Memory Studies Memories of Cyprus a View

Memory Studies

Memories of Cyprus

A View of Greek & Turkish- Cypriots

Memories of the past play an important role in deciding our present and future. They even have a potential of molding the course of our life. Different people sharing the same history may have a different perspective of looking at it; therefore they develop their own different set of memories based on their individual events. This is exactly what happened to the Greeks and Turks as a result of political and military events in Cyprus. Where the centre of this memory is same: Cyprus, how two sides of the same story vary greatly, is quite amusing. Memories about Cyprus affected the lives of Greeks and Turks greatly however they both chose to respond to it differently and that is what changed the course of their lives.

The Turkish invasion of Cyprus, launched on 20 July 1974, was a Turkish military invasion in response to a Greek military junta backed coup in Cyprus. It is known in Turkey as the Cyprus Peace Operation (Turkish: K-br-s Bar?

Harekat?), Cyprus Operation (K-br-s Harekat?) or by its Turkish Armed Forces code name Operation Atilla (Atilla Harekat?). The coup, staged by the Cypriot National Guard in conjunction with EOKA B, deposed the Cypriot president Archbishop Makarios III and installed Nikos Sampson[10] in his place. More than one quarter of the population of Cyprus was expelled from the occupied northern part of the island where Greek Cypriots constituted 80% of the population. There was also a flow of roughly 60,000 Turkish Cypriots from the south to the north after the conflict. The Turkish invasion ended in the partition of Cyprus along the UN-monitored Green Line which still divides Cyprus today. In 1983 the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) declared independence, although Turkey is the only country which recognises it.

As a result of the Turkish invasion, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the demographic structure of the island has been continuously modified as a result of the deliberate policies of the Turks. Following the occupation of Northern Cyprus, civilian settlers from Turkey began arriving on the island. Despite the lack of consensus on the exact figures, all parties concerned admitted that Turkish nationals began systematically arriving in the northern part of the island in 1975. It was suggested that over 120,000 settlers were brought into Cyprus from mainland Turkey. ." In a report prepared by Mete Hatay on behalf of PRIO, the Oslo peace center, it was estimated that the number of Turkish mainlanders in the north who have been granted the right to vote is 37,000. This figure however excludes mainlanders who are married to Turkish Cypriots or adult children of mainland settlers as well as all minors. The report also estimates the number of Turkish mainlanders who have not been granted the right to vote, whom it labels as "transients," at a further 105,000.

In order to understand the history of this event, we need to look into both sides of memories and understand the basic gist of this event:

"A Happy Peace Operation" is considered as a golden chapter in the history of Turkey when the heroes of Turkish Army came to the rescue of the Turks captured in Cyprus who were at the mercy of Greeks. Greeks were portrayed as an example of barbarism and savagery. There are pictures available all around Turkish media which shows the Turkish-Cypriots suffering as a result of mass massacre in Cyprus. This is how this event is portrayed in Turkish notebooks in Schools.

However, we look at the how this event memorized in Greece; we will find a completely opposite picture. This mush hated event is known as "The Conquest of Cyprus by the Ottomans." It is said that the way the sultanate of Turkish Sultan was expanding, it was obvious that Cyprus would be captured one day and furthermore they are responsible for the poverty, the wave of fear and atrocity in that area today.

How can there be two opposite stories about one historic episode. It is history and memory which decide the face and development of the society. Especially in societies which have spent decades captured in fear instigated by the violent conflict which affected the lives of thousands, the history is often colored by their version of memory and pain that the residents of these societies had to go through. In Cyprus, the present and future of this land is highly determined by the memories of these people; it is the remembrance of the past which decides where their present will head as a nation (Anderson, 1983).

Where the lives of common citizens are designed by their memories, the political and social debated on both the sides are also affected by the varied versions of the same events. Due to this hatred towards each other; this small land is divided into two regions: The Turkish Cypriot and the Greek Cypriot. Where the Greek Cypriot is an official state recognized by and part of European Union; the Turkish Cypriot is an independent state which is self-proclaimed. It is known as The Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC) and is recognized by Turkey only.

