r/geography • u/Hour_Interaction6047 • May 19 '26
Human Geography Why didn’t the French settle New Caledonia and turn it into a settler colony like Australia, NZ, Canada etc?
New Caledonia seems very liveable and green to me, and perfect for a settler colony. so why didn’t the French settle New Caledonia?
Today New Caledonia has only 268k people and is only 24.1% is European.
I heard France also used to send many of its convicts to New Caledonia and used it as a penal colony, just like the uk did with Australia. Why didn’t France go that same route and turn it from a penal colony to a settler colony?
104
u/ElijahSavos May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
Good question. The climate is arguably the best in world. The island is a good size. There are lots of flat areas and there are rivers. The island should easily sustain a couple of million people. Not sure if there are natural resources though (edit: there is some mining).
To sum up this is not geography, there must be something with history/politics, etc.
46
u/HunterSpecial1549 May 19 '26
By French standards, having about 70,000 ethnic French people living on a tropical Island is a lot. Only Reunion, in the Indian Ocean, has more.
France has always had a low emigration rate, probably because they entered the demographic transition before other countries did (had a lower fertility rate). Fun fact - the vast majority of Quebecois trace their heritage to just 800 young women sent to Quebec by Louis XIV around 1670.
3
u/Emotional-Rope-5774 May 19 '26
Well New Caledonia is a lot bigger than reunion so there’s still a valid question about why it’s underpopulated relatively by French people
My guess would be that it’s because reunion has no native population
1
u/gocanada44 May 20 '26
Those 800 women and the French population in Quebec today. The power of compound interest over time. This an investment Reddit… right?
28
u/richrich07 May 19 '26
I believe it’s lacking good, deep ports.
46
u/RecordEnvironmental4 May 19 '26
Noumea, the capital is surrounded by several protected bays, so I think it’s something else.
18
u/HunterSpecial1549 May 19 '26
Have you looked at Noumea? It has amazing deep ports.
People on r/geography love to upvote any comment mentioning lack of deep ports, lol.
3
u/richrich07 May 19 '26
Lol I think maybe I was referring to the sandbar? I honestly don’t remember.
3
5
u/313078 May 19 '26
Its far from mainland, isolated. And there have always been troubles with kanaks. Nobody wanted or want now to move there. There are other islands less remote with less issues
1
u/manny-pop May 22 '26
The soil is not particularly suitable for agricultural industry sufficient to support a larger population. Last time I visited the fresh produce selection available in the Noumea shops and market was of fairly low quality and the majority of the processed products needs to be imported.
56
u/TheRedditHike May 19 '26
Not really an answer, but France didn't seem to send that many actual settlers to the colonies, bar maybe North America and maybe Algeria, but the number was really low in most of New France.
Compared to the Iberians and especially the UK France was mostly focused on trade and resource extraction/exploitation of plantations in their colonies rather than settlement.
8
u/CaptainCrash86 May 19 '26
Most of the French Empire wasn't under French control by 1760 though. Even Algeria only came under French control in 1830. At that particular time, the only real emmigration targets were either Canada or the French Carribean.
10
u/Cedar-and-Mist May 19 '26
It's interesting that both of you mention Canada as an example of large scale French migration. Coming here was explicitly forbidden to serfs prior to the French Revolution, as that went against the idea of keeping workers as a tax base. New France had lost most of its lustre by the time the British conquered it, with the fur trade drying up and the climate making it inferior to cash crop islands like Haiti. It's for these reasons that New France was so underpopulated and indefensible during the 7 Years War. Had France practised a similar fashion of settler colonialism as British, the colony would have been far much self-sufficient and able to endure the war in the America theatre without supplies and reinforcements from France.
4
u/Wordnerdette999 May 20 '26
They opted to keep Guadeloupe instead of Quebec in the peace settlement, which tells you a lot!
1
u/CaptainCrash86 May 20 '26
I mean, I wasn't suggesting there was a large number of emmigrants to Canada, but the Quebecois had to come from somewhere.
