Nikolaos.Papanikolopoulos@FAS.RI.CMU.EDU (02/08/90)
Paratheto ta 4 tessera arthra tou Kouvatsou sto sct. An uparxei endiaferon,
mporo na stelno taktika endiaferonta arthra pou emfanizontai sto sct-sgt.
H antigrafi egine xoris tin adeia tou Kouvatsou. Gi auto kai den
grafo prosopika sxolia.
*************************************************************************
ARTHRO 1
**************************************************************************
Article 1617 of soc.culture.turkish:
Path:
pt.cs.cmu.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-wink
en!decwrl!shelby!neon!IBM1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU!DK0A%LEHIGH.BITNET
From: DK0A%LEHIGH.BITNET@IBM1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU ("Dimitrios Kouvatsos")
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish
Subject: setting the truth straight
Message-ID: <9002060414.AA06219@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 6 Feb 90 04:14:52 GMT
Sender: grossman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Stu Grossman)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 116
X-Unparsable-Date: MON FEB 05, 1990 23.11.39 EST
Ladies and gentlemen,
I have been watching the lively discussion on Greek-Turkish relations
with interest for several days. I'd like to use this opportunity to
set some things straight. First, a few facts:
1/ Several Greeks refer to the last remnants of the Greek population
of Constantinople (Istanbul) as a "Christian" minority, to reciprocate
for the Moslem minority of Western Thrace. This is an error. The Treaty
of Lausanne specifically denotes a GREEK minority in Constantinople ( I
use this name because that was used at the time and even the Turks use
exclusively the name Istanbul in official papers only since the 1930s )
and a MOSLEM ( NOT Turkish ) minority in W. Thrace. The reason is that
almost all Christians in Constantinople (Istanbul) were Greeks while
only half the Moslems of W. Thrace were of Turkish origin. Nowadays,
the moslem population of W. Thrace consists of 55000 of Turkish origin,
35000 Pomacs (non-Turkish slavic tribe) and about 15000 gypsies. They
are all Greek - and European - citizens with all the rights and obli-
gations this property implies, and if someone feels Turkish the door
to mother Turkey is always open.
2/ On the question of the continental shelf, it is an established
principle of the International Law of the Sea that islands DO HAVE
continental shelf, whether Turkey likes it or not. As CK pointed out,
Britain even got oil-rich shelf in the delineation with Norway because
of the tiny Shetland Islands. Therefore Turkey has no rights whatsoever
behind the line of the easternmost Greek islands. If Turkey believed
it stood a chance, it would have settled for International Court juris-
diction as Greece has done. Because Turkey knows that its position in
the Aegean is unlawful, it is trying to bully Greece and to hell with
the international law ( see CK postings for details on this subject ).
3/ As far as territorial waters are concerned, Greece has a perfect
right, according to international law, to territorial waters of 12
miles and it should already have applied it. Turkey's stand to regard
such an act of basic sovereignty rights (Turkey itself has 12 miles of
territorial waters in its north and south coasts) as a "casus belli"
is simply a part of its intimidation campaign. My personal opinion is
that we should declare 12-mile territorial waters according to the law
of the seas and call their bluff. This would not of course mean that
the western Turkish coast would be cut off - there would be rights of
passage such as in Dardanelles straights or the Gibraltar.
4/ On the question of the arming of the eastern Greek islands, please
see CK's answer. I should only add that we got the Dodecanese from the
Italians in 1947 and we have no obligation at all under the 1923 Lau-
sanne treaty.
It is really a very enlightening fact that the 1923 Lausanne treaty
was imposed on us Greeks after a devastating military defeat (for which
our supposed World War I allies - against Germany and Turkey - France
and Italy played such a decisive role by massively helping the Turks
and prohibiting a Greek blockade), and yet it is us Greeks who are
defending this treaty against Turkish expansionism. It is true that
Greece's Great Idea policy was expansionist before 1922 - but it is
equally true that Turkey has been trying to bully Greece since then.
I think that Michael Scordilis's quotations of Turkish officials
that prove Turkish imperialism are quite to the point, and no Turk
dared to answer him. What could they say? They only repeat hypocriti-
cal declarations of friendship, and, as CK said, "it looks like we
are offered abundance of friendship feelings on the condition that
we see Turkey's interests as our own"...
