12 ms·

Why Is Greenland Part of the Kingdom of Denmark? A Short History

122 points by Anon84 10mo ago

tete 10mo ago
lol "secure its legitimate security interests"
oldpersonintx 10mo ago
[dead]
xiphias2 10mo ago
This article creates more questions than answers. - Will the rare earth minerals be mined eventually? As far as I see EU is going into that direction as well, as Greenland became so strategic over time - What happens with all the land rights that American mineral extraction companies already bought? It means that even if EU/Greenland accepts mining they are already starting from a losing position - What happens if the American government pays off the people and they want to join US? Will the Danish government still believe in the self determination of Greenland, or it's just political talk? - what happens after US gets Greenland? Will NATO fall apart and EU get into an even worse position?
- lysace 10mo ago
  "A Short History"
- exe34 10mo ago
  > What happens if the American government pays off the people and they want to join US? Honestly I believe if they are willing to sell their future like that, they deserve everything the turd reich does to them.
  - nephihaha 10mo ago
    This lot will be out in a few years. Blame your country's two party system.
    - exe34 10mo ago
      And they'll be back in a few years later. I think the rest of the world has learnt that the US cannot be trusted beyond a 4-year horizon even when they make sensible noises.
- LarsKrimi 10mo ago
  - The only way minerals there will be mined profitably is by someone strongarming and displacing any local population, disregarding all environmental protection rules and destroying large swathes of land - They either mine the minerals responsibly or ask their king to take over the country so they can mine irresponsibly - Bribery to vote for independence and subsequent joining with the US is the only legal way that Greenland will become part of the US. It would have to be accepted by the Kingdom of Denmark - Depends on whether it is done legally or with force. If done with force NATO would go under pretty fast. If done with bribery NATO is probably done anyway just way further out.
  - bitcurious 10mo ago
    > displacing any local population Why displacing? Greenland is 3x the size of Texas and only 60k people, mostly concentrated around a single village.
    - LarsKrimi 10mo ago
      Because there's absolutely no infrastructure where noone lives. For good reason The mineral dream is a dream for a reason. Americans have tried. The Chinese have tried. The Danes have tried. None have made a profit, and none have kept up operations But I'm sure the US will be able to do it this time. Afterall the US has someone with an acute sense of realism in absolute power
    - nephihaha 10mo ago
      Nuuk is small but not really a village considering it contains thousands of people
newyankee 10mo ago
[flagged]
- thordenmark 10mo ago
  This is the history of the world. This day and age is nothing special in that regard.
  - therobots927 10mo ago
    Except we are supposed to evolve as a species and as a civilization. Is slavery okay because “it’s always been done”?
    - brookst 10mo ago
      The US increasingly rejects evolution, in every sense including this one.
      - therobots927 10mo ago
        It always has. Or at least tried to. Despite that the Civil Rights movement achieved massive success during a much more regressive period of US society. Trump represents a swing of the pendulum that has been brewing ever since. The election of Obama supercharged this reaction and incited panic in the white nationalist segments of the population. This too shall pass.
    - hearsathought 10mo ago
      Slavery is not okay because the guys with the bigger guns said so. Read up on the civil war.
      - therobots927 10mo ago
        That’s why slavery “no longer exists in the US” (up for debate). That’s not what makes it morally unacceptable. Force doesn’t determine morality. It determines what happens. Your statement amounts to a tautology: “whatever happens is what happens” And by the way, that’s not even the whole story. The civil rights movement succeeded without force or violence for the most part. So your whole framework is pretty flimsy I think.
cornholio 10mo ago
It seems the issue boils down to what the Greenlanders want: to become some sort of Venezuela of the north in Trump's imperial crown, and be used to maximize the profits of the American corporations that ultimately get to own it; OR full rights as EU citizens and local autonomy to decide who gets the mining concessions, under competitive terms open to all countries that maximize their profits, which stay in their hands. The historical path of Greenland in DK is irrelevant.
- VoodooJuJu 10mo ago
  [dead]