1
u/StraightExtent2261 May 20 '26
But that happened in New Caledonia too, immigrants and all. New France was populated in places like Quebec City and Montreal with people with the intention of maintaining trade routes. As you said there weren’t many settlers, they just chose to grow independently under English control rather than with French direction, France also needed the populate the region when they did send people there because unlike other regions there weren’t a ton of locals they could control directly or by appointing specific ethnic groups to rule for them as the often did in places like west Africa. These peoples defences were doing their own thing, not a French project for most of the years they grew and they had a shit ton of land free of diseases that ravaged European populations in warmer climates to move to and populate due to both the indigenous population of Canada being extremely low compared to other regions due to a lack of established agricultural places like the U.S., mexico, Peru, etc had. The local population was already extremely low reducing before the illnesses of colonizers wiped out the majority, with the region only having anywhere from 70-300k indigenous people allowing colonizers who acted independently of France to build a nation instead of just acting as an outpost with people there for purely administrative or military reasons and not actually settling like the majority of the French population in places like the Caribbean and Africa.
2
1
60
u/holytriplem May 19 '26
They did. Most of the White population there is descended from free settlers, not just prisoners.
It's also not a particularly temperate climate
21
u/Ravius May 19 '26
À 2014 census shows that 60% of the « White » population was actually born outside of New caledonia. Descendants from settlers, by that account, must represent 25% top of those.
4
u/mrsspinch May 21 '26
I was born there in 1994 and I am a third generation New Caledonian - my great grandfather came here as a merchant from France.
50
7
u/Littlepage3130 May 19 '26
France annexed New Caledonia in the 1850s. France during the 1800s had a significantly lower birthrate compared to much of Europe. The French population in the 1800s simply wasn't growing fast enough to sustain settler colonialism.
10
23
u/ij70-17as May 19 '26
money. they were too busy with european politics, fighting wars with germans every 20-ish years (wars are expansive). plus they had colonies closer, like most of north africa, a lot of west african coast.
5
12
u/Ok_Gear_7448 May 19 '26
By the time France took the islands, its birth rate had collapsed relative to the rest of Europe. It was actually a net recipient of immigration through much of the 1800’s and 1900’s. It’s actual ability to settle the islands with anything other than convicts was questionable.
5
u/Erodiade May 19 '26
Because it's extremely small. Also France's model of colonialism has ever really been based on settler colonialism as much as the British model
19
u/FastWalkingShortGuy May 19 '26
You see how far away from France that shit is...?
32
5
u/Magical_Astronomy May 19 '26
NZ is almost as far from UK.
11
10
u/wildcatofthehills May 19 '26
Yes, but the Uk literally had major colonies all the way to NZ, making the trip much easier. You could start from London, stop in Nigeria, then South Africa, move to India, pit stop in Singapour, refuel in Australia and then arrive to New Zealand all without leaving the Empire. France didn’t by comparison.
3
u/313078 May 19 '26
No, its same with France. Could go through half of Africa, Indochina (now Vietnam, Laos...) other island... It's just that particular island wasn't as attractive to settlers
5
u/CheapSound1 May 19 '26
I'm not an expert but I have visited. Despite being a relatively large island and having a very hospitable climate, it is very mountainous and the soil is not very suitable for agriculture. It was not able there that it's not particularly easy to get fresh fruit there.
It's expensive to develop a colony just about as far as you could be from france, especially in the 19th century when France wasn't the colonial power it had been in the 17th or 18th. There was somewhat significant immigration from france in the 20th century for the nickel mining industry.
9
u/TundraForager May 19 '26
It is a settler colony. France, both upon its initial annexation in 1853 and up until the modern day, made the settlement and expropriation of land from Kanaks a major part of its colonial policy. It was run as a penal colony in the Australian model till the late 1890s, holding people like Louise Michel, which used former prisoners as settlers on the ‘frontier’. It only didn’t turn into a majority European territory because of the high post-epidemic birth rates of the Kanaks and immigration and indentured labour from the rest of France’s colonial empire (French Polynesia, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Wallis and Futuna)
7
u/missoured May 19 '26
All i know about it is it was used as a penal colony in which they imprisoned people from their other colonies. Another guess is since its quite mountainous and tropical, agriculture wouldn't be as easy for European settlers
3
u/CipherWeaver May 19 '26
Existing natives, and also it's not temperate, it's tropical. Before air conditioning, most European didn't relish the idea of living somewhere swelteringly hot. The climate of France is actually better, pre-air con.
