Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

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, MVIP
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 · 56-60
@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 Abdulaziz. 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.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@val70

Actually, I think the Saudis are very pleased that the Islamo-fascist Ayatollahs in Iran seem to be in considerable political difficulty...
val70 · 56-60
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@val70

Sorry, Piers, but the UK doesn't have anywhere near the amount of money necessary to repurchase America. There's been considerable inflation, you know. The tariff idea is pretty good, though. I heard that Governor Newsom is threatening to have California impose tariffs on the rest of the US if he isn't elected president in 2028.
val70 · 56-60
@Thinkerbell You're sidestepping again. That's strike three! :)
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@val70

I didn't sidestep anything. I directly addressed the points you and Piers made.
val70 · 56-60
@Thinkerbell Newson? You think that he'll be still there in two or three years time?
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@val70

He will certainly be in the running. He's not much, but you have to remember that the Democrats' political bench is extremely weak.
val70 · 56-60
@Thinkerbell You're out of this world if you think that even the political scene will be same after Trump takes Trumpland and his mate Putin had invaded Estonia
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@val70

And in that case, who will oppose Newsom among the Democrats?
Pritzker? 🤭 Buttigieg?? 😂 Harris??? 🤣
val70 · 56-60
@Thinkerbell I'm not the one who looks past tomorrow, and tries to forget history and realpolitik since the end of the cold war. Trump will chicken out eventually. Not because the Europeans are so brave but because his plan is really too big for his britches. I have more chance to make mad passionate love to you than you actually getting anything right in the next three years 💋
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@val70

Trump may very well back down, but what does that have to do with Newsom being the least weak of a very weak Democratic political bench? 💋

Oh, wait, I forgot... maybe Walz will run for president. 😂 😂 😂
val70 · 56-60
@Thinkerbell Right, you don't change. In any case, I hope that there will be an actual presidential then and it won't be Trump on the ticket. For the rest, I'm only a poor defenceless European. Take me!
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@val70

Trump will certainly not be on the ticket in 2028.

Take you? Would you like to be president?
You would be better than Newsom.

Maybe we can find a Hawaiian birth certificate for you. 🤫
val70 · 56-60
@Thinkerbell You like me in a tan suit then?
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@val70

You would be becoming in any outfit, Val. 🙂
val70 · 56-60
@Thinkerbell How about Abigail Spanberger then?
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@val70

I doubt that she would be able to raise a sufficient campaign war chest for 2028.

Maybe 2032, if Newsom fails and wokeness is replaced by a modicum of common sense among Democrats.