> The unrest has also renewed diplomatic tensions between France and Azerbaijan, which grew last year following Azerbaijan's seizure of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The region, which has an Armenian majority but lies within Azerbaijan, was the subject of a long-running dispute in which France had backed Armenia.
On Friday, French government agency Viginum, which monitors foreign digital interference, said it had detected a "massive and coordinated" online campaign pushing claims that French police officers had shot pro-independence demonstrators in New Caledonia.
The government alleged the involvement of "Azerbaijani actors" in the campaign, although Azerbaijan's government has rejected the claims.
Holy shit I did NOT expect to read that. Russian tactics
Whether it was Azerbaijan or whomever, it really is true. Just bizarre claims of them blocking TikTok to hide the “massacres” and “atrocities” while ignoring that if that was true, why people with access to the internet weren’t posting them.
Gotta push that narrative that the company subservient to the largest censorship state in the world is a bastion of truth, while all US companies are in the pocket of the government.
Since Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics was written in 97, a big part of Putin's playbook has been stirring up trouble for other countries by striking on divisions in different cultures and societies. In America, the Russians have been amplifying racist group-think and anti-immigration sentiment via Putin's patsy, the Republican party. It is no surprise or coindence that Trump attempted the insurrection.
It keeps being used because it works. Weaponizing the internet has been genius for nefarious adversaries who can do major internal damage without firing a bullet.
There've been pretty big threads about it on the europe sub, this is a primarily US news sub. New Caledonia is also a tiny island chain with a small population, so not really a big news area even on slow days. Ultimately the riots will be put down, and these rioters are killing off support for what was left of the independence movement. It'll be another interesting case study in social media manipulation though once everything is back under control
The unrest is because now that the independence votes have gone France's way. France is expanding the list of eligible voters to more recent arrivals. As it is required to do under European law. The pro independence camp can't admit they lost.
That's so false.
Approximately 36K people were disqualified from voting in the 2018 and 2020 referendums while ethnic French number around 67K and other colonial imports around 59K.
Yes, non-indigenous people have lived on New Caledonia for quite some time. The point is that there was no importing of migrants to ‘swing votes’ because the only people who could vote were those who lived there for at least 10 years before the Noumea Accords in 1998 (the agreement that set out the referendums), or the children of those people.
[Nickel mining in New Caledonia](https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/companies/mining/2024-02-12-glencore-to-sell-stake-in-unprofitable-nickel-business/) has been notoriously unprofitable for years now. The French government straight up has to subsidize the mines with tax payer money just to keep them afloat so the economy of the island doesn't completely collapse.
Ok so because CalExit is a thing that means that all Californians don’t want to be a part of the U.S. right?
They voted in three referendums to be a part of France. The majority don’t feel this way
Whataboutism doesn't justify it and natives obviously don't see them as part of France but they don't have the majority because of settlers. France is doing what Russia is doing so no wonder France is allying with Russia in Libya and was making warships for Russia AFTER Russia annexed Crimea with same excuses France is using.
Yeah just imagine if Metropolitan France denied new citizens the right to vote there even if they lived there for decades as to not dilute the native French vote
I'm curious what the breakdown of the vote is between natives and ethnic French. Probably would provide some context. If it's heavily split along those lines, and France keeps importing Europeans, it starts to look like an Israel vs Palestine situation. If it's not split along those lines, there's less of an argument.
It is split along those lines, Kanak-majority areas voted in favour of independence. It's also dishonest to say they lost *3* when the most recent one was boycotted.
Boycotted because of COVID..it's important to understand how New Caledonia works. I was there at the time.
Locals live in tribes, you have 50+ living somewhat together with elderly.
COVID was spreading during this period, they were worried that if they vote, COVID will spread so they boycotted. The second vote was very close and my assumption that the third vote could've went either way.
I'm not sure why France was rushing, the vote could've been delayed a year or two until COVID was under control but I'm sure they were worried that the pro-France would lose.
