USA.GreekReporter.com » History

Friday (Paraskeví) The 13th: Greek origins

Apostolos Papapostolou — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:25:10 +0000

Friday the 13th occurs when the thirteenth day of a month falls on a Friday, which superstition holds to be a day of bad luck. In the Gregorian calendar, this day occurs at least once, but at most three times a year. Any month’s 13th day will fall on a Friday if the month starts on a Sunday.
The fear of Friday the 13th is called friggatriskaidekaphobia, frigga, meaning “Friday” and triskaidekaphobia, or paraskevidekatriaphobia, a word derived from the concatenation of the Greek words Paraskeví (Παρασκευή, meaning “Friday”), and dekatreís (δεκατρείς, meaning “thirteen”), attached to phobía (φοβία, from phóbos, φόβος, meaning “fear”). The word was derived in 1911 and first appeared in a mainstream source in 1953.
According to folklorists, there is no written evidence for a “Friday the 13th” superstition before the 19th century. The earliest known documented reference in English occurs in an 1869 biography of Gioachino Rossini:

[Rossini] was surrounded to the last by admiring and affectionate friends; and if it be true that, like so many other Italians, he regarded Friday as an unlucky day, and thirteen as an unlucky number, it is remarkable that on Friday, the 13th of November, he died.
One theory states that it is a modern amalgamation of two older superstitions: that thirteen is an unlucky number and that Friday is an unlucky day.

* In numerology, the number twelve is considered the number of completeness, as reflected in the twelve months of the year, twelve signs of the zodiac, twelve hours of the clock, twelve tribes of Israel, twelve Apostles of Jesus, twelve gods of Olympus, etc., whereas the number thirteen was considered irregular, transgressing this completeness. There is also a superstition, thought by some to derive from the Last Supper or a Norse myth, that having thirteen people seated at a table will result in the death of one of the diners.
* Friday has been considered an unlucky day at least since the 14th century’s The Canterbury Tales[3], and many other professions have regarded Friday as an unlucky day to undertake journeys or begin new projects. Black Friday has been associated with stock market crashes and other disasters since the 1800s.It has also been suggested that Friday has been considered an unlucky day because, according to Christian scripture and tradition, Jesus was crucified on a Friday.

“The Past In Pieces: Belonging in the New Cyprus” by Rebecca Bryant

eliana — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:38:42 +0000

July 20, 2010 will mark 36 years since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the subsequent occupation of nearly 40% of its territory. In her new book, “The Past in Pieces, Belonging in the New Cyprus,” author Dr. Rebecca Bryant, who spends her time between Washington D.C. and Cyprus and is a Professor of Anthropology at George Mason University, sheds light on this sensitive and controversial issue.

”I wrote the book for a general audience because I didn’t want to clutter people’s experiences with academic jargon. There’s been much written about the experience of war, but there’s been much less written about the difficult process of peace, as experienced by those who still suffer from the traumas of war and have reasons for mistrust. I hope that Cypriots will come away from the book with a better picture of the hopes, dreams, and fears of the “other side.” I also hope that other readers will see the Cyprus experience as an insight into why peace processes remain so difficult even when all the circumstances seem right for a solution and all parties have every reason and opportunity to want a lasting peace,” Bryant says.

What did you study? Where did you study?
I dropped out of high school at the age of sixteen and went first to a small liberal arts college in Arkansas. As soon as I could, I transferred to the University of Chicago where I studied philosophy and literature for my undegraduate degree. Then, it began to seem to me that cultural anthropology was a way to pursue both those interests simultaneously, so I decided to study anthropology for my graduate degrees. I stayed on at University of Chicago for my M.A. and Ph.D., because for quite a long time it’s had one of the best anthropology departments in the country.

What was the political climate during in 2003, that allowed the line that divides Cyprus to open?
I first went to Cyprus in 1993 for dissertation fieldwork, and I ended up staying almost three years. That was at a time when the Green Line was closed, and it seemed that there were few changes taking place in the island. Every day I would read the newspapers, and the news always seemed the same, as though nothing ever changed or advanced. As a foreigner, I was able to cross from the south to the north, though the police at the checkpoints in the south would write down your passport number and warn you that you had to return before 5:00 p.m. In the south, the island’s north was portrayed as a large open-air prison camp, and the image I had before I first crossed was of a place always rumbling with tanks and bristling with guns. I thought I would see soldiers everywhere, and that any interesting conversations would be in whispers. I was surprised to find that the north was a sleepy backwater where time seemed to have slowed almost to a stand-still, where the troops I had anticipated were basically invisible, and where people went on with their lives simply making do in their state of isolation.

Although it took some time for me to learn Turkish well enough to understand political debates in the north, once I did, I found that in many ways there seemed to be more of a cacophony of voices and opinions than in the south. In the south, the demand for unity on the “national issue”—i.e., the Cyprus Problem—meant a suppression of debates and voices on particular, sensitive issues. In the north, although Turkish Cypriots voted the same nationalist leader, Rauf Denktash, into office again and again, they would also turn out in large protests whenever Denktash and his cronies tried to suppress alternative voices. It was a sort of coffeeshop politics, where people would shout and argue for hours then slap each other’s backs and walk home together. Moreover, the Cyprus Problem wasn’t the most important issue on the agenda, since for many people the Cyprus Problem had been solved by division and just had to be accepted as such.

Things began to change, however, with a series of lawsuits brought by Greek Cypriots against Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights, and then economic crises at the turn of the century in both north Cyprus and Turkey. Following hard on the heels of these losses, the EU gave the Republic of Cyprus a date for entry, and news leaked that the UN had a new, comprehensive reunification plan in the works. Many Turkish Cypriots were worried about the sustainability of their unrecognized state, and they were especially concerned for their children. The Turkish Cypriot left began to mobilize youth, who rallied around slogans like “We’ll Be Tied to the World” and “This Country Is Ours.” The latter slogan referred to a sense that Denktash was bent on tying north Cyprus too closely to Turkey, and the fear that north Cyprus would become just another Turkish province. When Denktash refused to negotiate on the basis of the new UN plan, Turkish Cypriots spilled into the streets. Large and frequent protests outside Denktash’s “presidential palace” ultimately led to the opening of the checkpoints, probably at the suggestion of Turkey, which had just acquired a new and more flexible government under the AK Party. Former Denktash advisers with whom I spoke at the time suggested that they thought the opening of the checkpoints would “show the people” that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can’t live together. They were probably quite disappointed that the opening went on without serious incident.

