Greenland's mineral resources are valued in the trillions.

They can be exploited for the benefit of the residents, why on earth would they sell that for the undefined "benefits" of being an exploited territory of either the US or China?

Yep I read an article about the people in Texas who live next to the refineries and LNG terminals. Lots of cancer and nobody cares. Great for Europe and corporations though.

A very typical European understanding of the US - "I read an article about... ", "I saw on Reddit that... ", "I saw an Onion video that said... " <obviously reductionist caricature follows>.

You're watching the reflections on the wall of Plato's cave and think you have any understanding of the society that cast them.

Edit: I also see in your other comments that you praise Xi Jinping's China. Enough said.

There have been numerous examples of the lack of industry regulation in TX leading to bad health outcomes to local residents with no recourse.

You're assuming that Greenland would be given statehood which is extremely unlikely, they would be entitled to two Senate seats and one House seat with an even lower population than Wyoming.

> the only nation that has ever exploited Greenland has been Denmark

While Denmark is by far the biggest colonial exploiter of Greenland (including genocidal ethnodemographic policies as late as the 1970s), it is by no means the only one. Other exploiters include Norway, who tried to annex East Greenland, Faroe Islands, who set up a failed factory in South Greenland, Iceland, who has been exploiting the fisheries around Greenland, and—the second worse offender—USA who set up an illegal military base in Pituffik, North Greenland, including forcefully relocating its residents to Qaanaaq, crash landing a bomber armed with a nuclear bomb, illegally using Greenland to transport nuclear bombs, polluting their surroundings, etc.

PS. what you are describing as neo-colonialism, is just plain old fashion colonialism. Neo-colonialism is already a defined term which does not involve annexing territories. In fact its defining feature is exploitation without direct territorial control. In my opinion I wish it wasn’t called neo-colonialism, as it sort of diminishes the true horrors of European colonialism, and is not offering any meaningful distinction from the standard exploitation of global capitalism and neo-liberalism.

PPS. It can be argued that Iceland’s and the Faroes’ exploitation of Greenland are neo-colonial in nature, as opposed to pure colonial, like Denmark’s, Norway’s and the USA’s.

Sure, that arch exploitative act of "trying to set up a factory" in an impoverished area. God forbid the locals get wages and a chance at better living conditions, when they can instead be forced to remain a living museum of impoverished hunter-gatherer cultures for the benefit of haughty Western scholars of neo-colonialism. /s

"Illegally" using Greenland to transport nuclear bombs? Illegal under whose law? The illegitimate dictates of the occupying Danish government?

You can point fingers and "what about?" all day long, but there's only state that colonised Greenland, and that is Denmark. Whereas the United States - while far from perfect - played a pivotal role in pressuring Europe to dismantle its rapacious colonial empires.

Ultimately, the only people who have the right to decide the future and laws of Greenland are the people of Greenland. Whether that is independence, joining the Union as an equal, or continued colony status under Denmark is a matter for them and them alone. Unlike Denmark, the US isn't going to invade and annex Greenland.

Illegal under Danish law.

> In a Danish Supreme Court judgment of 28 November 2003 the move [forceful relocation from Pituffik to Qaanaaq to make way for the Thule airbase] was considered an expropriative intervention. During the proceedings it was recognized by the Danish government that the movement was a serious interference and an unlawful act against the local population.[1]

> In 1995, a political scandal arose in Denmark after a report revealed the government had given tacit permission for nuclear weapons to be located in Greenland, in contravention of Denmark's 1957 nuclear-free zone policy.[2]

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qaanaaq

2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash

Both of these cases were Denmark breaking their own laws to fulfill American requests of US imperialism on their territory. This is very similar to how the UK broke their own laws to hand over Diego Garzia illegally from the Chagocean Islanders to build a USA military base.

The colonialism in those instances, even though the responsibility is ultimately on their colonizers (Denmark), the USA very much participates, and is the main perpetrator of these events.

Exactly. Both of these are Danish laws illegitimately extended to Greenlandic territory, at a time when the Greenlanders were (a) forcefully incorporated into Denmark, and (b) had no ability to make or unmake Danish law.

Greenland, were it to choose to enter the US, would do so freely and in full understanding and acceptance of existing US law, with equal rights and representation in the Congress that makes said law.

