Worldwide Demographics

[JManc]

Isn't French Guyana to France as Hawaii and Alaska are to the US; i.e., integral part of France? Which is a transcontinental country like the US, Russia, Turkey, etc.

[New Brisavoine]

Spain is also a transcontinental country. When you tune in on Spanish radio stations while driving in Spain, at each hour just before the little news bulletin they say "Son las 3 de la tarde, las 2 en Canarias" (i.e. "It's 3pm now, 2pm in the Canary Islands"). It's the one thing you cannot miss when you travel in Spain.

Here for example you have it in the middle of the video:

• Video Link

[jmecklenborg]

These relics from the former French and Spanish empires are not important parts of their current economy or national strategies. The exception might by the EU space activity in French Guyana.

By contrast, Alaska and Hawaii are fully integrated into U.S. culture because they are critical for keeping the Pacific Ocean safe for commercial shipping.

By contrast, Puerto Rico is not critical for control of the Caribbean & Gulf of Mexico. Cuba is much more important and that's a big reason why the Communist takeover was huge problem from our perspective. Not only could it be used by the Soviets to launch short-range missiles, but the Soviet Navy could have blockaded either side of the island and prevented commercial shipping to and from U.S. gulf ports.

The United States had several chances to make Cuba a U.S. territory but we didn't and it came back to haunt us. If Russia had never sold Alaska to the U.S. and if we hadn't been aggressive in getting Hawaii, the whole of world history could be different right now.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

In this day an age of WhatsApp and videoconferences, whether you're 15 miles away or 4000 miles away makes far less difference than it used to.


The population of Spain includes the Canary Islands, Ceuta, and Melilla. And that's in Africa last time I checked. So should we also subtract these when comparing Spain with other European countries?

Again, the fact that the Canary Islands are closer to continental Spain is irrelevant. A WhatsApp call to the Canary Islands or to Réunion is not very different.

People here also tend to disregard (of be unaware of) how intertwined the overseas departments and Metropolitan France are from a human point of view. At the 2022 census, 227,800 people born in Metropolitan France lived in the 4 old overseas departments (1.9 million people), where they made up 11.9% of the population. In comparison, only 181,900 people born in the European part of Spain lived in the Canary Islands (2.2 million people) at the 2022 census, where they made up 8.3% of the population. And this despite the fact that the overseas departments are considerably more distant from Metropolitan France than the Canary Islands from continental Spain.

Also, at the 2022 census there lived in Metropolitan France 472,400 people who were born in these 4 old overseas departments, whereas there lived in the European part of Spain only 69,800 people who were born in the Canary Islands.

From a human point of view the overseas departments of France are more integrated with Metropolitan France than the Canary Islands with the European part of Spain, with more exchanges and migrations between Metropolitan France and the overseas departments than is the case for Spain and the Canary Islands, so it's absurd not to include the population of the overseas departments in the population of France while including the population of the Canary Islands in the population of Spain. Not to mention that by removing the overseas departments of France we're also removing nearly 230,000 Metropolitan Frenchmen from the French statistics. How absurd is that?

This argument makes no sense. It only reinforces how distinct French overseas departments are from Metropolitan France. They're very poor, with no job prospects for the bulk of the population. They live on Paris handouts.

Canary Islanders are virtually 100% European; Martinique and Guadeloupe is almost 100% Afro-American, Mayotte is 100% Muslim and apparently is still under Islamic Law.

So no, the average Martinican doesn't look at all like the average French European; Canary Islanders are all Spanish Europeans. That's why they enjoy the same standards of living people in continental Spain and they don't need to emigrate there: it's actually the opposite: Europeans move there for better quality of life or even job opportunities as it's one of the fastest growing regions in Spain.

Politically, Martinique is France and Canary Islands are Spain. Those are facts. But we don't need to make such absurd claims that Martinique is "more French" than Canary Islands are Spanish.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Shall we take a rest from France and her colonies? I want to discuss Poland.

