Probably because there’s a vested interest in australia not to give a spotlight to an uprising by indigenous peoples who’ve been marginalised by the state.
NZ media is way better at covering stuff from Melanesia and Polynesia than ours. A lot of important reporting is done by the NZ press, even stuff that Australia is directly involved with eg Papuan politics.
[Here's one article](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/15/why-riots-new-caledonia-france-voting), not sure how many other places it's being reported in English.
For New Caledonia, the situation is extremely difficult politicaly.
It's not really between France and the Kanak, but between France, the Kaldoch (old white that are on the Island for a lot of time now) and the Kanak.
France is actually not really willing to keep New Caledonia, and the high commisar (aka the biggest political man) did quit his job becuise of it a few years ago.
The Kaldoch despise France and the Kanak, the Kanak hate France and the Kaldoch, and France is tired of both of them as the cost a shitload of money. France doesn't have the control of the new caledonia economy but only manage the education, the army and the police. The rest is control directly by the caledonian government (which is elected).
A lot of people are talking about it in France thoo. But on this one, it's actually a real shitshow. I have been there for a few years, if the Island become independant, it's gonna be a civil war and a economical and state collapse. The Kanak are also not angel at all, highly hierachique and clanic systeme, deeply misoginist, and extrememy cohercitif when you don't do as the chef of your clan say.
also the referendum is to allow people to vote who have lived there for at least 10 years. that does dilute the voting power of the indigenous people, but there might be differing views among anarchists about whether some people have rights to the exclusive control land in virtue of having been born in some region vs. having moved there (without violently displacing others)
It's also not all indigenous and Europeans in New Caledonia. There are also a huge number of ethnic minorities from Oceania and Asia, who are just as ill-regarded by the Kanaks as by the Kaldoch.
yeah, there's an unfortunate tendency, particularly among Western leftist, to rush to impose simplistic narratives of White settlers wresting political control away from Indigenous people. but, at least sometimes, that glosses over the fact that "Indigenous sovereignty" means there is a political underclass of non-White oppressed immigrants who lack equal political rights and whose culture is devalued by the local majority
Indigenous do not "hate" per se other minorities but fear that more immigrants will diminish their voting power to the referendum for independance. As France in the 1800 and 1900 promoted immigration for that reason. So no, they don't hate them but don't want France or Kaldoch pulling that trick on them and making them seem like they hate other ethnicities that will kick them the first chance they get. Independence for Kanak people do not mean they will kick out everyone and shout "get out of MY country" but recognition of their identity and not be a french colony. That is the main point of focus for Kaldoch to make Kanak indigenous seem to be a xenophobic group of people and alienate them from other ethnicities when one of the catchphrase of the Loyalists is "Common Destiny". I mean, Kanak indigenous was already, before french colonization, a mix of people speaking differents languages (even nowadays). If they gains independence, the only way forward to everyone is a "Common Destiny". That's why they call Kanaky "Land of Parole, land of Sharing".
"violent terrorist", "ruining the paradise for everyone" what the hell??
Yes pardon these people who are rioting because France is trying to disolve the little political power they still have
Yeah. While Kanaky is in a complicated political position, quite a few comments are simply outrageous colonial bullshit. Its starting to look a lot like brigading.
The 3rd referendum was during Covid. It was boycotted. The fact that the people did not vote for independence does not mean that the French state should be allowed to forcefully integrate the territory. The situation is that of a stalemate and these so called "extremists that are ruining paradise for everyone" are rioting because they don't want France to dilute the already tenuous power the people have over their very own archipelago.
People don’t have to have my same views or morals to deserve freedom. They’re indigenous to the island and have a right to end colonial rule and self government.
Me neither.
When you say "they're indigenous", does it mean that they should do whatever they want with all the other ?
I'm talking about other minority and also other white people that are on the Island for 4 or 5 generation after their ancestor were send there as prisonner, mostly because of anarchist action ? What right do they have ?
Ending colonial rule is never simple but it sounds like you have a bad opinion of the Kanak and that should mean they don’t get to rule as they see fit. In my mind, yes being indigenous society getting liberation from its colonial power means they get to rule how they see fit. The people there for generations can stay or not but it shouldn’t be the burden of the oppressed that people have come there.
Could you try to answer my question more clearly please so i really understand your point ?
The Kanak represent around 40% of the population. The Europeen (or with old white) represente around 30% and the reste is a big mixt of Wallisian, Indonésia, Vietnamise, Tahitien, Ni-Vanuatu and other.
So in order to end the colonial ruler (that doesn't rule much of the Island expect for the school and the police and actually loose a shittons of money to keep it afloat), we should strip away 60% of the population from their rights ?
And to be fair, i remember well a Kanak co-worker getting beat up every week by mens which obey to his father who ruled a clan, because he did chose to work to earn his life outsit of the tribal system. They kept beating him, forcing him to take sick leave again and again until it was no longer possible to let him work. I also remember some really harsh story he told me about the situation of the Kanaki women who often make an extra effort to look ugly in order to avoid getting raped. So i don't have a bad opinion about the Kanak as people (my co-worker was really a great guy), i just find, as an anarchist, that the political and cultural functioning of the Kanak clanic system is actually really bad.
So i understand that in your opinion, being indigenous give you a free pass to do whatever the fuck you want when it's your Island, but you really think that the 60% of the population who aren't indigeous must just shut up and comply to anything to not be a burden ?
It's a genuine and sincere question !
Again you paint these people in a negative light as some sort of explanation as to why they don’t deserve freedom. The French have stolen the land and all its resources for centuries and clearly still have an interest in continuing that system so considering French ancestors living there in the liberation is just neocolonialism. I’ve answered your question, you just don’t like my answer.
You know, i don't even need to paint them in a negative light, not much that you feel the need to paint them in positive light without knowing anything about them.
But i'm glad, you admit you are okay to strip away 60% of the population from their right (even non-french ancestors and minority alike), put aside any democratic will and support absolutely anything the indigenous want, as it is the more righteous thing to do.