There is no comparison between a free and informed entry into a union of equals, and the imposed legal regime of an occupying state (where the rule of law is apparently so weak that the metropolitan colonial government itself readily breaks its own laws).

I don’t understand your logic. In both cases it was the USA that broke these laws. Even though they were Danish laws, it was USA that ultimately a) built an illegal airbase, and b) illegally stored, and illegally transferred illegal weapons.

The damages from these illegal activities remain to this day, they were done by the USA for USA benefits. USA is very much the exploiter here, there is no spinning it otherwise.

Greenland has more exploiters than just Denmark. USA is very much Greenland’s second worst exploiter in history.

Also a note here, this is all before the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (which the USA hasn’t signed), and before the establishment of the Inatsisartut. So Danish laws ware the only way in which Greenlanders were able to affect their own affairs. Denmark has since then granted Greenland autonomy and signed and ratified the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I'll try to clarify my reasoning.

From a purely legal perspective, the US is not bound by domestic Danish law under any circumstances (and vice versa: cf the doctrine of state immunity).

From the perspective of legal philosophy, the US cannot break Danish law in Greenland, because Danish law is not legitimate law in Greenland, any more than Israeli law is legitimate law in the West Bank. You'll certainly find other perspectives on this within legal philosophy, but any philosophical argument that attempts to reconcile the premise that (a) colonialism is illegitimate, and that (b) colonised or occupied people are nonetheless bound to obey the legal order instituted by an occupier is necessarily going to be quite contorted.

From the perspective of Western liberal-democratic political philosophy, government without the consent of the governed is illegitimate, its laws lack authority, and it is the right (and duty) of the people so governed to overthrow and disestablish that government, which they have no obligation to do peacefully or within the bounds of the existing political order (e.g. many wars of independence, American Revolution, etc).

Ergo, the US cannot violate domestic Danish law in Greenland, both because that's legally speaking nonsense (state immunity), and because domestic Danish law is not simply not legitimate in Greenland. Were Denmark not occupying Greenland at the time, the US government would be able to negotiate with Greenland about the possibility of placing a base there, and the Greenlanders themselves could decide whether this is something they want and what benefit they are able to secure from such a deal (Iceland, for example, has greatly benefited from such an arrangement, being able to secure its freedom from Danish colonialism with US assistance). Denmark's domestic laws, and the extent to which Denmark does or does not enforce its laws, is a domestic matter for Denmark. In as far as it purports to legislate for other countries, and then not even obey those laws itself, that's - again - a domestic matter for Denmark.

I hope this clarifies my argument.

Denmark already subsidizes Greenland to around $10,000 per capita every year, so I think the Greenlanders would want a much higher offer.

I'm talking about a cash in hand offer: a literal bank wire to every person in Greenland. Greenlandic politicians holding out for a different offer might find themselves voted out by people that rather like the idea of $50k in cash ($200k for a family of four, etc).

Re subsidies, the US federal government subsidised local and state governments to the tune of $1.1 trillion in 2023 alone, with funding disproportionately directed to poorer regions (such as Greenland, were it to join). That's not including direct spending on Native Americans, for which most Greenlanders would also be eligible. With no special arrangements whatsoever, Greenland would likely see a comparable amount of subsidy in the US as it does today (and very likely much greater economic growth). In reality, some level of subsidy guarantee for a period of some years could easily be part of the accession negotiations.

The real question isn't whether the US can afford Greenland - they can, many times over - the real question is the value of sovereignty (and I don't have the answer to that).

You seriously believe you are going to buy Greenland with 50k per person and few billions for Denmark?

That's a laughable offer.

Believe it or not, Europeans are not on sale and they do not have that much sympathy or willingness to leave in the US. The few that do, do so for money they would not make in Europe. And money is not an issue for Greenlanders or Danes. They both do much better than people in many US states.

Greenland is in serious need of infrastructure. Denmark has not been a kind colonial master (no such thing exists). However it would be foolish to think that any more infrastructure would be built under the USA’s colonial rule than Denmark’s. And I think the Greenlandic population knows this all too well. Both are their indigenous neighbors to the west in Nunavut and Alaska suffering way more under Canadian and USA’s rule than they are. But also as their autonomy has increased over the years so has their infrastructure, including cultural institutions, as well as their cultural independence.

