Trump wants to buy Greenland

[sumskilz]

Not sure which time period yo're referring to, but the Norse settled in SW Greenland at a time when it was uninhabited, during the later stages of the Viking Age. So in today's era of fashionable ethnic grievances (the more things change, the more they stay the same...), Norway and Iceland would actually have a decent claim to that part of the island. One of the main reasons why the Norse settlements of Greenland were abandoned is an increase in Eskimo raids, those Eskimos being the ancestors of the Kalaallit we know today as "Greenlanders" sensu stricto. Their presence on the island is not very old, and (coming from the NW) they also seem to have replaced a previous Eskimo-like population living in other regions, along with the Norse inhabitants. Of course, the Royal Danish presence is younger than that still. But on the whole, it's not as clear cut a picture of "Europeans replacing/colonizing native peoples" as people seem to think it is.

Yeah...

For those not already familiar with the topic, the Dorset Culture apparently left no descendants:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There is no Dorset, only Thule.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Greenland has a very small population, smaller than many expat communities around the world. They are basically reliant on Denmark when it comes to infrastructure such as universities, i.e. places where you can train your own lawyers to help ward off a hostile takeover by a large colonial power.

Indeed. Perhaps some of those Danish-trained Greenlandic professionals you speak of can help Greenland draw foreign investment in order to reduce financial dependence on Denmark instead of leaving the island. The poor who cannot afford to leave certainly aren’t banking on the intrinsic benefits of being a Danish satellite.


As others have pointed out, Denmark has already outsourced defense of Greenland to the US/NATO for decades. Development of the island’s natural resources could allow creation of something like Alaska’s Permanent Fund to pay direct dividends to Greenland residents, as opposed to or in addition to the fixed bloc grant Greenland currently receives from Denmark. Investment in infrastructure predicates serious opportunity for foreign commercial investment, and there are other countries besides Denmark willing to fill the gap. Climate change will also make the island more attractive to that end as time goes on.

Yeah, because there are probably no Eskimos on this particular forum. Although who knows, one of the "Danes" you cite might be one of them?

The “Eskimos” by and large seem to want full independence, but that’s hard to justify when they face financial hardship, aging populations and net emigration. I don’t know who or what suggested to Trump that the US should “buy” Greenland, as he tends to mindlessly parrot ideas from one person to the next, and his fellow grifters in the White House secure their careers by leaking to the press. The idea that Denmark or any other country is inherently better suited to manage the island carries about as much weight as selecting a favorite sports team.

[Cookiegod]

It's funny to see all these Greenland experts tell us all about what that place is like, the plight of those poor natives whose opinions they are apparently very well aware of, and calling those inuits whom they're apparently experts on "eskimo". Tells you really everything you need to know about these experts.

That coupled with the facts that we keep hearing the whatifs that have no basis in reality, and the same crap that has already been debunked multiple times.

[athanaric]

It's funny to see all these Greenland experts tell us all about what that place is like, the plight of those poor natives whose opinions they are apparently very well aware of, and calling those inuits whom they're apparently experts on "eskimo". Tells you really everything you need to know about these experts.

Yeah, see, "Eskimo", despite being considered an exonym (just like "Germanic", "Chinese", and "Greek", by the way. Do you also have an issue with those exonyms?), is a well-established term for the culture group modern-day Greenlanders belong to. I also called them "Kalaallit" earlier, which I heard is their common self-appellation. Guess you missed all that, being righteously indignant. Now why don't you go read up on Greenland yourself?

[Cyclops]

Bulldust drifts from the Whitehouse like there's no tomorrow.

...There is no Dorset, only Thule.

IIRC they had nightmare burial practices, wasn't there one body impaled on a bone and the end of it poking out of the mouth with its own carved face? In Greenland, no one can hear you scream because you're choking on a fricking whale rib.

[mongrel]

Alleged Russian puppet buys island near the US east coast. What could possibly go wrong?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I think Trump is being his usual erratic self, however i think in terms of why the US wants Greenland it probably has to do with the increasing importance of the Arctic circle (the 2014 resource exploitation of a frozen el'dorado kinda faded when everyone realized just how damn expensive Arctic exploitation would be, however as the ice melts, things get a lot easier- its a waiting game) for resources, and also arguably strategic interest- a lot of the sanctions placed on Russia in 2014 were i would argue aimed at slowing down or preventing its Arctic exploration as it increased its activity in the area.