Your research included fieldwork. Tell us about your experience.
Sometimes in research timing is everything. I had applied to a Fulbright New Century Scholar Fellowship, which not only provides funding for travel but also allows scholars from around the world to work together on a theme. The theme that year was “Ethnic and Sectarian Conflict,” and in applying to the fellowship I decided to work on a project that had been on my mind for some years, which is how one might document differences in collective memory. I applied to conduct a project on two villages, one in the island’s south and one in the north, and to interview both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot former co-villagers about their memories of life together before division. I found out that I had gotten the fellowship in February 2003, and in April the checkpoints opened. That seemed such a momentous event that I decided to limit myself to one field site but broaden the research’s scope.

The town that I chose for my work was once the largest, wealthiest town in the Kyrenia district in the island’s north. It was a mixed town before 1964, when in the wake of inter-communal violence all the Turkish Cypriots left the town to live for a decade in enclaves. All its Greek Cypriot population was displaced either during or after the 1974 Turkish military invasion, and today it has a very vocal refugee association. I interviewed as many Greek Cypriot refugees as I could about life in the town before their displacement and their experiences of the opening. I made several trips to the town with one couple, and those trips form the narrative backbone of the book.

What was hard for me, as it must be for anyone trying to do comparative work in a conflict situation, was subsequently going to live in the town and interviewing its current residents. The town is now composed of its original Turkish Cypriot inhabitants, Turkish Cypriot refugees from the island’s south, settlers from Turkey, and Europeans who’ve bought holiday homes there. I tried to interview people in all these categories, and the reason this was hard is because I began to hear many stories that conflicted with or called into question what I had been told up to that point. Perhaps the hardest thing, however, was being in a position to see through the niceties. Many of the Greek Cypriots from this town expressed a desire to return to their homes, while their former Turkish Cypriot neighbors would have liked nothing more than to prevent them from doing just that. Turkish Cypriot refugees from the south had no intention of leaving, and the UN reunification plan also would have allowed the Turkish settlers to stay. But when Greek Cypriots went to visit their homes, even the most stridently nationalistic Turkish Cypriots followed the Mediterranean rules of hospitality and welcomed them, offering them coffee and trying to converse with them in broken Greek. Under the circumstances, this was misleading, and I found myself caught in the peculiar situation of often knowing more than my informants about their interlocutors’ intentions. In such a situation, it’s impossible to remain objective and yet even more imperative to remain objective. Trying to maintain that balance is very tiring, and after a while it becomes untenable. I try to describe some of this dilemma in the book.

How have the attitudes evolved between the Greeks and the Turks, towards each other?
The opening of the checkpoints was a euphoric moment, as people suddenly felt the freedom of the long forbidden. Many people crossed just for the sake of crossing, just to see what was on the “other side,” although large numbers of Greek Cypriots and smaller numbers of Turkish Cypriots refused to cross on principle. For refugees from both sides, it was a highly emotional time, as they returned to find other people living in their homes, or in some cases that their homes had been destroyed. Nothing was as they remembered it, and for many people this led to a slow rethinking of the past. Greek Cypriots, especially, had been encouraged by their leadership to remember their homes and villages as they were when they fled them in 1974, and they were promised that any solution to the Cyprus Problem would mean return to their villages and the recreation of their communities. The opening of the checkpoints was a confrontation with a present from which a return to the past seemed very unlikely.

Despite these emotionally charged issues, however, the first year after the opening was very positive, and there was considerable enthusiasm on both sides to have more interaction. What ultimately destroyed that atmosphere of good will was the referendum on the UN reunification plan, usually known as the Annan Plan after then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Turkish Cypriots believed that they had fought important political battles to open the checkpoints and bring their leaders to the negotiating table, and when it became clear that Greek Cypriots would oppose the plan, they felt betrayed. Greek Cypriots, on the other hand, often remarked that it was a “Turkish plan,” meaning that it made concessions to Turkey, and they were disappointed that Turkish Cypriots expected them to support it. In my interviews about coexistence before the island’s division, I often heard people say, “We got along perfectly fine until politics got in the way.” For many people on both sides of the divide, the differing views on the Annan Plan seemed to be another example of that, and for many people there were echoes of a past that many people hoped they had put behind them. After the failure of the reunification plan, that initial good will gradually dissipated, and it’s been replaced once again by considerable distrust.

What were the factors that influenced the Greeks not to accept to opportunity to reunite the island?
The Annan Plan was hardly a perfect plan, and implementing it at the local level would have been painful. It would have required a lot of social engineering, as large numbers of Turkish Cypriot refugees would have been uprooted from the Greek Cypriot homes where they had lived for so long in order to provide for territorial readjustment. The section of the plan dealing with property claims was the most complicated, but what people understood was that not everyone would go back to their homes, and many would have to take compensation. Putting a plan of such scope into immediate action would have required a continuation of the good will that we saw with the checkpoints’ opening, and unfortunately we also saw how quickly that dissipated.

The plan would have taken Turkish and Greek troop levels back to their 1960 levels over a period of several years, and many Greek Cypriots saw this as a security concern, since they didn’t want any Turkish troops in the island. Others were disturbed by the fact that up to 50,000 Turkish settlers would have remained in the island and that many would have been able to keep the Greek Cypriot properties they had been given. Many others objected to having to submit their property claims to a commission rather than being given a choice.

At a psychological level, however, I attribute the failure to two factors: lack of serious discussion over the past several decades of what a bizonal, bicommunal federation would really mean; and the experience that I discussed before of seeing one’s home and village again and realizing that things would never go back to the way they once were. The former is what many Greek Cypriot civil society activists meant when they said again and again in 2004 that they didn’t have time “to prepare the people.” For several decades, Greek Cypriot politicians had paid lip-service to the idea of a federal solution, which they knew would have meant two states with ethnic majorities. Maintaining a Turkish majority in the island’s north would have meant that there could not be complete freedom of movement or settlement, and that not everyone would get to return. Even though Greek Cypriot leaders accepted this in principle, the intransigence of long-time Turkish Cypriot leader Denktash meant that they never had to face this problem in fact. Instead, they were able to continue with the rhetoric for domestic consumption that emphasizes the three rights of property, movement, and return. Until the Annan Plan, then, most Greek Cypriots never had to face the contradiction between the bicommunal federal solution they said they wanted and the insistence on everyone going back.