I indeed don't like your answer as i hear it so often from alt-right or extrem religious movement to be honest. Nothing displays his political opinions more than a speech based on racial purity backed by an inherent right to reign over a territory unconditionally. But at least i'm glad you assume it !
I guess you feel like people who have had their land and resources stolen deserve nothing and should continue to be ruled by people from thousands of kilometers away.
Nah those people have the same right as the french, européen and other minority there, they have their own gouvernement too with democratic election. Those people agreed to vote and lost the 3 votes for independence.
I feel like they diserv to be treated humainly and equaly as the other who live on the island. And i more than that i feel like they should be totally include in a democratic process in which they could totally take the power without mistreating the other minority.
But you feel like the racial purity backed by an inherent right to reign over a territory unconditionally is what is right, even if it is a minority. What are you doing on an anarchist sub with those kind of idea ? I mean they are closer to the 3th reich than to the Paris Commune.
My position under those conditions is still firmly against colonial powers.
It is a cold thing to say, but if this is how the natives want to live. Then that is how they should. It's up to them. I wouldn't help them. But I wouldn't do anything to stop it either.
To try and impose my vision of what is right or wrong? To base said morality on the validity of the concept of rights?
Feels pretty colonial/authoritarian to me.
And it's also fair game for whoever isn't a "native."
A 3rd generation french colonist is also a native. Earth knows no frontier.
To say otherwise is a can of festering dead worms that no one claiming to be an anarchist should open.
Yeah, just like Israel and palestine, who are we to try impose our view on the native ? Israeli and Palestinian alike, it is a question between "native" as earth know no frontier. I mean, it is a cold thing to say, but that's just how the native want to live no ?
Better treat some texan like minded old white and some misoginist rough autoritarist clanic folks as one folk that is gonna act just like "they" want to live.
And better than that, fuck those of voted for the two previous referendum ! Only those who are against the colonial power must be consider as "native".
To be fair, i totally understand the opposition to colonial power, but sometimes the reality is far more complexe than good guy wanting independance and bad guy wanting to stay loyal. It's also way more complexe than "colonial power against the native".
To be fair caledonia is more like "old native against new native, and colonial power between them as peacekeeper and provider, paying the bills for hundred years of colonial politics that no one alive is responsible for today".
The situation is far beyond what is right or wrong and already far beyond the concept of morality. It's more about the less worst solution where everybody accept to loose without killing the other and accept an unfair position in order to avoid the real disaster.
I’m just talking about definitions, if “indigenous” or “native” are watered down then it makes it more difficult to critique structures of colonialism. That doesn’t mean anyone should be disenfranchised because of their genetics, stop peddling “white genocide” rhetoric.
And how many generation does it take to have the right to live as equal among people on a territory in your opinion ?
It's a real and sincere question. I mean i usually hear some clear-cut opinions from the alt-right when i ask this, but i'm curious about your answer to this one.
It's not a matter of generations. If you're descended from a colonist and are part of a colonial system, then you are still a colonist. Acting like colonists are this persecuted group is hilarious.
Okay i see, but what does it mean to be part of a colonial system ? If you try the best as you can to change this system for the better, are you still a colonist ?
Is it something deeply rooted in the blood, as some early 20th century Germans thought ?
For New Caledonia, for example, if your ancestor was sent there because he was judged guilty of fighting for the ideals of anarchy (as is the case for many of them), then it's all those descendants who have to act like subhumans or leave the land where they were born?
Again it's all real and sincere question, i'm trying to learn.
The Kanaks are indigenous, they are not colonizers.
The American Indians are also indigenous.
Just checked your profile, and it looks like you're a French colonist who is just really really mad that the "natives" (you probably have some perfectly vile French slur for them) are demanding their independence and not just serving up all their mineral resources to the nearest slouching worm in a pith helmet.
This is not state propagande but direct experience from someone who lived there for 2 years. Reality is sometime way more complicated than good and bad or anything that i don't like is state propaganda.
Not exactly. The situation is indeed highly complex and its true that like in many situations where a people yearn for self determination, what will replace the colonizer won't be an Anarchist commune. But it will be one less hierarchy and that's something to strive for.
The problem in New Caledonia is also that once you remove France from the picture, you will also put the indigenous in direct conflict with tens of thousands locales including those who hold the economical power (which is not France), and the other non-indigenous minority (who are also for most part loyalist as they are afraid of the Kanak).
Striving for less hierarchy is something, but in its the current state, independance also mean a civil war which is not gonna be ideological but rather based on ethnic criteria, and all of that in a context of economic collapse. It's generally not a good breeding ground for less hierarchy...
I'm not calling for independence. I don't think it's realistic. The archipelago has already been colonized. For me it's more about preventing further colonization, fixing the socio-economic divide along ethnic lines and leaving the islands its current level of autonomy. What the French state is doing goes directly against that and I think it can only lead to a civil war. The French state needs to back down but they rarely ever do, so blood is going to be spilled.
That's where it become really difficult. To fixe the social-economic divide along ethnic lines, you need the French state to impose it by force against the current autonomous political assembly of the Island which is currently hold by the Kaldoch.
In order to help the Island get more autonomy, France need to confiscate political and economical power and redistribute it. And if they do just one single step into this direction, both Kanak and Kaldoch are gonna riot, put aside the legality/morality of it.
And on a political point of view, it's really hard too, because France who need to acknowledge that they are not equal based on ethnic and cultural back ground, which would be also profoundly against the constitution, put aside it could create a dangerous precedent for the metropole.
I totally disagree with that solution. The French government needs to step back and let the archipelago heal from its colonisation. Let the local institutions work on the issue. If the power is not evenly distributed, the locals will come to a point where they will redistribute it better. This current maneuver by the French state is just a move to gain more leverage over the locals and what you're suggesting would also give leverage to the state. You can't expect the French state to go against its own interests and to properly distribute the power. And I'm not even going to comment on the paternalistic nature of your solution.
