DOCSLIB.ORG

COVER for Internet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
COVER for Internet Independence Day through the Colonial Eye: A View from the British Archive1 ROBERT HOLLAND, HUBERT FAUSTMANN Abstract The confidential report of the Acting United Kingdom Representative in Cyprus, Ian F. Porter, to the British Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations from September 1960s gives a detailed account of the actual events on Independence Day. Discovered in the British archives2 and reproduced at the end of this Special Issue, this document is of high historical value for the history and historiography of Cyprus. For a better understanding of the document the account of Independence Day in Cyprus is put into its wider historical setting and located within the context of other independence days within the British Empire. Keywords: Independence Day, decolonisation, British Colonial Rule On 1 October 2010, the Republic of Cyprus celebrated the 50th anniversary of its independence. When the year began only few Cypriots were aware that for 47 years they had been commemorating the birth of their republic on the wrong day. Cyprus had in fact become independent on Tuesday, 16 August 1960 but in July 1963, the Cypriot cabinet unanimously moved Independence Day away from the summer heat and main holiday season to the more convenient but rather arbitrarily chosen 1 October.3 This change already indicated the low esteem Cypriots felt for that day ever since independence. But if things had gone the way they were originally intended, this change would have not been necessary. At the time of the London conference in February 1959, the decision was taken to grant Cyprus its independence exactly one year after the end of the conference on 29 February 1960. However, things did not go as planned. In particular, the negotiations about the British military bases and other military requirements had resulted in repeated postponements. When Cyprus finally became independent, hardly six weeks had elapsed since the end of the long and intricate negotiations.4 Only since July had it become 1 Parts of this text are based on: R. Holland (forthcoming, 2011) ‘Off to a Good Start?: The Birth of Independent Cyprus, 16 August 1960’ in A. Theophanous and N. Peristianis (eds.), The Republic of Cyprus at Crossroads: Past, Present and Future. Nicosia: University of Nicosia Press. 2 FO 371/152834. Report entitled ‘Cyprus: Inauguration of the Republic’ from I.F. Porter 7 September 1960. 3 ‘What’s in a Date, a Flag and a Tune?’, Sunday Mail, 26 September 2010. 4 For an analysis of the negotiations and the repeated postponements of independence see: H. Faustmann (1999) Divide and Quit? British Colonial Policy in Cyprus 1878-1960. Including a Special Survey of the Transitional 49 THE CYPRUS REVIEW (VOL. 22:2 FALL 2010) clear that independence was imminent and that it would be granted on 16 August. The Independence Bill was passed in the British House of Commons on 29 July 1960. Therefore, there had been no time for large-scale preparations of the celebrations which turned out simple and improvised. Foreign guests were not pouring in the island to mark a day hardly anybody wanted to celebrate anyway since it marked the emergence of a state nobody had really wanted. The four year anti-colonial struggle of EOKA (1955-1959), the Greek Cypriot right wing guerrilla organisation, had succeeded in ending British rule but had aimed at the union of Cyprus with Greece and not independence. The Turkish Cypriots and Turkey had been trying since 1956 to partition the island, whose two parts were then supposed to unite with their respective ‘mother countries’ after massive resettlements. Britain had originally tried to hold on to Cyprus indefinitely and then shifted from a policy to hold Cyprus permanently as a base to two permanent bases in Cyprus. The final outcome of this dispute, the creation of an independent Republic of Cyprus minus two sovereign British military bases was a compromise that ensured that none of the sides but Britain got what they wanted. Even Britain feared beneath the surface that independence was the worst of all solutions, worse even than enosis, because a fully self-governing Cyprus was likely to be one governed by their old opponent, Archbishop Makarios. Neither Greece nor Turkey gained territory or citizens in Cyprus. Instead, they became guarantor powers of the new state and obtained the right to station small military contingents on the island. Moreover, the constitution established the 18% Turkish minority on the island as a second almost equal community with far reaching veto rights and other privileges, which made this new state even less attractive for the Greek Cypriot majority. Consequently, this ‘fettered’ independence was for many on both sides at best acceptable as an interim arrangement but not as a permanent state of affairs. Clearly in the eyes of those present there was not much to celebrate in August 1960 and the somehow muted celebrations 50 years later still reflect some elements of the frustration and non-identification with the Republic from 1960. It is rather telling that 1 October was only made a public holiday in 1979 while the 16 August date is largely forgotten.5 Since the late 1960s and in particular since the division of the island through the Turkish invasion of 1974, the Greek Cypriot majority has grown to identify with the Republic of Cyprus, which they exclusively control since the bicommunal violence of 1963. For many Turkish Cypriots, the Republic of Cyprus had ceased in effect to be their state, some of the resulting vacuum being filled by the so-called (and unrecognised) ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ declared in November 1983. Suggestively there has been no official commemoration of the 50th anniversary amongst the Turkish-Cypriot community. Period: February 1959-August 1960 (e-book). Available at: [http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/verlag/diss /faustmann/Abstractfaust.html], Mannheim: Mateo, and H. Faustmann (2002) ‘Independence Postponed: Cyprus 1959-1960’, The Cyprus Review, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Fall), pp. 99-119. 