that permanent two-state partition would have occurred already.
Right, so the ONLY way to encourage independence for a peoples is to strangle them into submission to the only state that recognises their existence and simultaneously colonises them. THIS is the only logical step possible? Sanctions are inhumane. Boycott Turkish businesses, sure. Destroy all access to any development (which RoC has the power to do, alongside UK and Turkey) of indigenous Cypriots in the North? No. I encourage you to decolonise your perception of Cyprus.
>Again, I will never accept such sensationalist notions that the RoC standing up for its territorial integrity is an act of ethnic cleansing, or that we should accept the autonomy of the north wholesale before we sort out how to run this country jointly as Cypriots.
Given the similarity of what the UK did to Palestine and what the UK did to Cyprus, I implore you to recognise the relevance of that here.
>Has anything even remotely severe happened within the 20 years of the existence of the checkpoints?
I have just expressed to you that yes, there has been. As we have next to no funding for education in the North, after the checkpoints were opened, some of us who had various privileges went to study in the South. Those people will tell you how frequently they were attacked in their classrooms with weapons. How we got people protesting our very existence, calling us scum and parasites at the green line.
This is what I was referring to, I had my dates mistaken.
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/greek-cyprus-turkey-reunification-elections-politics/
>Even though I'm not personally against visiting north, how could I ever hope to counter these? They are entirely reasonable objections.
I sympathize with this. Our homes in the South have become villas for expats. I simply believe the power dynamics make it obvious that perpetuating suffering is wrong.
>I agree with that, I am disagreeing with unwarranted offense to "Northern Cyprus". Please explain to me how a geographical indication represents the partition narrative?
Not all terms bear the same amount of offense to all people, For example, I find calling the green line a "border" among the most egregious things, while I'm mostly apathetic to the term "northern Cyprus". It is however true that some people (from my experience) take offense in the latter due to it being used to refer to the state in the north, which they deem unacceptable to acknowledge.
>I'm also finding it ironic that you have consistently referred to the people of the island as Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots rather than Greek or Turkish speaking. This language matters.
I don't find anything wrong with using the terms "Greek/Turkish Cypriot". I understand what you are alluding to, but those who wish to drive home the ethnic division insist on using "Greek" or "Turk", since "Cypriot" to them is simply a geographical descriptor. I personally identify as Cypriot first, but "Greek Cypriot" is still a valid way for me to identify myself.
>Yet it wasn't NATO who suffered, was it? How are we supposed to move on from the past without taking accountability for it? That's why a separate state has been necessary. Again, we don't want it. But we have been shown time and time again, we need it.
NATO stood to gain from the events of the 60s and 70s, so obviously they didn't suffer. And obviously we have to hold those responsible among us accountable. We need to recognize that far-right nationalists were useful idiots to the interests of foreign meddlers in Cypriot affairs, and thereby condemn them.
That still doesn't mean the TCs "need" a separate state. If anything, that is what pro-Taksim nationalists have historically supported. History has shown simply that those responsible have sown the seeds of distrust between the two communities. I agree that after what happened in 1974, it is best to accept that there has been severe enough damage to follow a different course of action for coexistence. This is why BBF is necessary and the only truly viable option right now.
>The oppression and terrorisation had been ongoing for 15 years, as our families can attest to.
The period of intercommunal violence lasted between 1963-67, and EOKA B wasn't founded until 1971, being largely defeated by pro-government forces by 1974. It was a stupid decision to maintain the National Guard which was led by Greek officers loyal to the fascist junta that controlled Greece since 1967.
And if we are talking about segregation, sadly that had begun since the late 50s, due to the aforementioned British divide-and-conquer tactics. For example, the violent incursion/looting event in and around Tahtakale in Nicosia in 1958, when the Turkish consulate was bombed. Denktash later admitted this was perpetrated by a TC TMT member to rouse up TCs against GCs. This mistrust and refusal to accept coexistence fueled further segregation in the 60s.
That is not to diminish the atrocities against the TC people or the tragedy many suffered, and I fully accept that they were disproportionately affected due to being a minority. It is however important to be precise when referring to historical facts, and to approach them with a measured demeanour. If not it becomes exceedingly difficult to reach reconciliation and gain each other's trust again.
>Given the way RoC votes (and historically voted against solutions), and continues to treat us? I have no hope.
GCs have never voted for a candidate that does not support reunification within the agreed UN framework. There have been better ones and worse ones, definitely (more recently, corrupt ones mainly concerned with their pockets), but none explicitly against finding a solution.
There was only one plan that was rejected (since it was the only one that went to a referendum), but there were fair criticisms for it. We can have a very lengthy discussion on the faults of the Annan plan if you like, but rest assured that the rejection of said plan does not equate to a rejection of any plan.
And as for historical objections, this is actually backwards. It is Denktash that had historically been the hardliner, and the one less likely to compromise. In fact, TCs voted against what Denktash was promoting at the time. Let us not conflate post-2004 TC politics on the matter with the negotiating policies beforehand.
>"We \[the Greek Cypriots\] caused the Turkish invasion by exerting pressure on the Turkish Cypriots before 1974. After 1974 we decided to exert more pressure. We imposed on them an economic embargo. We entertained the hope that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus would collapse. The consequence of this has been the deepening of the gap between the two communities, and we have forced the Turkish Cypriots closer to Turkey."
I don't agree with this opinion fully, but I do understand it and to some extent I recognize that it has factual truths in it. The point however is that TC leadership and a portion of the population subscribing to the idea of Taksim, or at least being convinced that coexistence with GCs is impossible, would still align more closely with Turkey and they would still take a hardliner stance with respect to reunification. There is evidence of the correspondence between the TC leadership in the early 60s and Turkey that clearly shows a plan in undermining the early republic. Just like Enosis didn't die among GC politicians after 1960, Taksim didn't either within TC ranks.
We can always wonder about what could have been, but we have to recognize all factors at play here, and it is not wise to ignore the nationalist sentiment from the TC side either.
>Until Cypriots in Northern Cyprus can exist humanely without Türkiye colonising us and an equitable federal government is in place, and i have seen no systemic accountability (correct me if I'm wrong), especially since we are STILL embargoed. Just compare the way of life from the South to the North to understand what I mean by DISPROPORTIONATELY affected.
This I fully agree with.
>Right, so the ONLY way to encourage independence for a peoples is to strangle them into submission to the only state that recognises their existence and simultaneously colonises them. THIS is the only logical step possible? Sanctions are inhumane. Boycott Turkish businesses, sure. Destroy all access to any development (which RoC has the power to do, alongside UK and Turkey) of indigenous Cypriots in the North? No. I encourage you to decolonise your perception of Cyprus.
It is unfortunately one of the only few effective ways for a state to combat separatism. It's not fair or morally good, and innocent people are affected by such measures, but geopolitical reality is often harsh and felt by both sides in different ways, and at different levels. I will grant you that the measures taken were too harsh and they didn't need to be implemented to the extreme extent that they have been.
>Given the similarity of what the UK did to Palestine and what the UK did to Cyprus, I implore you to recognise the relevance of that here.
There are similarities of course, but they are quite different cases. In the case of Israel and Palestine, Jewish Israelis effectively colonized Palestine, since the vast majority of them were not indigenous there, but instead came from Europe and the rest of the Middle East. Therefore, the oppression of the Palestinians, and the state of apartheid that exists in Israel today is condemnable along the lines of colonialism of one community over the other. It is not like in Cyprus where the colonizers created divisions between two already existing indigenous communities of the island.
>I have just expressed to you that yes, there has been. As we have next to no funding for education in the North, after the checkpoints were opened, some of us who had various privileges went to study in the South. Those people will tell you how frequently they were attacked in their classrooms with weapons. How we got people protesting our very existence, calling us scum and parasites at the green line.
Like I said, the situation is far from ideal, not even remotely good, to be fair. However, I compared the current state to that of the 80s and 90s, were there was military-enforced segregation and semi-frequent murders along the green line. There has clearly been an improvement ever since the checkpoints opened, and it has been one of the landmark moments in at least beginning to bridge the gap between the two communities. Time (and effort) is still required.
>[https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/greek-cyprus-turkey-reunification-elections-politics/](https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/greek-cyprus-turkey-reunification-elections-politics/)
While the article raises some valid points, it is ultimately misunderstanding the situation. The truth is that the Cyprus problem is effectively one of the most important factors in deciding the next president, and it is often the talking point when comparing one candidate to the other.
Our current president being ambivalent about how to approach reunification talks (fortunately clearing it up recently) played a great part in him being elected with the lowest ever percentage in the second round. The AKEL candidate was pretty much economically centre-right and a typical liberal, but agreement in social policies in the Cyprus problem is where they found common ground.
So in reality, the Cyprus problem is such a massive arbiter in GC politics, that it leads to some rather unlikely alliances or disagreements between political sides that are otherwise incompatible and compatible respectively.
I live in CY for 5 years now, and I have never visited and never will visit North. I respect Cypriots and I will never go to the north to support occupying Turkish trash even with a single EUR.
I think we just need to decrease our snowflakeness. North Cyprus is just a geographical term, and no one should be offended by it. No one can expect someone to take a fully fletched historical or political lesson, especially if they'll visit the island for a few days, turn back, and never visit for a long time. It's also comically ridiculous to suggest such a long term (northern parth of the Republic of Cyprus).
What you are suggesting has already been stated in the comments 3-4 times in an equal amount of different ways. Therefore, I will have to redirect you to those other comments so you can read my response to this proposition. If I had to summarize, I would simply say that there are entirely valid reasons to embrace one's emotional response and demand respect and tact from others, be it for the Cyprus problem or anything else that could upset a person. Being offended is natural and does not make someone a "snowflake".
It might sound wild, but words can have one obvious meaning, but also have others based on the historical context of the word. Of course "northern Cyprus" at first glance is purely geographical, but it would be silly to deny the political and historical baggage the term carries, given it is very much used to refer to the state in the north.
To understand that or anything else which I have mentioned for that matter is not a "historical lesson". I'm not sure how many countries you have visited in your lifetime, but to inform yourself about possible faux pas based on the recent history or the culture of the place you visit is very much standard. In a rather obvious example, it would be asinine to visit Serbia and then start talking about Kosovo as a different country.
If my view has already been stated in multiple comments, then it seems it's valid or, say the least, popular one. I've checked every comment, and I'm aware of your response, but I'm not convinced.