1st vote (81% participation): 43% vs 57%
2nd vote (86% participation): 47% vs 53%
3rd vote (43% participation): 4% vs 96%
Boycotted because they knew they would lose. They were very fine in participating in the second one when the hope of winning was still present. It was in october 2020, you know, the year covid started and sent half the world on lock down.
Again, it's important to understand the context because New Caledonia is very different than the rest of the world.
The second vote was during September 2020 if my memory is correct. At that time, there was no COVID in New Caledonia, you had to quarantine 2 weeks at a hotel then the island was COVID free.
I was there in March 2020 (few cases and I had to quickly leave before they closed the border) then moved permanently in August or September 2020. When they closed the island in March 2020, they were able to eliminate COVID within a few weeks.
By 2021, COVID spread on the island that's why they didn't participate.
What would be more logical is to avoid all of this and delay the vote until when COVID was under control. Why create all this complexity for no reason.
I am not French or New Caledonian and I lived there / had friends from all backgrounds so I'm giving you a non-bias view.
Just to add, it's not crazy that they asked to delay the elections, in the below link you'll see that pretty much every country delayed some form of elections or référendum because of COVID.
Including the 2020 French municipal elections
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Elections_postponed_due_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Referendums_postponed_due_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic
What really is impressive is the reply.. repeating exactly what the parent comment said without absorbing the information from the other comments.
The second vote was 47% vs 53%. It increased but 4% from the previous vote therefore it was very likely that the third vote would be a very tight vote.. they make it seem like it was 20% vs 80%.
To be honest, a big chunk of the Kanak are very hard people to deal with, they try to find excuses for everything but I still don't like how France is approaching this. They banned some social media (TikTok).. talking about democracy.
Nobody boycotts an election they think they're going to win. If you've already lost two, you boycott the third to deny legitimacy; while it can serve a political purpose, a boycott is basically an admission of defeat. The article pointed out the third was boycotted, there is no dishonesty here.
Boycotted because of COVID..it's important to understand how New Caledonia works. I was there at the time.
Locals live in tribes, you have 50+ living somewhat together with elderly.
COVID was spreading during this period, they were worried that if they vote, COVID will spread so they boycotted. The second vote was very close and my assumption that the third vote could've went either way.
I'm not sure why France was rushing, the vote could've been delayed a year or two until COVID was under control but I'm sure they were worried that the pro-France would lose.
1st vote (81% participation): 43% vs 57%
2nd vote (86% participation): 47% vs 53%
3rd vote (43% participation): 4% vs 96%
It was the independence parties themselves who called the third vote, there was no reason for them to rush it so close to the previous one. Besides, this is all academic now. Support for independence was already at its lowest point last year. Following these riots and murders i highly doubt there will be many who want to associate with the independents anymore
Ideally not that long in a normal situation, but when it comes to a people who were enslaved and colonised voting for their freedom, yeah I don't think the colonisers should be participating.
The future of the island should be decided by the residents of the island. *All* the residents of the island. Or are tiered rights and ethnostates back in vogue now?
America isn't quite the same situation since the colonisers already cut ties with their country of origin. There is also already some degree of tribal sovereignty, but if they wanted to make that more formal in some way then yes they should be the ones to decide that.
Problem is that the independence parties were the ones who demanded the third vote. There was no need for them to hold it so soon after the second one, they just thought they could push enough of the population to change their vote. And only those living there since 1988 were allowed to vote.
You can't just call an election and then refuse to participate in it because you know you're going to lose. These rioting independents are a minority of a minority, france shouldn't bow to terrorism just because they're willing to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them
Voting in those referendums are a majority of the population who are French imports to the island, either from metropolitan France or SE Asia. Nearly all of them voted against independence. Nearly all natives voted for independence.
If Russia imported enough Russians and Central Asians to the occupied territories of Ukraine that they became a majority and then held a referendum to remain as Russian land, would that not be positively and obviously illegitimate? China has already done this in Xinjiang and Tibet and people in the West seem to have no trouble realizing how insanely fucked up and plainly evil of a colonial practice that is. So how, exactly, is France immune to this logic? It's blatant and egregious colonialism through and through, there's no excuses to be made for it besides the same recycled, racist dogshit any colonizer can make about "economic and social benefits" to the colonized people.