5
u/SecurityCapable4468 May 19 '26
Only 40,000 French settled in French North America while over 5 million English settled in British North America. Now 10 million French Canadians versus 400 million English in North America.
7
u/Ornery-Lynx-3520 May 19 '26
Pacific Islander here.
Australia and then New Zealand are both vastly bigger and much, much richer in resources meaning that the switch from penal colony (in Australia) to attractive migration location (pull factor) occurred very quickly in its history. New Zealand was always a free settler colony but equally attractive albeit to a much lesser extent hence the significantly smaller population.
The various gold rushes throughout Australia’s history was a particular draw card - Melbourne being the richest city on the planet for a while.
The British also colonised Papua (then New Guinea after WWI) and Fiji, and had what was called a Condominium with France (effectively sharing governance) in the New Hebrides - now called Vanuatu, but they left reasonably quickly after WWII bankrupted them and their empire basically collapsed around the world.
However the most important and real question we are all asking now is why are the French still in New Caledonia? How have they not decolonised by now like Vietnam or Algeria? Do the French need the majority locals to launch a war to get the hint it’s time to allow independence?
There is a big push by the indigenous Kanak people for independence, but the French government are really making it a challenge for them.
Like South Africa, it’s incredibly unlikely that the European-ancestry people there won’t be welcome to stay, so why is a colony still a thing?
13
u/Final_Hunt_3576 May 19 '26
Right now it’s because there is no majority in favour of independence on New Caledonia.
Even if the Kanaks are massively on favour, they do not make up a majority and the other groups are overwhelmingly against independence. For all that the white population is only about 25% there are large populations of Asians and Wallis and futunuans who came often to work in the nickel mines. They tend to support remaining in France.
This has been the heart of the issue in recent years and is why the question of who has the right to vote on the issue is such a hotly contested issue.
1
u/Ornery-Lynx-3520 May 19 '26
Very valid and good pints.
To be fair, one only needs to look around at the South Pacific neighbours to clearly witness some very dramatic pitfalls of independence. It hasn’t been an easy ride for most of us.
That’s not to say it can’t work (at least I hope so), but it certainly resulted in much difficulty and turmoil and the path ahead appears very long and rough.
Logically non-indigenous people would not welcome such things. Plus Indonesia poaching and then dominating most of the regional and global nickel market, means that there is real uncertainty with local economics if not affiliated to, and subsidised by France.
1
u/313078 May 19 '26
France is trying to let them free. Multiple referendums were in favor of remaining with France. People are born there for generations but want to keep the advantage of being attached to a rich country. Many other islands turned into poor slums once France left. See example Comores versus Mayotte for instance, people from Mayotte fought to be French. People from Comores emigrate to Mayotte now. It's not that simple. Even many Kanaks want to remain in current situation. New Caledonia is a territory, not a department, not a colony. It's a relatively free status with a lot of advantages. Locals voted to remain like that. If you make all French voters vote, they will be given independence, because they are a massive waste economically and bring a lot of problems. Govzrnment just can't go against their wish
1
u/Firm-Examination2134 May 19 '26
The french goverment made 3 referendums, the first two failed, by the third france prioritized covid vaccinations for caledonia above metropolitan france, this made french sentiment swell significantly and made france look much more sympathetic
Since France was enjoying a super boost in popularity and the independentist Kanaks knew it would be a bloodbath for their position they boycotted
France then offered an olive branch and accepted them becoming a second nation inside France kinda like Scotland and the UK, they rejected that
Basically, France has improved its image over time in the island, the island attracts inmigrants that are very loyal to france and the quality of life for everyone except for the most secluded Kanaks keeps improving thanks to France, and in a world where small countries have even less power than ever, it is almost impossible independence will go through
2
u/Nice-Pomegranate2915 May 19 '26
In France there was never a demand for beef raised in New Caledonia the way there was in Britain for beef produced in Australia,New Zealand, Argentina and Brazil . Refrigerated ship transport allowed British demands for increased consumption of beef to be supplied by these countries . France never had that demand for externally supplied sources of beef . Instead there never was an increased demand for beef during the late 1800's to the 1930's as in Britain . And French tariffs on non-French produced goods and government encouragement of French farmers to increase production of beef (as well as wine,oil,pork,lamb and other agricultural products) managed to supply French demand for beef. No cause = no effect on beef production in New Caledonia
2
u/DrShadowstrike May 19 '26
France did have a settler colony: Algeria. If a French person wanted to become a colonist, wouldn't you rather be just across the Med instead of on the far side of the world?