And as I discuss in the book, for many older Greek Cypriots “return” is not simply about going back to one’s home but is about recreating the communities that were destroyed with the island’s division. Crossing to see one’s home and village brought home to many the impossibility of this kind of return—which is one reason that many people still refuse to cross, so that they don’t have to be confronted with such a devastating reality. As one refugee activist who refuses to cross said to me, “Either everything will go back to the way it once was, or we’ll continue to live in our dreams.”

Greek Cypriots didn’t have time to digest these new realities before being asked to vote on a plan that would have asked them to give up current certainties for an uncertain future. I don’t find it surprising that many people chose the conservative route and voted against the plan, even though many people found that decision very hard, and families were often divided. For many, their impending entrance to the EU was also a decisive factor, as they believed former president Tasos Papadopoulos that they would be able to use their EU membership to pressure Turkey and negotiate a better deal. Unfortunately, recent years have shown this not to be the case, and polls in the Greek Cypriot community show that support for some form of permanent partition is rising.

In light of the election of Turkish Cypriot nationalist, Dervis Erolğu, how do you project the future of Cyprus?
Eroğlu is known as a hard-liner, but I don’t think his election will be decisive. His election is a symptom of rising nationalism on both sides of the island, not the disease itself. One thing to keep in mind is that Turkish Cypriots managed to garner a 65% “yes” vote in the Annan Plan referendum mainly because the plan provided them with a semi-independent, recognized state in a federal system. Many people remain dedicated to the unrecognized state in the island’s north, and many nationalists who wanted to see that state recognized now see federation as a way to achieve that goal by another means. Eroğlu is known as a man of the people, and it’s not hard to see that Turkish Cypriots are increasingly frustrated in their unrecognized state, especially after their Greek Cypriot neighbors joined the much-coveted EU. People want to see Eroğlu stick the negotiations out, and he’s actually put together a very good negotiating team that has interesting, new ideas. I don’t think he’s going to be the key figure in the negotiations from the Turkish Cypriot side but is going to rely a lot on his advisors. I don’t see any closed-door tete-a-tetes of the sort that Mehmet Ali Talat and Dimitris Christofias had together, but this is not necessarily a bad thing, since those closed-door sessions didn’t seem to lead anywhere. I think Eroğlu will put more pressure on Christofias to submit to a timetable and allow third-party mediation. I also see the possibility of Eroğlu politically sidelining Christofias and forming alliances with other Greek Cypriot parties that have views closer to his own.

Do you believe reunification is possible within the next ten years, and why?
I think that reunification is possible, but I’m not convinced that it can be achieved through a comprehensive reunification plan. There are too many uncertainties in such a plan, and too many things that can go wrong. The Annan Plan, once it was filled out in all its details, was more than nine thousand pages, which gives you some idea of the kind of detail required to create a new state out of what are effectively two separate administrations. It also suggests how many ways such a plan could be undermined by forces that may wish to do so, or simply how many points at which such a fragile agreement might risk collapse. I’m not convinced that Cypriots want such a comprehensive plan, though everyone will say that they want some kind of “solution.” The problem as I see it is that the international community has presented Cypriots with only black or white options: either a comprehensive solution or no solution, either “yes” to the Annan Plan or “no.” Frustration with such black-and-white options—and the failure of those options—has driven many people to take matters into their own hands, especially in courts of law. The lawsuits over property that have divided the island over the past few years are partly a response to the fact that a comprehensive solution that might pass at referendum doesn’t seem anywhere on the horizon, even though people believe that “something” has to be done. Refugees have started taking the property issue into their own hands, and this has lasting effects on the ground.

At the same time, it may show a different way forward, possibly through a piecemeal solution that would allow Cypriots to tackle certain important and urgent issues first, independently of a comprehensive solution. Why is it not possible to negotiate for the return of Varosha or other territories independently of negotiations for a comprehensive settlement? Politicians might say that the return of these territories before a solution could undermine the will for a comprehensive settlement. But what if gradually solving the problems that can be solved helps to build trust and serves as a stepping-stone towards a more gradual settlement, one that wouldn’t require sudden and massive social engineering? Looking at those endeavors that have been successful, I see that many of them are at the local level, are led by motivated individuals, and take considerable time to develop. So while I’ve become increasingly pessimistic about the possibility for a comprehensive settlement of the sort that the international community would like to see, I maintain my hope for a gradual settlement, one worked out between Cypriots truly interested in solving their problems

Why did you write this book? What do you hope your audience will take away from it?
So much of what’s written about Cyprus describes the conflict at an abstract level, focusing on a few politicians and the role of “great powers.” Even researchers who focus on what average people think often frame their subject in terms of abstractions like “ideology” or “nationalism.” I’ll never forget attending a conference in which I presented a paper on gender, territory, and nationalism, and how one person in the audience stood up and said, “You’ve presented a very convincing argument. But, I really doubt that my parents or grandparents, who come from the village, would understand anything of what you’ve just said.” I thought that he was right, and that’s why I wanted to focus on how people experienced and remember the conflict from inside the village, where they witnessed inter-communal relations breaking down at the local level. What did that mean to them? How did they interpret it?

«The Ships of Mercy»

Apostolos Papapostolou — Thu, 27 May 2010 17:53:20 +0000

The tragic moments related to the destruction of Smyrna were presented in an event organized by the Association of Mytilene, in collaboration with the Pan – Pontian Federation of the USA and the Federation of Greek Societies. During the event the the book of Christos Papoutsy “The Ships of Mercy” was presented by the author himself.
The event was attended by the Consul General of Cyprus, Koula Sophianos and the Consul of Greece in New York. 40% from the sales of the book during the event was donated by the author – who was awarded an honorary plate from the President of the Association of Mytilene, Michalis Christodoulou – towards the fund of the national parade for 2011.
The book has been published in Greek by Kastaniotis Publishing House and the official Presentation will be held on the 7th of June.
Christos Papoutsy (Papoutsis) was born in Haverhill, Massachusetts, a second – generation Greek – American. His father was born in Vatoussa, Lesvos (Mytilene) and his mother’s family was from Asvestochori on the outskirts of Thessaloniki. He is a successful business executive, semi- retired -wide and developing his company into a global leader in the electronics industry.
Mr. Papoutsy is a business graduate of Southern New Hampshire University, with post – degree studies at Harvard University in law, mediation, and psychology. In 1961 he received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from his alma mater. An active philanthropist in his local community and international circles, he holds the title of Archon of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Order of St. Andrew the Apostle, among many other awards and distinctions.