I recently had this discussion on the US demographic thread about what would happen to the US urban hierarchy once the population decline kicked in. Some posts for context:







After those comments I updated my Polish tables and I found this "future US" I envisioned right there now. Poland and their main metro areas (using more broad definitions):

POLAND
2002: 38,230,080
2011: 38,511,824 --- +0.7%
2021: 38,036,118 --- -1.2%

Warsaw
2002: 2,745,602
2011: 2,884,076 --- +5.0%
2021: 3,238,202 -- +12.3%

Katowice
2002: 2,604,971
2011: 2,490,911 --- -4.4%
2021: 2,329,394 --- -6.5%

Gdansk
2002: 1,184,875
2011: 1,245,970 --- +5.2%
2021: 1,353,475 --- +8.6%

Krakow
2002: 1,098,764
2011: 1,131,298 --- +3.0%
2021: 1,236,313 --- +9.3%

Lodz
2002: 1,131,777
2011: 1,081,110 --- -4.5%
2021: 1,032,013 --- -4.5%

Wroclaw
2002: 860,924
2011: 882,678 --- +2.5%
2021: 993,182 -- +12.5%

Poznan
2002: 845,315
2011: 886,811 --- +4.9%
2021: 978,512 -- +10.3%

Lublin
2002: 565,911
2011: 569,160 --- +0.6%
2021: 566,953 --- -0.4%

Szczecin
2002: 475,029
2011: 481,478 --- +1.4%
2021: 479,159 --- -0.5%

Bydgoszcz
2002: 461,958
2011: 470,285 --- +1.8%
2021: 460,202 --- -2.1%

Bialystok
2002: 429,839
2011: 436,829 --- +1.6%
2021: 448,497 --- +2.7%

At first glance it seems the comparison US and Poland is a bit unusual but observe how disperse is their urban network and how Warsaw has such a small share on total population, comparable to New York. Just multiply those numbers for 9 to get the US equivalent.

Notice how Polish population started to fall but their main metro areas actually accelerated, three of them (Warsaw, Wroclaw, Poznan) at double-digit rates and other two (Gdansk and Krakow) almost there. The only exceptions were Katowice (a collection of mid-sized cities, Ruhr-style; it's hard to get more Rust Belt than this) and Lodz, another Rust Belt type.

I started to talk about Japan, our ultimate example of a mature declining society, but it's urban hierarchy is very different of the US. Poland, on the other hand, is remarkably similar and it's illustrating perfectly what I believe will happen to the US within 15-20 years.

Let's give Poland another chance to get the spotlight. I decided to bring numbers for Japan. I usually only comment on them but the actual numbers make easier to see it. Japan provides out best and maybe the only long-term example we have, as it doesn't have immigration or emigration:


JAPAN
1995: 123,611,167
2000: 126,925,843 --- +2.7%
2010: 128,057,352 --- +0.9%
2020: 126,146,099 --- -1.5%

Very linear, smooth transiction which was expected in a closed system, only births and deaths playing a factor, negligible immigration and emigration and a fertility rate that remained very stable all over this period (between 1.25-1.45).

Now let's check several versions of Tokyo, from the most broader metro area definition (Kanto's 7 prefectures) to the 23 Tokyo special wards:

TOKYO (32,433 Km²)
1995: 123,611,167
2000: 126,925,843 --- +2.3%
2010: 128,057,352 --- +5.4%
2020: 126,146,099 --- +2.5%

TOKYO (10,994 Km²)
1995: 32,719,237
2000: 33,605,853 --- +2.7%
2010: 35,861,063 --- +6.7%
2020: 37,208,968 --- +3.8%

TOKYO (2,725 Km²)
1995: 21,157,716
2000: 21,782,065 --- +3.0%
2010: 23,760,722 --- +9.1%
2020: 25,223,559 --- +6.2%

TOKYO (628 Km²)
1995: 7,967,614
2000: 8,134,688 --- +2.1%
2010: 8,945,695 -- +10.0%
2020: 9,733,276 --- +8.8%

Note that between the "biggest Tokyo" and the "smallest Tokyo" both grew slower than Japan 1995-2000. We also see that suburbanization was still happening around that time (smallest Tokyo growing slower than the bigger version of it).