5 ‘Our Pride in the Republic Comes 50 Years too Late’. Cyprus Mail, 1 October 2010. 50 INDEPENDENCE DAY THROUGH THE COLONIAL EYE: A VIEW FROM THE BRITISH ARCHIVE But also in a comparative perspective, Cyprus’ actual Independence Day was a rather muted affair. One reason for this was the fact that it differed from established patterns of British departure from a colony. Ever since independence day in India, the ritual or ‘invented tradition’6 of departing from a colony was based on celebrations shared by all involved, the former colonial subjects and the former colonial ruler alike. At least the facade was maintained, that the regime change was welcomed by both, Britain and the respective colonial people. Within this context the British self- image of its own imagined history based on reconciliation, compromise and bloodless evolution was tacked onto the newly independent state on its independence day. But such carefully orchestrated moments need a smooth and largely unchallenged narrative, sufficiently recognisable and mutual on all sides to fit a rough consensus. In Cyprus in the period leading up to 16 August 1960 there were no such overlapping versions of recent history. The fact that none of the sides involved considered independence really desirable explains also the character of Independence Day. The Greek Cypriots wanted a low key, truncated and non- celebratory event or in the words of Archbishop Makarios a ‘business handover’. But also Britain opposed anything excessively pictorial or enthusiastic. It is telling that the original suggestion for a minimal programme came from Governor Sir Hugh Foot to the Archbishop, not the other way around, as one might otherwise have expected. In detailing to Makarios what he had in mind during November 1959, Foot pared it down in advance to the necessary inauguration of a Parliament, the immediate signing of the Treaties prescribed under the Zurich-London accords (the immediacy arising from the need to give absolutely no opportunity for second thoughts), his own private farewells as Governor at Government House, the welcoming of the Greek and Turkish Army contingents at Famagusta, and, Foot hoped, ceremonies of thanksgiving in the Orthodox Churches and some suitable sign of satisfaction in the Turkish quarters.7 Notably, the bit of this sequence which Foot intended to make the most of was the formal induction of the foreign military contingents (that is, the bit which was least Cypriot of all). His conception was that in Famagusta there should be a formal ceremony in the moat, so that when British troops had taken up the lead position, dutifully followed by Greek and Turkish formations, the Union Jack should be run up (not down, as was usual in Independence rituals) the flagpole, and then the colours of Greece and Turkey on either side. At the end of this part of the proceedings the new flag of Cyprus should be raised in lonely isolation high up on the ramparts. This was to be, Foot felt, ‘an occasion not for sadness at the end of a regime but rather rejoicing at the creation of an independent Republic in full allied agreement. We shall go out with flags flying’.8 The last point – the parting flourish of the Union Jack itself – was almost the most vital point, as the snappy wording itself suggested. Finally, the Governor suggested, the Republic of Cyprus could 6 E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (1983) The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 7 CO 926/763. Note on Foot–Makarios Meeting 16 November 1959. 8 Quoted in R. Holland (1998) Britain and the Revolt in Cyprus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 335. 51 THE CYPRUS REVIEW (VOL. 22:2 FALL 2010) hold an Independence celebration itself, perhaps a year or so in the future, inviting whomsoever one then wished.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Law of Thesea
    Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea Office of Legal Affairs Law of the Sea Bulletin No. 83 asdf United Nations New York, 2014 NOTE The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Furthermore, publication in the Bulletin of information concerning developments relating to the law of the sea emanating from actions and decisions taken by States does not imply recognition by the United Nations of the validity of the actions and decisions in question. IF ANY MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THE BULLETIN IS REPRODUCED IN PART OR IN WHOLE, DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SHOULD BE GIVEN. Copyright © United Nations, 2013 Page I. UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA ......................................................... 1 Status of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, of the Agreement relating to the Implementation of Part XI of the Convention and of the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the Convention relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks ................................................................................................................ 1 1. Table recapitulating the status of the Convention and of the related Agreements, as at 30 November 2013 ................................................................................................................. 1 2. Chronological lists of ratifications of, accessions and successions to the Convention and the related Agreements, as at 30 November 2013 ................................................................................ 9 a. The Convention ....................................................................................................................... 9 b.