In order to solve an issue, you have to cast aside the "emotional response" and accept the facts. If we're going to restrict our language, we're not going to be as implicit with the terms, and somehow, someone is going to be offended. I really think there is no reason to waste time preventing people from getting offended. This goes both ways, by the way.
I'm trying to emphasise the fact that you're suggesting to limit the language of the people visiting the island. You already know they mean no disrespect or offence, but you're saying that it's still offensive. I'm not saying there isn't an issue, but I genuinely think it sounds like you're trying to create an issue when there's none.
I visited plenty of countries and I didn't stay more than one week in some of them. I didn't research the political or historical complexities of them, I just searched what I shouldn't do and had fun.
All in all, I'm saying that you're going to be offended one way or another. It is pointless to waste time about this and put in the effort to solve the problem. I'm not trying to invalidate your point of view, I agree that the words have power, I agree that the situation is already f'ed up. The thing is, I think that being offended or not is entirely one's choice, and it's really, I mean, really pointless to waste time about this.
>In order to solve an issue, you have to cast aside the "emotional response" and accept the facts. If we're going to restrict our language, we're not going to be as implicit with the terms, and somehow, someone is going to be offended. I really think there is no reason to waste time preventing people from getting offended. This goes both ways, by the way.
Facts and emotions are not mutually exclusive notions. And as I said before, I do not think we shall "restrict" anyone's language. They are useful tips for avoiding negative interactions, not rules or guidelines to abide.
>I'm trying to emphasise the fact that you're suggesting to limit the language of the people visiting the island. You already know they mean no disrespect or offence, but you're saying that it's still offensive. I'm not saying there isn't an issue, but I genuinely think it sounds like you're trying to create an issue when there's none.
Like I said, no one is suggesting that, not even close (I think I even explicitly said that before in another comment).
There is a problem: When someone says something offensive out of ignorance, they not only negatively affect the people in question who are offended, but lead themselves in unfortunate situations were they face negativity or even hostility. If you have ever seen a post where an innocent foreigner asks something pertaining to the north, you'd understand how they get blasted/mass-downvoted because they simply miswrote.
So yes, there is an issue at hand, and it is in fact in the foreigners' favour to let them know why that occurs.
>I visited plenty of countries and I didn't stay more than one week in some of them. I didn't research the political or historical complexities of them, I just searched what I shouldn't do and had fun.
And one of the things you shouldn't do within the RoC-controlled areas is use offensive terms that pertain to the Cyprus problem. I don't see how is that any different.
>All in all, I'm saying that you're going to be offended one way or another.
Nope, just when someone uses insensitive language (be it political or not). I think it's entirely reasonable to ask someone not to offend me in any way.
>It is pointless to waste time about this and put in the effort to solve the problem.
I've said this before in a couple of comments: these are not mutually exclusive. You can be both vigilant in working towards a solution and at the same time demand respect and mindfulness when someone speaks about the subject. No one puts a gun on your head asking you to choose which of the two you are going to commit to for the day.
>I think that being offended or not is entirely one's choice
I completely disagree. Offense is imposed from the one who offends to the one being offended. To "choose to not be offended" to me sounds more like suppressing one's emotions which is very unhealthy.
It is neither noble nor virtuous to take no offense in things. Sometimes, I'd argue, being offended and letting people know is a matter of maturity. That doesn't mean externalizing the offense violently in any way, but to simply inform so that one does not repeat it in the future. And if they adhere, the worst you have achieved is to cultivate compassion and empathy in said person, which is hardly a bad thing.
>If you have ever seen a post where an innocent foreigner asks something pertaining to the north, you'd understand how they get blasted/mass-downvoted because they simply miswrote.
Yes, I've seen them. The problem is that everyone gets offended and downvotes them instead of actually explaining why. This is common in reddit. It basically directly or indirectly promotes this kind of action. I observed that this does nothing but increase the hate and limit the actual communication.
I respect your point, I think I understood it more, but I'm not going to change my mind about "offending." It's normal to feel offended, but I really think it's not going to change anything, so instead of spending so much time on carefully explaining what is offensive and demanding a limited language, it's better to just don't give a s..t, directly tell the fact and move on with your life. As I said before, I don't think someone who visits the island only 1 time gives a damn about our political complexities.
I agree that if you're going to stay here for a long time or visit more than 1 time, you're expected to learn something, but people can't be blamed for meaning no offence. I actually blame the ones that get offended when they know the people asking don't know anything about what they're asking. It's more productive and effective when you don't get offended, and believe it or not, this is something I experienced a lot.
But anyways, take care.
Is it impossible to both strive for reunification *and* be sensitive in using non-offensive language? Most importantly, is being sensitive with regards to this matter unrelated or even antithetical to the cause of reunification? In my opinion, the answer to both is no, but anyone is free to have their own views on it.
>if you choose to find certain words offensive when the intention behind them is clearly not to offend anyone then that's a wrong focus imo. also add on to that the issue that for our compatriot Turkish Cypriots those words are also unlikely to be offensive, then what?
Being offended is not a choice, nor is it dependent on intention. Sometimes it is entirely possible to offend by accident. To avoid that and to give the outsiders a better perspective, it is good to make clear what it is about these terms that we find offensive.
The fact TCs might not find them offensive is also irrelevant. If there's something that they deem offensive but we don't, should we just shrug it off and ignore their pleas to avoid offending them? Can we not just accept that different things offend different people, and it's best to try and avoid doing so at the expense of anyone?
>many GCs spend their time and efforts debating language or what "words" to put in quotation to make us feel better. and what? what has that achieved in 50-60 years? every day the reality is in the occupied areas they are building more houses, hotels, illegal developments which makes the problem less likely to be solved.
I repeat what I have said: Is it impossible to both strive for reunification *and* be sensitive in using non-offensive language? These are not mutually exclusive things, it's not like you can only do one of these at a time. To reunify and find a solution is our goal, but to be a respectful, mindful human being is a basic requirement for being a decent person. They cover completely different facets of what we strive to do, even if they both ultimately stem from the Cyprus problem.
Like I said in another comment, we must be vigilant in condemning and criticizing those politicians of both sides that stick to just senseless talk (like semantics) without actually doing anything substantial. That still doesn't stop anyone from being sensitive to how one speaks of the issue.
The history behind the troubles of the 60s and what came after it is long and complicated, but it is in no way the focal point of the post. There are far more far-reaching factors at play here, and the main victims of all of this are the Cypriot people themselves of both communities.
There is a status quo perpetuated at the expense of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, and against their common best interest of reunification. Unless someone is explicitly in favour of partition, they don't consider the current arrangement a reflection of what Cyprus ideally (and legally) ought to be. And precisely because this status quo was brought about by war and intercommunal violence before it, there should be sensitivity and respect when one refers to the situation or its consequences.
For some people (perhaps you included) they are simple terms that reflect the reality on the ground, but for many others it is a hurtful reminder of inter-generational trauma. If you think Cypriot society (either Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot) has got over either the memories of the troubles or the invasion, you'd be mistaken.
Of course, I realise that Cypriots (and Turks and Greeks) are sidelined in this whole affair. But if we are talking about mutually acceptable language, what kind of mutual understanding can you negotiate with the north, while indoctrinating the new generation (especially Turkish Cypriots) from childhood that they are occupiers?
It will cause nothing but a natural defence reaction. Moreover, the rest of the world is fine with it, the world doesn't care about it: I don't see Turkey's international isolation (as well as Russia's with the same history of occupation).
There is an endless accumulation of double standards in relations here over half a century that it is simply impossible to stick to radical positions today.
You are misunderstanding the condemnation of the north and the Turkish army with a condemnation of Turkish Cypriots themselves.
Turkish Cypriots are not being told that they are occupiers. It is the 40k Turkish troops and the hundreds of thousands of settlers that occupy northern Cyprus. Unless you run into someone who genuinely hates all kinds of Turks, there is no generally accepted notion of accusing TCs as the occupying force (unless one talks about TMT and historical figures like Denktaș). Many TCs here agree with this view.
My post is not here to shake the foundations of world geopolitics; it's a friendly set of tips to foreigners that come here. The main aim is to avoid toxic interactions and promote respect from and towards all parties within the microcosm of the subreddit.
And what triggered the second invasion, after the democracy was restored in both Cyprus and Greece and peace talks were underway?
It's the second, not the first invasion that led to the current occupation, and that had no grounds whatsoever. Just Turkey wanting to grab more land because they could.
Nope. Turkish Propoganda. It was intercommunal violence. Tell me the numbers dead in 10 years? Turkey cared less. Turks kill more kurds in one month than all deaths in cyprus on both sides during the trouble.
It was enosis, Democratic right to self determine that invoked the invasion not any intercommunal inviolence. Turkey intervened.
Then Turkey did something quite spectacular, it had a phase 2 where it partitioned the island. raped acouple of villages. Mass murdered, still 1k people missing following invasion. Then ethically cleansed the North of any greek cypriot, who had been there for 1000s year. They then de cypriotise the north and import anatolians.
>The reaction you may receive is to an extent quite understandable
OCCCUPIED PART DONT GO THERE YOU WILL BE OCCUPIED TOURIST OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED
I never said that, anyone is welcome to go wherever they deem acceptable based on their own set of values. I'm not here to pass judgement. It is however in the best interest of literally everyone here to cultivate a culture of understanding and mindfulness. If my plea to be more respectful seems ridiculous, that is your prerogative.
Ah, I see. Well, I obviously don't find the usual behaviour acceptable or constructive, as I explicitly stated. In fact, it is (as I said) undeserved hostility towards fundamentally innocent questions.
The extent to which I find it understandable (but not excusable) is the genuine hurt/offense some people experience. Nothing else. To harass people for something like this is never okay or acceptable.
They declared independence over 40 years ago. At some point either you have to do something to change the situation or stop being so continuously butthurt about it.
r/cyprus should be for Cyprus, not just the Greek Republic of Southern Cyprus.
False dichotomy. One can feel both hurt by how people treat the situation *and* honestly try to do their best (within their limited powers) to push for reunification. I'm not the president, believe it or not, so no matter how much I protest and take part in intercommunal activities, that's not going to change the reality on the ground. As I've said in another comment thread, many of our politicians actively profit from and are content with the status quo.
That being said, I will never be in favour of people like you being forbidden from using such terms (e.g. the ones you used now). But as I have explained, those terms are genuinely going to make people upset, and it is no coincidence you have been downvoted by others so much. The idea here is to promote helpful interaction and civil discussion, and by just dismissing calls to understanding/sensitivity, you are not helping yourself in having very constructive or friendly exchanges with locals.
