Worldwide Demographics

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I'll ask some Wikipedians to edit and change it. There's no reason why they shouldn't have the figures for the entire France when INSEE publishes historical series since 1957.

And in any case, in the main France article, it's the figure for the entire France that appears, not the figure for Metropolitan France (again, as explained yesterday, that 69.1 million figure is itself an underestimate, and the final figure will probably be around 69.9 million).

Please, don't vandalize Wikipedia. Such info for Metropolitan France is extremely important for historical reasons. Mayotte long-term demographic patterns have nothing to do with France's. They're completely alien.

France is probably the most valuable country for demographers. It has reliable data dating back centuries, it went through some very distinct demographic patterns (the 1750-1945 stagnation) to a sudden "boom" (1945-). Don't ruin things over your silly nationalism. Nationalism is tacky anyway.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think the usage of Metropolitan France as apples-apples France is defensible. Usually, overseas territories are not counted in population, GDP, etc., even if the territory residents have citizenship, voting rights, etc.

Counting territories would have been pretty weird during the colonial era. Portugal would have probably been the most populous and poorest country in "Europe" in the 1970's, given its extensive African holdings.

And I don't understand the analogy with 48 states. There are 50 states. Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. are not counted as U.S., even though those are citizens with voting rights.

It's a perfectly reasonable explanation and that's why several outlets use it. This whole two-page long discussion is pointless.

The French Republic has 69 million people. No one is claiming otherwise. However, we were discussing long-term births/deaths patterns and more to the point, comparing it with their European neighbours. It provides zero intel to include an overpopulated island, with a completely different culture and socioeconomics on the southern Indian Ocean.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Usually, overseas territories are not counted in population, GDP, etc., even if the territory residents have citizenship, voting rights, etc.

So Hawaii and Alaska are not counted in US figures?

Anyway, you and Yuri are fighting a losing battle. IMF, World Bank, Eurostat, OECD, etc all include the overseas departments of France in the figures for France. That's how it is, whether you guys like it or not.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Portugal would have probably been the most populous and poorest country in "Europe" in the 1970's, given its extensive African holdings.

Yeah, totally the same thing. Angola and Mozambique didn't have civic rights and full equality with mainland Portugal. Comparing these with the French overseas departments of today is like comparing the Hawaii of today with the US occupation of Haiti in the 1930s.

Originally Posted by Crawford

And I don't understand the analogy with 48 states. There are 50 states. Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. are not counted as U.S., even though those are citizens with voting rights.

And there are 18 French regions, 5 of them overseas, just as there are 50 US states, 2 of them overseas. New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, St Barth, St Martin, St Pierre and Miquelon are not counted, so it's the same as in the US really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_France

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Yuri

The Act of Union happened in 1801. Vital stats series start for Britain in 1838: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Kingdom#Vital_statistics

Yeah, and French Algeria was also legally a part of Metropolitan France. Yet in practice... Ireland remained in effect a colony almost until 1911 when they finally got equal rights, but by that time they were not interested in becoming a full part of the UK anymore, hence the Irish Revolution and subsequent independence.

Originally Posted by Yuri

Mayotte has been a French colony and more to the point, part of France since...?

1842, longer than Nice or Savoy. And longer than several Brazilian states have been part of Brazil.

Originally Posted by Yuri

That's why I used "ethnic French/European". Now you woundn't dare to say France and the French Empire were not racialist societies. That would be beyond absurd. "White" has a social meaning in France as much as in the US or Brazil. Each one with its own particularities, but race is a massive thing everywhere in Americas and Europe.

Races and ethnicity are two different things. You're mixing up concepts (or just obfuscating for the sake of obfuscating). There are races in the US, but there is no "US ethnicity".

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Yeah, totally the same thing. Angola and Mozambique didn't have civic rights and full equality with mainland Portugal. Comparing these with the French overseas departments of today is like comparing the Hawaii of today with the US occupation of Haiti in the 1930s.