After 2000, Japan's growth slows down and declines afterwards. Tokyo followed a different path and actually sped up. After 2010 a whole new phase kicks in: not only rural areas and mid-sized cities start to shrink fast, but also the far away suburbs: smaller version of Tokyo's grows much faster than the bigger ones, showing its outer suburbs are already collapse and people are not only moving to Greater Tokyo, but specifically to its inner districts, showing clearly the centripetal effect of big cities on shrinking countries.

Osaka tells a similar story, albeit with not as strong as Tokyo's magnetism which is not surprising as it's way more polycentric:

OSAKA (9,032 Km²)
1995: 18,298,344
2000: 18,549,889 --- +1.4%
2010: 18,752,230 --- +1.1%
2020: 18,603,894 --- -0.8%

OSAKA (4,583 Km²)
1995: 14,616,604
2000: 14,790,383 --- +1.2%
2010: 14,961,498 --- +1.2%
2020: 14,895,667 --- -0.4%

OSAKA (388 Km²)
1995: 4,217,817
2000: 4,177,627 --- -1.0%
2010: 4,224,900 --- +1.1%
2020: 4,349,446 --- +2.9%

OSAKA (80 Km²)
1995: 1,038,864
2000: 1,053,125 --- +1.4%
2010: 1,157,288 --- +9.9%
2020: 1,277,467 -- +10.4%

Notice how fast the "smallest Osaka" (12 wards) is growing, despite its massive density (16,000 inh./Km²). The same thing happened in the central areas of Kobe and Kyoto, but much less intense. Osaka is not only sucking up the rural areas, the outer suburbs but it's also assuming a more relevant role over its smaller peers Kobe and Kyoto.

For maps: https://citypopulation.de/en/japan/

[Yuri]

And now, the declining regions of Japan:

HOKKAIDO
1995: 5,643,647
2000: 5,683,062 --- +0.7%
2010: 5,506,419 --- -3.1%
2020: 5,224,614 --- -5.1%

TOHOKU
1995: 9,738,285
2000: 9,817,589 --- +0.8%
2010: 9,335,636 --- -4.3%
2020: 8,611,195 --- -7.1%

HOKURIKU
1995: 5.582.957
2000: 5.606.505 --- +0.4%
2010: 5.443.799 --- -2.9%
2020: 5.135.475 --- -5.7%

SHIKOKU
1995: 4,195,069
2000: 4,154,039 --- -1.0%
2010: 3,977,282 --- -4.3%
2020: 3,696,171 --- -7.1%

That creates a negative feedback loop where those regions, even their major cities, keep bleeding population and therefore will become less and less attractive, with a more limited labour market.

Regions of Japan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_of_Japan

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

These relics from the former French and Spanish empires are not important parts of their current economy or national strategies. The exception might by the EU space activity in French Guyana.

By contrast, Alaska and Hawaii are fully integrated into U.S. culture because they are critical for keeping the Pacific Ocean safe for commercial shipping.

It's not just French Guiana. Réunion, Mayotte and New Caledonia are important for France's Indo-Pacific strategy, which is our equivalent to your 'pivot to Asia'. India has become a major ally of France (Rafale sales, Macron-Modi relationship, various economic agreements, etc), and the presence of France in the Indian Ocean via Réunion and Mayotte plays a great role there. These territories also host French intelligence surveillance stations (the equivalent of your Echelon system), which allow France to cover the entire planet, unlike our European neighbors (the UK had to join the US Echelon because they don't have their own unlike France). They also host French military bases, with French Navy ships permanently stationed in Réunion and New Caledonia.

The other day I was looking on a map, if France wanted to strike the Iranian regime to help the Iranians topple them, it would be best to strike from Réunion, as the French jets would only have to fly over the ocean (no authorizations needed, and no detection), whereas striking from Metropolitan France would be complicated, as Syria and Iraq would probably not allow crossing their airspace. Réunion is to France what the Diego Garcia base in the Chagos Archipelago is to the US. Flying from Réunion to Iran is only about 400 miles longer than flying from Diego Garcia to Iran when I checked.