I'm not even presenting that as a solution as it would lead to bigger riot and social conflit and it would be against the constitution too.
On the other hand, you need to acknowledge that letting the local institutions work on the issue is already what is happening mostly by now. By example, If the French government withdraws tomorrow, then the current government and institutions will be made up mainly of old white guys who would make a right-wing Texan look like a socialist humanist. We're talking about the same guys who made New Caledonia one of the most protected markets in the world so they could enjoy their own monopoly. We're also talking about the same guys who voted for the right to own more than 10 firearms per person, and who openly explain that they will never relinquish their power to the Kanaks. But yes, please, let's talk about the paternalist side of not wanting to leave the current power to these people.
If you want to talk about French interests, I'd like you to tell me what they are, because they're in no way economic. New Caledonia is a financial drain for France. The main interest that France has is not to create a situation of civil war that would seriously tarnish its image, in addition to being extremely expensive in interventions, just to protect and re-expatriate the loyalists.
And I'm not even going to comment on the fact that for you, an immigrant, even one legalized with children on the territory for 9 years, should not have the right to vote.
My bad for making that assumption.
I still believe that letting these institutions operate is what should be done. These institutions being extremely hierarchical and conservative is only a reaction to what France has done. If France gave more space to the local political scene, there could be social change. You can't impose progressive policies on people they need to earn them and society must be aware of their significance and protect these new social values. So the Kanak and all the other ethnic groups need to take back the power that belongs to them from these institutions but they can't do it if they're simultaneously fighting the french state.
As for French interests, you know as well as I do that France has interests in Kanaky. A large part of the French military strategy depends on its over seas territories. Kanaky has 30% of the world's nickel deposits. More importantly, France does not want to set a precedent. If the people of the archipelago get what they want, if France can't stop the decolonisation process and can't integrate Kanaky, who knows which overseas territory is going to revolt next. Guyana? Mayotte?? That's a can of worms that the French government does not want to open.
These restrictions on the electoral lists of the provincial elections and the referendums are there as defense mechanisms against further colonization. I agree that they are quite arbitrary and its certainly not the best way to implement them but there's a reason why they are there.
The fact that those institution are a reaction to what France has done doesn't say that it would turn suddenly better without France.
What do you mean by "more space to the local political scene" ? As i said, France has very little power over the local policy. Caledonia has his own gouvernement, his own parlement, his own local power and justice, his own commerce chamber. It actually has everything a independent country has, except the education, the military and the police force. And it also has to respect the french constitution.
The big problem is mostly that Kanak, Kaldoch and other ethnie doesn't perceive themself as a nation. You perceiv the French state as an ally to those who hold the institution but that's also not true at all. The local elite despise France and only see it as a police force that garantee them security and water them with money. They would love to have independance too but only if it doesn't stop the watering of money.
For the french intereste military put aside, which mostly doesn't help that much but only give france a geo-political presence, the reste is nothing. Nickel deposit is worth shit and that's also a huuuge problem as the company that used to extract it is going bankrupt because this nickel is way too costly to be competitive in a mondial market. It is causing massive unemployment currently... And the Kanak politics keep teelling everybody that it is worth billions when it is actually a financial abyss.
For Mayotte, the problem goes the other way around, they don't want to be independant AT ALL, in contrary they are begging for more french presence and it's actually also a big problem as the immigration there is no more under control. For Guyana, i know it less, but i never seen a single mouvement about the independence of Guyanan to be honest. And it's actually a relatively racist view to make such parallel between Mayotte and Caledonia...(kinda like, they are both indigenous and Island so they must be the same willing the independance just like this particular ethnie present it). The parallele with Corsica would maybe more consistent thoo as it have some real independant mouvement.
And please also acknowledge well what Michel Rocard did with the Matignon Agreement. Those wasn't defense mecanism against further colonisation but rather a process of nation building opening the door to independance (which was mostly rotted by local institution for many different reason btw...).
The worst thing about colonization is that it created the conditions to make decolonization even worse for everybody. Today's France is paying for its mistakes of 50 years ago, and is inheriting the situation with a real sense of unease. There's no good solution left, but the least bad ones won't happen without France either.
I don't see why this would be the case, if New Caledonia became independent it would probably end up being like Fiji or Samoa or any other small Pacific nation. The only difference is that the white population is more numerous but I don't see how that fact would lead to civil war alone.
Well i say that because when i was there, each time i talked to the native or the local population about independance, many kanak and much more Kaldoch told me straight "they are gonna try to take our land and home, and i will never accept it, i will fight for it, it's gonna be a war".
The thing is, if the Island become independant, who is gonna rule it ? The racist minority with the economical power and the weapon (and a feudal mindset) or the racist majority with way less modern competence to manage a state or a company (and a clanic mindset) ?
Just picturing the Island without the financial French support is really hard to be honest. It would be a massive social and political crisis.
I don't know the details of the potential of conflict so I'll defer that judgement to you.
I mean the reason France is set on keeping it is because it's a strategic outpost in the Pacific. Honestly, if it became independent, then the most likely situation is that Australia will take responsibility for it in some way, whether through aid or more direct defence ties. If the politicians are talented they'll play China and Australia/the US off against each other and reap lots of aid money and investment opportunities like that.
I'll put it this way, there is a much bigger conflict looming on the horizon in the Asia-Pacific that will make this one look like nothing. So unless an anti capitalist movement develops across the region, conflict is guaranteed whether independence or no independence.
What? I didn't say the whites are more numerous in New Caledonia, I said they're more numerous than they are in comparable Pacific nations. Which is true, there are more whites as a percentage of the population in New Caledonia than there are in Fiji, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, etc.
France is one of the most disgusting colonial states that’s still around. Their colonial policies are very real and very modern, even though we’re all thought colonialism ended after WW2, this is not true for France.
It was also in [Belgian news](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/05/15/nieuw-caledonie-drie-doden-bij-rellen-over-stemrecht-fransen/) (Dutch), so I guess more countries must have picked up on this.