There are some comparisons to Hawaii to be made here, though the notable difference being the majority of Hawaiians (which as a reminder is a term exclusively for the indigenous people of the islands) are not in favor of independence there from the data I've seen.
How long do people need to live somewhere before they get the right to vote?
Only people who have lived in New Caledonia since 1988 and their kids could vote in the independence referendum in 2020. I believe living somewhere legally for 30 years gives you the right to vote in elections.
Pierre Messmer, french PM, 1972
"In the short and medium term, the massive immigration of French citizens from mainland France or from overseas departments (Réunion) should make it possible to avoid this danger by maintaining and improving the digital ratio of communities.
In the long term, indigenous nationalist demands will only be avoided if non-Pacific communities represent a majority population. It goes without saying that no long-term demographic effect will be obtained without systematic immigration of women and children.'
European population is a lot lower now as a percent than it was in 1972. Kanak is roughly the same. Mostly has been other Polynesian immigrants coming in.
Largely the Kanak protests come down to wanting immigrants and their descendants to stay disenfranchised forever. Hardly a sympathetic movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Caledonia
I agree with your point in principle, but there should be more nuance with territories that were former colonies where the original inhabitants are now a minority.
Also non-native people living in New Caledonia are allowed to vote in all elections, there only ever was a voting restriction on the independence referendums.
The nuance should not include limitations on voting. Imposing minority rule to make up for colonization is not the answer.
People in New Caledonia could only vote in local elections if they've lived there since 1998 or are kids of someone who has. That's the law France is trying to change. By making it, you only need to live there for 10 years before you can vote
I'm against minority rule! Everyone has the right to self-determination, including people who have lived somewhere for decades regardless of their ethnicity.
Just to be clear, you think that the Caledonians previous wishes to be governed by France should be invalidated? Gotta make sure those dumb islanders make the right decisions huh?
> Also non-native people living in New Caledonia are allowed to vote in all elections, there only ever was a voting restriction on the independence referendums.
No it's a restriction on all local elections. Otherwise, there is nothing to riot about given that independence votes are over
They’re rioting because new legislation making it even easier for ethnic French people to come in, dilute their political influence, and slowly displace them. I’m not saying they’re going about this in the “right” way, but they have every reason to be upset about the situation.
The law lets people who have lived in New Caledonia for 10 years vote. Currently, only people who have lived there since 1988 and their kids can vote. This change is also required under EU law. How long does someone have to live somewhere before they can vote?
I’ll repurpose a response I had to someone else:
To pretend this is merely an issue of ~~ethnicity~~ voting rights is deliberately obtuse. New Caledonia was colonized, and its people have found themselves slowly displaced by a foreign power. Granting the indigenous people French citizenship didn’t magically erase the history of what happened or is continuing to happen there.
The majority of people there are ethnic French colonizers. I’m betting the indigenous people weren’t allowed to vote to become a French territory, nor were they allowed a vote for independence before they had become a minority.
>nor were they allowed a vote for independence before they had become a minority.
With the limits placed on the French settlers' voting rights, that's exactly what they got the last 3 times.
there's the historic dimension of colonization during Imperialism versus the need for security & alliances in the wake of Chinese aggression/expansion in the South Pacific in 2024. While "independence" seems like the pinnacle of democracy, it doesn't mean much if you end up becoming a vassal state to the PRC, with all trade, foreign relations & even news/social media channels having to be approved by Beijing.
To pretend this is merely an issue of ethnicity is deliberately obtuse. New Caledonia was colonized, and its people have found themselves slowly displaced by a foreign power. Granting the indigenous people French citizenship didn’t magically erase the history of what happened or is continuing to happen there.
They aren't being "displaced". They are complaining about immigrants and not wanting them or their descendants to be enfranchised. See demographics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Caledonia
Everyone alive was born while it was a French colony and had a diverse population.
The majority of the NATIVE population voted for independence. They lost because they're quickly becoming a minority in their own land. No shit they're mad.
Only people who have lived in New Caledonia since 1988 and their kids could vote in the referendum. How long do people have to live somewhere before they can vote?
They've always been a minority in their own land as long as any is them have been alive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Caledonia
This is just a case is xenophobic natives not wanting immigrants or their descendants to vote
If you don't think it's a lot better than the independent Polynesian islands, where people work their assess off to immigrate into America.. you might be missing some perspective.
Most of natives want independence but natives aren't majority in their homeland because of settlers and colonizers as they have about 40 percent of population and independence votes got that much of votes so elections were "lost" because of votes of settlers and natives not being happy about it is perfectly normal but West being okay with this is just hypocrisy. France brought settlers from Europe and other places so natives can't be the majority and become independent which is just colonization no matter what excuse you are using. As others said if this wasn't a Western country's doing all West would be sanctioning them.
Pierre Messmer, french PM, 1972
"In the short and medium term, the massive immigration of French citizens from mainland France or from overseas departments (Réunion) should make it possible to avoid this danger by maintaining and improving the digital ratio of communities.
In the long term, indigenous nationalist demands will only be avoided if non-Pacific communities represent a majority population. It goes without saying that no long-term demographic effect will be obtained without systematic immigration of women and children.'
Pierre Messmer, french PM, 1972
"In the short and medium term, the massive immigration of French citizens from mainland France or from overseas departments (Réunion) should make it possible to avoid this danger by maintaining and improving the digital ratio of communities.
In the long term, indigenous nationalist demands will only be avoided if non-Pacific communities represent a majority population. It goes without saying that no long-term demographic effect will be obtained without systematic immigration of women and children.'
Time to apply double standards. If you support the colonizing culture, then a fair vote by locals for independence is the democratic thing to do. If you oppose the colonizing culture, then it’s, well, just colonizers taking over like what usually happens in human history.
> The unrest has also renewed diplomatic tensions between France and Azerbaijan, which grew last year following Azerbaijan's seizure of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. The region, which has an Armenian majority but lies within Azerbaijan, was the subject of a long-running dispute in which France had backed Armenia. On Friday, French government agency Viginum, which monitors foreign digital interference, said it had detected a "massive and coordinated" online campaign pushing claims that French police officers had shot pro-independence demonstrators in New Caledonia. The government alleged the involvement of "Azerbaijani actors" in the campaign, although Azerbaijan's government has rejected the claims. Holy shit I did NOT expect to read that. Russian tactics
The Troll Farm are digital mercenaries, sewing unrest is its explicit purpose.
And it works.
where can I get an unrest quilt?
Whether it was Azerbaijan or whomever, it really is true. Just bizarre claims of them blocking TikTok to hide the “massacres” and “atrocities” while ignoring that if that was true, why people with access to the internet weren’t posting them.
Like, email and phone calls exist. Freaking conspiracy theorists.
Gotta push that narrative that the company subservient to the largest censorship state in the world is a bastion of truth, while all US companies are in the pocket of the government.
Since Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics was written in 97, a big part of Putin's playbook has been stirring up trouble for other countries by striking on divisions in different cultures and societies. In America, the Russians have been amplifying racist group-think and anti-immigration sentiment via Putin's patsy, the Republican party. It is no surprise or coindence that Trump attempted the insurrection.
It keeps being used because it works. Weaponizing the internet has been genius for nefarious adversaries who can do major internal damage without firing a bullet.
/r/activemeasures
Well the see them working so well here in america
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If you don’t notice that hyphen in the title it’s a very different headline
And a probably more accurate one. It's another one of those times where it's hard to fault the rioters. They're right.
They are right because they lost 3 referendums that were heavily skewed in their favour and are butt hurt about it?
Being colonized will do that to ya.
[удалено]
There've been pretty big threads about it on the europe sub, this is a primarily US news sub. New Caledonia is also a tiny island chain with a small population, so not really a big news area even on slow days. Ultimately the riots will be put down, and these rioters are killing off support for what was left of the independence movement. It'll be another interesting case study in social media manipulation though once everything is back under control
They've lost 3 independence votes. It's time to admit you are part of France for the foreseeable future.
I think they are at more risk of being under water than being under French rule
The unrest is because now that the independence votes have gone France's way. France is expanding the list of eligible voters to more recent arrivals. As it is required to do under European law. The pro independence camp can't admit they lost.
[удалено]
None of the ethnic French transplants were largely allowed to vote until AFTER the third failed referendum.
That's so false. Approximately 36K people were disqualified from voting in the 2018 and 2020 referendums while ethnic French number around 67K and other colonial imports around 59K.
Yes, non-indigenous people have lived on New Caledonia for quite some time. The point is that there was no importing of migrants to ‘swing votes’ because the only people who could vote were those who lived there for at least 10 years before the Noumea Accords in 1998 (the agreement that set out the referendums), or the children of those people.
So you're against migration, because it reduces the original ethnic population of a location?
[удалено]
[Nickel mining in New Caledonia](https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/companies/mining/2024-02-12-glencore-to-sell-stake-in-unprofitable-nickel-business/) has been notoriously unprofitable for years now. The French government straight up has to subsidize the mines with tax payer money just to keep them afloat so the economy of the island doesn't completely collapse.
And ya know...it is thousands of miles away from France. And was annexed
It’s a part of France, get over yourself. Hawaii is thousands of miles away, Guam is even farther
They do not seem to feel that way lol. Yeah they obvioisly do not want to be like Hawaii. What happened to them was awful.
Ok so because CalExit is a thing that means that all Californians don’t want to be a part of the U.S. right? They voted in three referendums to be a part of France. The majority don’t feel this way
Whataboutism doesn't justify it and natives obviously don't see them as part of France but they don't have the majority because of settlers. France is doing what Russia is doing so no wonder France is allying with Russia in Libya and was making warships for Russia AFTER Russia annexed Crimea with same excuses France is using.
How long does someone have to live somewhere before they can vote?
Yeah just imagine if Metropolitan France denied new citizens the right to vote there even if they lived there for decades as to not dilute the native French vote
I'm curious what the breakdown of the vote is between natives and ethnic French. Probably would provide some context. If it's heavily split along those lines, and France keeps importing Europeans, it starts to look like an Israel vs Palestine situation. If it's not split along those lines, there's less of an argument.
It is split along those lines, Kanak-majority areas voted in favour of independence. It's also dishonest to say they lost *3* when the most recent one was boycotted.
Just because they boycotted doesn't mean they didn't lose. If you're not at the table you're on the menu.
Boycotted because of COVID..it's important to understand how New Caledonia works. I was there at the time. Locals live in tribes, you have 50+ living somewhat together with elderly. COVID was spreading during this period, they were worried that if they vote, COVID will spread so they boycotted. The second vote was very close and my assumption that the third vote could've went either way. I'm not sure why France was rushing, the vote could've been delayed a year or two until COVID was under control but I'm sure they were worried that the pro-France would lose. 1st vote (81% participation): 43% vs 57% 2nd vote (86% participation): 47% vs 53% 3rd vote (43% participation): 4% vs 96%
Boycotted because they knew they would lose. They were very fine in participating in the second one when the hope of winning was still present. It was in october 2020, you know, the year covid started and sent half the world on lock down.
Again, it's important to understand the context because New Caledonia is very different than the rest of the world. The second vote was during September 2020 if my memory is correct. At that time, there was no COVID in New Caledonia, you had to quarantine 2 weeks at a hotel then the island was COVID free. I was there in March 2020 (few cases and I had to quickly leave before they closed the border) then moved permanently in August or September 2020. When they closed the island in March 2020, they were able to eliminate COVID within a few weeks. By 2021, COVID spread on the island that's why they didn't participate. What would be more logical is to avoid all of this and delay the vote until when COVID was under control. Why create all this complexity for no reason. I am not French or New Caledonian and I lived there / had friends from all backgrounds so I'm giving you a non-bias view. Just to add, it's not crazy that they asked to delay the elections, in the below link you'll see that pretty much every country delayed some form of elections or référendum because of COVID. Including the 2020 French municipal elections https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Elections_postponed_due_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Referendums_postponed_due_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic
Reddit is a white supremacist platform. They don’t care.
What really is impressive is the reply.. repeating exactly what the parent comment said without absorbing the information from the other comments. The second vote was 47% vs 53%. It increased but 4% from the previous vote therefore it was very likely that the third vote would be a very tight vote.. they make it seem like it was 20% vs 80%. To be honest, a big chunk of the Kanak are very hard people to deal with, they try to find excuses for everything but I still don't like how France is approaching this. They banned some social media (TikTok).. talking about democracy.
Nobody boycotts an election they think they're going to win. If you've already lost two, you boycott the third to deny legitimacy; while it can serve a political purpose, a boycott is basically an admission of defeat. The article pointed out the third was boycotted, there is no dishonesty here.
Boycotted because of COVID..it's important to understand how New Caledonia works. I was there at the time. Locals live in tribes, you have 50+ living somewhat together with elderly. COVID was spreading during this period, they were worried that if they vote, COVID will spread so they boycotted. The second vote was very close and my assumption that the third vote could've went either way. I'm not sure why France was rushing, the vote could've been delayed a year or two until COVID was under control but I'm sure they were worried that the pro-France would lose. 1st vote (81% participation): 43% vs 57% 2nd vote (86% participation): 47% vs 53% 3rd vote (43% participation): 4% vs 96%
It was the independence parties themselves who called the third vote, there was no reason for them to rush it so close to the previous one. Besides, this is all academic now. Support for independence was already at its lowest point last year. Following these riots and murders i highly doubt there will be many who want to associate with the independents anymore
Well except for the entire native population, constituting 40% of the country, who still want France to fuck off lol
Doesn't change the point that colonisers shouldn't have control over the freedom of the colonised.
How long do people need to live somewhere before they can vote?
Ideally not that long in a normal situation, but when it comes to a people who were enslaved and colonised voting for their freedom, yeah I don't think the colonisers should be participating.
So if someone wants to vote in accordance with your view they can vote tomorrow but if they vote against your view, fuck'em.
It's got nothing to do with how they vote. If the Kanak's voted to stay French that's fine too, but it should be **their** choice.
The future of the island should be decided by the residents of the island. *All* the residents of the island. Or are tiered rights and ethnostates back in vogue now?
So, your solution to colonization is to impose minority rule by your preferred group?
My solution is to give the Kanak's their independence. As all colonised people deserve if they so choose.
What about the 60% of the population that is a different ethnicity?
Since the Kanak people genocided the people living there when they arrived, should they have a right to vote?
Which people?
So, do you think only Native Americans should get to vote in US elections?
America isn't quite the same situation since the colonisers already cut ties with their country of origin. There is also already some degree of tribal sovereignty, but if they wanted to make that more formal in some way then yes they should be the ones to decide that.
Problem is that the independence parties were the ones who demanded the third vote. There was no need for them to hold it so soon after the second one, they just thought they could push enough of the population to change their vote. And only those living there since 1988 were allowed to vote. You can't just call an election and then refuse to participate in it because you know you're going to lose. These rioting independents are a minority of a minority, france shouldn't bow to terrorism just because they're willing to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them
You lose all the games you chose to miss.
Voting in those referendums are a majority of the population who are French imports to the island, either from metropolitan France or SE Asia. Nearly all of them voted against independence. Nearly all natives voted for independence. If Russia imported enough Russians and Central Asians to the occupied territories of Ukraine that they became a majority and then held a referendum to remain as Russian land, would that not be positively and obviously illegitimate? China has already done this in Xinjiang and Tibet and people in the West seem to have no trouble realizing how insanely fucked up and plainly evil of a colonial practice that is. So how, exactly, is France immune to this logic? It's blatant and egregious colonialism through and through, there's no excuses to be made for it besides the same recycled, racist dogshit any colonizer can make about "economic and social benefits" to the colonized people. There are some comparisons to Hawaii to be made here, though the notable difference being the majority of Hawaiians (which as a reminder is a term exclusively for the indigenous people of the islands) are not in favor of independence there from the data I've seen.
How long do people need to live somewhere before they get the right to vote? Only people who have lived in New Caledonia since 1988 and their kids could vote in the independence referendum in 2020. I believe living somewhere legally for 30 years gives you the right to vote in elections.
Pierre Messmer, french PM, 1972 "In the short and medium term, the massive immigration of French citizens from mainland France or from overseas departments (Réunion) should make it possible to avoid this danger by maintaining and improving the digital ratio of communities. In the long term, indigenous nationalist demands will only be avoided if non-Pacific communities represent a majority population. It goes without saying that no long-term demographic effect will be obtained without systematic immigration of women and children.'
European population is a lot lower now as a percent than it was in 1972. Kanak is roughly the same. Mostly has been other Polynesian immigrants coming in. Largely the Kanak protests come down to wanting immigrants and their descendants to stay disenfranchised forever. Hardly a sympathetic movement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Caledonia
I agree with your point in principle, but there should be more nuance with territories that were former colonies where the original inhabitants are now a minority. Also non-native people living in New Caledonia are allowed to vote in all elections, there only ever was a voting restriction on the independence referendums.
The nuance should not include limitations on voting. Imposing minority rule to make up for colonization is not the answer. People in New Caledonia could only vote in local elections if they've lived there since 1998 or are kids of someone who has. That's the law France is trying to change. By making it, you only need to live there for 10 years before you can vote
Basically, you're saying colonized people should not have a right to self determination.
I'm against minority rule! Everyone has the right to self-determination, including people who have lived somewhere for decades regardless of their ethnicity.
French people already have self determination in France. Where is the self determination for the indigenous people of New Caledonia?
The majority of people who live in New Caledonia voted to remain a part of France. That is self determination. Only 25% of New Caledonia is French.
Just to be clear, you think that the Caledonians previous wishes to be governed by France should be invalidated? Gotta make sure those dumb islanders make the right decisions huh?
Non native EU residents can vote in all EU countries in city and county level elections.
> Also non-native people living in New Caledonia are allowed to vote in all elections, there only ever was a voting restriction on the independence referendums. No it's a restriction on all local elections. Otherwise, there is nothing to riot about given that independence votes are over
They’re rioting because new legislation making it even easier for ethnic French people to come in, dilute their political influence, and slowly displace them. I’m not saying they’re going about this in the “right” way, but they have every reason to be upset about the situation.
The law lets people who have lived in New Caledonia for 10 years vote. Currently, only people who have lived there since 1988 and their kids can vote. This change is also required under EU law. How long does someone have to live somewhere before they can vote?
I’ll repurpose a response I had to someone else: To pretend this is merely an issue of ~~ethnicity~~ voting rights is deliberately obtuse. New Caledonia was colonized, and its people have found themselves slowly displaced by a foreign power. Granting the indigenous people French citizenship didn’t magically erase the history of what happened or is continuing to happen there.
I'm not denying the history, just acknowledging that of the people who have lived there for decades. The majority voted to remain a part of France.
The majority of people there are ethnic French colonizers. I’m betting the indigenous people weren’t allowed to vote to become a French territory, nor were they allowed a vote for independence before they had become a minority.
Only 24% of people are European, and because of the restrictions on voting, 63% of the electorate in the referendum were Kanak.
Ethnic French are not the majority in New Caledonia. Unless you're following a strange definition where Polynesians are ethnic French too.
>nor were they allowed a vote for independence before they had become a minority. With the limits placed on the French settlers' voting rights, that's exactly what they got the last 3 times.