Also, when the Suez Canal is closed due to Israel's wars or due to insecurity in the Red Sea, these islands control the shipping lanes between Asia/Middle East and Europe. That's what happened in the 1970s when the Suez Canal was closed after the Six-Day War: all oil shipping between the Middle East and Europe had to go through the Mozambique Channel. That's also what happened recently when many ships were diverted via the Mozambique Channel after Houthis and Somalis attacks of ships in the Red Sea. In fact that was the primary reason why France established colonies in Réunion and Mauritius: to control shipping lanes between India and Europe. When the Suez Canal (built by the French) was opened in the 19th century, these islands as well as Capetown lost their importance, but they recover it whenever tensions are high in the Red Sea.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

not important parts of their current economy

Regarding this specifically: the French overseas departments had a GDP of 66 bn US dollars in 2024 (and the overseas departments + territories a GDP of ca. 85-90 bn US dollars). The Canary Islands had a GDP of 69 bn US dollars. That's almost the same as Alaska, whose GDP was 71.5 bn US dollars in 2024. So is Alaska unimportant, and are the US ready to cede Alaska?

And the US economy is much larger than the French economy, so compared to the size of the French economy, these overseas departments are to the French economy what the US state of Colorado is to the US economy, and their relative weight in the French economy is larger than Maryland's, South Carolina's, Minnesota's, Missouri's in the US economy, to name just a few.

Compared to Brazilian states, the 5 overseas departments have a GDP about the same size as the state of Goiás (which surrounds the capital city Brasilia), and larger than the state of Mato Grosso. So again, not insignificant. Which Brazilian would accept to have Goiás and Mato Grosso not included in Brazilian GDP figures on account of their "non importance"?

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Yuri

They're very poor, with no job prospects for the bulk of the population. They live on Paris handouts.

That old trope! They are not "very poor". In 2024 the nominal GDP per capita of the 5 French overseas departments was 28,900 USD, whereas the nominal GDP per capita of the Canary Islands was 30,700 USD. Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion have a higher GDP per capita than the Canary Islands (Martinique had 34,600 USD of GDP per capita in 2024, vs only 30,700 for the Canary Islands). Only French Guiana and Mayotte have a lower GDP per capita than the Canary Islands.

And let's not even compare with Brazilian states. The 5 French overseas departments have a GDP per capita that is higher than all Brazilian states, including your home state of Sao Paulo. Just comparing on Google Street View the streets of any city in Réunion and any city in Brazil, even in the richer Brazilian states, is enough to tell which place is the richest. One place has European standards (despite being in the Indian Ocean), and the other has Latin American standards.

Originally Posted by Yuri

Canary Islanders are virtually 100% European; Martinique and Guadeloupe is almost 100% Afro-American, Mayotte is 100% Muslim and apparently is still under Islamic Law.

So no, the average Martinican doesn't look at all like the average French European; Canary Islanders are all Spanish Europeans.

I think we all know your obsession with race now. No need to come at it again and again. It would be like a French forumer telling you that your fellow Black compatriots from Salvador de Bahia are not really Brazilian.

Originally Posted by Yuri

it's actually the opposite: Europeans move there for better quality of life or even job opportunities as it's one of the fastest growing regions in Spain.

As per figures in my post on the previous page, there are more Metropolitan Frenchmen living in the French overseas departments than European Spaniards living in the Canary Islands. So your theory is wrong. Since 2000 the French overseas departments have also been those with the highest GDP and job growth in France. It's normal, they are catching up with Metropolitan France, like the Canary Islands are catching up with the rest of Spain (thanks to EU funds).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Isn't French Guyana to France as Hawaii and Alaska are to the US; i.e., integral part of France? Which is a transcontinental country like the US, Russia, Turkey, etc.

Yes

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

This argument makes no sense. It only reinforces how distinct French overseas departments are from Metropolitan France. They're very poor, with no job prospects for the bulk of the population. They live on Paris handouts.

Canary Islanders are virtually 100% European; Martinique and Guadeloupe is almost 100% Afro-American, Mayotte is 100% Muslim and apparently is still under Islamic Law.

So no, the average Martinican doesn't look at all like the average French European; Canary Islanders are all Spanish Europeans. That's why they enjoy the same standards of living people in continental Spain and they don't need to emigrate there: it's actually the opposite: Europeans move there for better quality of life or even job opportunities as it's one of the fastest growing regions in Spain.

