From: schoinas@fox.cs.wisc.edu (Yannis Schoinas)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Subject: Re: Turkish Logic (was Re: Understanding...)
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:28:03 GMT
Organization: U of Wisconsin Madison - Computer Sciences

sadi@physics1 (Sadi Turgut) writes:

>In article <schoinas.718399218@cs.wisc.edu> schoinas@fox.cs.wisc.edu (Yannis Schoinas) writes:
>> > How about Enosis?  Isn't it based on Megali Idea? 
>> 
>> Strictly speaking you are not right. It would be more correct
>> to say that they have common roots as they evolved in the greek 
>> psyche, the notion of 'rhomaikon'. Hmm, I am afraid I cannot 
>> avoid writing an article on the subject.

> I didn't have the intention of discussing "fine philosophical
>details." :-). Actually, it would be valuable if you did so.
>However, I don't know how much relevance does it have to the
>current topic. Problem is whether 'Megali Idea'  is supported
>today by some people, or else, does it have some effects in
>today's Greek politics. In my opinion, Enosis was visualized
>as part of a larger picture by many.

I was kind of busy lately so I couldn't find the time to respond 
to this article. But I did follow your articles and I was kind
of dissappointed of you. So, I am probably wasting my time now
but that's o.k. It is meant to be wasted :-). If you consider
us to be your enemies, I would advice you to study the history
of the region if for nothing else than to avoid being out of
context. Of course, you might use this net as a means to waste
your time. In that case, you are doing quite well(and certainly
you are not alone, I do it all the time,:-)).

You must realize that it wasn't my intention either to discuss
fine philoshophical details. I was just trying to suggest to
you that things are much more complicated than the simplistic
view that you were presenting. You must understand that the
unifying force, the basis for the national identity of the 
people we know as the Greeks was the memory of the days of 
the roman empire. 'Megali idea' sprung out of this breeding
ground and played a major role on the politics of the Greek
state until 1922.

On the other hand, despite the common ground the case of
Cyprus can be easily described using the modern notion of
democracy and self-determination. If the Greeks of the
island wanted to be united with Greece, it was their right
since they were the majority in the island. But the discussion 
on Cyprus can go on forever (and it does in this newsgroup) 
without a definite answer or an understanding from the two
sides involved. You may ask why should all the Greeks want
to be united and at this point you may find a role for the
centuries' old greek dreams. 


>"Cyprus must become the springboard for the dreams of Alexander
> the Great in the Orient."

> George Papandreou, 1964

Probably, he was out of context. The myth of Alexander no matter 
how much alive in popular culture was nothing compared to the memory 
of the roman empire.

>> >Also, what does 'pan-Hellenic' mean? 
>> 
>> pan == all

> Thanks. I always wondered what did this prefix mean? :-). Now,
>what does this this 'all' include? Does it include the Greek
>communities in Australia? US? Turkey? Cyprus? Albania? Does it
>include or exclude the other minorities in Greece? I remember
>one striking example, when Ahmet Zogu has chosen the title
>"King of Albanians" instead of "King of Albania," it caused
>a discomfort in x-YU. The difference is small, but very important.

>I don't know, what exactly this 'pan-Hellenic' means, but I
>am pretty sure, in Turkey, if a party choses a name which includes
>'pan-Turkic' or its variants, then it will be called fascist
>at least. And of course, it will mean varying degrees of
>discomfort in some neighboring states (Greece, Russia, .....)
>when such a party comes to power.
>Tell me I am thinking wrong.

Well, the above reveals more of the turkish politics and
culture than of the meaning of the prefix "pan" in general. 
It's use in Greek is very common as an emphatic. If you
are to argue about the use and meaning of Greek terms, I
would suggest that you should first study Greeks. But
avoid this kind of generalizations.

>> >And why 'Hellen-ism' frequently means 'Greeks'?
>> 
>> Why not? I don't really understand what's your problem with these terms.

> The problem is with "-ism" part. Looking at the different answers
>that I got, I am not sure if Greeks look at it in the same way.
>"-ism" usually means an ideology which is a rather funny way to
>name a people. 

'"-ism" usually means an ideology'? He, he. I am starting to wonder 
if you are a follower of the great ideology of onanism :-). I hope 
you do excuse my little joke but seriously you seem to have a problem 
of understanding greek-originated terms. Your thoughts are based on 
misunderstandings and lack of knowledge on the history of our part
of the world.

>Did you ever hear about the Turkism shops or
>Japanism communities? :-). When people say "Hellenism in US"
>it means "Greek communities in US." Can we say the same thing
>for "Turkism in US." I understand a completely different thing.

> One other way to understand "Hellen-ism" is of course culturally.
>(i.e. Greek culture)
>In that case, it does not have much negative connotations. But, I
>don't understand that way.

Hellenism is if we are to be precise a way to view the world, a philosophy 
of life. I am not sure to what extend it survived through the 20th century.
If I judge from the modern Greek society, I am afraid it hasn't. But again 
your problem with Greek comes from a lack of knowledge of the language.

>> >one wants to evaluate 'Turkish Claims', it should be seen in an equivalent
>> >light with the 'Greek Claims.'
>> 
>> I don't think the case is similar. But I am willing to discuss it, if 
>> you want. 

> Since Greece became independent, its expansion was always against the
>then Ottoman state and not vice versa. The last Anatolian adventure is
>included. Since then, we have exchanged our respective communuties,
>(Muslim/Turk, Greek Orthodox/Greek differences are not much important
>here.) and this was the end of the "territorial ambitions." (or seemed
>to be so.) Now, today the claim is that Turkey has certain ambitions
>toward the Aegean islands and perhaps even towards Greece. Now, if
>you look at near history, it was mostly the other way around, Greece
>was the main agressor. There is no similar case in history, suggesting
>that Turkey has acted in accordance with such claims. In fact, the
>Ottoman state was replaced by a new country with a completely different
>structure and ideology. Now, the point is, one should give me a
>reason why should I believe that Turkey has claims towards Greece, while
>there is no similar example of such in history, and not the other
>way around, while Greece usually expanded against Turkey.

You make the same old mistake of equating the Greek state with the Greeks. 
Thus you fail to realize that the independence of Greece was the end
of the greek dreams of liberation of all the Greeks. We are not talking
about territorial ambitions of the Greek state but rather a demand of
the Greeks all over the Ottoman empire to be liberated. In other words
it's wrong to say that Greece expanded against Turkey.

It is true that the population exchange and the formation of strong
national identities in the Balkans solved the mess that has been 
resulted from the days of the Ottoman empire. And this is exactly
the reason that comparing claims before 1922 and after is like
comparing apples with oranges. True there are boths fruits, but how
many apples make one orange?

The current conflicts between Greece and Turkey can be more easily
fit into the usual cases of aggression between neighbour countries
with power and influence being the driving force rather than millemnia
old aspirations. And in this field, it's the turkish governments that
have shown this aggressive behaviour.

> With respect to exchanged communities, both countries are similar.
>There were Turkish communities in today's Greece (although I don't know
>specifically for different regions) and there were Greeks in today's
>Turkey. If one side feels that exchanges were the end of their
>dreams, then it is more or less the same for the other side.

So, you do understand that the situation today cannot be equated
with the situation before the population exchange. BTW, since
we are talking about this I will ask you a question I asked a few
days ago another turkish netter but he hasn't replied yet.

There are some people in Turkey, living in the Chaykara district 
of Trapizon, that have as their mother tongue the Pontic Greek. 
Since they were(and are) ultra conservatives muslims, they remained 
in Turkey during the population exchange. I was wondering if the 
turkish government provides them with schools where they can study 
in their own language. You see, I had some discussions on preserve 
of mother tongues in the national states.

						 Bye,
						Yannis.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.turkish