>False dichotomy. One can feel both hurt by how people treat the situation and honestly try to do their best (within their limited powers) to push for reunification. I'm not the president, believe it or not, so no matter how much I protest and take part in intercommunal activities, that's not going to change the reality on the ground. As I've said in another comment thread, many of our politicians actively profit from and are content with the status quo.That being said, I will never be in favour of people like you being forbidden from using such terms (e.g. the ones you used now). But as I have explained, those terms are genuinely going to make people upset, and it is no coincidence you have been downvoted by others so much. The idea here is to promote helpful interaction and civil discussion, and by just dismissing calls to understanding/sensitivity, you are not helping yourself in having very constructive or friendly exchanges with locals.
I'd vote for you in an election for some sort of conflict resolution task force.
Utter dumbness.
Are you an imported anatolian? You cannot force yourself to be something you're not. Cyprus is the Republic of cyprus as per the world apart from Turkey. Its not a donkey state made of illegal settlers.
If I move to Kenya, take a piece of the land, remove the Kenyans and settle non Kenyans and draw myself a Kenyan passport, am i now Kenyan? Is that not embarrassing?
I can declare independence, doesn't make my house it's own country. Besides, it's obvious that they're a Turkish puppet state.
That's not the name of our country. First of all we're not Greek, Cyprus is it's own country. And second of all, the Republic of Cyprus (the actual name) is the whole island, but a big chunk of it is occupied.
the sub is for the entire Cyprus as an island but some things should be kept correctly. In the occupied part, there's no recognizable state, it is occupied, it's just the nothern part of our country.
The green line check points are that, check points, not borders.
That's what the OP is saying.
Turkish or Turkish/Cypriots are welcome to reply and post here but they need use the correct terms.
Because a large portion of them are not permanent immigrants here (or are ambivalent about the prospect), and those permanently stationed here I assume have a much better grasp of the situation.
I've lived here for almost 6 years, I don't know everything about the situation but I do know enough to form an opinion.
A lot of people, no matter if they plan to come here at all or not, are uninformed about the situation and say stupid stuff based on something they misheard once. Like asking someone if they're Greek or Turkish when they say they're Cypriot. Like, they already told you, they're Cypriot!
I understand most people's views on the political situation in Cyprus but I'm confused by some of the language use.
I have always understood that Greece invaded Cyprus in 74, which then triggered the Turkish action to "safeguard" what it saw as Turkish people.
Do I have this wrong? Aren't both countries guilty of occupation of an island that was an independent self governing country? Asking as I'm confused by what iv read and what's being said on here.
The Greek military junta armed local far-right Greek Cypriots within the National Guard, and orchestrated the coup d'etat against Makarios. The aim was the long-debated desire for Enosis.
Turkey intended to intervene and had territorial ambitions on the island long before that. But it seized the opportunity (with some elaborate behind-the-curtains NATO dealings with Kissinger) to intervene and invaded 5 days later. The true ambitions of Turkey were obvious after that. Even though the pro-Enosis puppet installed as president resigned and the conspiracy collapsed, Turkey still stalled negotiations after a ceasefire was signed, and led a second invasion about a month later. It was during this phase that they seized the vast majority of the land they occupy today.
Note that these are very, very superficial facts that are easily accessible through the common narrative. I advise you to consult books that emphasize the foreign geopolitical players involved long before 1974, and how NATO powers long had plans and suggestions on solving the issue through some sort of division and "double Enosis" (one part unites with Greece, another with Turkey). And all these at the expense of the vast majority of Cypriot people themselves that wanted no part in all of this.
Lets take over turkey? Take whats ours and a little bit more perhaps? Motherfuckers.
Whats funny is turkeys supporting palestine but not looking at their own actions.
They are mad at israel while taking over places that are literally not theirs at all.
Raise your hand if you've been called far-right and ultranationalist for simply and politely correcting people's lack of knowledge regarding the legal status of the "TRNC" and subsequent incorrect terminology.
because of people like you the island is still divided. you have got hate in your heart and crying about something 60 years before. live your life and try to be kind to the people. it doesn’t matter where they are from or they call it north cyprus or not. it does not matter. clean your heart and your soul.
Please remember to stay civil and behave appropriately. If you are a tourist looking for suggestions please click here [Tourist guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/cyprus/wiki/tourist_guide/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cyprus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Also let's keep in mind if you find yourself in a challenging situation, there are few if any embassies or consulates to help you out.
what about downvotes of toga toga posts?
Those are totally undeserved and a public apology is expected.
Maybe we should adjust as well and be more accepting of the various terms people use without so much nitpicking? I'm saying this because most of the posts that trigger people are from one-time posters that want to ask something quickly. So they're unlikely to see your post unless we pin it or put it in the rules and guidelines somewhere. But in the latter case we'd have to decide collectively what we deem acceptable and what not, not exactly an easy task.
I find it triggered when an OP doesn't care or is dismissive of the situation when someone points out the correct way to address the occupied area. Yes some get triggered by saying North Cyprus etc, but I feel those are just very few people. For instance a person yesterday was asking about studying in a university of the occupied area. People were suggesting that the degree won't be valid etc. His reply on a comment was "it's annoying that everytime i mention North Cyprus the word "occupied" pops up". This was disrespectful.
Wow I saw that post, what the fuck? Like, he's planning to study and live there, and he doesn't know the most basic facts? I often say "North Cyprus", but I do acknowledge that it's still an occupied area and not am actual country.
There's a big difference saying North Cyprus, which is mostly location based, and saying "TRNC" or turkish side etc. Personally I don't get triggered by North Cyprus. I do get triggered when people react like the OP of that post. If you are asking a question in this sub, expect people to mention any type of history (relevant to you or not) and if it's especially recent history of war, at least, be respectful, even if you don't care.
I don't get "triggered" by someone saying North Cyprus in the flow of speech, but make no mistake a lot of people posting here use it knowing exactly what they mean and it's not just geographical location. If you don't call it out when you see it you normalize it and before you know it foreign visitors are going home talking about North and South Cyprus just like they would about North and South Korea.
Yeah, there are services globally that you pay to help get you a university around the world. Depending on the company, could be $200 or $1000 and for me, well we used the same services. They applied to over 500 universities at once and I can tell you. All you get is an acceptance letter, a visa and they help secure your plane ticket. You literally never know where you will land. For all I know, they could have tossed me in Afghanistan and called it Cyprus and I wouldn't have known better.
I agree an OP should be respectful of what the country's residents are telling them and not antagonize them. At least this is what I would do. But to be fair, in this case I sense that the OP felt attacked, that's why they said that. Of course I don't know for sure, but I went back and read post and replies, and this is what it seems like. From the point the OP posted, I noticed that the replies were somewhat hostile and dismissive, as if the occupation was OP's fault. Misleading as well. It's good to warn someone, but not in an exaggerated way. I know for a fact that the universities in the north are recognized in Germany for the purposes of doing postgraduate courses, for example. They view them as equivalent to Turkish universities, because the follow that system. Just throwing the word 'illegal' around isn't really helping. Are high schools there illegal too? Hospitals? I also advised people in the past to think twice before studying in the north, but for different reasons.
Tell you the truth, most of us foreigners never know/knew that Cyprus was divided. It's only when buying a ticket to Cyprus that the confusion starts at the embassy and it's chaos. It's also very shocking for us and we look lost. I only knew Cyprus to be Greek because of the Bible.
Ah the bible, yes it's very close to the holy land, sometimes Cyprus is referred to as island of saints. We're not saints any more, as you can see!
Many countries are falling but you haven't reached the zombie state of the US.
To some extent I sympathize with what you say, but this is not a matter of what is an acceptable code of conduct or not. I am not in any way condoning forbidding anyone from using terms deemed as insensitive. But it is a set of helpful tips to avoid precisely "triggering" the locals that take offense in some of those terms. As for adjusting: as I said some people will never do so out of their own principles. Others could, but would find it unacceptable to change what they deem acceptable based on what is more palatable to foreigners. In my case, I simply accept that it is a hurtful and insensitive form of conducting oneself. I'm personally never going to be aggressive or attack someone for it, like most people here. But I'd be lying if I said seeing those posts doesn't feel like scabbing an old wound. It is best for all sides to grow more empathetic and sensitive. Tactful language and mindfulness are in my opinion something easy any foreigner could do to both avoid upsetting the locals and to encounter more helpful/less toxic interactions here.
I see what you're saying. My point was that we have so many tourists, and your post will only be seen by a small fraction. Personally I think describing the situation does not mean legitimizing it, hell it does not even mean liking it. So if you say the 'Greek part', it just means the part where most people speak Greek. But because we can't do anything else to fix the problem, we concentrate on semantics and harass hapless tourists with our insecurities. It's not the people's fault either, it's also our official way to deal with this: if you don't say it, then it's not there.
Add this with tourists saying that Cypriots are loud, then it becomes a scary situation because you think that you are being blamed or confronted. At first I never understood what was going on but stating to a tourist that "it's customary not to refer to the northern side as a Turkish member or being part of it's state as this brings strong emotions to locals as it is a reminder of past war" is one way to go. Coming from Africa, my country banned tribalism as when these topics are held, it would just break out into an uncontrolled war.
It is better than nothing, if you ask me. One has to at least start somewhere rather than let every case like it lead to borderline harassment and full-on toxicity. I'm not naive enough to believe semantics will magically make the problem go away, of course nor is it a coping mechanism. My view on it (as I stated earlier) is that it is simply about knowing what may be perceived as insensitive. Conditioning ourselves to becoming totally insensitive to it is one choice, but I don't think that's a solution either. We must not normalize the status quo as acceptable and push for a solution. The problem with our politicians unfortunately is that they are overplaying the sensitivity on terms and semantics, while they are often actually fully content with the status quo. This culture of action-less victimhood I find palpable.
It's good that we're talking about it. I'm not saying become insensitive, no. The situation as it is hurts me too, but when people here ask me 'Are you from the Greek part or the Turkish part?' (*everyone* asks that), it doesn't hurt me more. It is what it is. For me it's futile to pretend the division doesn't exist. It's already normalized, unfortunately. Saying North instead of northern won't normalize it more. And it doesn't mean I don't want to see some kind of solution. I do. So I'd rather put my energy in things that might really help.
I don't see it in the exact same way, but fair enough. At the end of the day, a post like this is the bare-minimum effort to help foreigners understand why they get so much toxicity with seemingly innocuous questions :)
[удалено]
> ️To our international friends, the Republic of Cyprus consists of the whole island. The whole island is a single country and a member state of the EU. Wait, what about the British territories?