One particular Turkish person, Ms. Akkus, shows a characteristic
attitude. Right after her shallow irony about Turks wanting all the
olive trees of the Aegean and even the California olive groves, there
come Michael's devastating quotes. Now she is hopelessly cornered and
does not want to admit it. And the only thing she finds to say is, if
the Turks want the Greek islands why don't they take them - would it
be that hard?!? She seems an educated and intelligent person and she
surely knows it would be very hard, that a Greek-Turkish war would be
a particularly bloody affair and Turkey is not at all assured of win-
ning. Nonetheless she makes that statement just in order to insult the
Greeks who left her and her fellow Turks without arguments. Now that
is the mentality of an Attila, not of a civilized westerner - while
the same person later states Turkey's ambition to enter the EEC, that
very western and very civilized community. To that, we Greeks would
give the same answer we gave to some other Asian barbarians that
claimed our land and sea 2500 years ago: "Molon lave" - come to get
it - if you dare.
On that particular subject, I'd like to say that Turkey will never,
at least in the forseeable future, be admitted to the EEC. For a quite
simple reason: It is NOT European, not so much in geography but in
culture. If even Turkey can be admitted to the EEC, then why not Paki-
stan! Let's be serious. The EEC is the community of European nations
which share the values of the western civilization, forged in their
national souls by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Turkey has
nothing to do with this tradition of humanism and everything to do
with the inhumanity of the Islamic world. It is true that due to the
long Turkish occupation the Greeks were cut off from the development
of the West. But we are the country where, spiritually, the West was
born - we are the people that gave birth not just to science and phi-
losophy but to the rational, free-thinking mind itself. We were the
most civilized nation on Earth for 3000 years - from Mycenean times
until the 15th century, and those who escaped the barbarians then
arriving played a vital role in starting the Renaissance in Italy.
As Reader's Digest, not a pro-Greek publication, stated (Jan.'88):
"There is something special about Greece: It is very difficult to
imagine our civilization without it". Of course, these past achie-
vements are not an excuse for our current mediocrity - but they are
ample evidence, if it were needed, that we are Western, while the
Turks generally are not.
The fact that I'm writing these lines does not mean that I hate
Turks just for being Turkish. It would perhaps be interesting to say
that I live with two Turkish roommates who are very nice guys and we
are getting along pretty well. We I do hate is the spirit of the
Attila - and to understand it, read for example the Spiegel article
on northern Cyprus. Until Turks abandon their expansionist policies
and turn their energies to developing their country, clashes are
inevitable.
We Greeks and Turks have one common interest - and just this one:
to live as neighbors peacefully. We have no other common interests
as some people say. But nations do not choose their neighbors and
ever since the Turkish tribes moved from central Asia towards the
ancient Greek lands 900-1000 years ago we have had to live as nei-
ghbors. Let us make the most of this unhappy situation and live
peacefully. As neighbors - but not together, since we have nothing
in common. As Valery Giscard d' Estaing recently said, "the eastern
border of Greece is the eastern border of Europe - beyond that, it
is no Europe".
Sincerely,
Dimitris Kouvatsos (dk0a@lehigh.bitnet)
******************************************************************************
* ARTHRO 2 *
******************************************************************************
Article 1629 of soc.culture.turkish:
Path:
pt.cs.cmu.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!think!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.
edu!usc!wuarchive!decwrl!shelby!neon!IBM1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU!DK0A%LEHIGH.BITNET
From: DK0A%LEHIGH.BITNET@IBM1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU ("Dimitrios Kouvatsos")
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish
Subject: Re: Setting the truth straight
Message-ID: <9002070039.AA06127@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 7 Feb 90 00:39:21 GMT
Sender: daemon@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Mr Background)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 99
X-Unparsable-Date: TUE FEB 06, 1990 19.34.56 EST
First of all, I'd like to make a correction: At some point in my
posting I meant to say "WHAT I do hate is the spirit of the Attila"
and not "We I do...". Although the mistake is rather self-evident,
I felt I had to state that (otherwise the sentence wouldn't make
sense).
Now some words on the subject. I have neither the intention
nor the time to start a feud with the young lady but I have to
make some points on her answer:
1/ I think it is quite clear that what I refer to as "facts"
are the numbered items at the beginning of my posting and that
after these my personal opinions follow. Therefore, quite obviously,
I do have the courtesy not to put my opinions as facts and her
failure to understand this very simple thing leaves me at a loss.