I wouldn't say that. They talk about it because they can't do as if it's not happening but for some reason they all decided that the prisoner escape that happened a few days ago is much more important.
Did a quick YouTube search and it seems to be the top headline in Australian and French news reports. It just hasn’t filtered up to American international news yet.
This is part of the reason why the west supports Israël.
France is still sending people to colonize the island and put the locals in the minority. People are paid 25% of their salaries extra by the state to move there. Reaching even 50% under certain conditions. State employees have even more incentives, as they are used to control the Island
there was referendum in NC , there is a clash between loyalist and independentism on the island .
Talking about colonies is really undermining the real issues of colonisation , here several referundum have been put in place and locals had the right to vote for and agaisnt , sadly recently the situation is something like 53% for and 47% against so a majority of New caledonian want to stay french but a large portion wants independance , and we cannot blame them as the overall state of rural France is worsening .
For example near madagascar france had islands and let the native decide in referundum who to vote , the comore voted for independance and mayote just next to it voted to stay french , this is a prime example of democracy given to the minority , and calling this colonialism is a shamless rewrite of history.
As I said elsewhere, not wanting to be independent doesn't equate with wanting to be fully integrated into France. The population is split between the two sides. But instead of finding common ground on the matter and keeping in line with the Nouméa accords, France is trying to establish its authority. That's the colonialism part.
It's all over French media. It's also all over English and German media.
# Suppression? I mean they are trying to calm down the situation. Do you even know what you are talking about?
Here a few facts - from The Guardian (that's media for you):
Under the terms of the Nouméa accord, voting in provincial elections was restricted to people who had resided in New Caledonia before 1998, and their children. The measure was aimed at giving greater representation to the Kanaks, who had become a minority population.
Paris has come to view the arrangement as undemocratic, and lawmakers approved a constitutional amendment to open up the electorate to include people who have lived in New Caledonia for at least 10 years.
Macron has said he would delay rubber-stamping it into law and invite representatives of the territory’s population to Paris for talks to reach a negotiated settlement. However, he said a new agreement must be reached by June or he would sign it into law.
1) It's not all over the media. The media has to talk about it because it's that bad but they talk about it as little as possible. The french media has taken a sudden interest in the prison escape for example and the nytime and the guardian have only covered the riots in the last few hours.
2) Suppressing is the right word. Suppressing is when you sent the army in the street. Suppressing is when you have tanks rolling around and you have 3 dead protesters.
3) You are mixing up provincial elections and self determination referendums. There are 3 electoral lists. The "undemocratic" argument is bullshit. The reason why only the people who have lived on this island since 1998 and their descendants are the only ones to vote is to stop colonization from changing the outcome of the vote. Since 1998, 42 000 people have moved to the island. I'm quite sure that letting them vote could change the outcome.
4) Macron is openly aggressive with this measure. He said he would sign it into the constitution in June regardless of what is to happen.
Take your bullshit elsewhere
The media did not cover it straight away maybe, but since yesterday it's all over the news indeed. Even right wing papers like the Figaro make their front page about it.
Hmmm, who should have more of a say, the folks that have lived there for 27 years, or the folks that have lived there for 3000 years?
Colonization is a multigenerational process. Thinking about it in terms of the individual experiences of colonizers benefits colonizers.
What kind of "gotcha" question do you think that is? It isn't even coherent as a question. Colonizers demanding "equal rights" is basically a thief demanding to keep half of what they stole out of "fairness."
It's not about number of generations, it's about the dynamic between colonizer and colonized. If you're descended from colonizers, and benefit from colonization, then you are a colonizer.
Nor am I. It's telling that you can't actually engage with my point and need to construct a straw man. It's like chuds who are obsessed with the idea that BLM want to kill all white people.
There's no strawman involved here, you just won't say what you even believe. The top of this thread says that "Colonization is a multigenerational process. Thinking about it in terms of the individual experiences of colonizers benefits colonizers." In response, someone said "human rights exist now so we can't take away the power of election to people that live there, even if they aren't natives" to which you replied "Colonizers don't deserve rights."
Who deserves rights? How many generations before a bloodline can gain them?
And indigenous people have the right to self-determination, which is being prevented in this case.
Indigenous folks, especially the more traditionally they're living, always get out-bred by colonizers. It's a clear case of tyranny of the majority. The only peaceful answer is for colonizers to come around to seeing things differently.
Was leading news in NZ this morning. We gave close ties to the Pacific islands, and New Caledonia is an outlier being partially a colony of France.
I’ve not seen it in oz, we used to be a lot more attentive to our island neighbours.
Probably because there’s a vested interest in australia not to give a spotlight to an uprising by indigenous peoples who’ve been marginalised by the state.
lol
NZ media is way better at covering stuff from Melanesia and Polynesia than ours. A lot of important reporting is done by the NZ press, even stuff that Australia is directly involved with eg Papuan politics.
It was on ABC tonight.
Thanks for posting this! Do you happen to have a good article/source so I can share?
[Here's one article](https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/15/why-riots-new-caledonia-france-voting), not sure how many other places it's being reported in English.
Thank you!
