She/Her Pronouns
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
They're not hostile invaders, they live there. However, I'm inherently skeptical to arguments supporting a continued presence of an Imperial Government over a 1000 miles away. Especially when the indigenous people seem not to thrilled as being a part of that Government. Especially especially when the pro-territory rhetoric boils down to "Problem? What problem?"
Perhaps New Caledonia should be divided instead?
Cool, but that still leaves the British colonies instead. And no, France deciding to let the islands put M Ps in their Government does not mutually exclude ignoring them.
And if we're presuming a natural disaster in the future, we cannot be certain Macron will even still be President at that time. An argument that it depends on the leader also depends on the leader not changing.
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
No, its not ridiculous. Someone said New Caledonia could be screwed in natural disaster. I pointed to other Empires neglecting their overseas provinces to demonstrate that it is not automatic that France would rush to help, as her allies don't tend to either.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Nov 6th 2018 at 6:12:29 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
Ridiculous, yes some nation's have neglected their overseas territory.
That is not evidence that France would likely ignore a natural disaster occurring, you have demonstrated nothing other than it not being impossible.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn
Well, so far nobody has brought up an example of France neglecting their territories in the case of a natural disaster (again, I am not saying it never happened, just because I can't remember an incident like this it doesn't mean that it never happened, but I also think that you can hardly make any conclusions based on what the US and the UK would do).
And I didn't say that that going for independence isn't an organized effort, I was wondering about the question if it is a case of "we are still suffering from what was done in the past and independence is a great buzzword" or a case of "we are still suffering from what was done in the past and there is zero effort to make it right and no way to correct it within the structures which was set up, so independence is our only chance to make out lives better".
To be clear here, I am not judging, I am just trying to understand the situation. Because frankly, if independence is a good idea or not is a question which should be answered based on facts, not on feelings. And the more autonomy the department has and the more power the natives can wield within it, the less reason is there to go for the nuclear option. If they were able to request a referendum, it sound as if the natives at least have some power.
Reminds me of that bit of a hostage crisis that took place in NC that the GIGN was called in to take care of radical Kanaks. Even called for flamethrower support IIRC.
She/Her Pronouns
I mentioned this. There was an insurgency among the Kanaks that resulted in a hostage situation. The referendum was the peace agreement.
Which is one of the reasons I was hoping for a yes vote, to preclude a restart to the violence.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Nov 6th 2018 at 8:04:23 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
That incident happened in 1980s when NC was rocked by guerrilla attacks by Kanak separatists.
Yes, what I said is true and it did happened.
I'm not going to be surprised if the division continues that armed insurgency is an option on the table.
That's why I asked if the Kanak side of the island could function as a state on its own. The French have a right to national self-determination, but so do the Kanak.
All of us Yanks should go back to Europe. America for Americans!
Jokes aside, if the people of native descent are voting as a conclusive bloc for independence, and the French are voting against it, that's a clear sign that the Kanak need to be given a territory of their own; an independent one if that's practical, autonomy-max if not. Trading landholdings may be a part of that.
Well, either that, or some sort of special status or power.
Given the precedents set by Haiti, the Koreas and Palestine I'd be very wary of any attempt to partition New Caledonia. Ad hoc partitions tend to end badly.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Re: overseas disasters, I think France handled the damage from hurricane Irma in its Caribean territories decently. That was in 2017.
Now that you say it...I remember vaguely that they did….
A procrastination in of itself
I’m just finding this hard to engage with, especially because the democratically elected French government (which the people of New Caledonia are voters in as full citizens) is constantly being referred to as an “imperial” government despite nobody providing evidence of oppression, suppression or other mistreatment.
A minority not getting to rule over others in a democracy doesn't make a it an empire. This seems the same as when Brits moan about the EU being an empire because we don’t get to dictate policy to the rest of the EU.
Edited by Silasw on Nov 7th 2018 at 2:38:06 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Well, if there is a systemic bias against said minority they might have a point, which is why I keep asking questions about this. But even if that is the case, one would think that doing something against the systemic bias would be a better course of action than independence - provided it happens on the local level.