2/ I would have to tell her that I have studied history perhaps
even better than even she has and I surely know that the Moudros
(not Mondros) cease-fire agreement and the 1920 Sevres treaty are
the ones that followed World War I. It is surprising though that
she doesn't know that the Greek Army landed in Smyrna on May 2,
1919 on a mandate from the victorious WW I allies (Entente) as a
result of the defeat of the allied with the Central Powers Ottoman
Empire and the Greek advance of 1920-21 was again mandated by the
Entente powers in order to enforce the Sevres treaty (of course
the Greeks proposed to do it alone since the others would not send
troops). Therefore the Asia Minor War was a direct result of WW I
and the other allies were obliged to help the Greeks they mandated
there. Not only they didn't, but they weren't even neutral - and
not only they (France and Italy particularly) were massively
supplying the Turks but they were not allowing the Greeks to strike
Constantinople/Istanbul or to enforce a blockade of the Asia Minor
coast (a basic right of any belligerent). As Lloyd George admitted
before the British Parliament in early 1922 "if we can't enforce
the treaty we should at least say [to the belligerents] well then,
struggle! But it is us who are not allowing the Greeks to wage the war
with all their forces".
After the Greek defeat the Lausanne treaty replaced the Sevres
treaty and is therefore the one that finally settled WW I as far as
Greece and Turkey were concerned. The fact that there was a change
of regime in Turkey has nothing to do with that. The continuity of
states is not affected by regime changes. Should I let her know
that it was the revolutionary Kerensky Russian government that
signed the 1917 Brest-Litovsk treaty with Germany and not the czarist
one of WW I? After all, Kemal Ataturk himself admitted the conti-
nuity in Turkey by paying off the Ottoman Empire's debt by 1945.
3/ I do not ask the Turks to agree with the Greeks on "*every*
single issue" as she says. I ask for an answer to Michael Scordilis's
quotes! Still, lady, you evade the issue. If Scordilis's quotes of
preeminent Turkish politicians, drawn from a variety of Turkish and
international sources, are true, they prove beyond even the slightest
doubt that Turkey is the imperialist and the aggressor in the Aegean.
If you have a basic decency and honesty, you ought either to admit
that outright or to prove that Scordilis has fabricated everything!
But certainly you couldn't do the latter, since the sources do exist.
4/ So you "do not know such a thing" - that a Greek-Turkish war
would be a particularly bloody affair. You are again saying that
Greece would be an easy prey for Turkey, again boasting of your
country's military prowess. This may be your opinion - but to hold
such a reverence for brute force (while no Greek ever suggested
"occupying Anatolia") is, I repeat lady, the mentality of an Attila -
not of a civilized westerner.
5/ "For Pakistan does not have European land". So Turkey, you
are saying, is eligible for membership in the EEC because of the 2.9%
of its territory that is on the European continent? Is that a serious
answer? I said that Turkey is not eligible because of cultural, not
so much geographical, reasons - the same ones that apply to Pakistan.
6/ I did not know that we Westerners (not just the Greeks) should
be grateful to Mehmet II for "those scholars allowed by Mehmet 2 to
immigrate"! Thank you for enlightening us about this fantastic contri-
bution of the Turkish civilization to the Renaissance. If you also
add the sacking of Constantinople (not just capture) and the utter
destruction of the whole heritage of an invaluable and unsurpassed
civilization that was cherished there - noone will ever estimate
what countless treasures humanity lost for ever in that event - as
well as the turning of the Parthenon, that climax of the classical
civilization, to gunpowder storage room that resulted in its destru-
ction in the Turkish-Venetian war of 1629, those achievements will
certainly add up to a quite impressive list, indeed. However, I
would have to tell you that almost all these scholars escaped Mehmet's
hordes when there was still time and did not ask for his permission.
Do you call me a bigot, lady, for pointing out the quite obvious
fact that the Turks of the 15th century were light years behind the
contemporary Greeks in cultural achievement? Then so is everyone
who states the equally obvious fact that 20th century, say, Swiss
are more civilized than contemporary, say, Angolans. This is, very
apparently, not racist, because it does not imply any innate superi-
ority but simply states that different peoples are at different stages
of cultural development at a particular time. And yes, without having
anything to do with the present situation, the 15th century Turks were
indeed, by comparison to the Greeks, barbarian hordes moving in - and
this is the cultural viewpoint, with nothing to do with the political
situation of states warring and making alliances as equals.
Lady, the "real Greek lineage" you say sou share with me is not
something one should be proud of. Rather, one should be proud of his
own honesty, decency, free spirit, willingness to stand by the truth
even if it is unpopular. Anyone, for example, that would dare admit
openly the evil Michael Scordilis uncovered would earn more admira-
tion than anyone proclaiming Greek heritage as a source of pride.