He has lectured on business and business ethics at universities and institutions in Europe and the U.S., including Oxford University and the American – Hellenic Chamber of Commerce in Athens. In addition to his interest in business ethics, he has researched the Catastrophe of Smyrna extensively because of his contact with many Mikrasiastes on Mytilene, his father’s ancestral home, and has launched Hellenic Communication Service at the Web site: www.helleniccomserve.com and information service for Greek communities.
Ships of Mercy reveals the true heroes of Smyrna, forgotten by history. It is based on more than ten years of research by the Papoutsys, who traveled around the globe to document the rescue of hundreds of thousands of Greek refugees on the Smyrna quay in September 1922.

After more than a decade of preparation, this book uncovers surprising answers and displays previously unpublished materials. Vintage photographs, exhibits, naval war diaries and captains’ logs appear for the first time in the pages of this volume. “Ships of Mercy” dispels common myths about the evacuation of the refugees and documents clearly the real saviors in this enormous tragedy.

Today is National Day of Remembrance for the Genocide of Pontian Greeks

Anastasios Papapostolou — Tue, 18 May 2010 17:28:19 +0000

The 19th of May, a National Day of Remembrance for the Genocide of Pontian Greeks by a decision of the Greek Parliament in 1994, marks our modern history. On this day in 1919, the second phase of the eradication of the Hellenism of Pontus began, scathing every sense of humanism and took the form of a national tragedy, since 353.000 souls perished unjustly, whilst forcing thousands of Greeks to go abroad.

The tragedy of the Greeks of Pontus, a day we honor, fulfills all conditions of the United Nations’ Agreement to qualify as Genocide. We ask nothing more than the restoration of historical truth, along the Genocide of the Armenian and all Christian people in the beginning of the last century, including the Holocaust of the Jewish People. Let’s not forget that the World Academic Union, the most qualified committee for the recognition of genocides, decided in 2007 that the Genocide of the Greeks of Pontos has in fact taken place. At the same time, the European Parliament requested two years ago from Turkey to come to terms with its historic past.

This day calls all Greeks-wherever they are- to pay national tribute. It is another chance to remind everyone that we will not stand silent and we will stand by the Greeks of Pontus worldwide, in their efforts for the international recognition of the Genocide of Pontic Greeks which will ensure the avoidance of such tragic events in the future. The recognition of the Genocide of Pontian Greeks from the Swedish Parliament, ten states of the United States and the State of South Australia, a result of the continuous efforts of the Pontic Greeks of our Diaspora, equip us with courage to continue this struggle for justice.

The recent visit of the Prime Minister of Turkey in Greece, was characterized by both sides as a historical one. We salute the intention expressed by the Prime Minister of Greeks, George Papandreou and the Prime Minister of Turkey, Tayip Erdogan, to work together in order to enhance cooperation and solve many issues of the past, so that we can achieve peace and reconciliation. It’s the least we can do for our future generations.

* This is a message from the President of the World Council of Hellenes Abroad, Stefanos P. Tamvakis for the National Day of Remembrance for the Genocide of Pontian Greeks.

Harvard University, Program of Modern Greek Studies, a history of the Program

Apostolos Papapostolou — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:03:43 +0000

The teaching of Modern Greek language and literature at Harvard dates back to 1828, when Colonel Alexander Negris, a veteran of the Greek War of Independence, became the first Instructor of Modern Greek.
An entry in the College Records of 15 September, 1828 reads as follows: “Any students who wish, may be permitted to attend the instruction of Mr. Negris in the Modern Greek, at such times as not to interfere with their regular exercises.” In the same year, to address the needs of his students, Colonel Negris published his Grammar of the Modern Greek Language (Boston, 1828), the first grammar of Modern Greek to be printed in the United States. In the prologue of this book, dated October 3rd 1828, he writes: “Amidst my numerous troubles, isolated, deprived of my homeland, relatives and friends, only consoles me the study of my language in which the arts and sciences were born, a study cultivated in a new hemisphere of the globe. And my only aspiration for now is limited to my ability to say that, first myself among all lovers of knowledge and the arts, I instigated in the Americans the desire to learn the vernacular.”

Colonel Negris’ successor, Evangelinos Apostolides Sophocles (c. 1807-1883), was instrumental not only in the continued teaching of Modern Greek at Harvard, but also in the development of the entire Program of Modern Greek Studies and its extensive and unique collections of rare books and manuscripts. With the vigorous support of the ardent philhellene Cornelius Conway Felton (1807-1862), Eliot Professor of Greek from 1834 and President of the College from 1860, Evangelinos Apostolides Sophocles received the first official appointment in Modern Greek Studies at Harvard. He was named Tutor of Modern Greek at Harvard in 1842, “a position which led to what was probably the first tenured appointment in Modern Greek in the Western World” (Alexiou 13).
In 1860 he was promoted to Professor of Ancient, Medieval, and Modern Greek (the first post of its kind), which he held until his death in 1883. For over four decades, and at a most turbulent time for Greece, Sophocles worked diligently on the Greek language and its history, winning everyone’s respect and admiration for his erudition, wit, kindness, and even for his many eccentricities, such as his love for the chickens which he had surrounding him in his small apartment in Holworthy Hall. Soon, a personal myth was created around his name that prompted his friend, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, to say that: “[Sophocles] makes Diogenes a possibility.”

The distinguished Neohellenist, Dirk C. Hesseling, recognizing Sophocles’ pioneering work on Modern Greek Letters, later called him “the first Neohellenic scholar.” Among Sophocles’ major works are the following: A Romaic Grammar, Accompanied by a Chrestomathy with a Vocabulary (Hartford, 1842); History of the Greek Alphabet, with Remarks on Greek Orthography and Pronunciation (Cambridge, 1848); Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100 (Boston, 1870).
Aristides Phoutrides (1887-1923) was the next scholar of importance for the Program of Modern Greek Studies. In addition to his pioneering translations of Modern Greek Literature, he was the first in the United States to publish significant critical works on Modern Greek Letters. He also established one of the first Greek student organizations in the United States, Helikon (1911-1918).