Let's be coherent, please? Angola and Mozambique were Portugal by the time of their independence. Same thing with Algeria and France till 1962.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

1842, longer than Nice or Savoy. And longer than several Brazilian states have been part of Brazil.

Part of France since 2011 (!!!), part of EU in 2014. I thought it was in the 1970's. Stop doing that.

Apparently Islamic Law is still used there (!!!).

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Let's be coherent, please? Angola and Mozambique were Portugal by the time of their independence. Same thing with Algeria and France till 1962.

Algeria didn't enjoy full civic rights and equality with the rest of Metropolitan France until 1958, i.e. 4 years before its independence (so it's rather similar to Ireland which only got there in 1911, a mere 5 years before their independence revolution). And Angola/Mozambique/etc never enjoyed full civic rights and equality until their independence.

The French overseas departments have enjoyed full civic rights since 1848, and they have been fully integrated with Metropolitan France since 1946.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think the usage of Metropolitan France as apples-apples France is defensible. Usually, overseas territories are not counted in population, GDP, etc., even if the territory residents have citizenship, voting rights, etc.

Counting territories would have been pretty weird during the colonial era. Portugal would have probably been the most populous and poorest country in "Europe" in the 1970's, given its extensive African holdings.

And I don't understand the analogy with 48 states. There are 50 states. Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. are not counted as U.S., even though those are citizens with voting rights.

France has overseas departments that have the same status as districts in mainland France. Those places are more analogous to Hawaii than they are to Guam, since U.S. territories do not have the same rights as U.S. states. In fact, U.S. territories are not even protected by the U.S. Constitution.

I do see valid reasons why someone would be interested in only the population of mainland France. But I don't think there's a legal distinction in France that would exclude places like French Guiana and Guadaloupe from being calculated as part of the population of France.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I do see valid reasons why someone would be interested in only the population of mainland France. But I don't think there's a legal distinction in France that would exclude places like French Guiana and Guadaloupe from being calculated as part of the population of France.

Yes and those five overseas department are never excluded (despite of not being part of France for most of their history).

However, in some contexts (long historical series, for example), they're usually excluded for OBVIOUS reasons and Brisavoine keeps struggling with that for no reason whatsoever.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Demographically, however, most do and that's precisely my point.

Wrong. Even for demographic figures they include the population of the 5 overseas departments.

IMF:



World Bank:



Eurostat:



OECD:

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Yuri

(despite of not being part of France for most of their history).

And Rio de Janeiro was not part of Brazil for most of its history. It's been Portuguese/Brazilian for like what, 400/450 years? It was Tupi for 2000 or 3000 years before that. When the French colonists settled in the bay of Rio (before the Portuguese mind you), they exchanged with and befriended the Tupinambas who had lived there for millenniums. So let's also subtract all of Brazil from Brazilian figures?

The bay of Rio as explored and settled by the French in 1555 (the Tupinambas indicated on the upper left corner):

[Yuri]

Whatever, You told several times why Metropolitan France exists (we have even a very common name associated with it) but you don't want to understand. It's pointless.

Rio de Janeiro has been part of Brazil since ever. Brazil has been an unified entity as a single Portuguese colony since 1548, when it had a single governor-general/viceroy in charge. In 1815 Brazil became a Kingdom and was merged with the Kingdom of Portugal (United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and Algarve - capital in Rio). In 1822, Brazil separated from Portugal, with the crown-prince becoming Brazil's Emperor.

Rio de Janeiro was founded in 1565 and served as Brazil's capital for two centuries (1763-1960). This post is a complete nonsense.

[MolsonExport]

Thread hijacking deters repeat visits by members who are not interested in the bickering. Please stay on topic, so that we don't have to delete posts. This is not the Overseas France Population — Contest thread.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

France has overseas departments that have the same status as districts in mainland France. Those places are more analogous to Hawaii than they are to Guam, since U.S. territories do not have the same rights as U.S. states. In fact, U.S. territories are not even protected by the U.S. Constitution.

