Talk:2009 French Caribbean general strikes

Untitled
INDEPENDENCE NOW!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite right. If you aren't grateful for all the subsidies you get, you should be given independence (without economic aid). Honbicot (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Better than to be brainwasted, enslaved, and expotioed by an imperial power. France is finally paying for its silly centralisation policies, and its attempt to hold on to what remains of their emprie, at least the brits for the most part we smart enough to hav their colonies be indepedent thur dominons, while France tried to assumilate what they had left. The Dutch are even now following in the French example, but howfully this will change their minds as the french empire finally falls! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

High costs

 * These high prices are due to the higher costs of importing products into the islands.[1]

This is surely overly simplistic. The cited source states this, yes, but, say, supply and demand must play a role. Tempshill (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality
I have added a non-neutral tag because this article sets out the islands' problems, implies that the islanders are being exploited, and ignores the fact that they receive massive subsidies from metropolitan France. Honbicot (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you write it's not neutral. I read :


 * "These high prices are due to the higher costs of importing products into the islands. The average salary in Guadeloupe, the source of the first general strike, is lower than mainland France while the unemployment and poverty rates on both islands are double those found in metropolitan France. Both islands are supported by large subsidies from metropolitan France."


 * This seems quite clear to me. Rémi Castérès (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read the whole article, the sentence "the large subsidies from metropolitan France" is the only one about the support of Metropolitan France to French Caribbean. But the article speak a lot about inequality and the feeling is that the there is a exploitation of poor native by the bad white. the article do not speak of the huge support by Metropolitan France (much lower taxes, high subsidies of local government... something like 50 to 75% of local budget, higher paid for civil servant than in France Metropole, that only the importation are cover only by 6% by the exportation, or that every nearby island who are independant are very poor... that thanks to France metropole sending huge amount of money these island are quite rich with high standards (and nearly free) education, health care, etc. But as they are as French as people from metropole, they know that by asking always more you can force the government to give always more  Froggy helps ;-) (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know English speaking countries tend to be more liberal (in the french meaning of the word) than the despised socialist France, but there is something quite lacking (or dare i say POV) in this analysis. Like the fact that the importations and exportations are handled as a private monopoly by the 'bad' white people, thus increasing unduly the price of goods (or else you better have a good explanation for why goods made in Martinique are way costier in Fort-de-France than in Paris). Heck the french entry for this page actually mention a report that actually shows a lack of capitalism in the way the islands are handled (like you know how monopoly is actually not capitalistic). The reasons why the civil servants are paid higher is actually because of the high cost of living there, no one wants to have civil servant driven to be beggars because they can't pay the bills. And finally I bet I'm wasting my breath because someone who is capable of writing that very last sentence is usually someone that never had first hand experience with this kind of stuff and always go by hearsay that goes the way they want.

A routine crisis?
The story says this Jego guy left to attend a crisis meeting, then the next sentence says it was routine.

However, Jego triggered much criticism among Guadeloupean strikers when he suddenly returned to Paris on Monday, February 9, for a crisis meeting with French Prime Minister Francois Fillon.[1][9]

Jego's departure for a routine meeting in Paris with Prime Minister Fillon and other ministers was denounced by union leaders as a sign of "contempt" for LKP and their supporters during a time of crisis.[10]

So which is it?

Punstress (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Routine was a poor choice of words. Scanlan (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"distribution of riches" ?
It's a kind of frenglish expression, ins't it ? In French, it should be "distribution des richesses", or better, "répartition des richesses". ("French government mobilizes over Caribbean unrest", International Herald Tribune) DocteurCosmos (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, very poor wording.... The worst part is that it's a concept that exists in English... If some native English speaker could find the correct wording, it would this article wonder.

Lack of neutrality
This article is clearly biased and does not respect the principle of neutrality.

The article quotes a reuters news on the importance of the "legacy of the colonial era", this point is quick and stresses on a simplistic opposition between a minority of white (whose ancestors where slaveholder) holding most of the wealth versus a majority black much poorer. Behind this "description" a criticism of hardly veiled. This kind of description is a usual left strategy to criticize a state of inequality. Unfortunately, reality is a much more complex.

First, theses islands benefit from large subsidies which make their way of life higher than neighbouring islands. Far from extracting wealth from the labour of the locals, mainland France taxpayers are actually subsidising their way of life.

Second, paradoxically these subsidies are a part of the problem. Social benefits, calculated nationally, are advantageous and therefore creates a poverty trap for the poorest inhabitants of these islands. If there is 30% of unemployed it is in part due to the fact that not working is linked with relatively high benefits. On this point, the request of a minimum wage raise is likely to have an adverse effect: increasing the wages of some, but increasing the unemployment rate as some small jobs will disappear.

The previous two points are downplayed in the article, and in general by protesters. Once this is said, even if they are on average richer than people on neighbouring islands, they are not satisfied because, being part of France, their reference is a higher level of wealth.

Third, the article contains an malign reference to the fact that decisions are taken thousand of miles away in Paris. This should not be present in a neutral article. The point is that they are full citizens and vote for the parliament and the presidential elections. In addition lots of decisions are taken by local authorities as everywhere in France. This situations is the same that the situation of Hawai & the USA, Vladivostok and Russia, the Falklands & the UK, so what? Including this remark suggests that it is relevant to understand the problem, it is clearly a tendentious way to present the issue.

Overall, the article implicitly presents a situation of post colonial injustice, but the reality is that the opposition is not between families of settlers and families of locals. Most of the population come from abroad: Europe, Africa, India, China. Independence would not be meaningful historically and economically, for this reason it is not a political issue in Guadeloupe (contrary to an island like Tahiti for instance). In addition, as usual in such a rich vs poor situation, there is no easy solution. If the rich French ethnic citizens had to give up their assets in a kind of communist dream, the economy of the island would likely be affected in the medium term as they are contributing heavily to the wealth of these islands with their economic activity. Such solutions have often backfired in newly independent countries governed by left governments. The most likely solution is that the French government will bring more subsidies to appease this conflict, it will be a short term political solution. Is it fair, efficient? These are very tricky questions which would require a long economic discussion.

To sum up, the situation is much more complex than the simplistic description given in this article. The article should clearly explain the fact that the protesters FEEL a notion of injustice, but it should not list their arguments as is it was a neutral depiction of the situation. Gpeilon

"the reality is that the opposition is not between families of settlers and families of locals. Most of the population come from abroad: Europe, Africa, India, China." Of course. That's because there are no locals left on Guadeloupe or Martinique. Just like on Hispaniola, they were all gone centuries ago. But that doesn't mean there's no opposition. There's an opposition primarily between the blacks who came and the whites who came. Munci (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reunion and Guiana Stirkes
they siad they would strike on the 5th in support, its now the 6th, has there been any word, or did they call it off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.54.62 (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lede should include resolution
The lede should include a brief summary of the outcome of the strikes, and should not conclude, as it presently does, with estimates of the cost of the strikes and the rate of unemployment in the islands concerned. The present conclusion implies that the strikes were harmful overall, which the workers, who won their most important demands, would presumably dispute. J. D. Crutchfield &#124; Talk 22:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on 2009 French Caribbean general strikes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215121356/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/29146606/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29146606/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090213124111/http://timescorrespondents.typepad.com:80/charles_bremner/2009/02/sarkozy-in-iraq-as-his-woes-pile-up-in-france.html to http://timescorrespondents.typepad.com/charles_bremner/2009/02/sarkozy-in-iraq-as-his-woes-pile-up-in-france.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090224201102/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/29303058 to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29303058/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)