Now the geopolitics of the Antarctic is more my jam , so i could be projecting , and of course the Arctic and Antarctic are wildly different beasts. But just like the Antarctic, the US refuses to recognize anyone elses territorial claims to the Arctic, not Canada's, Denmark's, Norway's and certainly not Russia's. However, the US claims and 'practical territory' (i.e. its sliver) is rather tiny compared to the others, and is also the least economically valuable. If i remember rightly (i'll post some articles below if anyone is interested in this) the arctics economic potential 'could' propel Russia back into the 'big boys', it could radically change make Denmark from being an affluent, high social-security, high tax state, into being an incredibly wealthy....high social-security, high tax state... Although 'North Sea Empire 2.0' may also happen, post-brexit Britain lacks even the naval presence to protect our fisheries- so opportunities for techno-vikings will abound .

For the US though...its expected Arctic wealth is relatively piddly, being far less than Denmark or Canada.

Thus partly why the US refuses to recognize the Arctic claims of anyone else, it feels geopolitically it can a rough deal. Everyone else is going to benefit massively, and it, the largest superpower is being left out in the cold (If anyone's ever read any Antarctic or Arctic political histories...puns are everywhere 'Pink Ice: Britain's Antarctic Empire', 'Frozen Empires'- Article IV and the new Antarctic imperialism, 'Eagle tethered to an iceberg'...ohhh its been a great few months... >.>).

But the acquisition of Greenland, could make this all better. Firstly it would massively extend the scope of the USA's 'actual' Arctic territory/claims in a way that currently just merely having Alaska never could legally, and provide it with the potential for economic exploitation that it feels it deserves. Secondly, with that in the bag, the USA could actually then feel confident enough to recognize the claims of its usual allies and form a proper united front against further Russian (and now Chinese potentially) encroachment, as it no longer would be sacrificing potential access to the frozen el'dorado'.

This is a similar reason why the US in the Antarctic refused to recognize (and still does) the claims of Britain, Argentina, Chile, Australia or New Zealand, despite becoming very close to doing so at various points, simply because Britain in the 1950s was almost 'forcing' the US to HAVE to take the large unclaimed Pacific sector, which is the least valuable area of the Antarctic- the area that Britain has that was then the Falkland Islands Dependencies was the most valuable, both strategically, in terms of access and it actually did have resources ready for exploitation- thus the UK managed to draw the US into signing the Antarctic treaty (Because the Soviets turned up during the IGY and decided to stay, while freaked everyone out), which 'froze' everyone's claims (Yep...a lot of puns on that, even in my paper...), though which ultimately benefited the US as Shirely Scott argues as it drew the Antarctic into its own informal empire, much to Britain's surprise as while sure it allowed everyone to 'keep' their claims theoretically', in actual practice only the US was prepared to throw £13 million into the region, compared to Britain's £250,000 or New Zealand £4000, this the US has managed to swarm all over the continent since, getting into the British sector, building bases legally that essentially means if/when the Antarctic treaty is reviewed (any signatory can call for this) and if the US decides to pull out de-facto control is it becomes a US continent. Something though that is now being challenged by a resurgent Russian and new power China.

So in the same vein the US faces the Arctic, which also works on a sector basis in practice, and again the US slice is tiny. Greenland would allow this US slice to justifiably be increased massively, at the expense of Denmark ultimately, but with an eye to at least the US getting the potential mountains of wealth from the region as Russia will (Essentially it could literally 'Make Russia Great again' in terms of being a true third superpower with US and China... however i would say everyone tends to over-emphasize the Arctic and Antarctics 'actual' value...however that rather doesn't matter, providing the perception to governments is that its a region of untold wealth just waiting for the ice to melt.).