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- therobots927 10mo ago
  I don’t think the wishes of the population are being taken into account. Maybe they should hold a vote?
  - graemep 10mo ago
    The government of Greenland has a right to call an independence referendum so it could happen depending on who wins elections.
    - yorwba 10mo ago
      There was an election in 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Greenlandic_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Greenlandic_general_elect... Pro-independence parties won a supermajority. The only party whose leader said that he trusts Trump in the debate before the election got 305 votes and no seats. The next parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2029, too late for a pro-Trump swing unless he manages to stay in office somehow.
      - graemep 10mo ago
lysace 10mo ago
I see so many americans suddenly hyperfocus on the strategic importance of Greenland because Trump again talks about stealing it. They fall over themselves inventing fantastically involved rationales and really weird moral justifications. Meanwhile Donald is above such pretense. He just wants it. (In way that honesty is refreshing.) It's especially tragicomical when they frame it as a defense measure against Russia - which those same people are generally aligned with.
- davidw 10mo ago
  > It's especially tragicomical when they frame it as a defense measure against Russia There is more than a hint of "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it" to those kinds of rationalizations.
- graemep 10mo ago
  > It's especially tragicomical when they frame it as a defense measure against Russia - which they are generally aligned with. How is a country that has sanctions against Russia, sends aid to a country it is at war with, and has recently been seizing Russian ships be aligned with Russia?
  - lysace 10mo ago
    I edited my comment to clarify that I meant the people who make these absurd statements. It was kinda clear before the edit ("they"); now it's very clear.
  - analog31 10mo ago
    I don’t think “aligned with Russia” is what’s happening. Instead, I think they are aligned with the old fashioned “spheres of influence” concept, where each superpower owns and operates its own region. Thus, Russia owning Ukraine and the US owning Greenland are not inconsistent. US aid towards Ukraine is just strong enough to keep the conflict going indefinitely (the “forever wars” policy) without resolving it.
    - graemep 10mo ago
mg 10mo ago
I wonder what would happen if the USA offered to pay $1,000,000 to every Greenlander if Greenland becomes part of the USA. That would be just $50B - a pretty cheap way to increase the size of the USA by 20%.
- throw8892 10mo ago
  And then their children have to put up with racist Americans forever
- nephihaha 10mo ago
  There was a similar argument some years ago about the Falkland Islands, that every single local could be bought off by Argentina. I think most Americans are much more mobile and not used to the idea that someone could be strongly attached to an area as their home.
  - cmrdporcupine 10mo ago
    Canadian perspective: it seems like many (not all) Americans are also explicitly brought up with, and heavily absorb, "greatest country in the world" rhetoric that also leaves them incapable of understanding that this is not necessarily how people outside of it see the USA. Trying to be diplomatic? I've seen a lot of really insane shit in comment sections -- and even more insane shit from public officials -- over the last year since these "topics" came up. Belief in or unconscious absorbance of the concept of "manifest destiny" and American exceptionalism seems to run deep in a portion of the American psyche. No, it's not "their" continent to take. Might doesn't make right. And it certainly doesn't make for superiority in anything but brawn and bravado. I'll also add this: the (imho encouraging) trend in the north and with the indigenous populations there has been in the opposite direction from what the Trump regime is proposing: sovereignty and autonomy for the Inuit to run their own lands. Canada carved out new Inuit administered territories, trying in some respect (and inconsistently) to rectify over a century of mis(mal?)governance and exploitation and mistreatment. From the polls I see the Inuit in Greenland want more self governance, not a new external boss.
    - 10mo ago
andsoitis 10mo ago