French overseas territories are the remnants of colonialism, as is true with overseas territories for all major powers. They are not the functional equivalent of states, at least not for any obvious reasons. France is a unitary country.

I see no reason why Martinique is more analogous to Connecticut, or Bavaria, and not USVI, or Aruba. The fact that they can vote for PM does not seem determinative. DC residents cannot vote for POTUS, while non-American residents living abroad, but with U.S. citizenship, can. That doesn't mean DC isn't part of the U.S. or a Japanese expat is really an American resident.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Crawford

French overseas territories are the remnants of colonialism, as is true with overseas territories for all major powers. They are not the functional equivalent of states, at least not for any obvious reasons. France is a unitary country.

All of the Americas is the remnant of colonialism, as well as most African countries, which were created by European colonial powers. So what?

Besides, you confuse (purposely or unknowingly) overseas territories and overseas departments. Overseas territories (ca. 600,000 people) have a degree of autonomy and are not counted in French statistics. Overseas departments (2.3 million people) are integral part of France. The exact same laws apply to them as to any department in Metropolitan France. They have less autonomy than US states. For example in Martinique there are no local taxes, only the same national taxes as everywhere in France. These is no Martinique education system, just the same French education system as everywhere in France. No Martinique justice system, just the same French justice as everywhere in France.

They are to France what the Canary Islands are to Spain, or the Azores to Portugal, or Sicily to Italy, or Northern Ireland to the UK. Just an overseas part of the country. On a side note: Azores, Canary Islands, Northern Ireland are also remnants of colonialism. No one would claim they are not today part of their respective countries.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I see no reason why Martinique is more analogous to Connecticut, or Bavaria, and not USVI, or Aruba.

US Virgin Islands and Aruba are entirely separate jurisdictions, with their own laws, own taxes, own justice system, etc. They are not represented in the parliaments of the Netherlands and the US. Freedom of movement is not even certain (I'm not sure a national from the Netherlands could freely go work in Aruba without a local working permit).

Martinique is not a separate jurisdiction. Moving there for a French person (and in fact for any EU national) is like moving to one's own country. And Martinique is represented in the French parliament by MPs who vote French laws which also apply to them. Their situation is nearly exactly similar as Canary Islands with respect to Spain.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

French overseas territories are the remnants of colonialism, as is true with overseas territories for all major powers. They are not the functional equivalent of states, at least not for any obvious reasons. France is a unitary country.

I see no reason why Martinique is more analogous to Connecticut, or Bavaria, and not USVI, or Aruba. The fact that they can vote for PM does not seem determinative. DC residents cannot vote for POTUS, while non-American residents living abroad, but with U.S. citizenship, can. That doesn't mean DC isn't part of the U.S. or a Japanese expat is really an American resident.

Because French law doesn't view Martinique any differently than it does Brittany or Normandy. Nor does American law differentiate between Connecticut and Hawaii, despite Connecticut having been a state for 237 years, so far, while Hawaii has only been one for 66 years.

And DC residents do vote for POTUS.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

For example in Martinique there are no local taxes, only the same national taxes as everywhere in France. These is no Martinique education system, just the same French education system as everywhere in France. No Martinique justice system, just the same French justice as everywhere in France.

Again, that is bc France is a unitary country. It wouldn't have the same territorial rules as the U.S., UK, Netherlands or Germany bc it's a unitary country. There is no local power of taxation.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

US Virgin Islands and Aruba are entirely separate jurisdictions, with their own laws, own taxes, own justice system, etc. They are not represented in the parliaments of the Netherlands and the US.

No. Every jurisdiction in the U.S. has the power of law, taxation and justice (tho justice usually at county level). It has nothing to with whether the jurisdiction is a constituent part of the U.S.