So Trump, its again a sensationalist tweeting. But it also when seen through the Arctic lens, is a continuation of US policy (And this rather fits in with the 'America First' approach- Trump no doubt will have read a US report on the Arctic and seen it as an area where the US could throw their weight around with relatively little in terms of political or international costs, especially when compared to the Antarctic where it means a direct confrontation with China, as well as the US tearing up the Antarctic Treaty System, which is the much vaunted model for how governments can provide a framework for Mars colonies in a way that fosters cooperation and does not end up as a Dune-Esque House Trump of North Mars vs House Boris/Corbyn of the East Mars Peninsula vs House China mark 2...because facade of Communism.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/...cal%20Survey).

https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.main...0&context=oclj

https://www.cfr.org/event/geopolitics-arctic-0

https://www.ie-ei.eu/IE-EI/Ressource.../Georgescu.pdf

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3486242...n_tab_contents (Its been a problem from the 1980s)

https://martenscentre.eu/publication...a-china-and-eu

EDIT: Just a reason why this all should concern people, for my Antarctic research i found US correspondence in the National Archives that had a very interesting policy, that due to the Antarctic being essentially 'unpeopled' and no direct state territory (i.e. because the US recognized no ones claims to sovereignty) they were in 1959 quite prepared to nuke Russia's Antarctic presence off the continent, this is partly what galvanized the ATS to be signed, as while Britain essentially lost all of its aims in the negotiations to the US exerting pressure and forcing them about, it was eager to sign ANY treaty so as to not get caught up in a nuclear exchange).

US strategists though believed that nuking the Antarctic was fine, because Russia would only retaliate by nuking their Antarctic presence (or those of a really pissed off Britain). Because the area was so remote, and Russia also (as it does in the Arctic) refused to recognize anyone else's claims. Thus no MAD activated. Now while i haven't indulged in the National Archives for the Arctic (incidentally the Antarctic is so important and relevant that to this day Britain keeps access to most of its Antarctic files closed, some 80 years on, and with my FOI requests i was given quite the run-around before being denied) i suspect a similar policy line can be found there, as the US at least tended to see both Poles as one and the same.

Whether this would still be relevant policy today of course not sure. But it is the only region i've found where nukes were deemed as a suitable military weapon, not even in response or 'first strike' but as a means of driving out a rival, and its feasible if conditions because like those in the Cold War (Which by the way this was prior to the Missile Crisis and during the IGY which actually fostered such close cooperation among East and West that many thought the Cold War might end amicably there and then) returned, many policy options would be reopened.

[Cookiegod]

Yeah, see, "Eskimo", despite being considered an exonym (just like "Germanic", "Chinese", and "Greek", by the way. Do you also have an issue with those exonyms?), is a well-established term for the culture group modern-day Greenlanders belong to. I also called them "Kalaallit" earlier, which I heard is their common self-appellation. Guess you missed all that, being righteously indignant. Now why don't you go read up on Greenland yourself?

Eskimo is a valid exonym if you're referring to more than one subgroup (no one is talking about the Germanics if he's exclusively referring to the Danes, or exclusively to the English, btw.). But no, we're only talking about the Inuit here, who, spoiler alert, don't like being called Eskimo at all. It doesn't matter if I had an issue with the word at all (and I don't). It's just that anyone rambling it in this context pretty much sums up his own ignorance in a hilarious way.

It's also pretty much clear to me that people here are extrapolating from native US Americans to Greenland. Oh surely their life experience/history must have been the same. Which... no. Just no.

Also, as I already pointed out multiple times: Greenland is already making its own foreign policy. They are functionally independent politically, except of course economically and infrastructure wise.

So all those ramblings not only you do are completely unreal in every way possible.

[Derc]

Canada should be very worried if it is surrounded by the US from all sides. Pretty sure the US would approach the conflict over Hans Island with very different means. The Canadians wouldn't find a bottle of Schnapps but several guns there - directly pointed at them.

Come on, selling Greenland to the US is laughable. Greenland may not be all too profitable today, but it will play a crucial role in the decades to come. People should have already learned that from Alaska.

[antaeus]

The topic of Greenland made a nice change from talking about China, tariffs, Democratic primaries, inverted yield curves and everything else Trump is being bashed with. Maybe that's the point.

Make a stupid comment... wait for the trollosphere to legitimise the debate. And look at us. Debating the sale of a semi-autonomous country as if it's 1890 and we're in the Belgian Congo.

Team Trump 1, Intelligent people 0.

[conon394]

US strategists though believed that nuking the Antarctic was fine

I not sure I would project US policy from that ere forward. After all that was the period of SIOP being one option only - integrated targeting of all US enemies everywhere with one strike, as Kennedy found out there was no limited option.

[antaeus]

I not sure I would project US policy from that ere forward. After all that was the period of SIOP being one option only - integrated targeting of all US enemies everywhere with one strike, as Kennedy found out there was no limited option.

Back in those days they also thought it was fine to forcefully move entire populations so that they could irradiate their island homes indefinitely by nuking them.