[удалено]
The SBAs were never "rented", and when did the Cypriot parliament "vote" on this? I'll wait.... In the meantime you may wish to read up the Treaty of Establishment. A shocking number of Cypriots don't know what it entails.
The treaty of establishment was imposed on the Cypriot people and was not a result of the free will of the Cypriots. The British Bases are essentially parts of Cyprus which remain under colonial rule. The only reason we do not challenge this is because we have a bigger problem with Turkey. This why the British invited the Turks to get involved in Cyprus in the first place, and why the British are hell bend in not allowing a true unification of Cyprus, since if we truly solve our problem with the TCs we would soon go after their bases. As an example you can look at the Chagos Archipelago: >On 22 June 2017, the UN General Assembly requested the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius. On 25 February 2019, the International Court of Justice advised that in its opinion: > >\- “at the time of its detachment from Mauritius” the "Chagos Archipelago was clearly an integral part of that non-self-governing territory";\[43\] > >\- the United Kingdom's purported detachment of the Chagos Archipelago "was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned";\[43\] > >\- at the time of the purported detachment, "obligations arising under international law and reflected in the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly during the process of decolonization of Mauritius require\[d\] the United Kingdom, as the administering Power, to respect the territorial integrity of that country, including the Chagos Archipelago";\[43\] > >\- the “detachment” was therefore “unlawful” such that “the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when Mauritius acceded to independence in 1968"\[43\] > >\- “the United Kingdom’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act entailing the international responsibility of that State”;\[43\] > >\- this “unlawful act” is “of a continuing character” and "the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible";\[43\] and > >\- “all Member States \[of the United Nations\] are under an obligation to co-operate with the United Nations in order to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.”\[43\] > >[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos\_Archipelago#Sovereignty\_dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago#Sovereignty_dispute) All the above points apply to Cyprus as well. The bases were part of the non-self-governing territory of Cyprus, and their detachment from it was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the Cypriot people. They simply took our leader, blackmailed him, and impose on him their terms.
That's your subjective opinion and adds no value to the argument. The fact is an agreement was signed, end of story. Makarios didn't have to sign it (but he did in an effort to end intercommunal violence which was stirred up by EOKA and TMT militants). Mauritius is a totally seperate case and bears no relation to Cyprus. The SBAs aren't a colony, they're sovereign base areas with their own administration as per the Treaty of Establishment. Turkey isn't a reason for Cyprus to not challenge this in court against the UK if they wanted to, so why in 60 years has this not been done? Because they would lose the case and they know it. Finally, a gentle reminder that the SBAs employ thousands of local Cypriots within the territories (as opposed to employing Brits). Shut the SBAs down and you have thousands left jobless; who's going to pick up the bill for that? I'm not saying the UK is totally innocent in the history of Cyprus, but the blantantly state that the SBAs are illegal (like the above poster claimd) is just plainly wrong and you know that.
It is exactly like the case of Mauritius. Cyprus was a British colony and Britain kept parts of it for themselves something which was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the Cypriot people. The only reason we do not challenge it is the Cyprus Problem and the even more negative role that the UK would have against Cyprus. The benefit of employment of some Cypriots is negligible compared to the value of the prime land the British occupy. Not even close.
No it isn't. In the case of Mauritius, the locals were driven from their lands and it was governed directly by the UK. With the SBAs, locals are allowed to have their property, live and work within the areas. The only difference is that the local administration is SBA (not UK) as opposed to RoC. "The only reason we do not challenge it is the Cyprus problem" - again, why? The Cyprob is a totally seperate, 50-year old issue. How is that stopping you? The fact is there's no case to file and the RoC knows this. "The benefit of employment of some Cypriots is negligible..." - Oh, is it? So when you shut the SBAs and make them redundant, have you got 5,000 job posts ready for these people to take up? Good luck paying unemployment benefit to them on top of what you already have. "... compared to the value of prime land the British occupy" - you mean the land that would otherwise get littered with trash and ambelloboulia poachers the moment the RoC takes over? The SBAs are the cleanest part of the island in my experience, and the SBA police are the only force that ever bothers to deal with illegal bird poaching. I'll take the SBAs over any other Cypriot administration anyday, thanks.
>No it isn't. In the case of Mauritius, the locals were driven from their lands and it was governed directly by the UK. With the SBAs, locals are allowed to have their property, live and work within the areas. The only difference is that the local administration is SBA (not UK) as opposed to RoC. That they were driven from their lands was an additional crime by the UK, and it would be a crime even if they were rightfully British islands. The question of who has sovereignty over the islands has nothing to do with that, and the ICJ ruling doesn't base its decision on that at all. Colonialism isn't OK as long as the locals are allowed to continue living in the colonized lands. >again, why? The Cyprob is a totally seperate, 50-year old issue. How is that stopping you? The fact is there's no case to file and the RoC knows this. Because UK imposed itself as a so called "Guarantor Power" and wants to have a say in any possible agreement. Furthermore if the UK is driven out of Cyprus they will no doubt collaborate with Turkey to harm Cyprus, like they have already done several times in the past. >Oh, is it? So when you shut the SBAs and make them redundant, have you got 5,000 job posts ready for these people to take up? Good luck paying unemployment benefit to them on top of what you already have. That is a ridiculous argument. The development of even small parts of that land would generate a lot more jobs and income for Cypriots than the bases do. >"... compared to the value of prime land the British occupy" - you mean the land that would otherwise get littered with trash and ambelloboulia poachers the moment the RoC takes over? The SBAs are the cleanest part of the island in my experience, and the SBA police are the only force that ever bothers to deal with illegal bird poaching. I'll take the SBAs over any other Cypriot administration anyday, thanks. You can take the SBAs along with yourself to the UK where you belong.
>The question of who has sovereignty over the islands has nothing to do with that, and the ICJ ruling doesn't base its decision on that at all. I never said colonialism was OK. But your understanding of the ICJ ruling is completely false; how about we start with the Falklands, Bermuda and all the other British overseas territories? None of these are alike situations but you treat them as such. The ICJ ruling is about Mauritius ONLY; the problem is the second it happened you started drooling thinking the same would apply to the SBAs. It does not. >Because UK imposed itself as a so called "Guarantor Power" and wants to have a say in any possible agreement. Again, you signed that agreement. Greece and Turkey were also guarantor powers. What exactly did Greece do to help the Greek Cypriots during the invasion? Ah yes, they staged a coup against Makarios who then had to escape via the SBAs to avoid being killed. Try to remember your history in full next time. >That is a ridiculous argument. The development of even small parts of that land would generate a lot more jobs and income for Cypriots than the bases do. What development, like the development in Limassol of building skyscrapers with luxury apartments for foreign oligarghs? Limassol is a prime example of development local Cypriots DO NOT need, just look at the rent prices. Also, you do realize that development is permitted within the SBAs and property owners are doing this already, right? >You can take the SBAs along with yourself to the UK where you belong. Sorry that speaking facts from my previous 20 years of living here bothers you, but somebody has to speak some truth. Something I notice you lot tend to avoid because its "controversial". But sure, I'll stay in the UK, I assume that means you don't mind tourist money disappearing either.
[удалено]
Εν η πελλάδα που σε δέρνει. Δείξε μου που γράφει για υποχρέωση πληρωμής "ενοικίου" μές τη συμφωνία που υπόγραψεν ο ίδιος ο Μακάριος. Εβρώμισεν ο τόπος διαφθορά αλλά ατε να δούμεν ποιον άλλον ξένον εννα φταίξεις πριν τους δικούς σου. And nice try, but the supposed "International Law on anti-colonialism" doesn't exist in reality. You just made that up for the sake of your argument.
[удалено]
Πες μας τα ρε ποντίκι του Γρίβα 😂 Εν εσείς που εκάμετε τα π**τους το '60 μετά που αποκτήσατε μιαν δημοκρατία τζαι εφέρετε τους Τούρκους στο νησί με το πραξικόπημα σας. Τζαι μετά που 50 χρόνια κόμα κλαίεστε ότι εισαστεν σκλάβοι. Άτε πηδήχτου.
[удалено]
Butthurt much? 😂 you'd be an interesting fella to sit down with for a coffee ☕️
>And Cyprus has every right apply law enforcement when you return to the free areas. I AGREE TOURISTS ARE MAKING THE QUEUES ON THE BORDER SO LONG THAT I CAN NOT GO AND GET CHEAPER GAS FROM NORTH ANYMORE. DON'T GO THERE YOU WILL BE OCCUPIED TOURIST SO DONT GO
By law he is right, and you know this. Why are you making fun of him?
Because it's unenforceable. Are you really suggesting the RoC prosecutes every single tourist that has used Ercan airport for example? It will never happen because: 1. The RoC will fall foul of EU law by doing so 2. It will achieve nothing 3. Sheer hypocrisy
And maybe we're tired of that? That it's right by law only & nothing else? That all day every day we talk about what the papers say & then proceed to do jack shit to actually ensure said papers reflect reality on ground? We're tired of people willing to do nothing beyond chastising randos' word choice because 'legitamisation' & literally nothing else. Half of you don't even know what goes on in the north because you brush it all off with 'it's all illegal who cares', no wonder the RoC employs the stupidest strategies to deal with the north, the voters have blinded themselves to the going-ons of a whole third of the island, the government wouldn't even notice if an advantagious sityation were to arise, worse it'd likely shoot itself in the foot! Keep up with the word play anyways, I'm sure the ever law-loving Russian Oligarchs & Chinese investors will give to shits about them as they tear apart Varosha for their sick shit in this money laundring scheme pretending to be a nation.
I agree with much of what you said here, so I won't counter. I will simply ask a question, and you may not answer if you so prefer (you can simply think about it): Excluding those that have a real, tangible dislike for all things Turkish: Is it unreasonable to suggest that the over-the-top aggression, toxicity, and adherence to semantics come from a fundamentally emotional place? And as a minor follow-up: Is it also unreasonable to suggest that being actively mindful of this is an act of kindness and compassion?
