3 ms·

Good news, they get to keep all of them. In the US, natural resources belong to whoever owns the land, which would be the state government and the people of Gre

by troad 2y ago

Good news, they get to keep all of them. In the US, natural resources belong to whoever owns the land, which would be the state government and the people of Greenland. Y'all can fear-monger about 'neo-colonialism', but the only nation that has ever exploited Greenland has been Denmark, what with its actual colonialism.

runarberg 2y ago
> 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.
- troad 2y ago
  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.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qaanaaq 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash 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.
    - troad 2y ago
      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).
      - runarberg 2y ago
        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.
rswail 2y ago
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.

by troad 2y ago

runarberg 2y ago

> 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.

troad 2y ago
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.
- runarberg 2y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qaanaaq 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash 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.
  - troad 2y ago
    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).
    - runarberg 2y ago
      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.

rswail 2y ago

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.