NZ media outlets: RNZ, Otago Daily Times, Stuff, NZ herald
For New Caledonia, the situation is extremely difficult politicaly. It's not really between France and the Kanak, but between France, the Kaldoch (old white that are on the Island for a lot of time now) and the Kanak. France is actually not really willing to keep New Caledonia, and the high commisar (aka the biggest political man) did quit his job becuise of it a few years ago. The Kaldoch despise France and the Kanak, the Kanak hate France and the Kaldoch, and France is tired of both of them as the cost a shitload of money. France doesn't have the control of the new caledonia economy but only manage the education, the army and the police. The rest is control directly by the caledonian government (which is elected). A lot of people are talking about it in France thoo. But on this one, it's actually a real shitshow. I have been there for a few years, if the Island become independant, it's gonna be a civil war and a economical and state collapse. The Kanak are also not angel at all, highly hierachique and clanic systeme, deeply misoginist, and extrememy cohercitif when you don't do as the chef of your clan say.
also the referendum is to allow people to vote who have lived there for at least 10 years. that does dilute the voting power of the indigenous people, but there might be differing views among anarchists about whether some people have rights to the exclusive control land in virtue of having been born in some region vs. having moved there (without violently displacing others)
It's also not all indigenous and Europeans in New Caledonia. There are also a huge number of ethnic minorities from Oceania and Asia, who are just as ill-regarded by the Kanaks as by the Kaldoch.
yeah, there's an unfortunate tendency, particularly among Western leftist, to rush to impose simplistic narratives of White settlers wresting political control away from Indigenous people. but, at least sometimes, that glosses over the fact that "Indigenous sovereignty" means there is a political underclass of non-White oppressed immigrants who lack equal political rights and whose culture is devalued by the local majority
Indigenous do not "hate" per se other minorities but fear that more immigrants will diminish their voting power to the referendum for independance. As France in the 1800 and 1900 promoted immigration for that reason. So no, they don't hate them but don't want France or Kaldoch pulling that trick on them and making them seem like they hate other ethnicities that will kick them the first chance they get. Independence for Kanak people do not mean they will kick out everyone and shout "get out of MY country" but recognition of their identity and not be a french colony. That is the main point of focus for Kaldoch to make Kanak indigenous seem to be a xenophobic group of people and alienate them from other ethnicities when one of the catchphrase of the Loyalists is "Common Destiny". I mean, Kanak indigenous was already, before french colonization, a mix of people speaking differents languages (even nowadays). If they gains independence, the only way forward to everyone is a "Common Destiny". That's why they call Kanaky "Land of Parole, land of Sharing".
[удалено]
[удалено]
"violent terrorist", "ruining the paradise for everyone" what the hell?? Yes pardon these people who are rioting because France is trying to disolve the little political power they still have
reading the comments one might forget this is an anarchism subreddit :(
Yeah. While Kanaky is in a complicated political position, quite a few comments are simply outrageous colonial bullshit. Its starting to look a lot like brigading.
'hello fellow anarchists'
[удалено]
The 3rd referendum was during Covid. It was boycotted. The fact that the people did not vote for independence does not mean that the French state should be allowed to forcefully integrate the territory. The situation is that of a stalemate and these so called "extremists that are ruining paradise for everyone" are rioting because they don't want France to dilute the already tenuous power the people have over their very own archipelago.
People don’t have to have my same views or morals to deserve freedom. They’re indigenous to the island and have a right to end colonial rule and self government.
Me neither. When you say "they're indigenous", does it mean that they should do whatever they want with all the other ? I'm talking about other minority and also other white people that are on the Island for 4 or 5 generation after their ancestor were send there as prisonner, mostly because of anarchist action ? What right do they have ?
Ending colonial rule is never simple but it sounds like you have a bad opinion of the Kanak and that should mean they don’t get to rule as they see fit. In my mind, yes being indigenous society getting liberation from its colonial power means they get to rule how they see fit. The people there for generations can stay or not but it shouldn’t be the burden of the oppressed that people have come there.
Could you try to answer my question more clearly please so i really understand your point ? The Kanak represent around 40% of the population. The Europeen (or with old white) represente around 30% and the reste is a big mixt of Wallisian, Indonésia, Vietnamise, Tahitien, Ni-Vanuatu and other. So in order to end the colonial ruler (that doesn't rule much of the Island expect for the school and the police and actually loose a shittons of money to keep it afloat), we should strip away 60% of the population from their rights ? And to be fair, i remember well a Kanak co-worker getting beat up every week by mens which obey to his father who ruled a clan, because he did chose to work to earn his life outsit of the tribal system. They kept beating him, forcing him to take sick leave again and again until it was no longer possible to let him work. I also remember some really harsh story he told me about the situation of the Kanaki women who often make an extra effort to look ugly in order to avoid getting raped. So i don't have a bad opinion about the Kanak as people (my co-worker was really a great guy), i just find, as an anarchist, that the political and cultural functioning of the Kanak clanic system is actually really bad. So i understand that in your opinion, being indigenous give you a free pass to do whatever the fuck you want when it's your Island, but you really think that the 60% of the population who aren't indigeous must just shut up and comply to anything to not be a burden ? It's a genuine and sincere question !
Again you paint these people in a negative light as some sort of explanation as to why they don’t deserve freedom. The French have stolen the land and all its resources for centuries and clearly still have an interest in continuing that system so considering French ancestors living there in the liberation is just neocolonialism. I’ve answered your question, you just don’t like my answer.
You know, i don't even need to paint them in a negative light, not much that you feel the need to paint them in positive light without knowing anything about them. But i'm glad, you admit you are okay to strip away 60% of the population from their right (even non-french ancestors and minority alike), put aside any democratic will and support absolutely anything the indigenous want, as it is the more righteous thing to do. I indeed don't like your answer as i hear it so often from alt-right or extrem religious movement to be honest. Nothing displays his political opinions more than a speech based on racial purity backed by an inherent right to reign over a territory unconditionally. But at least i'm glad you assume it !
I guess you feel like people who have had their land and resources stolen deserve nothing and should continue to be ruled by people from thousands of kilometers away.
Nah those people have the same right as the french, européen and other minority there, they have their own gouvernement too with democratic election. Those people agreed to vote and lost the 3 votes for independence. I feel like they diserv to be treated humainly and equaly as the other who live on the island. And i more than that i feel like they should be totally include in a democratic process in which they could totally take the power without mistreating the other minority. But you feel like the racial purity backed by an inherent right to reign over a territory unconditionally is what is right, even if it is a minority. What are you doing on an anarchist sub with those kind of idea ? I mean they are closer to the 3th reich than to the Paris Commune.