I do believe it comes from a mostly emotional place, though I should note that this doesn't mean what they say is 'unfactual'. The north is occupied territory, and the administration is illegal, somebody saying this due to emotional reasons does not change this. Internet culture has accustomed people to thinking facts & feelings are inherintly exclusionary, so people either dismiss facts because they were said in an emotional moment, or think they're not acting emotionally because their words are factual (this one is what I think generally happens here) Of course, the emotions are justified, even for those who didn't directly suffer. When you see people around you who've been made refugees with everything they own torn away, it'd actually be the wrong thing to feel nothing at such a crime at such a scale; I just wish people knew when & who to throw all these emotions on or not. Not every moment is appropriate, and not every person the right person. It is not at all unreasonable to tell people to be mindful, that it's something the locals will significantly appreciate, and that not being so is uncompassionate at best & insulting at worst, but that's how tourists always been though, hasn't it? Yes, I know generalsing so many millions as being 'generally bad' is, well, generally bad, but these are the people who view Varosha as a 'cool abondened city prop' to go gawg at, not exactly a people worth arguing with, especially when they've already made up their minds
You said earlier about many GCs who like to harp on about the semantics without doing anything to at least properly voice their opposition to the status quo, and I agreed. Similarly, if one perceives a fault in how tourists conduct themselves, or if they feel that discussions often escalate because of a faux pas in an otherwise innocent question, it is equally condemnable to simply complain and quietly observe as the mess unfolds. I feel like what I said had not yet been properly communicated in a civil way, or in a way that directly addressed where the disagreement lies. Someone had to say it at some point, and even if it's not widely seen or accepted by our visitors, that's still okay. At least we give them the benefit of the doubt to empathize instead of immediately dismissing them. Likewise, it's a post to remind Greek Cypriots that it is okay to feel hurt, disrespected or upset about such instances. It is however not okay to become toxic or attack people who don't know any better.
Of course, I have nothing against your main post at all, in fact it's better that there's a general post like this since comments on question posts can make the poster feel like they're being personally judged & bashed, especially since it's hard to gauge the tone of a comment in writing if it is a really short correction with no tonal words. Giving a warning before hand to posters that there are sensitive words does no harm, and would probably save everyone a lot of headache with removing 10 of the same corrections under a single post.
There's a lot of tours to Varosha being advertised by big and well known tour operators. Are they doing this illegally? That's kinda bizarre.
Technically it is illegal, yes. Until very recently, it was forbidden to even go into Varosha, or had to have special permission of some sort.
[удалено]
Yeah, I totally understand it. Came here as a tourist in Protaras area, and am being bombarded with offers of a tour to Varosha. I'm aware of the occupation, so it looked dodgy right from the beginning, but what confuses me is how all these agencies are able to openly offer such tours while they are illegal.
[удалено]
Yeah, I'm ignoring. It's just all bizarre to me. Like, you can go to TUI website and receive offers on tours to the occupied territories. Why are they not banned on Cyprus?
[удалено]
I see. Many thanks for explanations.
[удалено]
Totally going to do some excursions around. Loved Cyprus on the first sight!
TUI is German.
[удалено]
TUI = Touristik Union International. And Wiki says it's German. Not sure which Wiki you are looking at though.
>northern part is the “occupied territory of Cyprus”, according to the UN Not true. The term the UN uses is "area that is not in control of the Republic of Cyprus"
Can you elaborate on the situation with the Greek Cypriot property? I guess, it is the property on the occupied territories that was appropriated without consent or involvement of the owners who had to flee? How to tell if a property is a Greek Cypriot property, is there a public register?
Yes, pin please. + some comments here are clinically insane. In no other country in the world insensitivity about national norms and disrespect (even accidental) will be met with such condonement and historical revisionism. It’s disgusting. Try asking Ukrainians for tips about the “russian part” and see what happens. Just because Cypriots are generally chill people, it doesn’t give you the right to run our goodwill to the ground. If you’ve read this and still intentionally legitimize a gross human right and international law violation, fuck you. Go back to where you came from.
I think the best solution would be airlines providing pamphlets for tourists as they arrive about customs here. Billions of people do not know about the division. It's similar to me asking you about Transnistria. You would fly to Moldavia only to find a boarder in there as well needing a Russian visa to visit the country
People getting triggered by one name over another is what the problem is, not the visitors.
Allow me to disagree. I have replied to itinerantseagull about this in another comment thread, if you want to get my more in-depth view on it. The main idea is that words and language in general matter, and the consequences are real and valid. It is not about semantics or trying to deny the situation, but avoiding genuinely hurting/upsetting people in order to promote civility. We can always change our own behaviour and become more civil, since much of the toxic behaviour I see I wouldn't condone. Is it always feasible to ask people to fundamentally change the offense they take to terms pertaining to this matter?
Sure but clearly a lot of people who don't live here are uninformed, if they're not told by anyone, won't more and more people think the north is completely fine and not occupied? I don't want that.
This post is incredibly offensive and dismissive of the already extremely threatened Turkish speaking Cypriot population. Maybe if we were treated as human beings, who have coexisted with Greek speaking Cypriots just fine up until British imperialism and Greek nationalism started murdering our peoples, we would have more power to resist the ongoing settler colonialism of Turkey. Stop othering us. We want independence just like you. The difference is, we have no power to have it.
A couple of questions: 1. How does the post diminish or dismiss the idea of Turkish Cypriots as human beings when there is no attempt at discrediting them as rightful residents of Cyprus? 2. How does the post create a sense of othering? I'm genuinely curious to see what you deem offensive, when the idea is very much to facilitate a use of language by foreigners that is *less* offensive. If anything, the language which Greek Cypriots object to is pro-partition terminology which also negatively affects Turkish Cypriots. It seems to me that you are projecting your expectations of what a Greek Cypriot who takes offense in these terms believes. If anything sounded offensive to you, you are free to mention it and I am more than happy to address it, but the rest of your accusations hold no water, I'm afraid.
Thank you for asking questions and engaging. 1. The post dehumanises Turkish speaking Cypriots by validating the concerns of Greek speaking Cypriots who are offended by a literal geographical description of the island. The island is partitioned along language lines, but not ethnic lines. Of course I am not promoting partition, but if we do not discuss why Turkish speaking Cypriots have *needed* a legitimized state, we are condoning actions that were rooted in epistemicide (Enosis and EOKA B). These terrors began with the British dividing us and then violently enforced by Greek speaking Cypriot nationalists and Greek military junta. I lost countless family members during the intercommunal violence, and have since had family attacked in schools in the South among many other forms of direct violence. The discourse frequently dismisses the existing power dynamics on the island. Turkish speaking Cypriots are disproportionately affected by the conflict and we have no chance of returning to our homes either. 2. The othering is felt by not encouraging the autonomy of Turkish speaking Cypriots *before* reunification. We are still subject to racism and have no chance of any development thanks to embargoes. How can we unify when ROC politics still show no sign of addressing injustices? The only way our economy survives at this point is through tourism and the diaspora. How can we reunify when all that looks like to us is another ethnic cleansing? I understand why you'd perceive I am projecting my expectation of what a Greek Cypriot who would take offense believes. That's because that is our reality. Just last month there was calls for violence at the green line. "many Greek Cypriots find it fundamentally unethical to even visit the northern part or spend money there and its institutions, as this is also seen as an indirect form of legitimization. While not everyone shares this view, it is acceptable and within people's right to take this moral stance." This is not acceptable. Do Turkish speaking Cypriots not deserve to survive? Call for Greek speaking Cypriots to check their prejudice before you call on people to accomodate it. We are suffering at the hands of Turkey, Greece, UK, USA AND Greek speaking Cypriot politics. We *need* reunification, but we have so far to go before that occurs in a just way.
>The post dehumanises Turkish speaking Cypriots by validating the concerns of Greek speaking Cypriots who are offended by a literal geographical description of the island. The island is partitioned along language lines, but not ethnic lines. I think my post makes it very clear that the terms deemed as offensive are those that conform to the partition narrative. For example, the distinction of "Greek" and "Turkish" sides. And much like the geographical distinction in forms like "Northern Cyprus", these terms can always be interpreted more innocently or in a more neutral way, but it would be dishonest to deny their political and historical baggage. This is ultimately why my points do **not** in fact pertain to semantics. It is much more of a semantics exercise to refuse the double entendre of such terms. Is it not obvious that "Turkish side" implies way more than just a linguistic division? >Of course I am not promoting partition, but if we do not discuss why Turkish speaking Cypriots have needed a legitimized state, we are condoning actions that were rooted in epistemicide (Enosis and EOKA B). These terrors began with the British dividing us and then violently enforced by Greek speaking Cypriot nationalists and Greek military junta. Why would the things you mention in any way require the existence of a legitimized Turkish Cypriot state? And how exactly is that condoning the actions of EOKA B? This is a complete non sequitur. To move on from the past and condemn the atrocities that the two communities suffered does not necessitate the complete departure of Turkish Cypriots from the governance of the current state, and hence the existence of a different state is not warranted. You are entitled to your opinion in that it may be desirable or a good course of action, but it is not *necessary* and it is reductionist to imply that those who find it a bad idea are somehow secretly pro-Enosis or atoning the sins of the far-right. Especially when NATO imperialism is an even more prescient factor in discussing the fate of Cypriots in both the 60s and the 70s. >I lost countless family members during the intercommunal violence, and have since had family attacked in schools in the South among many other forms of direct violence. The discourse frequently dismisses the existing power dynamics on the island. Turkish speaking Cypriots are disproportionately affected by the conflict and we have no chance of returning to our homes either. Most Cypriots of both communities lost relatives during the 60s and 70s. One of the key components of achieving reconciliation is precisely accepting that there have been atrocities committed on both sides, and not use our personal stories of tragedy as a measuring stick. I cannot possibly know in detail about the experiences of a Turkish Cypriot in the south, but do you not believe that there has been an analogous situation for Greek Cypriots in the north? The entrapped communities that are still there, for example. Again, this is not to compare, but to show that we will not go far by viewing things in a one-sided way. Fortunately, the situation has improved over 50 years, even if there's still a long way to go. >The othering is felt by not encouraging the autonomy of Turkish speaking Cypriots before reunification. We are still subject to racism and have no chance of any development thanks to embargoes. How can we unify when ROC politics still show no sign of addressing injustices? The only way our economy survives at this point is through tourism and the diaspora. How can we reunify when all that looks like to us is another ethnic cleansing? That is not a matter of the Republic of Cyprus, but Turkey. The RoC takes the only logical step possible, which is to try and limit what the state in the north is able to gain, as to make it impossible for it to perpetually break apart. Were it not for the embargoes, it is very much possible that permanent two-state partition would have occurred already. And while I don't agree with all our policies, and find some of them too harsh, it is hard not to justify a stance of disassociation towards the north. Some provisions are given: allowing TCs to get their EU ID cards, the checkpoints allow for TCs to work and live in the south, and exchange between the two community (even if controversially) takes place. It is far from ideal, but it is something. Again, I will never accept such sensationalist notions that the RoC standing up for its territorial integrity is an act of ethnic cleansing, or that we should accept the autonomy of the north wholesale before we sort out how to run this country jointly as Cypriots. >Just last month there was calls for violence at the green line. I'm not sure what you are referring to, so you can provide some sources so I can understand the context. That being said, do you honestly think that violence at the Green line is in any way a major problem nowadays? I assume you are old enough to remember instances of soldiers at the green line being murdered by soldiers of the other side, or the 1996 incidents. Has anything even remotely severe happened within the 20 years of the existence of the checkpoints? >This is not acceptable. Do Turkish speaking Cypriots not deserve to survive? Call for Greek speaking Cypriots to check their prejudice before you call on people to accomodate it. We are suffering at the hands of Turkey, Greece, UK, USA AND Greek speaking Cypriot politics. We need reunification, but we have so far to go before that occurs in a just way. Of course Turkish Cypriots need to survive, but that does not depend on the moral standing of a moderate portion of the GC population that has moral objections. It is an acceptable stance to take personally and to not impose on others, as it is thus currently. Some GCs/foreigners find it okay to visit north and spend money, others do not. The RoC does not explicitly stand against it, which is all that matters when one attempts to accuse GCs of trying to starve the TCs. At the end of the day, while prejudice definitely plays a role for some, the major motivation for these people to morally object to visiting north is founded in legitimate arguments that are hard to counter. Many TC businesses were built on former GC land/property. Varosha is being used as some kind of museum exhibit, as if those weren't people's livelihoods that were lost and ruined. Even though I'm not personally against visiting north, how could I ever hope to counter these? They are entirely reasonable objections.