[sumskilz]

Eskimo is a valid exonym if you're referring to more than one subgroup (no one is talking about the Germanics if he's exclusively referring to the Danes, or exclusively to the English, btw.). But no, we're only talking about the Inuit

Calling them Inuit is the same as saying Germanics when referring to Danes. The Inuit languages are spoken all across northern Canada and Alaska.

[Cookiegod]

Calling them Inuit is the same as saying Germanics when referring to Danes. The Inuit languages are spoken all across northern Canada and Alaska.

All right dude. Tell me what the correct term is then.

[sumskilz]

All right dude. Tell me what the correct term is then.

Kalaallit, the other term Athanaric used, is actually correct for the vast majority of them. There are also ~3000 Tunumiit and ~800 Inughuit. You could say Greenlandic Inuit in order to be all inclusive, but still specific, or you could just say Inuit and we'll all assume you're referring to Greenlandic Inuit since that's who's relevant. This last option seems the easiest solution. It's just that there was recently a Danish poster in the thread getting annoyed about the use of overly general terms, but if that's all worked out, I think we'll probably all be fine with it.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I not sure I would project US policy from that ere forward. After all that was the period of SIOP being one option only - integrated targeting of all US enemies everywhere with one strike, as Kennedy found out there was no limited option.

Good point and this is true, its also the hazard essentially as nearly everything of relevance to both Poles post-1959 (and even a lot of stuff before then) is still withheld by the British government. Though i know there is a lot of (arguably partisan) stuff about the potential reintroduction and moves towards 'mini nukes' - https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...ni-nukes-66431

Which may or may not be the emhpasis of this new nuclear arms race that is feared to be happening. In that context, the Poles begin to look liken the ideal areas for us , but again it is unlikely.

What i would say though is likely is that the US, Russia, China, Canada and the Euro nations have been and are playing a high-stakes claimant game in the Arctic (at least for the USA's part- the rest seem very happy with their allotted sectors for obvious reasons ) that is very similar to how the Antarctic was going in the 1950s, that luckily was prevented from spiraling by the ATS, but i cannot see in the current climate any similar 'will' to do an Arctic ATS, their just doesn't seem to be the want for international cooperation there.

[TheLeft]

Why on Earth would the population of Greenland want to join the US? Currently the workers in Greenland enjoy:

Free College
Free Healthcare
Paid Pa/Maternity Leave
Actual Paid Vacation
Healthier Work Life Balance
Cheap Medicine
Free Public Child Care

Just because the American worker was craven and ill-informed enough to surrender all of his employment rights because... something something Communism, doesn't mean the population of Greenland will. I'm not sure free Fox News pumped into their homes and the glorious opportunity to be just another gun violence statistic will sway public opinion...

[95thrifleman]

3 pages, I'm amazed.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Why on Earth would the population of Greenland want to join the US? Currently the workers in Greenland enjoy:

Free College
Free Healthcare
Paid Pa/Maternity Leave
Actual Paid Vacation
Healthier Work Life Balance
Cheap Medicine
Free Public Child Care

Just because the American worker was craven and ill-informed enough to surrender all of his employment rights because... something something Communism, doesn't mean the population of Greenland will. I'm not sure free Fox News pumped into their homes and the glorious opportunity to be just another gun violence statistic will sway public opinion...

I believe those things are currently guaranteed and funded by the government in Greenland. Is this not the case?

[Cookiegod]

Kalaallit, the other term Athanaric used, is actually correct for the vast majority of them. There are also ~3000 Tunumiit and ~800 Inughuit. You could say Greenlandic Inuit in order to be all inclusive, but still specific, or you could just say Inuit and we'll all assume you're referring to Greenlandic Inuit since that's who's relevant. This last option seems the easiest solution.

Congratulations on your wikipedia reading skills. Also: Thanks for admitting your objection was both pointless and false.

It's just that there was recently a Danish poster in the thread getting annoyed about the use of overly general terms, but if that's all worked out, I think we'll probably all be fine with it.

Cry all you want. This Indoeuropean here is more amazed than annoyed by all the selfproclaimed experts here. I specifically said I don't care about the term. I just know that no one with even superficial knowledge on the matter would call them this. And there's a reason why I never used any of those terms. So if that's worked out, you can continue to pretend to speak for the people there, and I'll continue to make fun of you for it.