Sincerely,
Dimitris Kouvatsos dk0a@lehigh.bitnet
******************************************************************************
ARTHRO 3
******************************************************************************
Article 1617 of soc.culture.turkish:
Path:
pt.cs.cmu.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-wink
en!decwrl!shelby!neon!IBM1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU!DK0A%LEHIGH.BITNET
From: DK0A%LEHIGH.BITNET@IBM1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU ("Dimitrios Kouvatsos")
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish
Subject: setting the truth straight
Message-ID: <9002060414.AA06219@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 6 Feb 90 04:14:52 GMT
Sender: grossman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Stu Grossman)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 116
X-Unparsable-Date: MON FEB 05, 1990 23.11.39 EST
Ladies and gentlemen,
I have been watching the lively discussion on Greek-Turkish relations
with interest for several days. I'd like to use this opportunity to
set some things straight. First, a few facts:
1/ Several Greeks refer to the last remnants of the Greek population
of Constantinople (Istanbul) as a "Christian" minority, to reciprocate
for the Moslem minority of Western Thrace. This is an error. The Treaty
of Lausanne specifically denotes a GREEK minority in Constantinople ( I
use this name because that was used at the time and even the Turks use
exclusively the name Istanbul in official papers only since the 1930s )
and a MOSLEM ( NOT Turkish ) minority in W. Thrace. The reason is that
almost all Christians in Constantinople (Istanbul) were Greeks while
only half the Moslems of W. Thrace were of Turkish origin. Nowadays,
the moslem population of W. Thrace consists of 55000 of Turkish origin,
35000 Pomacs (non-Turkish slavic tribe) and about 15000 gypsies. They
are all Greek - and European - citizens with all the rights and obli-
gations this property implies, and if someone feels Turkish the door
to mother Turkey is always open.
2/ On the question of the continental shelf, it is an established
principle of the International Law of the Sea that islands DO HAVE
continental shelf, whether Turkey likes it or not. As CK pointed out,
Britain even got oil-rich shelf in the delineation with Norway because
of the tiny Shetland Islands. Therefore Turkey has no rights whatsoever
behind the line of the easternmost Greek islands. If Turkey believed
it stood a chance, it would have settled for International Court juris-
diction as Greece has done. Because Turkey knows that its position in
the Aegean is unlawful, it is trying to bully Greece and to hell with
the international law ( see CK postings for details on this subject ).
3/ As far as territorial waters are concerned, Greece has a perfect
right, according to international law, to territorial waters of 12
miles and it should already have applied it. Turkey's stand to regard
such an act of basic sovereignty rights (Turkey itself has 12 miles of
territorial waters in its north and south coasts) as a "casus belli"
is simply a part of its intimidation campaign. My personal opinion is
that we should declare 12-mile territorial waters according to the law
of the seas and call their bluff. This would not of course mean that
the western Turkish coast would be cut off - there would be rights of
passage such as in Dardanelles straights or the Gibraltar.
4/ On the question of the arming of the eastern Greek islands, please
see CK's answer. I should only add that we got the Dodecanese from the
Italians in 1947 and we have no obligation at all under the 1923 Lau-
sanne treaty.
It is really a very enlightening fact that the 1923 Lausanne treaty
was imposed on us Greeks after a devastating military defeat (for which
our supposed World War I allies - against Germany and Turkey - France
and Italy played such a decisive role by massively helping the Turks
and prohibiting a Greek blockade), and yet it is us Greeks who are
defending this treaty against Turkish expansionism. It is true that
Greece's Great Idea policy was expansionist before 1922 - but it is
equally true that Turkey has been trying to bully Greece since then.
I think that Michael Scordilis's quotations of Turkish officials
that prove Turkish imperialism are quite to the point, and no Turk
dared to answer him. What could they say? They only repeat hypocriti-
cal declarations of friendship, and, as CK said, "it looks like we
are offered abundance of friendship feelings on the condition that
we see Turkey's interests as our own"...
One particular Turkish person, Ms. Akkus, shows a characteristic
attitude. Right after her shallow irony about Turks wanting all the
olive trees of the Aegean and even the California olive groves, there
come Michael's devastating quotes. Now she is hopelessly cornered and
does not want to admit it. And the only thing she finds to say is, if
the Turks want the Greek islands why don't they take them - would it
be that hard?!? She seems an educated and intelligent person and she
surely knows it would be very hard, that a Greek-Turkish war would be
a particularly bloody affair and Turkey is not at all assured of win-
ning. Nonetheless she makes that statement just in order to insult the
Greeks who left her and her fellow Turks without arguments. Now that
is the mentality of an Attila, not of a civilized westerner - while
the same person later states Turkey's ambition to enter the EEC, that
very western and very civilized community. To that, we Greeks would
give the same answer we gave to some other Asian barbarians that
claimed our land and sea 2500 years ago: "Molon lave" - come to get
it - if you dare.