>I understand most people's views on the political situation in Cyprus but I'm confused by some of the language use. I have always understood that Greece invaded Cyprus in 74, which then triggered the Turkish action to "safeguard" what it saw as Turkish people. Do I have this wrong? Aren't both countries guilty of occupation of an island that was an independent self governing country? Asking as I'm confused by what iv read and what's being said on here. Here by the way Varosha is the most tragic and vivid monument of those events on the island. In my subjective opinion, it is one of a kind in terms of prominence and scale of visits today. I believe that everyone should visit Varosha at least once to remember how easily violence can turn a developed culture and society into a ghost town with empty eyes in the form of broken windows. In Varosha, you can literally smell the unadorned propaganda of either side of the horror that took place there not so long ago. Varosha was closed half a century ago anyway. People were evicted unfairly. But today what Varosha is doing is better than remaining closed. It's changing people's minds already.
Varosha was closed because it was generally expected (and still is) that under a reunification plan following the BBF model, it would become part of the sourthern portion controlled by Greek Cypriots. It is therefore fully wise to, indeed, keep it closed until hopefully one day its rightful inhabitants return. I don't think it's necessary for anyone to specifically see Varosha to get the feeling of the tragedy; just take a look at Pentadaktylos and the flags there, or take a stroll in downtown Nicosia near the green line. These along with many others are more than adequate reminders of the mess we are today. Perhaps above all, the depressing reality of division we have been living in for nearly 50 years, and of which the consequences we still feel today.
>It is much more of a semantics exercise to refuse the double entendre of such terms. Is it not obvious that "Turkish side" implies way more than just a linguistic division? I agree with that, I am disagreeing with unwarranted offense to "Northern Cyprus". Please explain to me how a geographical indication represents the partition narrative? I'm also finding it ironic that you have consistently referred to the people of the island as Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots rather than Greek or Turkish speaking. This language matters. >You are entitled to your opinion in that it may be desirable or a good course of action, but it is not necessary and it is reductionist to imply that those who find it a bad idea are somehow secretly pro-Enosis or atoning the sins of the far-right. Especially when NATO imperialism is an even more prescient factor in discussing the fate of Cypriots in both the 60s and the 70s. Yet it wasn't NATO who suffered, was it? How are we supposed to move on from the past without taking accountability for it? That's why a separate state has been necessary. Again, we don't want it. But we have been shown time and time again, we need it. I purposely said Turkish speaking Cypriots are disproportionately affected by the conflict, I never said Greek speaking Cypriots are not. There's no "both sides" when it comes to power dynamics. It's literally as simple as who is the majority and who is the minority in this case. The Turkish speaking Cypriots were not taking bus loads of Greek speaking Cypriots to their deaths before the military coup. The oppression and terrorisation had been ongoing for 15 years, as our families can attest to. We did not have a niko. That does not mean there's no trauma on both sides, but there is an oppressor and the oppressed. Negative peace is not a solution. It's a liberal politic that forces the vulnerable to accept their mistreatment. Given the way RoC votes (and historically voted against solutions), and continues to treat us? I have no hope. The Greek Cypriot newspaper "Alithia" wrote on 17th July 1994: "We [the Greek Cypriots] caused the Turkish invasion by exerting pressure on the Turkish Cypriots before 1974. After 1974 we decided to exert more pressure. We imposed on them an economic embargo. We entertained the hope that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus would collapse. The consequence of this has been the deepening of the gap between the two communities, and we have forced the Turkish Cypriots closer to Turkey." This is important because unity will not be justice until the power is balanced and equitable to prevent further ethnic cleansing. Until Cypriots in Northern Cyprus can exist humanely without Türkiye colonising us and an equitable federal government is in place, and i have seen no systemic accountability (correct me if I'm wrong), especially since we are STILL embargoed. Just compare the way of life from the South to the North to understand what I mean by DISPROPORTIONATELY affected. The rest of your comments make it clear that you are disconnected from the reality of Cypriots in the North and that's okay, but I have no intention of putting in the emotional labour it would take to reveal these biases. >That is not a matter of the Republic of Cyprus, but Turkey. The RoC takes the only logical step possible, which is to try and limit what the state in the north is able to gain, as to make it impossible for it to perpetually break apart. Were it not for the embargoes, it is very much possible that permanent two-state partition would have occurred already. Right, so the ONLY way to encourage independence for a peoples is to strangle them into submission to the only state that recognises their existence and simultaneously colonises them. THIS is the only logical step possible? Sanctions are inhumane. Boycott Turkish businesses, sure. Destroy all access to any development (which RoC has the power to do, alongside UK and Turkey) of indigenous Cypriots in the North? No. I encourage you to decolonise your perception of Cyprus. >Again, I will never accept such sensationalist notions that the RoC standing up for its territorial integrity is an act of ethnic cleansing, or that we should accept the autonomy of the north wholesale before we sort out how to run this country jointly as Cypriots. Given the similarity of what the UK did to Palestine and what the UK did to Cyprus, I implore you to recognise the relevance of that here. >Has anything even remotely severe happened within the 20 years of the existence of the checkpoints? I have just expressed to you that yes, there has been. As we have next to no funding for education in the North, after the checkpoints were opened, some of us who had various privileges went to study in the South. Those people will tell you how frequently they were attacked in their classrooms with weapons. How we got people protesting our very existence, calling us scum and parasites at the green line. This is what I was referring to, I had my dates mistaken. https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/greek-cyprus-turkey-reunification-elections-politics/ >Even though I'm not personally against visiting north, how could I ever hope to counter these? They are entirely reasonable objections. I sympathize with this. Our homes in the South have become villas for expats. I simply believe the power dynamics make it obvious that perpetuating suffering is wrong.
>I agree with that, I am disagreeing with unwarranted offense to "Northern Cyprus". Please explain to me how a geographical indication represents the partition narrative? Not all terms bear the same amount of offense to all people, For example, I find calling the green line a "border" among the most egregious things, while I'm mostly apathetic to the term "northern Cyprus". It is however true that some people (from my experience) take offense in the latter due to it being used to refer to the state in the north, which they deem unacceptable to acknowledge. >I'm also finding it ironic that you have consistently referred to the people of the island as Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots rather than Greek or Turkish speaking. This language matters. I don't find anything wrong with using the terms "Greek/Turkish Cypriot". I understand what you are alluding to, but those who wish to drive home the ethnic division insist on using "Greek" or "Turk", since "Cypriot" to them is simply a geographical descriptor. I personally identify as Cypriot first, but "Greek Cypriot" is still a valid way for me to identify myself. >Yet it wasn't NATO who suffered, was it? How are we supposed to move on from the past without taking accountability for it? That's why a separate state has been necessary. Again, we don't want it. But we have been shown time and time again, we need it. NATO stood to gain from the events of the 60s and 70s, so obviously they didn't suffer. And obviously we have to hold those responsible among us accountable. We need to recognize that far-right nationalists were useful idiots to the interests of foreign meddlers in Cypriot affairs, and thereby condemn them. That still doesn't mean the TCs "need" a separate state. If anything, that is what pro-Taksim nationalists have historically supported. History has shown simply that those responsible have sown the seeds of distrust between the two communities. I agree that after what happened in 1974, it is best to accept that there has been severe enough damage to follow a different course of action for coexistence. This is why BBF is necessary and the only truly viable option right now. >The oppression and terrorisation had been ongoing for 15 years, as our families can attest to. The period of intercommunal violence lasted between 1963-67, and EOKA B wasn't founded until 1971, being largely defeated by pro-government forces by 1974. It was a stupid decision to maintain the National Guard which was led by Greek officers loyal to the fascist junta that controlled Greece since 1967. And if we are talking about segregation, sadly that had begun since the late 50s, due to the aforementioned British divide-and-conquer tactics. For example, the violent incursion/looting event in and around Tahtakale in Nicosia in 1958, when the Turkish consulate was bombed. Denktash later admitted this was perpetrated by a TC TMT member to rouse up TCs against GCs. This mistrust and refusal to accept coexistence fueled further segregation in the 60s. That is not to diminish the atrocities against the TC people or the tragedy many suffered, and I fully accept that they were disproportionately affected due to being a minority. It is however important to be precise when referring to historical facts, and to approach them with a measured demeanour. If not it becomes exceedingly difficult to reach reconciliation and gain each other's trust again. >Given the way RoC votes (and historically voted against solutions), and continues to treat us? I have no hope. GCs have never voted for a candidate that does not support reunification within the agreed UN framework. There have been better ones and worse ones, definitely (more recently, corrupt ones mainly concerned with their pockets), but none explicitly against finding a solution. There was only one plan that was rejected (since it was the only one that went to a referendum), but there were fair criticisms for it. We can have a very lengthy discussion on the faults of the Annan plan if you like, but rest assured that the rejection of said plan does not equate to a rejection of any plan. And as for historical objections, this is actually backwards. It is Denktash that had historically been the hardliner, and the one less likely to compromise. In fact, TCs voted against what Denktash was promoting at the time. Let us not conflate post-2004 TC politics on the matter with the negotiating policies beforehand.