For context, The Guardian reports[1]: Inuit people are understood to have lived in Greenland since as early as 2,500BC and it was reached by Norse seafarers in the first millennium AD, who established settlements lasting several centuries. Modern colonisation began after the arrival of Hans Egede in 1721, acting with the support of what was then Denmark-Norway. During the second world war, when Denmark was occupied by Germany, Greenland was occupied by the US and was returned to Denmark in 1945. It became part of the kingdom of Denmark in 1953, and in 1979 home rule was introduced. But Denmark still controls Greenland’s foreign and security policy. It has its own parliament, Inatsisartut, and two MPs in the Danish parliament, Folketing. But calls for independence have been growing. Tensions have escalated significantly between Greenland and Denmark in recent years. There is intense anger in Greenland over investigations into the forced contraceptive (IUD) scandal of the 1960s and 70s, prompting the former Greenlandic prime minister to accuse Denmark of genocide. There have also been protests in Copenhagen and Nuuk over the separation of Greenlandic children from their parents. Denmark has banned the use of highly controversial “parenting competency” tests on Greenlandic people that have resulted in Greenlandic mothers being separated from their children. In September, after years of failing to acknowledge the violations, Denmark officially apologised to the victims of the IUD scandal, in which thousands of Greenlandic women and girls were forcibly fitted with contraceptive coils without their knowledge or consent. And in December, victims won a legal fight with the Danish government to receive compensation. In recent years there has been growing support for Greenlandic independence. But amid the spectre of Trump’s threat, Greenland in March formed a new four-party coalition government in a show of national unity, with the first page of the coalition agreement stating: “Greenland belongs to us.” The pro-independence party, Naleraq, which is the most US- and Trump-friendly party, came second in the election and is now in opposition. According to a 2009 agreement with Denmark, Greenland must hold a successful referendum before declaring independence. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/06/why-is-donald-trump-renewing-calls-for-takeover-of-greenland https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/06/why-is-donald-...
- AlotOfReading 10mo ago
  The guardian's historical overview is a bit lacking. The "Inuit" didn't exist in 2500BCE to inhabit Greenland. The Arctic small tool tradition did, but the branch which inhabited Greenland isn't the one that modern Inuit trace their ancestry to and it went extinct when the Dorset culture disappeared. The Thule culture that became modern Inuits arose in Alaska around 1000CE and spread eastward. Modern Greenlandics are related to those first inhabitants, they simply weren't Inuit.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
dolphinscorpion 10mo ago
$1 trillion divided equally. Case closed
- parpfish 10mo ago
  The maga base would lose their minds. Stopping “Foreigners living off government handouts” is one of their founding tenets.
  - barbazoo 10mo ago
    At the same time, nothing is consistent and just a matter of how you spin it as long as it's good for the in-group and bad for the out-group.
- torlok 10mo ago
  Not everybody's for sale, even more so in actually developed countries with functioning public services. Buying votes is illegal even in the US, in theory.
nephihaha 10mo ago
This was oddly predictive https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2008/12/01/our-friends-in-the-north/ https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2008/12/01/our-friends-in-the-...
heresie-dabord 10mo ago
Greenlanders appear to understand as well as the rest of the EU that the current US administration is only capable of ludicrous offers and a deeply abusive relationship. > A poll from January shows that only 6% of Greenlanders are in favor of joining the U.S., with 85% against it.
- epolanski 10mo ago
  This won't bother at all this administration. Say what you want but presidential democracies where presidents are elected by popular vote are a disaster for stability and democracy. What's happening with this doing and undoing in the US (or Russia, Belarus, Hungary and countless other presidential republics) fully displays why this is a terrible political system: 1. Winner takes all. You may have been voted by 50% + 1 (even less) citizens but the other half is totally not represented like in a parliament. 2. No parliament/party that you need to have backing of. In a parliamentary democracy the prime minister won't just lose opposition's votes, but has to govern in a way that its own party won't boot you. 3. Single person can claim popular mandate. Often in opposition to the parliament/senate whatever. So you end up in situations like the disaster in Poland where government and president are from different parties and the government gets vetoed everything. 