I’m from Iceland, who also suffered (though much much less; so much less it is not comparable) under danish colonization. And I’m of the opinion that the biggest help Iceland can offer, is cooperate in cultural events and institutions, such as sport competitions (especially football and handball), theater (a collaboration between the two national theaters would be lovely), music (there artists from each country should be constantly performing in the other), etc.

> However it would be foolish to think that any more infrastructure would be built under the USA’s colonial rule than Denmark’s.

As I've noted elsewhere, you're conflating actual honest colonialism (Denmark's) with a hypothetical free choice to join the United States.

By what logic are the people of Iceland free to decide whether or not to join the European Union, but the people of Greenland are not free to decide whether to join the United States?

> And I’m of the opinion that the biggest help Iceland can offer, is cooperate in cultural events and institutions, such as sport competitions (especially football and handball), theater (a collaboration between the two national theaters would be lovely), music (there artists from each country should be constantly performing in the other), etc.

Sounds beautiful. I'm a big fan of this idea. I'd include the inhabitants of the Arctic regions of Canada and the US too.

> By what logic are the people of Iceland free to decide whether or not to join the European Union, but the people of Greenland are not free to decide whether to join the United States?

I think you may be misunderstanding where my argument stems from.

It is off course for the people of Greenland to decide whether or not they will sell their country to the USA. However both their legislator and their people have made it abundantly clear that they are not for sale[1], so the argument here is kind of moot. What I‘m arguing in the other thread is that USA‘s prospects of buying Greenland are of colonialist nature. Those are colonial dreams and nothing else. Expending your territorial control is colonialism, even when you pay to convince your future subjects to fall willingly under your colonial rule, it is still colonialism.

My biggest fear in all of this is actually that Denmark will sell parts of Greenland from under the Greenlandic people in illegal deals with the USA similar to how the UK carved out the Chagos islands from their Mauritius colony just before independence and handed Diego Garcia to USA so they could build their military base there, expelling all the Chagosians that lived there in the meantime. USA and Denmark have already done so in North Greenland. A deal which in 50 years time will be found to be illegal but at that time it is too late to do anything about it. Such a deal would also be colonial behavior, both on the USA, and on Denmark.

Over here I‘m just pointing out that Greenland is lacking in some areas of their economy, and there are prices persuade some Greenlanders (I know some members of the Greenlandic home rule who would love a good old fashioned business deals with USA, both for mining and for their military operation [probably looking at how the martial assistance gave Iceland a bunch of infrastructure in return {wink, wink} for a couple of military bases and joining NATO]).

1: https://www.democracynow.org/2024/12/27/greenland_trump_colo...

> Expending your territorial control is colonialism, even when you pay to convince your future subjects to fall willingly under your colonial rule, it is still colonialism.

The EU has many people and offices working on promoting and facilitating 'EU enlargement'. The EU offers tangible economic benefits to countries that join, including direct monetary payments, which it refuses to offer to non-members (as the UK found out the hard way). Is the EU therefore a colonialist power?

I think you're stretching the word colonialism well past its breaking point, and in so doing trying to erase the massive difference between real colonialism - such as Denmark's invasion and annexation of Greenland - and voluntary membership in a democratic union with economic benefits (such as the US, or the EU).

> My biggest fear in all of this is actually that Denmark will sell parts of Greenland from under the Greenlandic people

I agree that would be bad, but your fear is misplaced. The only people with the power to decide on Greenland's future are the Greenlanders. There's nothing wrong - despite your consistent use of words like 'sell' - with the US explaining or promoting the economic benefits of joining the Union (the EU does exactly the same), provided the final decision is made by the Greenlanders.

The EU is a supranational union of independent states, with voluntary membership. The USA is a country which possesses (as of now) 5 colonies. If you don‘t see the difference between joining a political union of independent states and territorial acquisition by a host state, then I don’t know what to say. Joining the European Union is akin to Greenland making a free trade agreement with the USA which includes free movement of people, etc. That is not what USA is talking about here. They are talking about acquiring the territory of Greenland by buying it, i.e. colonizing it.

