Innuit and Greenland

[mids2019]

https://www.humanium.org/en/denmarks-experiment-on-inuit-children-a-painful-legacy-of-forced-assimilation/

So 88% of Greenlands population are native inuit. In reality will these people object to being under US sovereignty when they have been horrendously treated historically by a colonial power (Denmark). I would think these people ultimately want independence but would a change of sovreignty massively impact their lives?

Would it just be easier for the Danes to sell Greenland to the US and money made available to improve Inuit lives in a way of their choosing and binding agreement that the US don't target inuit culture?

There aren't many complaints from Alaska which was bought from the Russians?

I think attitudes have thankfully moved on from 1867…

given the choice of the russians or the US americans, who would you have picked?

this is like a badly thought-out o-level essay

Have you looked at any of the many polls or interviews that have been done of Greenlanders of their opinions? Any of the writings or anything else they've put out on the topic? All the polls I've seen have had the vast majority - at least 80% - be against the idea of the US taking them over. This has been asked repeatedly, for years, since Trump first brought up the idea in his first term. Nearly every writing and speech I've seen has been about them being tired of the threats and being treated like they are for sale. The only remarks I've seen in favour by Greenlanders has been around concerns that Denmark could not defend them against the US - the US is viewed as a threat, not welcome.

Your point seems to ignore all this and paternalistically presume what the peoples of Greenland want based on your own opinion. Framing this as what would be 'easier for the Danes', Danish pride, or Denmark thinking it has the moral high ground is also a little weird when it's simply the fact that none of the kingdoms of Denmark are for sale just like the US is not currently selling Puerto Rico or Alaska. As a US citizen, I'm really happy Denmark is pushing back (most USians aren't in favour of the US doing this either, and many of us prefer when the international community pushes back against the US government's crazy).

It's a laughable idea that the US could be bound to care at all about the people of Greenland when the US doesn't care for its own people now.

That articles is a good reminder that regardless of Denmark's reputation now, its government was and is much like every other. It isn't an argument that that the US would be no different to them when they've said otherwise.

Also - Inuit is an umbrella term, like Native American or European. Discussing 'Inuit culture' is like discussing 'European culture'. There are actually multiple people groups that make up that 88% Inuit - and none of them are from Iceland.

Lastly, one of Trump's latest argument for this is that Russia or China is going to take over Greenland and the US doesn't want to be neighbours with them. Russia is closer to the US than Greenland is, hence why the jokes about the US government used to be 'I can see Russia from my front porch'. While Denmark may not care about Greenland in the way it should, the US government definitely won't.

My point is that the inuit probably don't care which colonial power is in charge as long as they can carry out their lives without intervention.

Greenland isn't a colony, hasn't been for about 70 years so we aren't talking about "colonial powers". Greenland is largely self governing, though Denmark still makes decisions on foreign/security policy and the general opinion in that most political parties in greenland want to eventually be independent and it's a case of when.

Trump wants access to Greenlands raw resources. A move under the US would put their current freedoms at risks, destroy their hopes for eventual independence and take away the social benefits they currently have. That is why most opinion polls for Greenlanders show they are against US takeover. Surely their wants and opinion is the only thing that matters?

Do you think that because people nowadays aren’t complaining about something that happened 150 years ago, it’s therefore fine to do the thing again? What else would you apply that to?

Also, about a third of Alaskans would like independence.

For a country that bleats about freedom so much the USA is certainly desperate to take away everybody else's.

Would you like me to come to your house and tell you I now own it and you have to do what I say?

I just think that viewing this as some new colonisation by the US is a mistake. To me this a Dane problem and we can ask where was the European support when the Falklands were invaded?

We need close military co operation with the US in reality and I understand Trump is an idiot but really is this a hill to die on geopolitically?

I would rather the US would just expand troop numbers in Greenland but if they desire sovereignty what resitiatance can Europe put up and the big question, is it really worth it?

British companies are going to suffer with tariffs and this situation could be solved by a climb down from Denmark and I think the greatest visit will be Danish pride.

It will be humiliating definitely but I think at this point you have to pick your fights and this a fight where the UK suffers needlessly.

I would rather incredibly sparsely populated Dnaish territory had a change of flag than NATO to be questioned at this point of world history.

Maybe ultimately the lesson will be that Europe has to invest a lot more in defence and that is the point Trump is trying to make (albeit badly)

And there I was thinking Neville Chamberlain was dead.

Ok but that’s a completely different argument to the one you were making before.

Before you were saying that the population of Greenland probably wouldn’t mind being American, or would even prefer it.
Now you seem to be saying “it’s sparsely populated so better to throw them under the bus to protect us from tariffs”. Which is an argument you’re free to make. But don’t pretend it’s about what Greenlanders would “probably” want anyway.

Appeasement so... That worked so well the last time.

This, they run the risk of being deported to Venezuela! Ok, slight exaggeration but yeah the US won’t do any of the Greenlanders any favours.

OK there are two separate arguments but I don't think the US is going to hideously oppress the native population whi basically live a rural isolated traditional life.

The US if it wants will get Greenland and I think the Danes are at point that they should agree a price saving as much face as possible.

what in the bootlicking shill nonsense is this?

if you want to put tariffs on your allies then you weren’t good friends to begin with. Now geopolitically we all have to get on as it serves Putin more if his puppet Trump breaks up European/ north American ties and alliances. But make no mistake people here are angry with Trump destroying democracy and all you idiots letting it happen.

I can see your point. I also think it’s objectively bonkers that they think there is a chance of independence with a population of less than 60,000.

the idea of selling boggles me a bit- how can anyone, even a colonial power, sell a country?!?

Native populations and what they want really don't count at all do they once the bully gets what they see is their right. Not the first time we have seen this play out really is it.

I think Trump will be the one "saving face" when the rest of the world calls his bluff and his own party won't back him.

TACO Trump rides again.

Couldn’t agree more. I have wondered from the start: @mids2019 are you American?

Sometimes on here I am absolutely convinced that posts are pure propaganda put up by "someone" who is trying to drip, drip, drip poison in our ear.

The "Britain will suffer", the indigenous people won't suffer - it's all stirring the pot hoping that we'll all suddenly agree that America is safe hands and us little people should suck it up.

Trump is an idiot but really is this a hill to die on geopolitically?

It may well turn out to be the hill that Trump dies on, geopolitically judging by global and internal opinion.

I would rather incredibly sparsely populated Dnaish territory had a change of flag than NATO to be questioned at this point of world history

There is only one person who
is threatening the future of NATO at this point.

Sorry, am I missing something here? What have the Icelanders got to do with this?

To me this a Dane problem and we can ask where was the European support when the Falklands were invaded?

You realise the Falklands are in the South Atlantic yes? Outside of NATOs territory of coverage?

Your argument was initially "do the inuit people in greenland really care" and you have been told, yes with reasons why.

Now its that regardless of how they feel, its not worth pushing back on a morally and geopolitically wrong stance. What next? If Trump decided he fancied Scotland for oil and fishing? Where do you draw the line? And who do you expect to support your nation if you need it?

We tried appeasement before and it didn't go well.

I agree independence from a democratic point of view would be a decision for the Icelanders.

Why would Icelanders have a say in what happens to Greenland? You do realise they’re not the same place..?

What examples from history are you using to inform your statement that "I don't think the US is going to hideously oppress the native population"?

What do the Danes need to 'save face' over?

Exactly this. Appeasement has never been more frightening than it is right now.

The Danes have a terrible record, but why would Greenlanders give up the Danish subsidy and social services even if the US were marginally better on Native rights?

Most Americans don't even want Greenland, nearly 90% of those polled oppose an invasion. I suppose more would be fine with buying it but it's still not most.