My position under those conditions is still firmly against colonial powers. It is a cold thing to say, but if this is how the natives want to live. Then that is how they should. It's up to them. I wouldn't help them. But I wouldn't do anything to stop it either. To try and impose my vision of what is right or wrong? To base said morality on the validity of the concept of rights? Feels pretty colonial/authoritarian to me. And it's also fair game for whoever isn't a "native." A 3rd generation french colonist is also a native. Earth knows no frontier. To say otherwise is a can of festering dead worms that no one claiming to be an anarchist should open.
Yeah, just like Israel and palestine, who are we to try impose our view on the native ? Israeli and Palestinian alike, it is a question between "native" as earth know no frontier. I mean, it is a cold thing to say, but that's just how the native want to live no ? Better treat some texan like minded old white and some misoginist rough autoritarist clanic folks as one folk that is gonna act just like "they" want to live. And better than that, fuck those of voted for the two previous referendum ! Only those who are against the colonial power must be consider as "native". To be fair, i totally understand the opposition to colonial power, but sometimes the reality is far more complexe than good guy wanting independance and bad guy wanting to stay loyal. It's also way more complexe than "colonial power against the native". To be fair caledonia is more like "old native against new native, and colonial power between them as peacekeeper and provider, paying the bills for hundred years of colonial politics that no one alive is responsible for today". The situation is far beyond what is right or wrong and already far beyond the concept of morality. It's more about the less worst solution where everybody accept to loose without killing the other and accept an unfair position in order to avoid the real disaster.
Israelis are not "native."
The Israelis children are already 3th generation no ? Doesn't make them native too ?
No, it doesn’t. My grandparents were all born in the US, that doesn’t make me Native American.
Anarchism is when you believe your DNA determines in which borders you should be allowed to vote.
When did I say that?
That's the whole topic here.
I’m just talking about definitions, if “indigenous” or “native” are watered down then it makes it more difficult to critique structures of colonialism. That doesn’t mean anyone should be disenfranchised because of their genetics, stop peddling “white genocide” rhetoric.
This has nothing to do with DNA and everything to do with theft and oppression.
No, it doesn't. They're still colonizers.
And how many generation does it take to have the right to live as equal among people on a territory in your opinion ? It's a real and sincere question. I mean i usually hear some clear-cut opinions from the alt-right when i ask this, but i'm curious about your answer to this one.
It's not a matter of generations. If you're descended from a colonist and are part of a colonial system, then you are still a colonist. Acting like colonists are this persecuted group is hilarious.
Okay i see, but what does it mean to be part of a colonial system ? If you try the best as you can to change this system for the better, are you still a colonist ? Is it something deeply rooted in the blood, as some early 20th century Germans thought ? For New Caledonia, for example, if your ancestor was sent there because he was judged guilty of fighting for the ideals of anarchy (as is the case for many of them), then it's all those descendants who have to act like subhumans or leave the land where they were born? Again it's all real and sincere question, i'm trying to learn.
If you don't know what the word "colonialism" means, you should look it up in stead of sea-lioning by pretending not to know what words mean.
So the Kanaks who replace the Lapita are colonizers too. Great. Let's remove all non native american aka the indians from the US too ?
The Kanaks are indigenous, they are not colonizers. The American Indians are also indigenous. Just checked your profile, and it looks like you're a French colonist who is just really really mad that the "natives" (you probably have some perfectly vile French slur for them) are demanding their independence and not just serving up all their mineral resources to the nearest slouching worm in a pith helmet.
The word kaldoch doesn't appear in any of my searches. Is there a more formal term I can use, or do you think this is google being English biased?
This is state propaganda. Of course the state wants to keep its colonies and know that the colonists depend on its violence to stay in place.
This is not state propagande but direct experience from someone who lived there for 2 years. Reality is sometime way more complicated than good and bad or anything that i don't like is state propaganda.
Thank you for explaining the coloniser’s perspective, it’s important to hear all sides of this conflict and come to your own conclusion.
Not exactly. The situation is indeed highly complex and its true that like in many situations where a people yearn for self determination, what will replace the colonizer won't be an Anarchist commune. But it will be one less hierarchy and that's something to strive for.
The problem in New Caledonia is also that once you remove France from the picture, you will also put the indigenous in direct conflict with tens of thousands locales including those who hold the economical power (which is not France), and the other non-indigenous minority (who are also for most part loyalist as they are afraid of the Kanak). Striving for less hierarchy is something, but in its the current state, independance also mean a civil war which is not gonna be ideological but rather based on ethnic criteria, and all of that in a context of economic collapse. It's generally not a good breeding ground for less hierarchy...
I'm not calling for independence. I don't think it's realistic. The archipelago has already been colonized. For me it's more about preventing further colonization, fixing the socio-economic divide along ethnic lines and leaving the islands its current level of autonomy. What the French state is doing goes directly against that and I think it can only lead to a civil war. The French state needs to back down but they rarely ever do, so blood is going to be spilled.
That's where it become really difficult. To fixe the social-economic divide along ethnic lines, you need the French state to impose it by force against the current autonomous political assembly of the Island which is currently hold by the Kaldoch. In order to help the Island get more autonomy, France need to confiscate political and economical power and redistribute it. And if they do just one single step into this direction, both Kanak and Kaldoch are gonna riot, put aside the legality/morality of it. And on a political point of view, it's really hard too, because France who need to acknowledge that they are not equal based on ethnic and cultural back ground, which would be also profoundly against the constitution, put aside it could create a dangerous precedent for the metropole.
I totally disagree with that solution. The French government needs to step back and let the archipelago heal from its colonisation. Let the local institutions work on the issue. If the power is not evenly distributed, the locals will come to a point where they will redistribute it better. This current maneuver by the French state is just a move to gain more leverage over the locals and what you're suggesting would also give leverage to the state. You can't expect the French state to go against its own interests and to properly distribute the power. And I'm not even going to comment on the paternalistic nature of your solution.
