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.

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