Trained in the Classics at Harvard (A.B. summa cum laude 1911, Ph.D. 1915) ,Phoutrides taught Greek and Latin here until 1917 and again in 1921. The same year he left for Yale, where he taught until his sudden and untimely death in the summer of 1923. Despite the brevity of his life, Phoutrides won numerous distinctions and awards. His contribution to the study of Modern Greek literature and folklore was significant. His personal acquaintance with the poet Kostis Palamas, who led Phoutrides from his initial support of puristic Greek (kathareuousa) to an appreciation of demotic Greek, had great impact on the formation of his intellectual and scholarly identity.
In addition to scholarship, Phoutrides devoted himself to creative writing. His literary works, ranging from poetry to short stories and drama, were all written in English and published in various periodicals of the time. On May 21st, 1916 the Boston Herald wrote: “Aristides E. Phoutrides is one of the great poets of the future.” After his death his widow, Margaret Garrison Phoutrides, donated part of his personal library to the Harvard College Library, and also endowed a scholarship in her husband’s memory.
With the establishment of the George Seferis Chair of Modern Greek Studies in 1977, the teaching of, and academic research on Modern Greek Literature and Culture at Harvard experienced an unprecedented flourishing. Named after the famous 1963 Nobel-laureate Greek poet and funded by Greek monies, the Chair became the first at any American University to be dedicated to Modern Greek Studies.

Harvard was selected because it was “the ideal place,” according to Professor and Greek Minister of Civilization and Culture, Constantine A. Trypanis: “the University has both a good collection of Modern Greek books, and programs to study areas near Greece.” The Chair’s first incumbent was George P. Savidis, who initiated a program of undergraduate and graduate courses, aptly suited to the requirements of students from a wide range of literary and linguistic disciplines. He also laid solid foundations for the study of Modern Greek Literature as one of the three possible components for the doctoral degree in Comparative Literature.
After securing the establishment of the George Seferis Chair of Modern Greek Studies on a full-time basis, the second incumbent of the Chair, Professor Margaret Alexiou, expanded its Program both at the undergraduate and graduate level. A Ph.D. Program in Modern Greek Studies was added within the Department of the Classics, while the number of doctoral candidates studying Modern Greek Literature in the Department of Comparative Literature increased significantly.

Furthermore, at the undergraduate level, Modern Greek courses became relevant and attractive to majors and concentrators in other fields, such as the Classics, Folklore and Mythology, Women’s Studies, Religion, Anthropology, and History, as well as to students in the Core Curriculum and in the Harvard Extension School. In the period 1986-2000, during which Alexiou was head of the George Seferis Chair, the Program of Modern Greek Studies at Harvard gained in visibility.
In 2000, Panagiotis Roilos, Professor of Modern Greek Studies and of Comparative Literarure, succeeded Margaret Alexiou as head of the Program of Modern Greek Studies at Harvard. Since then the Program has been greatly expanded, not only in terms of curriculum and student enrolment, but also of further academic initiatives, which promote scholarship, interdisciplinary collaboration, mentorship, and publication in the field of Modern Greek Studies, all the while strengthening our pioneering emphasis on and development of the language component of the Program.

NOTE: This text has been based on archival research by Dr. Vassiliki Rapti and on the following bibliography:
Alexiou, Margaret. “Introduction” in Five Centuries of Books and manuscripts in Modern Greek: A Catalogue of an Exhibition at the Houghton Library December 4, 1987 through February 17, 1988. Cambridge: The Harvard College Library, 1990. 3-15.
Layton, Evro. “The Modern Greek Collection in the Harvard College Library,” Harvard Library Bulletin 19 (1971), 221-43.
Negris, Alexander. A Grammar of the Greek Language with an Appendix Containing Original Specimens of Prose and Verse. Boston: Hilliard, Gray, Little and Wilkins, 1828.
Soulis, C. George. “Ευαγγελινός Aποστολίδης Σοφοκλής,” Aθηνά, LVI (1952), 125-141.

(Source: Harvard University)

Famagusta’s “Sad Story” Presented in New York

Anastasios Papapostolou — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:27:36 +0000

Credit: ETA Press – From left Attorney Athan Tsimpedes, Elena Maroulleti President, CYPRECO, Koula Sofianou, Consul General of Cyprus to NY, Andreas Comodromos, Chairman Cyprus-US Chamber of Commerce, Polys Kyriacou, poet, Vasia Markidou and Professor Theoharis David

Last month, members of the Greek Cypriot and Greek American community of all generations and ages, including an impressive number of people from the general audience packed the Stathakion Cultural Center in Astoria, Queens in response to CYPRECO’s invitation to attend its special program dedicated to “The Sad Story of Famagusta”, one of the many towns under Turkish occupation following Turkey’s 1974 invasion of Cyprus. The event moved everyone in attendance but at the same time it offered a sense of optimism for the future.
The very well organized evening highlighted the story of Famagusta before and after the invasion through video, speech and poetry that was beautifully incorporated together making the presentation very moving as well as very inspiring. All speakers referred to the 36 year long Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus and the longing of the Cypriot people for the re-unification of their island through a just a viable solution, but at the same time, they also spoke with great sense of optimism about the future of Famagusta and all of Cyprus.
Speakers shared personal stories about Famagusta and their longing for return, while at the same time they spoke with optimism about the future. The President of CYPRECO, Elena Maroulleti after welcoming all in attendance and after acknowledging the dignitaries and those who sponsored the event, shared for the first time her personal story and tragic experience when she had to flee Famagusta in August of 1974 amidst Turkish bombing. “As we sped away in our car, I witnessed in horror my beloved town being bombed. I saw bullets falling off the sky and almost hitting us…I saw people lying in the streets wounded with missing limps, people wondering around like lost souls. Since then my life has changed completely, but what has not changed after that morning, are the nightmares that followed and which continue to this day”.
Then followed a video featuring file footage of Famagusta as well as AKTINA TV exclusive footage shot in the occupied city prior to the implementation of free movement between the occupied and the free areas of Cyprus. Produced by Elena Maroulleti the video is enhanced with the poem “A Dream of Famagusta” by the late Lucy Maroulleti and the song “Ammochostos” by Niki Katsaouni, lyrics and Michalis Christodoulides, music, performed by George Dalaras.
Famagusta Mayor Alexis Galanos conveyed both a video message and letter to the CYPRECO public. He thanked and congratulated CYPRECO for its activities all these past 30 years and in particular for the production of the event dedicated to Famagusta. Mr. Galanos also extended his gratitude to the American citizens of Greek Cypriot descent for what they have been doing “in order to terminate the Turkish occupation of Cyprus” and urged them to intensify their efforts to “see more involvement in the part of the United States and more active involvement regarding the termination of the Turkish occupation. The question of Famagusta is a test of Turkey’s good will” Galanos stressed adding that if this is not accomplished he fears that there will be a partition in Cyprus “and the efforts of Cyprus President Christofias will go in vein and a very dangerous situation will be created in the heart of Europe”.
In his letter which was read by Ms. Maroulleti, Mayor Galanos calls for the immediate implementation of U.N Resolution 550 (1994) which was also adopted by the European Parliament on February 10, 2010 in its report on Turkey’s EU progress. The EU adopted report asked Turkey to “withdraw its forces from Cyprus, return the sealed-off section of Famagusta to its lawful inhabitants in compliance with Resolution 550 of the U.N. Security Council, and address the issue of the settlement of Turkish citizens on the island”.