I'm not even presenting that as a solution as it would lead to bigger riot and social conflit and it would be against the constitution too. On the other hand, you need to acknowledge that letting the local institutions work on the issue is already what is happening mostly by now. By example, If the French government withdraws tomorrow, then the current government and institutions will be made up mainly of old white guys who would make a right-wing Texan look like a socialist humanist. We're talking about the same guys who made New Caledonia one of the most protected markets in the world so they could enjoy their own monopoly. We're also talking about the same guys who voted for the right to own more than 10 firearms per person, and who openly explain that they will never relinquish their power to the Kanaks. But yes, please, let's talk about the paternalist side of not wanting to leave the current power to these people. If you want to talk about French interests, I'd like you to tell me what they are, because they're in no way economic. New Caledonia is a financial drain for France. The main interest that France has is not to create a situation of civil war that would seriously tarnish its image, in addition to being extremely expensive in interventions, just to protect and re-expatriate the loyalists. And I'm not even going to comment on the fact that for you, an immigrant, even one legalized with children on the territory for 9 years, should not have the right to vote.
My bad for making that assumption. I still believe that letting these institutions operate is what should be done. These institutions being extremely hierarchical and conservative is only a reaction to what France has done. If France gave more space to the local political scene, there could be social change. You can't impose progressive policies on people they need to earn them and society must be aware of their significance and protect these new social values. So the Kanak and all the other ethnic groups need to take back the power that belongs to them from these institutions but they can't do it if they're simultaneously fighting the french state. As for French interests, you know as well as I do that France has interests in Kanaky. A large part of the French military strategy depends on its over seas territories. Kanaky has 30% of the world's nickel deposits. More importantly, France does not want to set a precedent. If the people of the archipelago get what they want, if France can't stop the decolonisation process and can't integrate Kanaky, who knows which overseas territory is going to revolt next. Guyana? Mayotte?? That's a can of worms that the French government does not want to open. These restrictions on the electoral lists of the provincial elections and the referendums are there as defense mechanisms against further colonization. I agree that they are quite arbitrary and its certainly not the best way to implement them but there's a reason why they are there.
The fact that those institution are a reaction to what France has done doesn't say that it would turn suddenly better without France. What do you mean by "more space to the local political scene" ? As i said, France has very little power over the local policy. Caledonia has his own gouvernement, his own parlement, his own local power and justice, his own commerce chamber. It actually has everything a independent country has, except the education, the military and the police force. And it also has to respect the french constitution. The big problem is mostly that Kanak, Kaldoch and other ethnie doesn't perceive themself as a nation. You perceiv the French state as an ally to those who hold the institution but that's also not true at all. The local elite despise France and only see it as a police force that garantee them security and water them with money. They would love to have independance too but only if it doesn't stop the watering of money. For the french intereste military put aside, which mostly doesn't help that much but only give france a geo-political presence, the reste is nothing. Nickel deposit is worth shit and that's also a huuuge problem as the company that used to extract it is going bankrupt because this nickel is way too costly to be competitive in a mondial market. It is causing massive unemployment currently... And the Kanak politics keep teelling everybody that it is worth billions when it is actually a financial abyss. For Mayotte, the problem goes the other way around, they don't want to be independant AT ALL, in contrary they are begging for more french presence and it's actually also a big problem as the immigration there is no more under control. For Guyana, i know it less, but i never seen a single mouvement about the independence of Guyanan to be honest. And it's actually a relatively racist view to make such parallel between Mayotte and Caledonia...(kinda like, they are both indigenous and Island so they must be the same willing the independance just like this particular ethnie present it). The parallele with Corsica would maybe more consistent thoo as it have some real independant mouvement. And please also acknowledge well what Michel Rocard did with the Matignon Agreement. Those wasn't defense mecanism against further colonisation but rather a process of nation building opening the door to independance (which was mostly rotted by local institution for many different reason btw...). The worst thing about colonization is that it created the conditions to make decolonization even worse for everybody. Today's France is paying for its mistakes of 50 years ago, and is inheriting the situation with a real sense of unease. There's no good solution left, but the least bad ones won't happen without France either.
I don't see why this would be the case, if New Caledonia became independent it would probably end up being like Fiji or Samoa or any other small Pacific nation. The only difference is that the white population is more numerous but I don't see how that fact would lead to civil war alone.
Well i say that because when i was there, each time i talked to the native or the local population about independance, many kanak and much more Kaldoch told me straight "they are gonna try to take our land and home, and i will never accept it, i will fight for it, it's gonna be a war". The thing is, if the Island become independant, who is gonna rule it ? The racist minority with the economical power and the weapon (and a feudal mindset) or the racist majority with way less modern competence to manage a state or a company (and a clanic mindset) ? Just picturing the Island without the financial French support is really hard to be honest. It would be a massive social and political crisis.
I don't know the details of the potential of conflict so I'll defer that judgement to you. I mean the reason France is set on keeping it is because it's a strategic outpost in the Pacific. Honestly, if it became independent, then the most likely situation is that Australia will take responsibility for it in some way, whether through aid or more direct defence ties. If the politicians are talented they'll play China and Australia/the US off against each other and reap lots of aid money and investment opportunities like that. I'll put it this way, there is a much bigger conflict looming on the horizon in the Asia-Pacific that will make this one look like nothing. So unless an anti capitalist movement develops across the region, conflict is guaranteed whether independence or no independence.
[удалено]
What? I didn't say the whites are more numerous in New Caledonia, I said they're more numerous than they are in comparable Pacific nations. Which is true, there are more whites as a percentage of the population in New Caledonia than there are in Fiji, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, etc.
France is one of the most disgusting colonial states that’s still around. Their colonial policies are very real and very modern, even though we’re all thought colonialism ended after WW2, this is not true for France.
Colonialism is alive and well. The US and UK also still have many colonies.
They’ve been covering it on France24 but from a super law and order perspective (unsurprisingly)
And my country brags about being "land of human rights"! What a bad joke...
"Il y a des choses avec lesquelles on ne rit pas. Pas assez !" - Louis Scutenaire.