On that particular subject, I'd like to say that Turkey will never,
at least in the forseeable future, be admitted to the EEC. For a quite
simple reason: It is NOT European, not so much in geography but in
culture. If even Turkey can be admitted to the EEC, then why not Paki-
stan! Let's be serious. The EEC is the community of European nations
which share the values of the western civilization, forged in their
national souls by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Turkey has
nothing to do with this tradition of humanism and everything to do
with the inhumanity of the Islamic world. It is true that due to the
long Turkish occupation the Greeks were cut off from the development
of the West. But we are the country where, spiritually, the West was
born - we are the people that gave birth not just to science and phi-
losophy but to the rational, free-thinking mind itself. We were the
most civilized nation on Earth for 3000 years - from Mycenean times
until the 15th century, and those who escaped the barbarians then
arriving played a vital role in starting the Renaissance in Italy.
As Reader's Digest, not a pro-Greek publication, stated (Jan.'88):
"There is something special about Greece: It is very difficult to
imagine our civilization without it". Of course, these past achie-
vements are not an excuse for our current mediocrity - but they are
ample evidence, if it were needed, that we are Western, while the
Turks generally are not.
The fact that I'm writing these lines does not mean that I hate
Turks just for being Turkish. It would perhaps be interesting to say
that I live with two Turkish roommates who are very nice guys and we
are getting along pretty well. We I do hate is the spirit of the
Attila - and to understand it, read for example the Spiegel article
on northern Cyprus. Until Turks abandon their expansionist policies
and turn their energies to developing their country, clashes are
inevitable.
We Greeks and Turks have one common interest - and just this one:
to live as neighbors peacefully. We have no other common interests
as some people say. But nations do not choose their neighbors and
ever since the Turkish tribes moved from central Asia towards the
ancient Greek lands 900-1000 years ago we have had to live as nei-
ghbors. Let us make the most of this unhappy situation and live
peacefully. As neighbors - but not together, since we have nothing
in common. As Valery Giscard d' Estaing recently said, "the eastern
border of Greece is the eastern border of Europe - beyond that, it
is no Europe".
Sincerely,
Dimitris Kouvatsos (dk0a@lehigh.bitnet)
*****************************************************************************
ARTHRO 4
*****************************************************************************
Article 1629 of soc.culture.turkish:
Path:
pt.cs.cmu.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!think!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.
edu!usc!wuarchive!decwrl!shelby!neon!IBM1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU!DK0A%LEHIGH.BITNET
From: DK0A%LEHIGH.BITNET@IBM1.CC.LEHIGH.EDU ("Dimitrios Kouvatsos")
Newsgroups: soc.culture.turkish
Subject: Re: Setting the truth straight
Message-ID: <9002070039.AA06127@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 7 Feb 90 00:39:21 GMT
Sender: daemon@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Mr Background)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Lines: 99
X-Unparsable-Date: TUE FEB 06, 1990 19.34.56 EST
First of all, I'd like to make a correction: At some point in my
posting I meant to say "WHAT I do hate is the spirit of the Attila"
and not "We I do...". Although the mistake is rather self-evident,
I felt I had to state that (otherwise the sentence wouldn't make
sense).
Now some words on the subject. I have neither the intention
nor the time to start a feud with the young lady but I have to
make some points on her answer:
1/ I think it is quite clear that what I refer to as "facts"
are the numbered items at the beginning of my posting and that
after these my personal opinions follow. Therefore, quite obviously,
I do have the courtesy not to put my opinions as facts and her
failure to understand this very simple thing leaves me at a loss.