    [Show full text]
  • An Open and Shut Case? Probing the Greek-Cypriot Rejection of the Annan Plan
    THE CYPRUS PROBLEM: AN OPEN AND SHUT CASE? PROBING THE GREEK-CYPRIOT REJECTION OF THE ANNAN PLAN Alexis Heraclides Abstract This article tries to probe the reasons for the Greek-Cypriot rejection of the Annan Plan in 2004, by following two Jines of inquiry. One is to access the dominant view among the Greek-Cypriots before and after the appearance of the Plan. A second line of reasoning is to try to chart the reasons for the rejection at the level of the Republic of Cyprus. As regards the first approach, (a) in the days before the Plan, the Greek-Cypriots were in their majority not prepared to accept a loose federation; (b) from the 1st Annan Plan and up until the Referendum there was never a clear majority for the Plan. The article then goes on to examine seven Rational Actor hypotheses as explanations for the unflinching posture of the Greek-Cypriot leadership: sheer bad faith; international conspiracy theory; tough negotiating strategy; the asset of EU membership negotiation-wise; poker strategy; a 50-year backward leap; and the nationalist mind-set. The results of the 24 April 2004 Cyprus Referenda (Greek-Cypriots 'No' of almost 76%, Turkish-Cypriot 'Yes' of almost 65%), would probably go down in the annals of the Cyprus Question as a watershed. In the wake of the referendum, the spectre of a final partition pervades the atmosphere as never before, for now it is the willingness of the numerical majority for a reunification in a political system establishing equality and power-sharing between the two communities, that is seriously in doubt.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CYPRUS REVIEW a Journal of Social, Economic and Political Issues
    V O L U M E 2 2 N U M B E R 2 THE CYPRUS REVIEW A Journal of Social, Economic and Political Issues The Cyprus Review, a Journal of Social, Economic and Political Issues, P.O. Box 24005 1700 Nicosia, Cyprus. Telephone: 22-353702 ext 301, 22-841500 E-mail: [email protected] Telefax: 22-353682, 22-357481, www.unic.ac.cy To access site: > Research > UNic Publications Subscription Office: The Cyprus Review University of Nicosia 46 Makedonitissas Avenue 1700 Nicosia, Cyprus Copyright: © 2010 University of Nicosia, Cyprus. ISSN 1015-2881. All rights reserved. No restrictions on photo-copying. Quotations from The Cyprus Review are welcome, but acknowledgement of the source must be given. TCR Editorial Team Guest Editor: Costas M. Constantinou Editor in Chief: Hubert Faustmann Co-Editors: James Ker-Lindsay Craig Webster Book Reviews Editor: Olga Demetriou Managing Editor: Nicos Peristianis Assistant Editor: Christina McRoy EDITORIAL BOARD V O L U M E 2 2 N U M B E R 2 Costas M. Constantinou University of Nicosia, Cyprus Ayla Gürel Cyprus Centre of International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) Maria Hadjipavlou University of Cyprus Mete Hatay Cyprus Centre of International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) Yiannis E. Ioannou University of Cyprus Joseph Joseph University of Cyprus Michael Kammas Director General, Association of Cyprus Commercial Banks Erol Kaymak Political Science Association, Cyprus Diana Markides University of Cyprus Caesar Mavratsas University of Cyprus Farid Mirbagheri University of Nicosia, Cyprus Maria Roussou The Pedagogical Institute of Cyprus / Ministry of Education & Culture, Cyprus Nicos Trimikliniotis Centre for the Study of Migration, Inter-ethnic and Labour Relations/ University of Nicosia and PRIO Cyprus Centre INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD V O L U M E 2 2 N U M B E R 2 Peter Allen John T.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Main Articles
    MAIN ARTICLES i. Affirming that Cyprus is our common home and recalling that we were co-founders of the Republic established in 1960 ii. Resolved that the tragic events of the past shall never be repeated and renouncing forever the threat or the use of force, or any domination by or of either side iii. Acknowledging each other’s distinct identity and integrity and that our relationship is not one of majority and minority but of political equality where neither side may claim authority or jurisdiction over the other iv. Deciding to renew our partnership on that basis and determined that this new bi-zonal partnership shall ensure a common future in friendship, peace, security and prosperity in an independent and united Cyprus v. Underlining our commitment to international law and the principles and purposes of the United Nations vi. Committed to respecting democratic principles, individual human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as each other’s cultural, religious, political, social and linguistic identity vii. Determined to maintain special ties of friendship with, and to respect the balance between, Greece and Turkey, within a peaceful environment in the Eastern Mediterranean viii. Looking forward to joining the European Union, and to the day when Turkey does likewise We, the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots, exercising our inherent constitutive power, by our free and democratic, separately expressed common will adopt this Foundation Agreement. 6 Article 1 The new state of affairs 1. This Agreement establishes a new state of affairs in Cyprus. 2. The treaties listed in this Agreement bind Cyprus and the attached legislation shall apply upon entry into force of this Agreement.