4. Extremely hard to remove. A prime minister is a vote of no confidence away from losing its seat. The president can ask them to resign in extreme situations. A president? Removing them is beyond difficult. Honestly this is such an obvious disaster to have people vote for a president rather than a parliamentary prime minister. The last parliamentary democracy to turn authoritarian has been Sri Lanka 50+ years ago. It's very hard to get so bad so fast in parliamentary republics. Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their constitution is some holy grail. It's old and has been written centuries ago without all the experience we have in modern democracies. Eastern Europe too has made very bad choices with similar setups and democratically elected presidents. Say what you want but Germany or Italy have built in way more resilience to these absurdities by having the parliament elect the president which forces them to elect mostly neutral unbiased figures that will support and oversee whoever ends up being in government.
  - cmrdporcupine 10mo ago
SilverElfin 10mo ago
The US agreed to recognize Greenland being a part of Denmark in the same treaty where the US purchased the Virgin Islands. If the US changes its mind right now and uses force or other coercion, why would anyone trust any treaty or other agreement with the US ever again? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indi... > During 1916, the two sides agreed to a sale price of $25,000,000, and the United States accepted a Danish demand for a declaration stating that they would "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland".
- skywal_l 10mo ago
  And does it mean the Virgin Islands revert back to Denmark?
- wiseowise 10mo ago
  > why would anyone trust any treaty or other agreement with the US ever again? Nobody would, but 1 trillion defense (scratch that) war budget says you have to agree.
  - torlok 10mo ago
    The 1 trillion budget says the US can flex its muscles, but once sovereignty is at stake, the US army becomes an ineffective money sinkhole only good at committing war crimes, as the last century has clearly shown.
  - verzali 10mo ago
    If the other side have sufficient nuclear warheads it does not really matter the size of the war budget.
    - ericmay 10mo ago
      You have to be willing to use them though and suffer the consequences. Having them isn’t enough on its own.
perihelions 10mo ago
In the context of the instant "debate", this is missing the mark. The moral question isn't what happened hundreds of years ago to dead people; it's what do living people want (as is their right to self-determine), and the polls are 85% against 6% in the "we don't want to be Americans" direction. (I infer "Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut" is their word for that?) https://www.reuters.com/world/poll-shows-85-greenlanders-do-not-want-be-part-us-2025-01-29/ https://www.reuters.com/world/poll-shows-85-greenlanders-do-... ("Greenlanders overwhelmingly oppose becoming part of the United States, poll shows" / "only 6% of Greenlanders are in favour of their island becoming part of the U.S.") Here's a joint statement from yesterday by every major political party in Greenland speaking in unison, which you can't post on HN because it offends Americans and they flag these things on sight, though they desire to own the people who are speaking. ("The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice" (214 comments) is, of course, welcomed by HN). You're invited to translate it for yourself, as they have pointedly not released official statements in English, which is not and never has been their language. https://siumut.gl/inuiattut-ataatsimoorpugut/ https://siumut.gl/inuiattut-ataatsimoorpugut/ (Greenlandic) https://dk.siumut.gl/vi-star-sammen-som-et-folk/ https://dk.siumut.gl/vi-star-sammen-som-et-folk/ (Danish) > "Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut, qallunaajunianngilagut, Kalaaliuniarpugut."
- irthomasthomas 10mo ago
  Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut=American trucking company
- margalabargala 10mo ago
  > which you can't post on HN because it offends Americans They may be loud, but the actual percentage of Americans who want to force Greenland to become a part of the US is similar to the percentage of Greenlanders who want Greenland to become part of the US.
  - dh2022 10mo ago
    This is also equal to the percentage of Americans who wanted to forcefully depose Maduro. And the low percentage did not stop Trump. Unfortunately this same low percentage by itself will not stop Trump from attacking Greenland. (On a side note, I was quite surprised when during Trump’s inaugural speech on Jan 20 2025 he said America will expand its territory. I had no idea he really meant to attack other countries. How little did I know)
bryanlarsen 10mo ago
The sad thing is there's an obvious path forward if America wants to control Greenland. 1. Campaign for Greenland's independence, and apply pressure on Denmark to achieve that. Offer security agreements and trade deals to a newly independent Greenland. A small majority of Greenlander's support independence today; this number would likely rise if they knew they had strong external support. 2. The trade agreements, security agreements and goodwill of Greenlanders for #1 would bring Greenland into the American sphere of influence. 3. Over time, use carrots and sticks to tie Greenland closer & closer to America. This strategy has a high likelihood of success, has the moral high ground and would minimize the damage to America's alliances. The only problem is that it would take multiple decades, and Trump won't be around that long.
- rvnx 10mo ago
  Faster: Put sanctions on Denmark, not like actual sanctions, just +10000% tariffs. Open investigations for corruption, funding terrorism, release dirty secrets of the government. Help migrants to go to Denmark. Arrange with Russia little green men to come on the island or just make it fear that Russia is planning an attack. US to the rescue. Offer lot of money to each inhabitants. Spread information that Denmark abandoned the island for so many years. Plenty of ideas. Those in my list are somewhat debatable, but you can get creative and figure out good ones. etc
  - bojan 10mo ago
    > just +10000% tariffs. Denmark is in the EU, the US would have to apply this tariff to the whole of the EU. I find it surprising how many people don't know this simple fact.
    - rvnx 10mo ago
      Steel, cheese, wines, pastas, etc, are all country-specific. ...
  - klatchex_too 10mo ago
    Fastest: U.S. Marine Corps expeditionary units. This could be done tonight.
eurotraveler 10mo ago
I need it ! Give it to me!
- pan69 10mo ago
  Since Denmark and Greenland are already NATO allies, the US has pretty much full access to Greenland. The Trump admin says they need it for defence purposes, well, there already is a US base in Greenland and I'm sure the other NATO allies would happily allow the US to expand their presence for defence purposes. Re. the minerals and what's not, also here, the US has pretty much full access. However, there is no company that's interested since digging out those minerals is very difficult and not really worth the investment at this point in time. So, the "I need it" argument is really weak as they already pretty much have it for the purposes they say they want it for. What is really happening here is part of the Monroe Doctrine [1]. Trump is trying to consolidate the Western Hemisphere. Remember Canada being the 51st state? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
  - T-A 10mo ago
    > Since Denmark and Greenland are already NATO allies, the US has pretty much full access to Greenland. Not only that. This accord is in force since 1951: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp
rvnx 10mo ago
> the land belongs to the one with the bigger guns, and a willingness to use it Yes it's true, this is how US was built (and almost all countries)
- dasKrokodil 10mo ago
  > the land belongs to the one with the bigger guns, and a willingness to use it Not necessarily. USA certainly had bigger guns in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and yet they eventually had to retreat from both.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ericmay 10mo ago
    The US didn’t want the land
beanjuiceII 10mo ago
lets go america!
_DeadFred_ 10mo ago
During the Cold War the United States military had 15,000 soldiers stationed in Greenland. That presence has been reduced by 99% to just 150 soldiers today. Denmark has given the US exclusive and full military access to Greenland but the US does not use it. This has nothing to do with security.
cf100clunk 10mo ago
Parallel discussion of Silicon Valley's impact on White House's Greenland interest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46566444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46566444
renewiltord 10mo ago
The horrible things the Danes did to Greenlanders in living memory are unbelievable. They forced contraceptive devices on them as recent as the 1980s and kept it quiet till some of the women recently spoke up. Europe has a long and sordid history of such colonialist horrors but few perpetrated these crimes so recently. When you think about the history of Europe you are faced with a society that violently performs genocide repeatedly. Having pacified the population through these eugenic methods they now claim that present day Greenlanders would rather be part of them. Indeed one is reminded of Crimea, now assuredly Russian, and Donbas which will answer similarly.
- lm28469 10mo ago