And the USVI is absolutely represented in Congress. They have a Congressional District with all rights as any State-based Congressional district, except voting for final, revised legislation.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Martinique is not a separate jurisdiction.Moving there for a French person (and in fact for any EU national) is like moving to one's own country.

This is almost universally true with overseas territories. I see no obvious difference.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Because French law doesn't view Martinique any differently than it does Brittany or Normandy.

That is an illustration of French unitary authority, not a commentary on overseas territories. French law is Paris.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

And DC residents do vote for POTUS.

Not for 90% of U.S. existence. It isn't determinative of whether DC is part of the U.S.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

(I'm not sure a national from the Netherlands could freely go work in Aruba without a local working permit)

I've asked Grok, which has confirmed what I suspected:

Here are the key rules for Dutch citizens (from the European Netherlands) moving to and working in Aruba based on current regulations:

• Entry and short stays: Dutch nationals can enter Aruba visa-free and stay up to 180 days (often extendable) as visitors or tourists, but paid work or internships are generally prohibited during this period.

• Long-term residence: For stays longer than 180 days or to establish residency, a residence permit is required (not automatic like in the EU); Dutch citizens not born in Aruba (or meeting specific exemptions like birth/residency in other Kingdom islands since certain dates) must apply through DIMAS, often with proof of financial self-sufficiency.

• Work rights: To work (paid employment), a work permit (or combined residence/work authorization) is typically needed, even for Dutch citizens; this often involves a labor market review (priority for local workers), employer sponsorship, and exceptions may apply for certain professionals, though it's not freely unrestricted like in the European Netherlands.

So totally different from Martinique where there is total freedom of movement, free right to reside and work, no permit needed. And vice-versa of course: Martinicans can freely settle and work anywhere in the EU, no permit needed. Social security and pension system exactly the same as in Metropolitan France.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That is an illustration of French unitary authority, not a commentary on overseas territories. French law is Paris.

No, it was purposely designed that way. Not all of France's overseas departments have the same status. French Guiana and Martinique have the same classification as Metropolitan France, but Tahiti does not. French Guiana is analogous to a state in the American context, while Tahiti is analogous to a territory.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not for 90% of U.S. existence. It isn't determinative of whether DC is part of the U.S.

I don't get your point here. Are you saying that DC was not "American"?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Because French law doesn't view Martinique any differently than it does Brittany or Normandy. Nor does American law differentiate between Connecticut and Hawaii, despite Connecticut having been a state for 237 years, so far, while Hawaii has only been one for 66 years.

And DC residents do vote for POTUS.

From a legal and political point of view, you're right. Those five territories are France.

But that's not the only dimension we can see this. From a historical, socioeconomics Crawford has a point: Guadeloupe, Martinique were French colonies for over three centuries whereas they "became France" only in 1947 and only as a desperate political attempt by the French to hold to their empire. They've developed as very different societies from Metropolitan France.

Hawaii was completely overwhelmed by the US, be it due their planters and massive military presence making the natives a small minority. Hawaii socioeconomics is above national average and it's a very functional economy. That's not the case of the French overseas departments which have a very different culture, very distinct social problems and are completely dependent on the central government to keep running.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

From a legal and political point of view, you're right.

But from a historical, socioeconomics Crawford has a point: Guadeloupe, Martinique were French colonies for over three centuries whereas they became France only in 1947 and that's only as a desperate French attempt to hold to their empire. They've developed as very different societies from Metropolitan France.

Hawaii was completely overwhelmed by the US, be it due their planters and massive military presence making the natives a small minority. Hawaii socioeconomics are above national average and it's a very functional economy. That's not the case of the French overseas departments.

We're not talking about historical and cultural contexts of Frenchness, though. We're talking about growth in Metropolitan France relative to other places in Europe, right? Because if not then where do we draw the line? French Catalonia to this day still differentiates itself from regular France after like 500 years. Is that not really France?