Guest Speaker Theoharis David, FAIA in his brief but very inspiring speech enhanced with slides and entitled “Famagusta: A remembrance and thoughts about the future”, shared his family’s story regarding his hometown Morphou also under Turkish occupation. Referring to his close ties with Famagusta the Professor explained that it all happened when he was first starting out as a young architect and after he was commissioned by the Archbishopric of Cyprus and then President Archbishop Makarios to built two structures in Famagusta. The first was the church of Aghia Trias and the second Aspelia hotel situated behind the church. Building the church of Aghia Trias as he explained was the most challenging project because many found his idea of building a modern structure as shocking, however, Archbishop Makarios who “was open to new ideas” approved the project and the young architect was justified. Professor David shared some recent photographs of him returning to Famagusta and glancing at his structures behind the barbed wire noting “this is a very painful moment for an architect”, however, he spoke with much optimism about the future when Famagusta is returned. In rebuilding the city, “all emotions must be set aside as to how we knew and loved the city” Mr. David stressed adding “a renaissance of Famagusta must be a reconstructive representation to its returning citizens of its many layered history through its significant modern and ancient architecture along with new architecture which is yet to be imagined and realized”. Mr. David cautioned that we cannot return to the mistakes of the past by building structures two steps from the beach, noting that “this is unacceptable”.
The Consul General of Cyprus to New York Koula Sofianou who also comes from Famagusta talked about the unlawful occupation of the town by Turkish troops stressing the immediate need for U.N. Resolution 550 to be finally enforced. In describing the tragic aftermath of the city which is locked behind the barb wire for 36 long years and deprived of its inhabitants, Ms. Sofianou stressed that this is an absurd situation, “snakes, rats and other predators” now inhabit the city she noted. The return of Famagusta is the first step to a solution to the Cyprus problem she further stressed.
A greeting message was conveyed on behalf of the Consul General of Greece to NY Aghi Balta by Greek Consul Vagelis Kyriakopoulos congratulating the organizers and the President of Cypreco for presenting this event. “It is important that we do not forget” Consul Kyriakopoulos emphasized further stressing that, “at this point the negotiations are at turning point”. Now more than ever the Cypriot and Greek governments work hand in hand, and this is the most encouraging message he further noted.
The President of the International Coordinating Committee Justice For Cyprus Philip Christopher after congratulating CYPRECO and Ms. Maroulleti conveyed a very inspiring message of solidarity and unity stressing that the Greek American community will continue to work very hard until Cyprus is reunited.
The event was also attended and addressed by the Washington-DC-based attorney Athan Tsimpedes who is currently undertaking a court case in the U.S. against Turkey on behalf of Greek Cypriots. One of the linchpins of his case is that Turkey used US made weapons in its invasion which were not intended to be used in such an aggression.
Poet/lyricist Polys Kyriacou enhanced the event with his recital of four different poems which revived Famagusta’s rich history over the centuries but at the same time also expressed the pain for what has happened in 1974, the betrayal and violence that followed on the city and its once-inhabitants, the longing for return as well as the missing
The event ended with a screening of the documentary Hidden In The Sand and discussion with its creator Vasia Markides. There were mixed thoughts about the film which includes a collage of points of view from Greek Cypriots mainly members of the filmmaker’s family and Turkish Cypriots which were regarded as controversial. The young filmmaker admitted that this was her first project which she launched as an amateur and also agreed that it needs editing and improvement to become more balanced.
In thanking again the participants of the event and the public that attended, Ms. Maroulleti urged the public to make their reservations early for cypreco’s next program which is taking place also at the Stathakion Cultural Center in Astoria on Friday, June 4th at 8pm with free admission. This new event entitled “SALAMIS, The Ancient City of Teucer of Telamon” named after a documentary by Elena Maroulleti, will feature a screening of the documentary highlighting the rich history and culture of Salamis currently under Turkish occupation in northern Cyprus, poetry and a guest speaker. For more information and reservations please call 718-545-1151 or visit us on line at www.aktina.org

George Tselos: “Memories Guardian” on Ellis Island

Evangelos Goulas — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:50:51 +0000

He walks slowly through the corridors filled with nostalgia and tears. On the surrounding walls black & white photographs are telling the stories of immigrants. Once upon a time, this place was the final stop before the dream began. Ellis Island sealed their future in America.
Today, George Tselos (foto) is keeping those memories safe.  It’s been more than a century since the last immigrant stepped foot for the first time on this land. From 1892 until 1954, Ellis Island, welcomed millions of people around the world.  This is the place where people who arrived in New York passed an inspection to be admitted and stay in America. This was the island of hope and disappointment.
The boat taking visitors from Manhattan took less than ten minutes in the dark waters of the river to join yesterday to today. George Tselos, head of library and archive of Ellis Island (today operates as a museum), has been expecting me to travel into the past, where thousands of Greeks took the path to foreign lands. He will tell me the adventures and the racist attitudes against them.
Testimonials and memories of people that have been born in different times and different places show that societies do share something in common, a fear of the unknown.
George Tselos’s father Dimitri was among the 750,000 Greeks who arrived on Ellis island by mid 1920’s. “He was the youngest among 5 brothers. He lived in a village in Greece called Arcadia, in difficult times and living poorly.  His last memory was of his mother sitting on the stairs in a pool of blood as she miscarriaged what would have been her sixth child becasue there was no doctor available.