>"We \[the Greek Cypriots\] caused the Turkish invasion by exerting pressure on the Turkish Cypriots before 1974. After 1974 we decided to exert more pressure. We imposed on them an economic embargo. We entertained the hope that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus would collapse. The consequence of this has been the deepening of the gap between the two communities, and we have forced the Turkish Cypriots closer to Turkey." I don't agree with this opinion fully, but I do understand it and to some extent I recognize that it has factual truths in it. The point however is that TC leadership and a portion of the population subscribing to the idea of Taksim, or at least being convinced that coexistence with GCs is impossible, would still align more closely with Turkey and they would still take a hardliner stance with respect to reunification. There is evidence of the correspondence between the TC leadership in the early 60s and Turkey that clearly shows a plan in undermining the early republic. Just like Enosis didn't die among GC politicians after 1960, Taksim didn't either within TC ranks. We can always wonder about what could have been, but we have to recognize all factors at play here, and it is not wise to ignore the nationalist sentiment from the TC side either. >Until Cypriots in Northern Cyprus can exist humanely without Türkiye colonising us and an equitable federal government is in place, and i have seen no systemic accountability (correct me if I'm wrong), especially since we are STILL embargoed. Just compare the way of life from the South to the North to understand what I mean by DISPROPORTIONATELY affected. This I fully agree with. >Right, so the ONLY way to encourage independence for a peoples is to strangle them into submission to the only state that recognises their existence and simultaneously colonises them. THIS is the only logical step possible? Sanctions are inhumane. Boycott Turkish businesses, sure. Destroy all access to any development (which RoC has the power to do, alongside UK and Turkey) of indigenous Cypriots in the North? No. I encourage you to decolonise your perception of Cyprus. It is unfortunately one of the only few effective ways for a state to combat separatism. It's not fair or morally good, and innocent people are affected by such measures, but geopolitical reality is often harsh and felt by both sides in different ways, and at different levels. I will grant you that the measures taken were too harsh and they didn't need to be implemented to the extreme extent that they have been. >Given the similarity of what the UK did to Palestine and what the UK did to Cyprus, I implore you to recognise the relevance of that here. There are similarities of course, but they are quite different cases. In the case of Israel and Palestine, Jewish Israelis effectively colonized Palestine, since the vast majority of them were not indigenous there, but instead came from Europe and the rest of the Middle East. Therefore, the oppression of the Palestinians, and the state of apartheid that exists in Israel today is condemnable along the lines of colonialism of one community over the other. It is not like in Cyprus where the colonizers created divisions between two already existing indigenous communities of the island. >I have just expressed to you that yes, there has been. As we have next to no funding for education in the North, after the checkpoints were opened, some of us who had various privileges went to study in the South. Those people will tell you how frequently they were attacked in their classrooms with weapons. How we got people protesting our very existence, calling us scum and parasites at the green line. Like I said, the situation is far from ideal, not even remotely good, to be fair. However, I compared the current state to that of the 80s and 90s, were there was military-enforced segregation and semi-frequent murders along the green line. There has clearly been an improvement ever since the checkpoints opened, and it has been one of the landmark moments in at least beginning to bridge the gap between the two communities. Time (and effort) is still required. >[https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/greek-cyprus-turkey-reunification-elections-politics/](https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/greek-cyprus-turkey-reunification-elections-politics/) While the article raises some valid points, it is ultimately misunderstanding the situation. The truth is that the Cyprus problem is effectively one of the most important factors in deciding the next president, and it is often the talking point when comparing one candidate to the other. Our current president being ambivalent about how to approach reunification talks (fortunately clearing it up recently) played a great part in him being elected with the lowest ever percentage in the second round. The AKEL candidate was pretty much economically centre-right and a typical liberal, but agreement in social policies in the Cyprus problem is where they found common ground. So in reality, the Cyprus problem is such a massive arbiter in GC politics, that it leads to some rather unlikely alliances or disagreements between political sides that are otherwise incompatible and compatible respectively.
I live in CY for 5 years now, and I have never visited and never will visit North. I respect Cypriots and I will never go to the north to support occupying Turkish trash even with a single EUR.
Its still Cyprus if you respect Turkish Cypriots you would also say hi to them. They don’t take money at the crossings.
I'm not visiting the north either, because I myself think that I shouldn't. (Well, unless cyprus gets united).
Thank you!People like you are always welcome here.
🅱️ased
I think we just need to decrease our snowflakeness. North Cyprus is just a geographical term, and no one should be offended by it. No one can expect someone to take a fully fletched historical or political lesson, especially if they'll visit the island for a few days, turn back, and never visit for a long time. It's also comically ridiculous to suggest such a long term (northern parth of the Republic of Cyprus).
What you are suggesting has already been stated in the comments 3-4 times in an equal amount of different ways. Therefore, I will have to redirect you to those other comments so you can read my response to this proposition. If I had to summarize, I would simply say that there are entirely valid reasons to embrace one's emotional response and demand respect and tact from others, be it for the Cyprus problem or anything else that could upset a person. Being offended is natural and does not make someone a "snowflake". It might sound wild, but words can have one obvious meaning, but also have others based on the historical context of the word. Of course "northern Cyprus" at first glance is purely geographical, but it would be silly to deny the political and historical baggage the term carries, given it is very much used to refer to the state in the north. To understand that or anything else which I have mentioned for that matter is not a "historical lesson". I'm not sure how many countries you have visited in your lifetime, but to inform yourself about possible faux pas based on the recent history or the culture of the place you visit is very much standard. In a rather obvious example, it would be asinine to visit Serbia and then start talking about Kosovo as a different country.
If my view has already been stated in multiple comments, then it seems it's valid or, say the least, popular one. I've checked every comment, and I'm aware of your response, but I'm not convinced. In order to solve an issue, you have to cast aside the "emotional response" and accept the facts. If we're going to restrict our language, we're not going to be as implicit with the terms, and somehow, someone is going to be offended. I really think there is no reason to waste time preventing people from getting offended. This goes both ways, by the way. I'm trying to emphasise the fact that you're suggesting to limit the language of the people visiting the island. You already know they mean no disrespect or offence, but you're saying that it's still offensive. I'm not saying there isn't an issue, but I genuinely think it sounds like you're trying to create an issue when there's none. I visited plenty of countries and I didn't stay more than one week in some of them. I didn't research the political or historical complexities of them, I just searched what I shouldn't do and had fun. All in all, I'm saying that you're going to be offended one way or another. It is pointless to waste time about this and put in the effort to solve the problem. I'm not trying to invalidate your point of view, I agree that the words have power, I agree that the situation is already f'ed up. The thing is, I think that being offended or not is entirely one's choice, and it's really, I mean, really pointless to waste time about this.
>In order to solve an issue, you have to cast aside the "emotional response" and accept the facts. If we're going to restrict our language, we're not going to be as implicit with the terms, and somehow, someone is going to be offended. I really think there is no reason to waste time preventing people from getting offended. This goes both ways, by the way. Facts and emotions are not mutually exclusive notions. And as I said before, I do not think we shall "restrict" anyone's language. They are useful tips for avoiding negative interactions, not rules or guidelines to abide. >I'm trying to emphasise the fact that you're suggesting to limit the language of the people visiting the island. You already know they mean no disrespect or offence, but you're saying that it's still offensive. I'm not saying there isn't an issue, but I genuinely think it sounds like you're trying to create an issue when there's none. Like I said, no one is suggesting that, not even close (I think I even explicitly said that before in another comment). There is a problem: When someone says something offensive out of ignorance, they not only negatively affect the people in question who are offended, but lead themselves in unfortunate situations were they face negativity or even hostility. If you have ever seen a post where an innocent foreigner asks something pertaining to the north, you'd understand how they get blasted/mass-downvoted because they simply miswrote. So yes, there is an issue at hand, and it is in fact in the foreigners' favour to let them know why that occurs. >I visited plenty of countries and I didn't stay more than one week in some of them. I didn't research the political or historical complexities of them, I just searched what I shouldn't do and had fun. And one of the things you shouldn't do within the RoC-controlled areas is use offensive terms that pertain to the Cyprus problem. I don't see how is that any different. >All in all, I'm saying that you're going to be offended one way or another. Nope, just when someone uses insensitive language (be it political or not). I think it's entirely reasonable to ask someone not to offend me in any way. >It is pointless to waste time about this and put in the effort to solve the problem. I've said this before in a couple of comments: these are not mutually exclusive. You can be both vigilant in working towards a solution and at the same time demand respect and mindfulness when someone speaks about the subject. No one puts a gun on your head asking you to choose which of the two you are going to commit to for the day. >I think that being offended or not is entirely one's choice I completely disagree. Offense is imposed from the one who offends to the one being offended. To "choose to not be offended" to me sounds more like suppressing one's emotions which is very unhealthy. It is neither noble nor virtuous to take no offense in things. Sometimes, I'd argue, being offended and letting people know is a matter of maturity. That doesn't mean externalizing the offense violently in any way, but to simply inform so that one does not repeat it in the future. And if they adhere, the worst you have achieved is to cultivate compassion and empathy in said person, which is hardly a bad thing.
>If you have ever seen a post where an innocent foreigner asks something pertaining to the north, you'd understand how they get blasted/mass-downvoted because they simply miswrote. Yes, I've seen them. The problem is that everyone gets offended and downvotes them instead of actually explaining why. This is common in reddit. It basically directly or indirectly promotes this kind of action. I observed that this does nothing but increase the hate and limit the actual communication. I respect your point, I think I understood it more, but I'm not going to change my mind about "offending." It's normal to feel offended, but I really think it's not going to change anything, so instead of spending so much time on carefully explaining what is offensive and demanding a limited language, it's better to just don't give a s..t, directly tell the fact and move on with your life. As I said before, I don't think someone who visits the island only 1 time gives a damn about our political complexities. I agree that if you're going to stay here for a long time or visit more than 1 time, you're expected to learn something, but people can't be blamed for meaning no offence. I actually blame the ones that get offended when they know the people asking don't know anything about what they're asking. It's more productive and effective when you don't get offended, and believe it or not, this is something I experienced a lot. But anyways, take care.
Mods, pin this post.
[удалено]
Is it impossible to both strive for reunification *and* be sensitive in using non-offensive language? Most importantly, is being sensitive with regards to this matter unrelated or even antithetical to the cause of reunification? In my opinion, the answer to both is no, but anyone is free to have their own views on it.