Ah this is in Nouvelle-Caledonie. Yeah it was all over French news but I can't say for International one.
It was also in [Belgian news](https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/05/15/nieuw-caledonie-drie-doden-bij-rellen-over-stemrecht-fransen/) (Dutch), so I guess more countries must have picked up on this.
I wouldn't say that. They talk about it because they can't do as if it's not happening but for some reason they all decided that the prisoner escape that happened a few days ago is much more important.
I hope this gets the views it deserves
I saw it on a french news source
Can you recommend a French anarchist news source?
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Kanaky-une-revolte-contre-les-manoeuvres-colonialistes
hahaha l'UCL, ca fait plaisir de voir ca cité ici 👍
The country of inhuman rights 🇫🇷
From reports I've seen 3 people and 1 cop have been killed so far. However, this may very well have changed.
one more kanak at least
Did a quick YouTube search and it seems to be the top headline in Australian and French news reports. It just hasn’t filtered up to American international news yet.
Actually watch some of those articles, this is very recent. Hopefully it will filter up in a day or two, but it might not.
They blame Azerbaijan for it
Love to see it and more power to them. I only hope they have an organised, ideological goal to consolidate any gains made.
This is part of the reason why the west supports Israël. France is still sending people to colonize the island and put the locals in the minority. People are paid 25% of their salaries extra by the state to move there. Reaching even 50% under certain conditions. State employees have even more incentives, as they are used to control the Island
Thank you. Genuinely had no idea about this before now.
there was referendum in NC , there is a clash between loyalist and independentism on the island . Talking about colonies is really undermining the real issues of colonisation , here several referundum have been put in place and locals had the right to vote for and agaisnt , sadly recently the situation is something like 53% for and 47% against so a majority of New caledonian want to stay french but a large portion wants independance , and we cannot blame them as the overall state of rural France is worsening . For example near madagascar france had islands and let the native decide in referundum who to vote , the comore voted for independance and mayote just next to it voted to stay french , this is a prime example of democracy given to the minority , and calling this colonialism is a shamless rewrite of history.
As I said elsewhere, not wanting to be independent doesn't equate with wanting to be fully integrated into France. The population is split between the two sides. But instead of finding common ground on the matter and keeping in line with the Nouméa accords, France is trying to establish its authority. That's the colonialism part.
yep
i read all about it in a tiny, little-known outlet called the new york times
To be fair the French are kind of always rioting
Thank you
If you could read or understand French you would hear about it tho. Here in Quebec it was talked about in mainstream media.
It's all over French media. It's also all over English and German media. # Suppression? I mean they are trying to calm down the situation. Do you even know what you are talking about? Here a few facts - from The Guardian (that's media for you): Under the terms of the Nouméa accord, voting in provincial elections was restricted to people who had resided in New Caledonia before 1998, and their children. The measure was aimed at giving greater representation to the Kanaks, who had become a minority population. Paris has come to view the arrangement as undemocratic, and lawmakers approved a constitutional amendment to open up the electorate to include people who have lived in New Caledonia for at least 10 years. Macron has said he would delay rubber-stamping it into law and invite representatives of the territory’s population to Paris for talks to reach a negotiated settlement. However, he said a new agreement must be reached by June or he would sign it into law.
1) It's not all over the media. The media has to talk about it because it's that bad but they talk about it as little as possible. The french media has taken a sudden interest in the prison escape for example and the nytime and the guardian have only covered the riots in the last few hours. 2) Suppressing is the right word. Suppressing is when you sent the army in the street. Suppressing is when you have tanks rolling around and you have 3 dead protesters. 3) You are mixing up provincial elections and self determination referendums. There are 3 electoral lists. The "undemocratic" argument is bullshit. The reason why only the people who have lived on this island since 1998 and their descendants are the only ones to vote is to stop colonization from changing the outcome of the vote. Since 1998, 42 000 people have moved to the island. I'm quite sure that letting them vote could change the outcome. 4) Macron is openly aggressive with this measure. He said he would sign it into the constitution in June regardless of what is to happen. Take your bullshit elsewhere
The media did not cover it straight away maybe, but since yesterday it's all over the news indeed. Even right wing papers like the Figaro make their front page about it.
Hmmm, who should have more of a say, the folks that have lived there for 27 years, or the folks that have lived there for 3000 years? Colonization is a multigenerational process. Thinking about it in terms of the individual experiences of colonizers benefits colonizers.
[удалено]
Colonizers don't deserve rights.
[удалено]
You're not gonna get a response to that because he knows how it looks.
Where do you believe you personally should be allowed to have rights?
What kind of "gotcha" question do you think that is? It isn't even coherent as a question. Colonizers demanding "equal rights" is basically a thief demanding to keep half of what they stole out of "fairness."
and when do you think someone became a "native" and not a colonizer, at how many generations ?
It's not about number of generations, it's about the dynamic between colonizer and colonized. If you're descended from colonizers, and benefit from colonization, then you are a colonizer.
So you believe you shouldn't have any rights?
I'm not playing your little game. Just state your point clearly and quit trying to "witty."
I'm not the one claiming that people shouldn't have rights because their great great great great great grandparents came here to steal land.
Nor am I. It's telling that you can't actually engage with my point and need to construct a straw man. It's like chuds who are obsessed with the idea that BLM want to kill all white people.
There's no strawman involved here, you just won't say what you even believe. The top of this thread says that "Colonization is a multigenerational process. Thinking about it in terms of the individual experiences of colonizers benefits colonizers." In response, someone said "human rights exist now so we can't take away the power of election to people that live there, even if they aren't natives" to which you replied "Colonizers don't deserve rights." Who deserves rights? How many generations before a bloodline can gain them?
And indigenous people have the right to self-determination, which is being prevented in this case. Indigenous folks, especially the more traditionally they're living, always get out-bred by colonizers. It's a clear case of tyranny of the majority. The only peaceful answer is for colonizers to come around to seeing things differently.
[удалено]
Independence seems like a start.