His father’s journey from Greece to the United States lasted four weeks. He was 15 years old, packed in the ship “Ioannina” along with hundreds of passengers. In the United States, he would meet his elder brother.  When a ship arrived in New York City; inspectors of the Immigration and Public Health were looking at the decks of passengers of the first two classes. The rest of the passenger were transported by boat to Ellis Island where they were examined by the “six seconds doctors”. It was said that a doctor could determine a lot about the health of travelers (from anemia to varicose veins) just by looking at them.

Immigration laws were not so strict, says Mr. Tselos. The main condition was to have at least $25 dollars with you to show that you will be able to survive until you find work. In addition, of course you had to be healthy and have a clean criminal record.  The authorities were very strict with regard to unaccompanied women. They rarely gave them a migratory license as they were afraid they would become victims of exploitation in America. Those who could not enter the country, they could return home for free with the ships that they had arrived in.
Greeks were called names such as “filthy” . Despite the fact that America is a nation of immigrants, residents did not welcome newcomers with enthusiasm. “There was much hatred and stereotypes,” says Tselos. “Polish were considered stupid. While the Greeks were considered gamblers, and Irish were considered alcoholics. Along with the Italians, the Greeks were not considered part of the Anglo-Saxon (“white”). According to the perceptions of the era, the racism had different scales. At the top of the pyramid where the Western Europeans. The Mediterranean people were placed in the lower level as their skin was darker and the bottom were the African tribes.
The picture of the Greek immigrants began to change when more African-American moved to the northeastern states in search of work.  Racism against skin color for Greeks started to change, explains Mr. Tselos. Unlike most Greek immigrants of that time, working in construction or starting up business in restaurants, Mr. Tselos’ father followed an academic career. He completed his PhD at Princeton and later taught Art History at the University of New York and Minnesota. He experienced racism once in his life when his application was rejected by a known university saying that they don’t need any more foreigners, but his father was already an American citizen and was already living in the country for 30 years.
Contrary to the stereotypes and prejudices, the Greeks have not seen hatred from Americans in the way Chinese immigrants did. For many years Chinese Immigrants were not allowed into the United States. Most Chinese had come to build the railroad in America, and when the work was completed they remained in the country. However, In periods of economic recession, the public blamed the Chinese for lack of jobs. They said that they are stealing their jobs. Unfortunately, they became the scapegoats.
In an effort to reduce the migrational wave period during the years of 1916-1917 the U.S. authorities established a reading test. They believed that most immigrants were illiterate and they had to read sentences in their native language. Most of them, however, were able to pass the test. And so another stereotype for immigrants came to an end, says Tselos.
(Source: Ta nea)

Greek Mob: The Greek “Outfit” Across America

Nick Christophers — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:33:25 +0000

Aside from Philedelphia other Greek elements sprouted across the American plains. In, Boston four leaders emerged James Chalmas (loanshark), Louis Venios (strip club owner and mob frontman), William “Skinny” Kazonis and Arthur C. “Tash” Bratsos (loanshark). Bratsos was under the authority of mob associate Joseph Barboza, who himself was not Italian but Portugese.

Barboza was a loose cannon and was uncontrollable he had a bad reputation amongst “made men”. Since Bratsos was connected to Barboza he thought it best to take an extended leave of absence. But before he took off he decided to bail out his friend Barboza. Not the smartest idea. His springing Barboza did not sit well with the mob. This proved to be fatal, Bratsos was eliminated. Another Barboza associate was loanshark, James Chalamas, who was also a hired thug for the mob. He was offered $25 thousand to murder Barboza.

Chalmas declined the offer. Nevertheless, the local mob took Barboza out in front of Chalamas on February 11th, 1980. Chalamas soon relocated and was considered “retired”. The Anguilo brothers ran the Boston mob hierarchy for years, their private driver was William Kazonis. The Anguilo brothers held a high regard and trust for Kazonis. Kazonis was caught on an FBI bug shaking down a loanshark victim who was delaying payments. His partner in the shakedown was Joseph “Joe Porter” Patrizzi. Kazonis and Patrizzi served 8 years for the shakedown and garnered more respect from the hierarchy. Kazonis’ luck began to run out in 1987 when he served another 6 years for conspiring to impede on a grand jury investigation. Because Kazonis refused to cooperate his position on the mob ladder rose.

One unfortunate mob associate was Louis Venios who owned and operated one of the most exclusive adult clubs in the city (called Mouse Trap) with his co-owner and son-in-law Walter LaFreniere. They ended up in debt to the same people who protected them. Walter owed large amounts of gambling debts to the Anguilo brothers. Walter felt he could salvage his loses at a game of barboot (a Middle Eastern card game). But he did not succeed and had to borrow more money from the house. Venios tried to save his son-in-law by consolidating the funds from the club, but that was useless. Venios survived retribution from the Angulios but Walter, his fate was different. If it weren’t for the intervention of William Kazonis, Louie would have tasted the same fate.

Across the United States in sunny Los Angeles three Greeks controlled a piece of the mob puzzle. All three were associates of leading capo turned government witness, Jimmy “the Weasel” Frantianno. One of the most animated to be under Jimmy’s wing was Nick “the Greek” Simponis. Nick owned a gambling operation in Cabazon in the mid west. During his ownership a low level wise guy by the name of Delmont attempted to muscle in on Nick’s business. In turn Nick went to mob associate Jimmy Frantianno.
Delmont was disposed of for his expansionist ideas. Simponis a sharp card player would later develop a tight relationship with Las Vegas wild man Anthony “the Ant” Spilotro.

Simponis and Spilitro arranged shakedowns and casino schemes throughout Las Vegas . When it came down to casinos Jimmy F. was obsessed to have his own place. Nick was there to help Jimmy expand and introduce him to Greek entrepreneur Duke Countis. Duke was a wealthy bookmaking agent who held the key to Jimmy’s dream.
The proposed hotel/casino was to be named The Crystal Bay in Tahoe. It was to run about $2 million to start. But the deal stood still for Jimmy and Nick were unable to convince mob higher ups to invest. Duke backed out as well and maintained his position as a casino courier. Spilotro and Simponis soon ended up doing time. Nick was imprisoned in the late 1980’s and Spilitro ended up being assassinated in the cornfields of Indiana in 1986.