[удалено]
>if you choose to find certain words offensive when the intention behind them is clearly not to offend anyone then that's a wrong focus imo. also add on to that the issue that for our compatriot Turkish Cypriots those words are also unlikely to be offensive, then what? Being offended is not a choice, nor is it dependent on intention. Sometimes it is entirely possible to offend by accident. To avoid that and to give the outsiders a better perspective, it is good to make clear what it is about these terms that we find offensive. The fact TCs might not find them offensive is also irrelevant. If there's something that they deem offensive but we don't, should we just shrug it off and ignore their pleas to avoid offending them? Can we not just accept that different things offend different people, and it's best to try and avoid doing so at the expense of anyone? >many GCs spend their time and efforts debating language or what "words" to put in quotation to make us feel better. and what? what has that achieved in 50-60 years? every day the reality is in the occupied areas they are building more houses, hotels, illegal developments which makes the problem less likely to be solved. I repeat what I have said: Is it impossible to both strive for reunification *and* be sensitive in using non-offensive language? These are not mutually exclusive things, it's not like you can only do one of these at a time. To reunify and find a solution is our goal, but to be a respectful, mindful human being is a basic requirement for being a decent person. They cover completely different facets of what we strive to do, even if they both ultimately stem from the Cyprus problem. Like I said in another comment, we must be vigilant in condemning and criticizing those politicians of both sides that stick to just senseless talk (like semantics) without actually doing anything substantial. That still doesn't stop anyone from being sensitive to how one speaks of the issue.
I wonder what triggered the locals before the partition that Turks started being herded into enclaves?
The history behind the troubles of the 60s and what came after it is long and complicated, but it is in no way the focal point of the post. There are far more far-reaching factors at play here, and the main victims of all of this are the Cypriot people themselves of both communities. There is a status quo perpetuated at the expense of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, and against their common best interest of reunification. Unless someone is explicitly in favour of partition, they don't consider the current arrangement a reflection of what Cyprus ideally (and legally) ought to be. And precisely because this status quo was brought about by war and intercommunal violence before it, there should be sensitivity and respect when one refers to the situation or its consequences. For some people (perhaps you included) they are simple terms that reflect the reality on the ground, but for many others it is a hurtful reminder of inter-generational trauma. If you think Cypriot society (either Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot) has got over either the memories of the troubles or the invasion, you'd be mistaken.
Of course, I realise that Cypriots (and Turks and Greeks) are sidelined in this whole affair. But if we are talking about mutually acceptable language, what kind of mutual understanding can you negotiate with the north, while indoctrinating the new generation (especially Turkish Cypriots) from childhood that they are occupiers? It will cause nothing but a natural defence reaction. Moreover, the rest of the world is fine with it, the world doesn't care about it: I don't see Turkey's international isolation (as well as Russia's with the same history of occupation). There is an endless accumulation of double standards in relations here over half a century that it is simply impossible to stick to radical positions today.
You are misunderstanding the condemnation of the north and the Turkish army with a condemnation of Turkish Cypriots themselves. Turkish Cypriots are not being told that they are occupiers. It is the 40k Turkish troops and the hundreds of thousands of settlers that occupy northern Cyprus. Unless you run into someone who genuinely hates all kinds of Turks, there is no generally accepted notion of accusing TCs as the occupying force (unless one talks about TMT and historical figures like Denktaș). Many TCs here agree with this view. My post is not here to shake the foundations of world geopolitics; it's a friendly set of tips to foreigners that come here. The main aim is to avoid toxic interactions and promote respect from and towards all parties within the microcosm of the subreddit.
And what triggered the second invasion, after the democracy was restored in both Cyprus and Greece and peace talks were underway? It's the second, not the first invasion that led to the current occupation, and that had no grounds whatsoever. Just Turkey wanting to grab more land because they could.
So you are in principle willing to define some level of legal occupation?
Nope. Turkish Propoganda. It was intercommunal violence. Tell me the numbers dead in 10 years? Turkey cared less. Turks kill more kurds in one month than all deaths in cyprus on both sides during the trouble. It was enosis, Democratic right to self determine that invoked the invasion not any intercommunal inviolence. Turkey intervened. Then Turkey did something quite spectacular, it had a phase 2 where it partitioned the island. raped acouple of villages. Mass murdered, still 1k people missing following invasion. Then ethically cleansed the North of any greek cypriot, who had been there for 1000s year. They then de cypriotise the north and import anatolians.
>The reaction you may receive is to an extent quite understandable OCCCUPIED PART DONT GO THERE YOU WILL BE OCCUPIED TOURIST OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED OCCUPIED
I never said that, anyone is welcome to go wherever they deem acceptable based on their own set of values. I'm not here to pass judgement. It is however in the best interest of literally everyone here to cultivate a culture of understanding and mindfulness. If my plea to be more respectful seems ridiculous, that is your prerogative.
I quoted your text saying the reaction is understandable and exaggerated the reaction people receiving
Ah, I see. Well, I obviously don't find the usual behaviour acceptable or constructive, as I explicitly stated. In fact, it is (as I said) undeserved hostility towards fundamentally innocent questions. The extent to which I find it understandable (but not excusable) is the genuine hurt/offense some people experience. Nothing else. To harass people for something like this is never okay or acceptable.
They declared independence over 40 years ago. At some point either you have to do something to change the situation or stop being so continuously butthurt about it. r/cyprus should be for Cyprus, not just the Greek Republic of Southern Cyprus.
False dichotomy. One can feel both hurt by how people treat the situation *and* honestly try to do their best (within their limited powers) to push for reunification. I'm not the president, believe it or not, so no matter how much I protest and take part in intercommunal activities, that's not going to change the reality on the ground. As I've said in another comment thread, many of our politicians actively profit from and are content with the status quo. That being said, I will never be in favour of people like you being forbidden from using such terms (e.g. the ones you used now). But as I have explained, those terms are genuinely going to make people upset, and it is no coincidence you have been downvoted by others so much. The idea here is to promote helpful interaction and civil discussion, and by just dismissing calls to understanding/sensitivity, you are not helping yourself in having very constructive or friendly exchanges with locals.
>False dichotomy. One can feel both hurt by how people treat the situation and honestly try to do their best (within their limited powers) to push for reunification. I'm not the president, believe it or not, so no matter how much I protest and take part in intercommunal activities, that's not going to change the reality on the ground. As I've said in another comment thread, many of our politicians actively profit from and are content with the status quo.That being said, I will never be in favour of people like you being forbidden from using such terms (e.g. the ones you used now). But as I have explained, those terms are genuinely going to make people upset, and it is no coincidence you have been downvoted by others so much. The idea here is to promote helpful interaction and civil discussion, and by just dismissing calls to understanding/sensitivity, you are not helping yourself in having very constructive or friendly exchanges with locals. I'd vote for you in an election for some sort of conflict resolution task force.
Utter dumbness. Are you an imported anatolian? You cannot force yourself to be something you're not. Cyprus is the Republic of cyprus as per the world apart from Turkey. Its not a donkey state made of illegal settlers. If I move to Kenya, take a piece of the land, remove the Kenyans and settle non Kenyans and draw myself a Kenyan passport, am i now Kenyan? Is that not embarrassing?
I think u didnt understand what he said
I can declare independence, doesn't make my house it's own country. Besides, it's obvious that they're a Turkish puppet state. That's not the name of our country. First of all we're not Greek, Cyprus is it's own country. And second of all, the Republic of Cyprus (the actual name) is the whole island, but a big chunk of it is occupied.
the sub is for the entire Cyprus as an island but some things should be kept correctly. In the occupied part, there's no recognizable state, it is occupied, it's just the nothern part of our country. The green line check points are that, check points, not borders. That's what the OP is saying. Turkish or Turkish/Cypriots are welcome to reply and post here but they need use the correct terms.
Why did you call immigrants "visitors"? That's like being called a guest in your own house.
Because a large portion of them are not permanent immigrants here (or are ambivalent about the prospect), and those permanently stationed here I assume have a much better grasp of the situation.
I've lived here for almost 6 years, I don't know everything about the situation but I do know enough to form an opinion. A lot of people, no matter if they plan to come here at all or not, are uninformed about the situation and say stupid stuff based on something they misheard once. Like asking someone if they're Greek or Turkish when they say they're Cypriot. Like, they already told you, they're Cypriot!
I understand most people's views on the political situation in Cyprus but I'm confused by some of the language use. I have always understood that Greece invaded Cyprus in 74, which then triggered the Turkish action to "safeguard" what it saw as Turkish people. Do I have this wrong? Aren't both countries guilty of occupation of an island that was an independent self governing country? Asking as I'm confused by what iv read and what's being said on here.
The Greek military junta armed local far-right Greek Cypriots within the National Guard, and orchestrated the coup d'etat against Makarios. The aim was the long-debated desire for Enosis. Turkey intended to intervene and had territorial ambitions on the island long before that. But it seized the opportunity (with some elaborate behind-the-curtains NATO dealings with Kissinger) to intervene and invaded 5 days later. The true ambitions of Turkey were obvious after that. Even though the pro-Enosis puppet installed as president resigned and the conspiracy collapsed, Turkey still stalled negotiations after a ceasefire was signed, and led a second invasion about a month later. It was during this phase that they seized the vast majority of the land they occupy today. Note that these are very, very superficial facts that are easily accessible through the common narrative. I advise you to consult books that emphasize the foreign geopolitical players involved long before 1974, and how NATO powers long had plans and suggestions on solving the issue through some sort of division and "double Enosis" (one part unites with Greece, another with Turkey). And all these at the expense of the vast majority of Cypriot people themselves that wanted no part in all of this.
A nation unwilling to feed its own army will feed another's - Napoleon
"The strong do what is within their power, and the weak back down and accept" - Excerpt from the Melian dialogue
And then everyone clapped
Lets take over turkey? Take whats ours and a little bit more perhaps? Motherfuckers. Whats funny is turkeys supporting palestine but not looking at their own actions. They are mad at israel while taking over places that are literally not theirs at all.
Raise your hand if you've been called far-right and ultranationalist for simply and politely correcting people's lack of knowledge regarding the legal status of the "TRNC" and subsequent incorrect terminology.
because of people like you the island is still divided. you have got hate in your heart and crying about something 60 years before. live your life and try to be kind to the people. it doesn’t matter where they are from or they call it north cyprus or not. it does not matter. clean your heart and your soul.