[prmoustache]

> So by your logic arab people in Europe are colons and should GTFO ?

Which Arab people? Is there an arab government who has invaded, maintained a force presence, set up its own political institutions, decimated the population with diseases, exploited the indigenous population, and that is sending police forces from its mainland to a european country to maintain control in the last 2 centuries?

You are mixing up migration and colonization which are different things.

[davidguetta]

I think YOU are mixing up migration and colonization.

It's not colonization when you organize 3 referendums for self-determination, and indigenous cultures have their own senate. Non-indigenous people who were born there have as much right to be there than "indigenous" people, same as arabs born in Europe should not be kicked out Europe. The rest is pure racism.

[prmoustache]

Referendums organized after decimating the indigenous population, and importing french and pro-french people en masse for decades. Obviously if you make sure the indigenous people end up in the minority through colonization, your referendums will not translate to anything else.

This is like a company rejecting tons of co2 every year, planting 3 trees and greenwashing people into thinking they do everything against global warming.

This is totally about racism, but not in the direction you pretend it is.

[davidguetta]

I don't know, the number of people coming from an "European" descent never seem to have been superior to the number of kanak people: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9mographie_de_la_Nouvell...

I guess the french passport has some value for the indigenous. And again, not one referendum, three. I'm confused what more you could convince you.

"Colonisation" is an easy answer to everything but the reality is often more complicated. Not saying it's not a colony, it is, but that it doesn't mean a majority of 'colonised' see more benefit to it that inconvenients.

[prmoustache]

While being the major individual ethnic group, it is enough to make the kanaks a a minority against the population that migrated to the island while under France governance (and thus more likely to be at least for the status quo).

It is said that a majority of the kanaks are pro independence.

Let's be clear, I am pretty sure that the kanaks would lose a lot by being independent and not able to rely on french aid, and would probably lose even better if their natural resources attract others but ...

... I also think that since Napoleon III annexed it as an oversea territory of France Kanaks never had the chance to decide for themselves and have been prejudiced. Their lands taken over, being subject to abuse, not being given the same chances overall as caldos.

I believe this should still be their choice, even if it means a worse life for them afterwards.

Had the colons treated them better for a start, there would be less pro independence among the kanaks so it is really on France's side to make amend and on caldos to stop acting like victims when for the most part they are collectively the offenders (the important word is 'collectively' here).

[prmoustache]

by the way, the full text of the Nouméa Accord signed in 1998 after a previous insurection contain in its preamble the admission by the french state that New Caledonia/Kanaky is a colonized territory: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000000555817/

The french state admitted it, the United Nations recognized it. Only the current french government is not recognizing it because it is gradually morphing towards extreme right and facism.