I think this is mainly us-vs-them attitudes showing. I might be unduly critical, though.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
, I find this article from the Guardian to explain well on why the Kana people wants to become independant. [1]
TL;DR: They want to have the full control of their economy, since it seems that most of the natural ressources and key economic sectors are owned by French mutlinational companies.
More like a Native population (the Kanak) wanting to have the full control of their lands vs an European descendants population that wants to keep their relation with France.
She/Her Pronouns
Finally back.
I'm confused? I was using 'Imperial' because it is, by definition, part of the Second French Colonial Empire. Time doesn't change that. Though, if its being misinterpreted, that's my bad. Sometimes I use words differently than how I'm supposed to, so I'll try to use different terminology. Apologies.
![[awesome]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/minis/award_star_gold_3.png "[awesome]"){kind=small}
I believe I had also briefly brought up the wealth disparity. Swanpride, since France controls parts of the economy, redistribution efforts would be easier if New Caledonia was independent.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Nov 7th 2018 at 2:58:28 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
Interesting...equally interesting is the first comment under the article, though, which points towards Vanuatu as an island which went the independence route and where the people are now worse off than beforehand.
What I am kind of missing here is the full picture. Wouldn't it make more sense to fight for laws which are designed to give the people there back what was stolen from them bit by bit? There are examples of this. You could have a law that those big cooperation have to pay some sort of colonialism tax, which is then used to even out the scale a little bit. You could also have a law that if a land-owner dies without having a heir living on the land, that said land automatically falls to the state (if there is still a living heir elsewhere, there can be a financial payment instead), and that land is then given or sold to an extremely affordable price to the native population.
(I am in general very mistrustful of revolution and independence movement, but they rarely do any good. More often then not they end with corrupt governments, in which officials fill their own pockets - I think the only split offs I would kind of support is Northern Ireland (and I think it is too early to do it, but should it happen, well, I do think that Irland should get united down the line, especially if Brexit becomes a reality), and maybe (and that is a big maybe) Scotland. )
She/Her Pronouns
See, I'm the opposite. I find if there's a serious independence movement, chances are something has gone wrong in a spectacular way (Scotland seems to be the main exception to this). This goes double in former or especially current colonies, which I don't like the existence of purely because of personal, anti-imperialist beliefs.
I expect the main Kanak parties push for redistribution now too, but they are not currently the majority alliance. I'd have to double check though.
New Caledonia is both blessed and cursed with huge nickel deposits. I believe the point of independence would be nationalization, followed by redistributing the funds from it to the less well off (which would include the majority of the Kanak). Does Vanuatu have a similar chunk or resources on hand? I'll check in a second.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Nov 7th 2018 at 3:24:28 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
Currently, if there is an independence movement, there is a huge chance that a concentrated cyber attack or Russian money is related to it. That makes me doubly distrustful of them.
She/Her Pronouns
I would caution against assuming all independence movements are merely Russian client attacks, for two reasons: One: that slides into conspiracy theory territory in some cases, and two: although some of these movements could be inflamed by Russia, the prior grievances are not Russian made.
Also, this one's been going on since the 80s. The referendum was set up in the 90s. Probably not Putin's doing then.
This is sliding into off topic territory, so I was wondering: do we have a thread to discuss independence movements? Instead of having separate Catalan, Kurdistan, etc threads, just a place where we could discuss ongoing movements?
Edited by AzurePaladin on Nov 7th 2018 at 3:45:31 PM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -Fighteer
Naturally those grievances exist, but they can be pushed to a higher level and then used for destruction rather than reforms. Outside of the Soviet union falling apart, I can't really think of any independence movements which ended well for the people pushing for it.
I think a fair amount of the Commonwealth would dispute that, mate. Starting with Australia and going down the list alphabetically. 
Oh....right. Those too.
Sure, my point isn't that no-one has ever neglected their colonies. Rather using the US as an example to assume how France would or wouldn't behave makes little sense, maybe if Le Pen was in-charge of France but she's not and for all of Macron's flaws he's no Trump.
"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn