Wether you agree or not is the entire point. This is not a theoretical question about what could be done.

The question is why should it happen in the first place? Why do you think people who have been there for 150 years and ask nothing more than cohabitation should be forcefully removed from a place?

As I said, it is not that simple. It has absolutely nothing to do with "the sun setting on the French empire".

▲

nl 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The question is why should it happen in the first place?

The OP never indicated if they agreed with the claims or not. They raised it just because it was relevant to the sun setting on the French Empire.

▲

seszett 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> They raised it just because it was relevant to the sun setting on the French Empire.

New Caledonia becoming independent would not have an effect on this though, the sun would still not set on France, as New Amsterdam and Wallis-et-Futuna are close enough to prevent that and very unlikely to leave France in the foreseeable future.

▲

awesome_dude 5 days ago | parent [-]

That's arse about face.

New Caledonia becoming independent isn't going to cause the French empire to see the sun setting, it's a signal that the French empire is.

The empire losing New Caledonia demonstrates the influence and reach of that empire has waned.

▲

seszett 5 days ago | parent [-]

I was just trying to provide what I thought was a relevant fact.

As a Frenchman I don't really care about what other people think about French influence.

	▲	awesome_dude 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		You were deliberately misrepresenting what was said in order to start an argument.

▲

lmm 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes and no. They're painting it as somehow legitimate and relevant. If you were seriously just enumerating possibilities then you could equally ask e.g. what if the Spanish decide to invade and reclaim their ancestral homeland?

▲

awesome_dude 6 days ago | parent [-]

Oh, my bad, I am supposed to mention every example that ever occurred on the face of the planet..

Instead of just showing the (relevant) example that should be watched to see if the sun is setting on the French Empire.

I mean, if you were seriously just enumerating examples you would have included more than 1... right?

▲

lmm 6 days ago | parent [-]

If you meant the general point that some territories are disputed or revolutions can happen, you could have said them as such. It's pretty clear from your replies that you have an agenda in regard to this specific claim.

	▲	awesome_dude 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		The only people that have presented an agenda have been the likes of you and that other individual intent on producing slurs in lieu of an argument. You literally complained that I had only given one example and then did the exact same thing yourself.

▲

awesome_dude 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The Indians have been in Fiji for the same amount of time. (they were first taken to Fiji in 1879, 145 years ago)

Please, do try to make an effort.

▲

StopDisinfo910 6 days ago | parent [-]

Are you intentionally entirely missing the point?

Once again the question is not if it’s doable but why it should be done. Indian in Fiji is entirely irrelevant here (unless you think a military dictatorship supported by the church is somehow what New Caledonia needs).

If you are arguing they should leave because New Caledonia is the ancestral land of the indigenous population, well, I will let you apply the argument to the USA and Israel. See, it’s not that simple.

▲

awesome_dude 6 days ago | parent [-]

> Are you intentionally entirely missing the point?

Ok angry dude.. what point am I supposedly "intentionally missing"

> why it should be done

Yes, why should people have the right to self determination of a land they have occupied for thousands of years.

> Indian in Fiji is entirely irrelevant here

Since f*cking when?

> unless you think a military dictatorship supported by the church is somehow what New Caledonia needs

I explicitly pointed out that whether I think things should or shouldn't happen is besides the point, and you deliberately ignore that because you have a problem.

Facts don't need me to agree or not, what has happened has happened.

> If you are arguing they should leave because New Caledonia

Please, do copy and paste where I have said, or inferred, anything of the sort.

> apply the argument to the USA and Israel.

So, now they're relevant, but not Fiji and the Indians.

Well the argument was about the French empire sun setting, and the evidence is what's happening in the Caledonian political sphere.

You are providing a perfect example of the USA's empire still being alive and well, and more than in control of what it considers to be its territories.

Once the USA's empire does recede, like every empire before it, whomever is the strongest will take those lands.

Thanks to you for proving my point.

▲

StopDisinfo910 6 days ago | parent [-]

I’m not angry. You have asked me to make an effort but you refuse to genuinely engage with the topic.

You are pretending to have no opinion while clearly pushing that New Caledonia should legitimately be given back to the Kanak but at the same time pretend you don’t which makes discussing difficult.

It’s pretty clear to me that you come at the issue from a postcolonial, anti-imperialist view point somehow rooted in post-structuralism. That doesn’t make the question of the legitimacy of said viewpoint less central. I will be clear that I don’t myself adhere to it at all but it’s definitely part of what needs to be considered if a solution is to be found for New Caledonia.

> why should people have the right to self determination of a land they have occupied for thousands of years.

Why should people who have been there since their birth leave the only place they have ever called home and where their grandparents were living to satisfy the idea that the legitimate owner of the land are population whose ancestors somehow came before?

Don’t they also have a right to self determination?

> So, now they're relevant, but not Fiji and the Indians.

They are not more or less relevant. I’m simply pointing that if you use the argument of a supposed rightful ownership of the land and applies it equally to other places than Fiji, it’s obvious that the question is not as simple as you make it seems.

I’m not proving your point - accepting you actually have one something I’m not at this time completely convinced of. I’m merely pointing to you that you refuse to engage with the problem in its full complexity and that there can be no simple answer to complex situation.

▲

awesome_dude 5 days ago | parent [-]

You keep making up bad faith arguments then claim nobody is engaging with you.

▲

StopDisinfo910 5 days ago | parent [-]

The question is not if you are engaging with me but with the issue.

As you keep coming back to the Fiji example, refuse to admit the postulate your clearly holds, refuse to consider the moral question of what should be done with descendants of settlers, I’m personally standing by my opinion that you are the one using bad faith here. I’m personally entirely fine with leaving the discussion as is as an illustration of my vision of the New Caledonian issue. I don’t think it makes me look bad.

	▲	awesome_dude 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		You continue to put words into peoples mouths in a disingenuous attempt to create some narrative that doesn't exist.