Another major associate of Jimmy F.’s was Nick “the Greek” Diacogiannis. Diacogiannis was a close friend and confidant of Jimmy’s while they served time in Folsom in the 60’s. Upon Nick’s release he became Jimmy’s bodyguard, for at this time Jimmy was rising fast and animosity was high. Jimmy along with Nick, headed up a trucking business that proved them to be good earners (a cornerstone of mafia importance).

But Nick was soon back in prison in 1966 for assault. This began the downfall of the trucking business he started with Jimmy. Nick was unable to be released on bail and needed “outside” help to get him out. Jimmy in turn went to then L.A. mob boss Jack Dragna for help. Hence, they sprung Nick from jail. Nick and Jimmy went back to business until Jimmy was arrested on a murder charge which became the beginning of the end. At this time he decided to turn states evidence. He became one of the highest-ranking mobsters to inform on the society at that time. He would go on to bring down most of the West Coast mafia along with Nick the Greek in the late 80’s.

Before Nick Simponis and Nick Diacogiannis there were two brothers in the swampy fields of Florida who ran the most lucrative bookie operation on the East Coast. They were, John and Chris Prokos, who were under the protection of Sam “Momo” Giancanna from Chicago . Their operation was bank rolled by mob associate Gil Beckley . The brothers also ran a café’ as a front for their office this was in the early 50’s when Florida was still an open market for the mob. Their operation soon came to a close in the early 80’s with the emergence of the Cuban mafia and the cocaine explosion. The Greek gangsters as powerful as they were always seemed to elude the public eye.

The Last Traditional Greek Boat Builder in America

Anastasios Papapostolou — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:28:06 +0000

George Saroukos (Photo Credit: Tina Bucuvalas)

As a boy on the Island of Kalymnos, Greece, George Saroukos watched his father and grandfather build boats. Over time, he learned the craft. By 18, he became a master boat builder.

George Saroukos, now 61, is the only remaining builder of traditional Greek sponge diving boats in the Western Hemisphere. During the first half of the 20th century, many sponge boats were built by Greek Americans from Tarpon Springs to Apalachicola. Saroukos is the third generation of his family to master Greek sponge boat building. His father and grandfather were celebrated boat builders from the island of Kalymnos, the Dodecanese island from which most of the Greek American residents of Tarpon Springs trace their roots. Saroukos continued the tradition of building fine boats without using any printed plans and making some of his own tools.

For that distinction, Saroukos was among five recipients of the 2009 Florida Folk Heritage Awards recently awarded by Gov. Charlie Crist and Secretary of State Kurt S. Browning.

“As a tradition-bearer highly regarded by the Tarpon Springs area Greek community, he contributes significantly to Florida’s rich and diverse cultural landscape,” said Robert L. Stone, outreach coordinator of the Florida Folklife program, based in Gainesville.

“George Saroukos is not only an excellent practitioner of this tradition, but he is the last in a long line of such boat builders in the area,” said Tina Bucuvalas, curator of Arts & Historical Resources for Tarpon Springs.

“The Florida Folk Heritage Award recognizes the importance of his work as well as the importance of this tradition to Tarpon Springs and the Gulf Coast.”

• • •

In the early 1970s, Saroukos and his father traveled to St. Augustine with the intention of starting a boat-building operation there. But a visit to Tarpons Springs changed those plans.

Saroukos was drawn to the place that reminded him of home. The aromas of Greek food filled the air. People spoke Greek in the cafes and listened to Greek music. And the sponge-filled Gulf of Mexico called like a siren song.

The young man convinced his father to start Saroukos’ Boats in Tarpon Springs.

“My father was the only one in his family who stayed here to continue the family business,” says Tony Saroukos, George’s 26-year-old son. “The family traveled the country and made (Tarpon Springs) Saroukos Boats’ base, but dad was a homebody. He stayed to build boats and made his family and life here.”

Saroukos reads and writes in Greek, and speaks broken English, but builds boats that all people admire.

(With Information from Dos.state.fl.us & Tampabay.com)

Greek Mob: Brotherly Mafia Love in Philly

Nick Christophers — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:20:54 +0000

Chicago had the strong tight Outfit that controlled almost every aspect of the “Windy City” while Philadelphia had its loose knit Greek crew. Even though Philly was to some degree managed by the New York Families (reportedly the Gambinos) they controlled a major drug pipeline stretching to Florida. Yet way before the drug market surfaced Philly was almost immune to rampant violence. The boss at the time was Angelo Bruno, who was known as the “docile don” because he ran his Family through negotiation not violence. For nearly three decades Bruno held the Philly mob on the same power base as some New York Families. But that soon came to a screeching halt when an exiled mobster Nicky “Little Nicky” Scarfo orchestrated the execution of his boss, Angelo Bruno on March 21, 1980.

That execution triggered one of the most violent mob wars in history. Loyalists to Angelo Bruno were vying for control while the “new order” was trying to take over. The new order eventually won and the new defacto boss was Nicky Scarfo. In the mist of this entire racket was Greek mob boss Steve Bouras and Harry Peetros. The Greeks controlled a vast market for drugs and during the Bruno years were under his protection. Harry Peetros was a powerful loan shark in the Philly area and operated under the wing of the Italians as did Bouras. But after the transfer of power to Scarfo their carefree days were soon numbered.

As their counterparts in other cities like New York, Texas and New Jersey their power base was not as solid. Philly was almost open territory to many mobs. But New York had a more solid foot hold in it because of Atlantic City. Atlantic City was an open city until the Philly mob took most it under its control. Nicky Scarfo made sure of that. But the New York crews made their presence known. The Greek mob had their fingers in A.C. through wise guys like Nick the Greek and the Bouras brothers.

As the Scarfo power surge came to reality so was the decline of the Greek mob. Scarfo wanted total control of the rackets in Philly. On May 27th 1981 Steve Bouras was quietly seated at the Meletis Restaurant with several friends including Scarfo confidant Raymond “Long John” Martorano, when suddenly gunman entered the establishment. They motioned Raymond and the others out of the way. They then opened fire on Bouras, his girlfriend Jannette Curro was also killed. The laissez-fare era of Bruno was over; Scarfo wanted a piece of everyone. Harry Peetros was gunned down a few months earlier. Speculation that this was a revenge hit for Peetros was declined. The Greek mob soon came under control by Scarfo which then diminished due to Nicky’s rough house ways. But even today after Scarfo’s imprisonment the Philly mob is not even close to what it was during the Bruno days.