To have a Concern of The Past does not mean that there isn’t anything wrong with the present. It just means that the bad situation that currently exists is rooted in something in the past.
Think of Harry Potter – JK Rowling isn’t saying that Harry doesn’t face conflict because of his current lack of parents; he faces that conflict over and over. But his current lack of (loving) parents is rooted in the fact they were killed, and that he grew up fostered by people who don’t love him. Similarly:
- “The Turks keeping them out of their homes” situation would not exist if it hadn’t been for the past invasion.
- I actually don’t think, in this story, that “the Turks keeping them out of their homes now” is presented as the main conflict. In this story, the conflict is presented more as “we have been without our homes for the past 20 years”. That seems to be the author’s intent, and I think @Lakis would agree. (This is similar to Harry Potter as MC because the deeper you go into his personal story and issues, the more it delves into his past: who his parents were, how much they loved him, etc…)
Okay I am going to stop there because I just read @Lakis’s last post and he’s knocked it out the park!
Just want to answer this one direct question though:
Actually, it would depend on how the waiter handled it. If the waiter treated Petros and the others the way Greek soldiers have traditionally been treated in the past – like heroes, or at least with respect – then no, Petros would not have thrown the chair. However, if the waiter brought him water and he quenched his present thirst, but the waiter still broke tradition and treated Arabs better than Greek heroes, then yes, Petros would still have thrown the chair.