2/ I would have to tell her that I have studied history perhaps
even better than even she has and I surely know that the Moudros
(not Mondros) cease-fire agreement and the 1920 Sevres treaty are
the ones that followed World War I. It is surprising though that
she doesn't know that the Greek Army landed in Smyrna on May 2,
1919 on a mandate from the victorious WW I allies (Entente) as a
result of the defeat of the allied with the Central Powers Ottoman
Empire and the Greek advance of 1920-21 was again mandated by the
Entente powers in order to enforce the Sevres treaty (of course
the Greeks proposed to do it alone since the others would not send
troops). Therefore the Asia Minor War was a direct result of WW I
and the other allies were obliged to help the Greeks they mandated
there. Not only they didn't, but they weren't even neutral - and
not only they (France and Italy particularly) were massively
supplying the Turks but they were not allowing the Greeks to strike
Constantinople/Istanbul or to enforce a blockade of the Asia Minor
coast (a basic right of any belligerent). As Lloyd George admitted
before the British Parliament in early 1922 "if we can't enforce
the treaty we should at least say [to the belligerents] well then,
struggle! But it is us who are not allowing the Greeks to wage the war
with all their forces".
After the Greek defeat the Lausanne treaty replaced the Sevres
treaty and is therefore the one that finally settled WW I as far as
Greece and Turkey were concerned. The fact that there was a change
of regime in Turkey has nothing to do with that. The continuity of
states is not affected by regime changes. Should I let her know
that it was the revolutionary Kerensky Russian government that
signed the 1917 Brest-Litovsk treaty with Germany and not the czarist
one of WW I? After all, Kemal Ataturk himself admitted the conti-
nuity in Turkey by paying off the Ottoman Empire's debt by 1945.
3/ I do not ask the Turks to agree with the Greeks on "*every*
single issue" as she says. I ask for an answer to Michael Scordilis's
quotes! Still, lady, you evade the issue. If Scordilis's quotes of
preeminent Turkish politicians, drawn from a variety of Turkish and
international sources, are true, they prove beyond even the slightest
doubt that Turkey is the imperialist and the aggressor in the Aegean.
If you have a basic decency and honesty, you ought either to admit
that outright or to prove that Scordilis has fabricated everything!
But certainly you couldn't do the latter, since the sources do exist.
4/ So you "do not know such a thing" - that a Greek-Turkish war
would be a particularly bloody affair. You are again saying that
Greece would be an easy prey for Turkey, again boasting of your
country's military prowess. This may be your opinion - but to hold
such a reverence for brute force (while no Greek ever suggested
"occupying Anatolia") is, I repeat lady, the mentality of an Attila -
not of a civilized westerner.
5/ "For Pakistan does not have European land". So Turkey, you
are saying, is eligible for membership in the EEC because of the 2.9%
of its territory that is on the European continent? Is that a serious
answer? I said that Turkey is not eligible because of cultural, not
so much geographical, reasons - the same ones that apply to Pakistan.
6/ I did not know that we Westerners (not just the Greeks) should
be grateful to Mehmet II for "those scholars allowed by Mehmet 2 to
immigrate"! Thank you for enlightening us about this fantastic contri-
bution of the Turkish civilization to the Renaissance. If you also
add the sacking of Constantinople (not just capture) and the utter
destruction of the whole heritage of an invaluable and unsurpassed
civilization that was cherished there - noone will ever estimate
what countless treasures humanity lost for ever in that event - as
well as the turning of the Parthenon, that climax of the classical
civilization, to gunpowder storage room that resulted in its destru-
ction in the Turkish-Venetian war of 1629, those achievements will
certainly add up to a quite impressive list, indeed. However, I
would have to tell you that almost all these scholars escaped Mehmet's
hordes when there was still time and did not ask for his permission.
Do you call me a bigot, lady, for pointing out the quite obvious
fact that the Turks of the 15th century were light years behind the
contemporary Greeks in cultural achievement? Then so is everyone
who states the equally obvious fact that 20th century, say, Swiss
are more civilized than contemporary, say, Angolans. This is, very
apparently, not racist, because it does not imply any innate superi-
ority but simply states that different peoples are at different stages
of cultural development at a particular time. And yes, without having
anything to do with the present situation, the 15th century Turks were
indeed, by comparison to the Greeks, barbarian hordes moving in - and
this is the cultural viewpoint, with nothing to do with the political
situation of states warring and making alliances as equals.
Lady, the "real Greek lineage" you say sou share with me is not
something one should be proud of. Rather, one should be proud of his
own honesty, decency, free spirit, willingness to stand by the truth
even if it is unpopular. Anyone, for example, that would dare admit
openly the evil Michael Scordilis uncovered would earn more admira-
tion than anyone proclaiming Greek heritage as a source of pride.
Sincerely,
Dimitris Kouvatsos dk0a@lehigh.bitnet
**********************************************************************
Gia tin antigrafi
Nikos Papanikolopoulos
Robotics Institute
Carnegie Mellon University