I think you are being naive if you think the USA is only talking about a bilateral agreement with Greenland which Greenland is free to enter or leave at anytime. The USA has in recent history purchased (or more commonly borrowed) territories with total disregards to the people that live there. They have on numerous occasions broken local laws (or more commonly gotten another colonial power to break their laws) to undermine the sovereignty of other countries. The most recent example is the military bases they keep in Iraq, despite Iraq telling them to leave (military bases the USA got by illegally invading and illegally occupying Iraq). I think it is a mistake to not take the USA at their words when they say they wont to annex new territory, and I think it is a good idea to assume their intentions are just as bad as they sound.

Arguing that the US is more of a colonialist power than Europe is certainly a bold bit of rhetoric. Europe maintains a vast colonial empire to this day.

You can 'but Iraq!' all you want, but you're attempting to make the absolutely absurd argument that the US would somehow be more colonialist than literal, actual, historical colonialism. On the one hand is the US - a country whose greatest crime you can name is that they waged a war you didn't like once - and on the other is Denmark's centuries-long annexation and colonial occupation of the very country you claim to care about, including strenuous attempts to eradicate the local culture / customs and forced sterilisation of the indigenous people.

At the end of the day, the only distinction here is that you like one political union, and you do not like the other, so you blind yourself to the downsides of one and shamelessly slander the other. Unless the US spends two centuries ruthlessly attempting to wipe the Greenlanders out, I'll take 'proven historical fact' over vague aspersions around future hypotheticals vis-à-vis who is more of a 'colonialist'.

I reiterate my overall position: it falls to the people of Greenland to decide on their future, and they are fully capable of making their own decision, despite imperialist tut-tutting from Europe. The economic and security possibilities of joining the US are great, but independence is worthy too. The only horrible outcome here is continued subjugation to colonial European rule.

I think you are reading into my post, a lot of stuff I never said, implied, or even belief.

Big fan of Denmark!

But where in the world did you get the idea people in Denmark do “much better” than people in even the poorest US state?

Median income in the poorest US state (Mississippi) is slightly higher than median income in Denmark, with much lower taxes even if you consider private health insurance a tax.

A similar analysis of people in the poorest decile, after famously stingy US transfer payments, has disposable income for the poor in Mississippi coming out ahead of being poor in Denmark.

I keep seeing folks make this argument. I would love to live in Denmark, but the reason to live there is not because of higher income. The US is just much, much richer than almost all of Europe (Switzerland and Luxembourg are the exceptions, not Denmark).

It’s totally fine to value things like social cohesion, terrific bike infrastructure, and low income inequality. Those are areas Denmark beats the US.

But income? It’s not even close.

No. That claim is at best highly misleading and, in most straightforward comparisons, simply false. Once you adjust for cost of living, tax structures, and what you actually “get” for your taxes (e.g., healthcare, education), Denmark’s median disposable income generally exceeds that of Mississippi. Moreover, Mississippi’s nominal median household income—while sometimes quoted in the same ballpark as Denmark’s median after-tax income—does not include the considerable out-of-pocket costs U.S. residents pay for things Danes receive through public services (healthcare, college, childcare, etc.).

I included health insurance in my calculation, and public schools in Mississippi are just as free in the US as they are Denmark.

Cost of living is much higher in Denmark, so making that adjustment isn't going to help your argument.

If you assume Danish university education is comparable to paying full freight at Harvard (which no one with a median Mississippi income would have to do) or some other heavy weighting on things that are private in the US, you might get close.

Certainly one can argue there's a large intangible benefit to not having to think about health insurance, and I for one place a large premium on having the opportunity to bike everywhere. I'm not arguing life in Denmark is bad.

No doubt there are many public services in Denmark that make transfer payments to the bottom quintile difficult to measure, but I just have never seen a credible argument that in terms of disposable consumer surplus, the median adult does better in Denmark than Mississippi, accounting for all reasonable costs.

And, of course, most Americans are richer than the median Mississippian.

It seems great to argue about the value of things Denmark is good at, but having a large consumer surplus just doesn't strike me as being one of those things. It's also not a value I think the median Dane agrees should be weighted that high, which is fine.

> "recently"

Over a century ago is not recently, even relatively.