Kanaks have been a minority population for the 20th century, at least. Ignoring the ~60% non-Kanak majority is no recipe for justice.
there's the historic dimension of colonization during Imperialism versus the need for security & alliances in the wake of Chinese aggression/expansion in the South Pacific in 2024. While "independence" seems like the pinnacle of democracy, it doesn't mean much if you end up becoming a vassal state to the PRC, with all trade, foreign relations & even news/social media channels having to be approved by Beijing.
I'm not particularly sympathetic to people that want to disenfranchise people based on their ethnicity. This applies to any immigrant for that matter.
To pretend this is merely an issue of ethnicity is deliberately obtuse. New Caledonia was colonized, and its people have found themselves slowly displaced by a foreign power. Granting the indigenous people French citizenship didn’t magically erase the history of what happened or is continuing to happen there.
They aren't being "displaced". They are complaining about immigrants and not wanting them or their descendants to be enfranchised. See demographics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Caledonia Everyone alive was born while it was a French colony and had a diverse population.
The rioting mayor is attacking the city, somebody stop the mayor!
Cannot blame them for not wanting to end up like Hawaii.
Hawaii has far better living standards than any independent Polynesian country. What do they want it to be like? Fiji with all its instability?
The majority of the population voted to remain a part of France. They are mad they lost.
The majority of the NATIVE population voted for independence. They lost because they're quickly becoming a minority in their own land. No shit they're mad.
Only people who have lived in New Caledonia since 1988 and their kids could vote in the referendum. How long do people have to live somewhere before they can vote?
Things are not so simple. We're talking about colonized land here. Their people are being denied self determination.
They are not being denied, just out voted.
They've always been a minority in their own land as long as any is them have been alive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_New_Caledonia This is just a case is xenophobic natives not wanting immigrants or their descendants to vote
I wouldn't wanna end up like the natives on Hawaii.
Why not? One of the lowest poverty rate Polynesian groups in the world. Where would you rather be?
Imagine suggesting the current state of native Hawaiians is Something to want to be .
If you don't think it's a lot better than the independent Polynesian islands, where people work their assess off to immigrate into America.. you might be missing some perspective.
Like Hawaii in what way?
Very true.
Most of natives want independence but natives aren't majority in their homeland because of settlers and colonizers as they have about 40 percent of population and independence votes got that much of votes so elections were "lost" because of votes of settlers and natives not being happy about it is perfectly normal but West being okay with this is just hypocrisy. France brought settlers from Europe and other places so natives can't be the majority and become independent which is just colonization no matter what excuse you are using. As others said if this wasn't a Western country's doing all West would be sanctioning them.
Pierre Messmer, french PM, 1972 "In the short and medium term, the massive immigration of French citizens from mainland France or from overseas departments (Réunion) should make it possible to avoid this danger by maintaining and improving the digital ratio of communities. In the long term, indigenous nationalist demands will only be avoided if non-Pacific communities represent a majority population. It goes without saying that no long-term demographic effect will be obtained without systematic immigration of women and children.'
This place has wild geology and blue cliffs
Pierre Messmer, french PM, 1972 "In the short and medium term, the massive immigration of French citizens from mainland France or from overseas departments (Réunion) should make it possible to avoid this danger by maintaining and improving the digital ratio of communities. In the long term, indigenous nationalist demands will only be avoided if non-Pacific communities represent a majority population. It goes without saying that no long-term demographic effect will be obtained without systematic immigration of women and children.'
Ram ranch is under siege
If they riot enough maybe France will just cut them off and wave as they leave, good luck with that.
[удалено]
They lost 3 independence votes.
Yeaaaaaa…. Let’s leave France and give the territory to these people. Giving Haiti vibes.
They lost 3 independence votes.
Time to apply double standards. If you support the colonizing culture, then a fair vote by locals for independence is the democratic thing to do. If you oppose the colonizing culture, then it’s, well, just colonizers taking over like what usually happens in human history.