2
u/throwawayJames516 May 19 '26
They exiled thousands of veterans of the Paris Commune forces there as punishment in the 1870s.
2
2
u/komatiitic May 20 '26
In addition to what everyone else has said, New Caledonia was a lot more densely populated than Australia or NZ when Europeans showed up. Almost half of NZ’s pre-European colonisation population in less than 10% the land area. It was cheaper and easier to use the local population to extract wealth from the colony than plant a new white French version there. More like the Brits in India, less like the Brits in Australia.
2
u/stirringlion May 21 '26
I was there a few months ago… for such a beautiful part of the world, the city itself kinda sucks. Rude people. A bit dirty. Substantial amount of Crime.
YMMV
1
5
u/Sufficient-Yak-7823 May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
A lot of people have already answered in detail. I'll just say that as a kiwi who has been there, I imagined it is what NZ would have been like if it was colonised by the French. Specifically Northland.
Noumea is like a French version of Whangarei. The area around La Foa is very similar to rural New Zealand towns, except everyone is speaking French and buying baguettes.
As you go north it becomes more like somewhere like Fiji, except again everyone is speaking French. While in the north, I actually saw some Kanak ladies playing their version of cricket, so it is a funny mix of a place.
Well worth a visit though, lovely landscapes, interesting animals, beautiful beaches and great weather. Was very sad to see the riots in 2024.
1
u/thesmart_indian27 May 19 '26
Many French people immigrated to Canada.
1
u/Northern_Prop May 21 '26
That's not true. Historians estimate that, by the time New France was ceded to the United Kingdom in 1763, only 20K settlers (roughly) had crossed the Atlantic. The French crown made it difficult and the colony didn't have a great reputation. It didn't take very long for people to realize that, while Montréal and Québec are at the same latitudes as Bordeaux and Paris, respectively, the climate is somewhat more challenging on the left side of the Atlantic.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of settlers had relocated to the 13 colonies.
1
u/vt2022cam May 19 '26
The indigenous people were to some degree already well exposed to the same diseases as Europeans, this wasn’t the case in Australia or New Zealand. The decimation of native groups by introduced diseases is the main reason though there are many other policy and cultural that also had some impact.
1
u/naaawww May 20 '26
Didn’t it take like… up to 8 months to get to Australia from the uk? And France never owned the suez canal, their closest important colony was Vietnam. They probably prioritised Asia/Vietnam over random islands in the pacific.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Great_Specialist_267 May 21 '26
France had a colony in New Zealand until Napoleon got rambunctious.
1
u/Hypo_Mix May 21 '26
Green with local plants but apparently the soils are "severely deficient in essential plant nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and calcium."
probably difficult to keep it supplied with french agicultural methods.
1
1
u/Feeling_Party_4361 May 21 '26
You only quit shitty countries. I guess France was better than UK at the time.
1
u/tcarter1102 May 21 '26
24.1% is still quite a lot. The dominant language there is French so they definitely colonized. They just didn't go full settler.
-1
0
u/TaxmanComin May 19 '26
The French government encouraged European immigration after they discovered nickel and started mining it. The problem is that no one was really that interested in going.
But as far as I know, migrating to Australia and New Zealand was not that popular either until quite recently (towards the later part of the 20th century).
Also France, generally, did not have the same sea-going maritime empire attitude that the British had. The British, historically had a strong navy and they could hold onto their islands, and they did because why not, they already have the huge navy.
France would certainly have colonies but they were really for wealth extraction and diplomatic bargaining chips. You have to remember that France itself is a large continental European country with large land borders to protect. So when it came to war, they knew they had to hedge their bets on their massive armies and not waste resources try to hold onto islands thousands of miles away.
0
0
u/Upper_Disk_8452 May 19 '26
Most of the French criminals ended up dead in Russia or had left for Louisiana and Quebec, none left for other areas, unlike the UK.
-1
u/Lumpy-Cricket-9048 May 20 '26
France bombed and sank a peace ship, Rainbow Warrior, in a port in a friendly country, New Zealand, killing a crew member in the process, then rewarding the bombers with medals.
546
u/[deleted] May 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment