America's Greenland

Ever wondered what would the Greenlanders have after Trump's take over? Well, the trick is to go back to the late 19th Century and see what happend to Alaska. After buying Alaska, the U.S. largely ignored Native Alaskans' land rights, classifying them as "uncivilized tribes" and denying citizenship until 1924, treating them as wards of the state with limited rights, leading to loss of land and cultural assimilation through missionary work and inadequate federal care. So if America would take over Greenland, Greenlanders' social rights would likely change significantly, potentially losing their current full Danish citizenship and Nordic welfare benefits (free healthcare, generous social security, free education) for something closer to U.S. systems. That's why certain trumpets, voices from the Trump world of thinking, are now considering dividing up Greenland and only taking the Nothern mineral rich part, or leaving entirely Greenlanders' social issues to Denmark to pay. That leaves Trump still not only wanting ownership of Greenland but also wanting a near to empty big island in the middle of the Artic. Real estate is where his morals are afterall

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Djc59 · 56-60, M

I have to disagree with you. I get President Trump is rude, and I wish he weren't, especially in dealing with allies. But he's not wrong about Greenland. It's sad that others are offended - but he's right about what it can be in the defense of the West - both US and Europe, militarily and economically. And he's point of view is easily defendable morally speaking.
You're right that he sees it in real estate terms, but that's a positive, not a net negative.
Secondly, your description of Alaskan natives and their rights has the truth on its head. They benefit from indigenous rights that a lot of tribal peoples have, as well as full US rights. Yet a fairly significant portion of them refuse to benefit from it, and become wards of the state. That's sad but it's a simple fact - and the rest of the population have lost their patience with victim grievance. It's nonsense.
If Greenlander's want their own country - they can certainly be allowed that - but the idea that 65,000 people that have no loyalty to or been responsible for others - get to veto actions necessary for the millions in the west - is absurd, morally as well. Finally, they would benefit immensely in a deal with the US. They turn down the opportunity at their peril.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

val70 · 51-55

@Djc59 Personally, I won't dare say that any people is at peril for chosing the right to govern themselves. The thinking in real estate sense is bloody dangerous. Just think back to FDR and King Faisal. There was plenty of strategic planning that went into that relationship, or rather start of. You think that Trump would respect a King of Greenland more? I bet that he would if it was a much smaller island. The fact that it's a large piece of virgin terrority got stuck now in his brain, and that's the end of the actual background to this whole mess. Trump isn't FDR in a very long shot. I wonder what FDR's plaque in the White House is telling. Perhaps that he'd be a fan of Trump? Nothing about being president for so very long time, well, that's my bet

Thinkerbell · 41-45, F

@val70

FDR's meeting was with Abdul Aziz (the sleaze?) ibn Saud, not Faisal (das Scheusal?). The latter succeeded the former as king of Saudi Arabia about a decade after FDR died.