Since both the states have a long heated history, full of struggle and conflicts; therefore nationalism is the vital notion governing both the states. This is the same theme which designs the political motives as well. Since the citizens and politicians on both the sides have used their history as weapon for their own motives and creating a feeling of belonging with their state; the conflicting memories have made Cyprus's history a bone of contention itself where two different states are in a pursuit of creating a national pedigree out of it, yet both defining opposite facts (Bourdieu and Jean, 1996).

The educational system and other modes of heritage transfer and display such as museums, myths, and common stories told, are expected to devise the memories in the minds of those who haven't witnessed the events themselves (Karahassan and Zembylas, (2006). Hence, the universal historical consciousness in a society is greatly determined by the way these carriers of the past express the historical narrative and depict important past victories and battles. Where memories of the old residents have been responsible for presenting a rather conflicting history of the land of Cyprus, it is noticeable that there are two conflicting trends which can found in it. First, the presentation of historic events regarding Cyprus is very much nationalistically designed in the frame of reference of both the societies (Bowman). Second, the debate regarding the historic reality of Cyprus in historians and sociologists also surrounds the concept of nationalism and its impact on the current situation. Where Nationalism in these regions have managed to emerge as a concept which enjoys an increasing interest, during this process, few historians have managed to prove that their peers and the government of these lands have managed to present a predisposed view of history mainly based on hearsay and no logical evidence. Some studies on history education, memory and nationalism in Cyprus emerged and small groups of professional historians and sociologists have published studies on the notion of nationalism in Cyprus (a.o. Papadakis, Bryant, Christou).

However, this research only touches certain areas of the history and many aspects of it, expressed in education, museums and myths are yet to be explored.

In this regard, the work of Rebecca Bryant is of special interest. Bryant has spent years on unraveling the real history of Cyprus and understanding the feelings that govern the memories of people here and the nationalism prevailing in the societies (Bryant, 2001). She called the Cyprus division, a Cyprus Catastrophe and has spent considerable years on understanding the nostalgia that its residents have been going through. Rebecca Bryant has managed to take first step in understanding the memories of the residents here and how the difference in genders has greatly impacted the definition of the history (Bryant, 2005).

During her work, she managed to use the writings of four different women from almost the same era of Cyprus conflict and used their writings to establish how the two states see a single event differently. Where the stories told by these women have an entirely different theme, their writing styles also present a different notion of feelings towards their land.

Furthermore, in the writings of other writers, it has been observed that official histories of the two states promulgate an entirely different set of attitude towards the memories of the past. Where the Greek Cypriots lay an emphasis on endurance of the past and remembering it the way it is, the Turkish Cypriots have an opposite attitude. Even the nostalgic level of these two histories is completely different. Where the history of Greek Cypriots focus on a desire of returning to their homelands and an expectation to find it the way it was, Turkish Cypriots show no such desire in their history. It is mainly because it is believed that the Cyprus conflict took place to release the Turkish Cypriots from their misery that they had suffered in the hands of Greeks and therefore since they had their share of hardships from 1963-1974, no desire of returning to old days is evident in their history (King and Ladbury (1982).

However, these are official histories and don't not entirely represent the memories of the residents of the two societies. Furthermore, where the history has been twisted for political purposes, one needs to understand that these both the states have a synchronized culture, presenting them to have an identical identity. This is where the concept of Cypriotism emerges. Hence, a combined Cyprus has an ethnic nationalism rather than Turkish or Greek nationalism.

It is further important to note that the official history can also be used to verify limited claims rather than the complete reality. As Bryant mentioned in her work how the official histories were shown to have faulty information which has been used by the politicians to instigate heat in students. There have been historic notion s and idioms which have been misunderstood easily. This is the force which drives the Youngs to have their own understanding of the situation in hand and this understanding is greatly affected by what they remember out of their history which has been told to them.

Hence, unofficial histories, hearsay, memories of the old people provide substantial facts (which are often difficult to be proved) which can affect the face of history greatly where the official history undergoes hegemony. It certainly doesn't present the fact that unofficial histories are more reliable; on the contrary, it can lead to division in political reality and the views of its population which can be hazardous for the population of small state like Cyprus. Furthermore, it can instigate the fact that any reliable history medium has to tell a counter story than the official history (Hannay, 2005).

Simultaneously, some of the anthropologists have also shared a view that rather than just memories of the older culture, it is hegemony which has tendency of making individuals change their cultural preface irrespective of their social and political identity. Similarly, when the individuals belonging to a complex entity like Cyprus present their views about their history. It will be an amalgam of the official and unofficial histories along with hegemonic elements thoroughly mixed with them. Here, the historians need to understand that rather than taking a stance in favor of or against either side of history, it is better to have an open mind while understanding the stories told by people and their impacts on themselves and others. This gives a rather sophisticated view as it makes it easy to understand the history from people's point-of-view rather than scientific perspective.

Where there are two forms of stories that exist about the reality of Cyprus, we need to have a look at the nostalgic view of the similar history. Where Greek version of Cyprus history is based on the feeling of Nostalgia, it emphasizes on the absence of social belonging that existed between the Greek Cypriots and that land and their desire of restoring it the way it was. It is interesting to understand that the Greek version of the story tells what they have been missing mainly because of absence of that land (Christou, 2007).

Now that we are discussing Nostalgia as a basic element governing the attitudes and lives of the Cypriots, it is important not to fall for the debate that who is nostalgic and who isn't. But the main objective is to understand that they bother nostalgic for different set of memories belonging to the same time. Where Greek Cypriots long for the time before the attack and have special feelings for the land; the Turkish-Cypriots feel nostalgic for the solidarity and inter-dependence that prevailed in 1964-1974. It is also important to understand that Greek Cypriots feel nostalgic for the land which was there and certainly not the intercommunal past. However, Turkish Cypriots feel nostalgic not for the past but for the future, they long for the land that is present but not as they perceive it to be, it is this confusion that arises because of human element that makes it easier for us to believe in the official histories as they are (Christou, 2006).

Hence, it is important to understand the relationship between individual and collective past is rather complex to understand, for one may not go against the other, rather local stories can be considered as a reflection of official histories that provide a hegemonic structure in everyday's politics. These local histories or can be called the memories, provide an evidence for the official histories and also they are incorporated in the local lifestyle or everyday consciousness.

It is further important to note how the source of local history is perceived with the reference of gender. It is argued that the stories told by the women are of less reliable nature. In this respect, we once need to evaluate the work of Rebecca Bryant in which she used the stories told by four different women of same time. Each will be interesting to notice how one story differs from the other (Calhoun, 1997).

The first story was told by a Greek Cypriot with the name, "Meropi." She was encouraged by her son to write what she had undergone during the Cyprus conflict. In her work she mentioned how she remembered her grandparents working on the land, and how because of the hardships faced by them and her people, her land became prosperous, how she felt about her home and how she was forced to leave. In her work, she consistently mentioned about the bond of her's and her family with the land and how she misses the old days (Calotychos, 1998). However, in her book she mentioned the Turks only once and that too in a general way. Considering the fact that she was present in the proximity of Turks houses, it was not convincing that she wasn't aware of their attitudes, behaviors and events related to them. However, her side of history is overwhelmed by what she remembers of her past life and what did she felt about her land. Her story has a human element and doesn't provide reliable facts about what the actual course of events was in that particular locality. The theme of sweat and soil is the governing element which controls the memories of old Greek Cypriots (Bryant, 2007).

Another story used in Bryant's work is of an acclaimed teacher "Nitsa" who has written few books and have won awards for them. Of course, as compared to the Meropi, her description of the events is subjective, authentic and has details about the course of events; however few of her books have a fictional element as well. As she tells the story about how the land was once people and how after conflict, the families were separated and reunited, and how Greek Cypriots greatly suffered because of the loss of the land that they were deeply associated with. In Nitsa's work, a proper use of Greek can be seen as a symbol of nationalism where it provides distinction to Greeks from Turks as they are unable to use proper Greek dialect. It is important to note that in some of Nitsa's work, Turkish-Cypriots are considered as peasants who are hardworking, harmless people. Yet, they consider Cyprus to be the possession of Greeks and were actually waiting for their "Masters" to return after the conflict. These two significant factors help us understand how Greeks feel about their land and they remember it to be important part in their daily lives. Nitsa's work shows how Greek Cypriots long for the glorious history that is lost.