    [Show full text]
  • Multilingual Voices of Unification in 'No Man's Land': Evidence from The
    Multilingual voices of unification in ‘No man’s land’: evidence from the linguistic landscape of Nicosia’s UN-controlled buffer zone Article Accepted Version Themistocleous, C. (2020) Multilingual voices of unification in ‘No man’s land’: evidence from the linguistic landscape of Nicosia’s UN-controlled buffer zone. Linguistic Landscape, 6 (2). pp. 155-182. ISSN 2214-9961 doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/ll.19030.the Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/89469/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ll.19030.the Publisher: John Benjamins All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online Multilingual voices of unification in ‘No man’s land’: Evidence from the Linguistic Landscape of Nicosia’s UN-controlled buffer zone Christiana Themistocleous University of Reading Abstract The island of Cyprus and Nicosia, its capital, have been divided by a UN-controlled buffer zone since the 1974 war. The ease of movement restrictions in 2003 saw Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots crossing into each other’s area after 30 years of complete separation and increased mobility, especially through the UN-controlled buffer zone at the Ledras street crossing-point in Nicosia, interjected a new dynamic in the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Ak-47 1 Ak-47
    AK-47 1 AK-47 AK-47 Un AK-47, con cargadores y munición. Tipo Fusil de asalto País de origen Unión Soviética Historia de servicio En servicio 1949 – presente Operadores Unión Soviética y otros Guerras Muchas desde 1949 Historia de producción Diseñada 1947 Fabricante Izhevsk Mechanical Works Producida 1949 – presente Cantidad Más de 100 millones Variantes AKS, AKM, AKMS, RPK, Tipo 56, Tipo 58, Rk-62, AK-74, INSAS, AK-101, AK-102, AK-103, AK-107, AK-108 etc. Especificaciones Peso 4,3 kg (descargado) Longitud 870 mm Longitud del cañón 415 mm Munición 7,62 x 39 mm .22 long rifle (Réplica deportiva) Calibre 7,62 mm .22 (5,5 mm) Réplica deportiva Sistema de disparo recarga accionada por gas, cerrojo rotativo Cadencia de tiro 600 disparos por minuto (automático) Alcance efectivo 400 m Cargador extraíble curvo, de 30 balas; compatible con el cargador curvo de 40 balas de la RPK tambor de 75 balas AK-47 2 El AK-47, acrónimo de Avtomat Kalashnikova modelo 1947 (del ruso Автомат Калашникова образца 1947 года), es un fusil de asalto soviético diseñado en 1942 por Mijaíl Kaláshnikov, combatiente ruso durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Convertido en el rifle oficial de la URSS entre 1947 y 1978, actualmente es el arma de fuego más utilizada del mundo. En 1949 el Ejército Rojo lo adoptó como arma principal de la infantería, sustituyendo al subfusil PPSh-41, aunque no fue hasta 1954 cuando entró en servicio a gran escala. Posteriormente fue elegida por los países del bloque oriental en el Pacto de Varsovia como arma reglamentaria para sus ejércitos durante la Guerra Fría.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cyprus Question: Continuity, Transformation and Tendencies
    THE CYPRUS QUESTION: CONTINUITY, TRANSFORMATION AND TENDENCIES A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY MURAT TÜZÜNKAN IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS SEPTEMBER 2007 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Sencer Ayata Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Prof. Dr. Meliha B. Altunışık Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. _____________________ Prof. Dr. Mustafa Türkeş Supervisor Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. Mustafa Türkeş _ (METU,IR) Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Bağcı (METU, IR) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Kibaroğlu (BİLKENT, IR) Assoc. Prof. Dr. İlhan Uzgel (AU, FPS/IR) Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ayşegül Kibaroğlu (METU/IR) I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last Name: Signature : iii ABSTRACT THE CYPRUS QUESTION: CONTINUITY, TRANSFORMATION AND TENDENCIES Tüzünkan, Murat Ph.D., Department of International Relations Supervisor : Prof. Dr. Mustafa Türkeş September 2007, 442 pages This study has three main objectives. First, it provides a theoretical framework that challenges the mainstream approaches to allow for a new reading of the Cyprus Question.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Cyprus (1945-1964)
    NATIONALISMS AND THE INTERNATIONAL CONJUNCTURE: THE CASE OF CYPRUS (1945-1964) A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF NEAREAST UNIVERSITY By CEMAL YORGANCIOĞLU In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Master of Science in The Department of International Relations NICOSIA, 2016 NEAR EAST UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT Master Thesis Defence NATIONALISMS AND THE INTERNATIONAL CONJUNCTURE: THE CASE OF CYPRUS (1945-1964) Prepared by CEMAL YORGANCIOĞLU We certify this thesis is satisfactory for the award degree of Master of International Relations Examining Committee in Charge Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bülent Evre Political Science Department, NEU Assist. Prof. Dr. Sinan Evcan International Relations Department, CIU Dr. Şevki Kıralp International Relations Department, NEU (Supervisor) Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Sağsan Acting Director ii iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to say “thank you” to my supervisor, Dr. Şevki Kıralp. It was a pleasure to work with him in this project shedding light on the recent history of our country. On the other hand I would like to thank to my examining committee members for their effort in improving my thesis, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bülent Evre and Assist. Prof. Dr. Sinan Evcan. I am also very grateful to my family for the help they provided during this Master's program. iv DEDICATION In this thesis, I dedicate to the people who are in the enthusiasm and desire of learning the truth. v ABSTRACT This thesis utilized a qualitative research design composed of a comparative historical analysis examining the Greek and Turkish nationalisms in Cyprus, with relevance to the international conjuncture.
    [Show full text]
  • Handbookoverseascypriots.Pdf
    Republic of Cyprus Ministry of Foreign Affairs Handbook for Overseas and u Repatriated Cypriots Ministry of Foreign Affairs June 2009 Editorial Supervision: Charalambos G. Ioannides Stelios Georgiades Copy Editor: David Porter Personal Assistance: Sylvie Mantis Publication Coordination: Press and Information Office Designed by Anna Theodosiou Printed by Zavallis Litho Ltd The sale or other commercial exploitation of this publication or part of it is strictly prohibited. Excerpts from the publication may be reproduced with appropriate acknowledgment of this publication as the source of the material used. Handbook for Overseas and u Repatriated Cypriots Contents Introductory Note 5 Introducing Cyprus 6 Service for Overseas and Repatriated Cypriots 9 Preparing to Repatriate? 10 Entry and Stay in Cyprus 12 Acquisition of Cypriot Citizenship 13 Passport Issues 14 Civil Identity Cards 15 Moving Home, Pets and Car 16 Rent Subsidy 19 Bringing Vehicles into Cyprus 20 Your Driving Licence in the EU 22 Financial Issues 24 Tax Liability 24 Tax Deductions 26 Working in Cyprus 27 Social Insurance Protection and Payments 28 Financial Schemes for Businesses Owned by Women 30 Grant Scheme to Support the Competitiveness of Manufacturing Sector SMEs 33 National Service in Cyprus 36 Healthcare 38 Education 39 Keeping in Touch While Abroad 41 HANDBOOK FOR OVERSEAS & REPATRIATED CYPRIOTS Introductory Note uDid you know? Cypriots living abroad can still maintain a connection with Cyprus through local organized communities and/or via the Welcome to Cyprus! As a member of the European Union, Cyprus activities undertaken by the now offers even more to individuals, families and businesses, taking the very Services for Overseas and best of Cypriot culture and identity and combining it with our fellow EU Member Repatriated Cypriots (see page 9), which is a Division of the Ministry States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania State University
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Education LEARNING ETHNO-NATIONAL IDENTITY IN AREAS OF CONFLICT: A COMPARATIVE NARRATIVE ANALYSIS OF GREEK-CYPRIOT AND TURKISH-CYPRIOT YOUNG ADULTS A Dissertation in Lifelong Learning and Adult Education & Comparative and International Education by Christos Anagiotos 2016 Christos Anagiotos Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2016 The dissertation of Christos Anagiotos was reviewed and approved* by the following: Fred M. Schied Associate Professor Dissertation Advisor Co-Chair of Committee Ladislaus M. Semali Professor of Education Co-Chair of Committee Davin J. Carr-Chellman Assistant Professor David M. Post Professor of Education Susan M. Land Associate Professor Director of Graduate Studies for the Department of Learning and Performance Systems *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT Cyprus is a divided country as a result of nationalist conflict. Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots have lived apart and totally segregated from 1974 until 2003. This multiple comparative case study employs narrative analysis to investigate ethno-national identity learning among four young adults, two from the Greek-Cypriot community and two from the Turkish-Cypriot community that were born and raised on the divided island of Cyprus during the segregation period. Using the dialogic/performance approach to narrative inquiry I examined these young adults’ experiences as expressed in their narratives to investigate how they understand and learn their ethno-national identity (ethnic and/or national identity). I compared the cases from each community using comparative education methods and identified similarities and differences between the ethno-national identity learning processes of participants from the two communities and the experiences that influenced those processes.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded From
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by E-space: Manchester Metropolitan University's Research Repository Medway, D and Light, D and Warnaby, G and Byrom, J and Young, C (2018)Flags, society and space: Towards a research agenda for vexillgeog- raphy. Area. ISSN 0004-0894 Downloaded from: http://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/621926/ Version: Published Version Publisher: Wiley DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12516 Usage rights: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 Please cite the published version https://e-space.mmu.ac.uk Accepted: 29 September 2018 DOI: 10.1111/area.12516 REGULAR PAPER Flags, society and space: Towards a research agenda for vexillgeography Dominic Medway1 | Duncan Light2 | Gary Warnaby1 | John Byrom3 | Craig Young4 1Institute of Place Management, This paper proposes that flags are an important but under‐theorised aspect of geo- Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK graphical inquiry and seeks to outline a new field of “vexillgeography,” which criti- 2Bournemouth University, Poole, UK cally embraces the spatiality and performativity of flags. We start by outlining the 3University of Manchester, Manchester, potential of semiotics (and geosemiotics) to further our understanding of flags, UK focusing on iconic, indexical and symbolic modes of representation in relation to 4Division of Geography and flag design and the marking of territories and boundaries. In so doing, we highlight Environmental Management, School of Science and the Environment, Manchester the importance of flags in the ordering of both Cartesian and relational space. We Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK then examine flags from a performativity perspective, emphasising their role as Correspondence actants within wider assemblages, and the everyday affective and emotional Dominic Medway responses to flying (and viewing) flags.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cyprus Problem 1964-1974: the Divergent
    THE CYPRUS PROBLEM 1964-1974: THE DIVERGENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO COMMUNITIES AND THE QUEST FOR SETTLEMENT THESIS Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in HISTORY Marilena Varnava INSTITUTE OF COMMONWEALTH STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON JANUARY 2015 DECLARATION I confirm that the work presented is my own work. Signature: Marilena Varnava 2 ABSTRACT This thesis will examine the development of the Cyprus problem from September 1964, when Galo Plaza assumed the UN Mediatory role, until July 1974, when the coup d’état and the Turkish invasion took place. Its main focus is on the internal aspects of the emerging deadlock. The efforts at peace-making will be examined in three phases: Plaza’s mediation of 1964-1965, the negotiating impasse on the island during the period 1965-1967, and finally the inter-communal talks of 1968-1974. Each of these successive phases, particularly the latter two, were inextricably interwoven with developments within the two main communities. Hence, identifying these developments will be the primary concern of the thesis. Inevitably, the role of Archbishop Makarios III, as the dominant political personality, must be taken into full account during the three phases. Starting with the most critical and hitherto under-explored period of 1964-1968, the thesis will shed light on how the de facto separation of the two communities was established and how the separate administrative and economic structures were consolidated. This divergent development of the two communities produced new realities that had to be confronted by the respective negotiators and peace-makers at all levels.
    [Show full text]