Politically, Martinique is France and Canary Islands are Spain. Those are facts. But we don't need to make such absurd claims that Martinique is "more French" than Canary Islands are Spanish.

Afro-American is an ethnic group distinct to the United States. There are virtually no Afro-Americans in the French Caribbean lol. However, France also does not track racial statistics so where are you getting these ethnicity estimates?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

That old trope! They are not "very poor". In 2024 the nominal GDP per capita of the 5 French overseas departments was 28,900 USD, whereas the nominal GDP per capita of the Canary Islands was 30,700 USD. Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion have a higher GDP per capita than the Canary Islands (Martinique had 34,600 USD of GDP per capita in 2024, vs only 30,700 for the Canary Islands). Only French Guiana and Mayotte have a lower GDP per capita than the Canary Islands.

And let's not even compare with Brazilian states. The 5 French overseas departments have a GDP per capita that is higher than all Brazilian states, including your home state of Sao Paulo. Just comparing on Google Street View the streets of any city in Réunion and any city in Brazil, even in the richer Brazilian states, is enough to tell which place is the richest. One place has European standards (despite being in the Indian Ocean), and the other has Latin American standards.

I won't even touch on that because it's beyond absurd bring GDP into this discussion. What's next? West Virginia and Mississippi being much richer than Germany or France?

This whole GDP is basically Paris dumping money on them. There is no real economy on overseas departments except maybe for Réunion and still heavily dependent on France.

There is no real economy in those places. Zero. They cannot even be compared with the poorest Brazilians states, let alone with an economic juggernaut like São Paulo.

35% of people in those places are public servants and the rest of economy is entirely dependent on their wages, pensions, unemployment insurances. Directly and indirectly, 80%-90% of GDP comes from Paris. Unemployment is endemic.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Those places are France. What I'm arguing is against your absurd remarks. If France leaves tomorrow, they would plunge close to Haiti levels overnight.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I think we all know your obsession with race now. No need to come at it again and again. It would be like a French forumer telling you that your fellow Black compatriots from Salvador de Bahia are not really Brazilian.

Salvador was part of Brazil since its foundation in 1549. White Brazilians, Black Brazilians lived and still live along each other for five centuries. Martinique is part of France since 1947. 99% of French never set the foot there.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Afro-American is an ethnic group distinct to the United States. There are virtually no Afro-Americans in the French Caribbean lol. However, France also does not track racial statistics so where are you getting these ethnicity estimates?

Martinique is in America. Bad Bunny told you that, right?

France lives in a fantasy, like Brazil used to live with his "racial democracy" national mythology that's been widely discredit. In our days, that doesn't erase the horrible colonial crimes perpetrated by France. There are other sources that give us a glimpse of ethnic makeup there, but Whites, including transient Metropolitan public servants don't surpasse 5% of population.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Afro-American is an ethnic group distinct to the United States. There are virtually no Afro-Americans in the French Caribbean lol. However, France also does not track racial statistics so where are you getting these ethnicity estimates?

He doesn't know. He just projects his own biases (or fears?) regarding Brazil's races (I'm referring to SSC conversations that you guys probably don't know about).

In the French West Indies, in terms of 'races', there are Black Caribbean people, there are mixed Black-White people, there are a few Indian (or mixed Indian) people, and there are White people. The percentage of each group is not known, but the large majority of people are mixed White-Black, with all sorts of shades of skins between White and Black.

For example the long-time leader of the pro-independence party in Martinique and former president of the Martinique regional council, Alfred Marie-Jeanne, looks like this (notice his strong Caribbean accent):

• Video Link

In Réunion the population is extremely varied, with Black ancestry probably accounting for no more than 20% of the population (or 30% at the very very max). In Réunion it's really all shades of color, White European, Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Black African, and all mixed together with varying degrees of miscegenation.

For example the current president of the Réunion regional council, Huguette Bello, looks like this. She could pass as Brazilian, couldn't she? Réunion is even more mixed in terms of races than Brazil.



Interestingly, Huguette Bello was last year proposed by the French Left parties to become the prime minister of France (the French National Assembly is currently divided, with no majority for Macron anymore), but Macron didn't want to appoint a left-wing prime-minister. The mere fact that they proposed her suffices to show how integrated these overseas departments are with France.

In Mayotte, which corresponds most to Yuri's cliché, the population is 95% Black, but contrary to what he says they don't live under "Islamic law". The French civil code was adopted in the 2000s as a precondition to become a full part of France. Shariah law doesn't apply anymore. Islam in Mayotte was anyway a rather moderate and tolerant version of Islam. It's not Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Yuri

This whole GDP is basically Paris dumping money on them. There is no real economy on overseas departments except maybe for Réunion and still heavily dependent on France.

There is no real economy in those places. Zero. They cannot even be compared with the poorest Brazilians states, let alone with an economic juggernaut like São Paulo.

35% of people in those places are public servants and the rest of economy is entirely dependent on their wages, pensions, unemployment insurances. Directly and indirectly, 80%-90% of GDP comes from Paris. Unemployment is endemic.

You've just described the Canary Islands. Congratulation. Madeira and Azores also. So, I assume we can now subtract them from Spanish and Portuguese figures, because they are just "artificial" territories in your opinion?

In any case your assumptions are perfectly ridiculous. Of course these territories have their own economies, and financial transfers from the central government certainly don't amount to 80% of GDP.

Originally Posted by Yuri

Martinique is part of France since 1947. 99% of French never set the foot there.

Martinique has been part of France since 1635, several decades before the Portuguese arrived in Rio Grande do Sul. Napoleon's wife, Joséphine de Beauharnais, was from Martinique. It played a much bigger role in French history than you imagine.

And considering the tourism statistics of Martinique, we can assume that at least 10% of Metropolitan Frenchmen must have visited it at some point in their lives. How many Brazilians have been to Rio Grande do Sul? Far less than 10% I would think.

Just in my family (which is nothing extraordinary) I have one cousin who lived and worked in Martinique for like 2 or 3 years, and two uncles who went there on holiday (and possibly other uncles and aunts that I don't remember or I'm not aware of). They brought us some rhum agricole (traditional rum from the plantation), which is a typical present French tourists to Martinique buy for their relatives back home.

Originally Posted by Yuri

but Whites, including transient Metropolitan public servants don't surpasse 5% of population.

People born in Metropolitan France make up 11.9% of the population in Guadeloupe and 11.2% in Martinique (2022 census). On top of that there are White Guadeloupeans and White Martiniquans (who descend from planteur families). And there are also the children of Metropolitan Frenchmen born locally in Guadeloupe and Martinique. So all together, far more than 5%. I think 15% White would be closer to the mark.

[Yuri]

Let's go back to demographics. As Wikipedia gladly provides separated figures to help us to understand those very peculiar former colonies.

GUADELOUPE

Population
1982: 317,269
2011: 404,635 (peak)
2026: 382,586

2007
Births ---- 6,862
Deaths --- 2,769
Change - +3,319

2024
Births ---- 3,608
Deaths --- 3,839
Change --- –231



MARTINIQUE

Population
1982: 326,717
2006: 397,732 (peak)
2026: 358,818

2007
Births ---- 5,317
Deaths --- 2,830
Change - +3,319

2024
Births ---- 2,898
Deaths --- 3,793
Change --- –895

Both are facing a very fast demographic collapse very similar to the ones of Puerto Rico and more recently, Cuba.

---------------------------------------

Let's see some economic data for context:

Guadeloupe
Exports ----- € 324.1 million
Imports -- € 3,954.8 million

Martinique
Exports ----- € 397.1 million
Imports -- € 3,399.2 million

--- Unemployment rate: 16.6% and 13.9% respectively.

--- 60% of Guadeloupe's population receive at least one direct social benefit. I couldn't find the numbers for Martinique, but I guess it's only slightly lower than Martinique.

--- 35% and 32% of the population works on the public sector respectively. Pretty much 90% of the population is either working for the government or receiving financial help from the government.

Those are no real economies by any definition. There is no comparison with Brazilian states or any middle income country whatsoever.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Martinique has been part of France since 1635, several decades before the Portuguese arrived in Rio Grande do Sul. Napoleon's wife, Joséphine de Beauharnais, was from Martinique. It played a much bigger role in French history than you imagine.

Colony of France. Don't gaslight us. No need for that. This whole discussion is you making a clear distinction between colonies and full departments.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

People born in Metropolitan France make up 11.9% of the population in Guadeloupe and 11.2% in Martinique (2022 census). On top of that there are White Guadeloupeans and White Martiniquans (who descend from planteur families). And there are also the children of Metropolitan Frenchmen born locally in Guadeloupe and Martinique. So all together, far more than 5%. I think 15% White would be closer to the mark.

People born in Metropolitan France might be Black. I bet most of them are returnees.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Martinique is in America. Bad Bunny told you that, right?

It doesn't matter. Afro-American has a specific meaning that refers to a certain category of Black people in the United States. It doesn't refer to all Black people in the United States, or all Black people in the American continent(s).

[Crawford]

LOL, the Canaries are not remotely comparable to Guyana.

The Canaries are an island of European people, near Europe. Guyana is a West Indian pan-national African-South Asian-Native identity. No one from Guyana says they're French. Go to Little Guyana in NYC, the largest expat population outside of Guyana, and ask if Guyana is France. It's a region that had three different political outcomes, due to three different colonial holdings, but it's a Guyanese identity, not French, British or Dutch.

Technically there's Spanish Guyana too, but I think Venezuela has culturally fused that region into the larger Latin American identity. But the rest is clearly West Indian.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It doesn't matter. Afro-American has a specific meaning that refers to a certain category of Black people in the United States. It doesn't refer to all Black people in the United States, or all Black people in the American continent(s).

I'd type African and decided to Afro-American that seemed more precise. African-American is quite new on the US vocabulary and I hear it's losing favour more recently. The US doesn't own the term or the English language in any case.

Originally Posted by Crawford

LOL, the Canaries are not remotely comparable to Guyana.

The Canaries are an island of European people, near Europe. Guyana is a West Indian pan-national African-South Asian-Native identity. No one from Guyana says they're French. Go to Little Guyana in NYC, the largest expat population outside of Guyana, and ask if Guyana is France. It's a region that had three different political outcomes, due to three different colonial holdings, but it's a Guyanese identity, not French, British or Dutch.

Technically there's Spanish Guyana too, but I think Venezuela has culturally fused that region into the larger Latin American identity. But the rest is clearly West Indian.

It's absurd. Canaries are full part of Spain for almost six centuries and population is pretty much 100% ethnic-European. We all agree that French Guiana is integral part of France but we don't need to do such outrageous claims. It contributes nothing to the debate.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Both are facing a very fast demographic collapse very similar to the ones of Puerto Rico and more recently, Cuba.

No. Puerto Rico is declining much more. As of 2025 population estimates, Puerto Rico has now the same population it had in 1980, due to very big population decline in the past 20 years. In comparison, Martinique currently has 9.5% more inhabitants than in 1980, and Guadeloupe has 21% more inhabitants than in 1980. Their population decline has been more moderate than in Puerto Rico. The last census (2023) even showed an increase of population for Guadeloupe compared to 2022.

Originally Posted by Yuri

Unemployment rate: 16.6% and 13.9% respectively

This is the unemployment rate in 2024 (last year available) in Guadeloupe, Martinique, Canary Islands, and Sicily according to Eurostat.

Originally Posted by Yuri

60% of Guadeloupe's population receive at least one direct social benefit.

I would have imagined more. Social benefits in France include child benefits, and housing benefits (which are very numerous, people with lower income like students get like 200 or 300 euros per month to help pay their rent). Most French people receive social benefits in one form or another. That's the Socialist nanny state from cradle to grave.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Crawford

LOL, the Canaries are not remotely comparable to Guyana.

Indeed, because Guyana has been an independent country since 1966.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

I'd type African and decided to Afro-American that seemed more precise. African-American is quite new on the US vocabulary and I hear it's losing favour more recently. The US doesn't own the term or the English language in any case.

The term was coined in the United States to refer to an ethnic group within the United States. This is a weird thing to try to argue about. I was just pointing out that it was being improperly used by you.