> 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.

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.