4 ms·
I think the answer isn't that Denmark is hanging on to its colonialism, but rather that we've gotten over it more so than most other countries, and feel remorse
by m12k 7y ago
I think the answer isn't that Denmark is hanging on to its colonialism, but rather that we've gotten over it more so than most other countries, and feel remorse. I think we feel an obligation to the native Inuit people - we smashed their culture and introduced them to alcohol, which - much like many other indigenous people around the world - they haven't evolved the same tolerance toward as Europeans have, making them much more prone to alcoholism, which is still rampant to this day. Like other old colonial powers we owe a debt to the our colonies for the harm we've caused them, but unlike most we insist on actually paying that debt, because it's the right thing to do. (And don't tell me that's immoral like the article says in item 10 - we support plenty of NGOs in Africa, but Greenland was our colony, so that's the first debt we pay). And I think we know that to the Americans, the Inuit people would have been treated like nothing but a balance sheet like this article does (to me it looks like shareholder primacy raised to the national level, and I find it frankly pretty disgusting - that's no way to think about your fellow citizens). We've already seen how the Americans have treated their native population, and I think we can be pretty damn confident that they're better off with us (what would the Americans have done; let the Inuit build tax exempt casinos? I'm sure that would have worked wonders against the alcoholism...)
- goto11 7y agoDenmark doesn't own Greenland so is not in a position to sell it. Denmark is together with Greenland (and the Faroe Islands) in a union, kind of like England and Scotland is in a union. The union is sometimes called the Kingdom of Denmark and have a shared royal crown, and obviously Denmark is the dominant part having 100 times the population of Greenland. But in theory they are equal parties. At the time the offer was made though, Greenlandic home rule was not established yet, so it was basically a province or colony of Denmark. Native population were forcibly displaced (by Danish authorities) to make space for the American Thule Air Base, so I'm not sure the Danish at the time were morally superior in their treatment of the native population compared to the US. In the post-war the strategy was basically to treat Greenland as a Danish province and turn the Inuit into Danes - one of the approaches was to forcibly take Inuit children from their parents and let them grow up in Denmark. In the 1970'ies the strategy was changed to give Greenland partial independence.
- KeAShizuku 7y agoYeah I find this question rather weird. Why do countries not sell off their unprofitable parts? One nation indivisible under God thats why.
- kzrdude 7y agoOne argument for Catalonian independence is that Catalonia is better off by itself. It's trying to shed the poorer parts of Spain. Which I think is an unsolidaric argument, but it's a possible one when you don't believe in "national unity" anymore.
- carlmr 7y agoDid Spain ever have this "national unity" ?
- w1nst0nsm1th 7y agoAsk that to Franco and you might well disappear from the face of the earth.
- bogomipz 7y agoHow about the removal of Inuit children from their families and sending them to Denmark for re-education? [1] This occurred during the same post War years(1951) as this proposed sale(1946.) And it was the Danish government that removed people from their homes in Thule in order to make room for those American anti-aircraft defenses. I think your suggestion of some superior Danish stewardship at that time is greatly misplaced. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33060450 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33060450
- ErotemeObelus 7y agoIt would have been a violation of human rights to cede Greenland to the United States.