  Yeah right... because America's history is free of violence, racism, and genocides lol
  - renewiltord 10mo ago
    I've listened to numerous Europeans describe the Roma - online and in real life. America is not pure on the violence and racism aspect, but it's less like the pot calling the kettle black and more like the grey felt calling the BLK 3.0 black. In the end, there are people alive today who escaped the European 250k/month killings. Nothing comparable in the US.
    - JambalayaJimbo 10mo ago
      This is disingenuous because the US has massive problems with its ethnic minorities today, never-mind in the past. With mass incarceration and funky electoral borders being used to disenfranchise people.
      - renewiltord 10mo ago
        250k/month killed is a staggering number. You have to do a lot of funky electoral borders before you even come close to that kind of sin.
acyou 10mo ago
There seems to be some confusion around the basis of morals. Once you are in power and you have things arranged the way you want, you claim that violence is not the answer. Otherwise, practically speaking might makes right. So for Greenlanders and those opposed to the US imperialism, it makes sense to say that the rule of existing law must prevail, regardless of the fact that there is no traditional military willing and able to back this up. However, if you are American and you stand to benefit, what you want to happen is backed up by the most powerful military the world has ever seen. And I bet a good chunk of people in Greenland know that with no roads and no infrastructure, they can go toe to toe with the US military inland, that is until they stop getting shipments of grain. But can even the vaunted US military blockade this continent sized island, especially with zero allies in tow? So morally speaking, both parties are in the right. But you can predict what the outcome would eventually be, it is very much David vs Goliath, barring Greenlandic alignment with another foreign power in a proxy war. Ethically speaking, the chronic under development and under investment in the global North is not beneficial to humanity. Viewed from afar, it does seem that Denmark has not been handling this colonial remnant particularly well.
- fl7305 10mo ago
  > colonial remnant The whole southern part of Greenland was empty when Denmark landed there a thousand years ago. Bad weather and the Inuit managed to kill off the Danish settlers after that, before they returned a few hundred years later. So the Danish were one of the original settlers of Greenland. Not "colonizers". Or do you call the Inuit "colonizers" too, since they spread to lands outside of the original home?
  - mint5 10mo ago
    That whole post parent is woefully uninformed, talking as if Greenland is actually green or otherwise suitable for sustained guerrilla warfare. It’s not, towns are solely on the coast and rely on the sea for a reason. The talk of reasons for might make right is simplistic as well.
    - fastasucan 10mo ago
lazylizard 9mo ago
if american oil companies just turned up offshore of guyana and started drilling willy nilly what can guyana do about it? if american mining companies just turned up on greenland and started strip mining.. what is denmark going to do about it?

122 points by Anon84 10mo ago

tete 10mo ago

lol "secure its legitimate security interests"

oldpersonintx 10mo ago

[dead]

xiphias2 10mo ago

This article creates more questions than answers. - Will the rare earth minerals be mined eventually? As far as I see EU is going into that direction as well, as Greenland became so strategic over time - What happens with all the land rights that American mineral extraction companies already bought? It means that even if EU/Greenland accepts mining they are already starting from a losing position - What happens if the American government pays off the people and they want to join US? Will the Danish government still believe in the self determination of Greenland, or it's just political talk? - what happens after US gets Greenland? Will NATO fall apart and EU get into an even worse position?

lysace 10mo ago
"A Short History"
exe34 10mo ago
> What happens if the American government pays off the people and they want to join US? Honestly I believe if they are willing to sell their future like that, they deserve everything the turd reich does to them.
- nephihaha 10mo ago
  This lot will be out in a few years. Blame your country's two party system.
  - exe34 10mo ago
    And they'll be back in a few years later. I think the rest of the world has learnt that the US cannot be trusted beyond a 4-year horizon even when they make sensible noises.
LarsKrimi 10mo ago
- The only way minerals there will be mined profitably is by someone strongarming and displacing any local population, disregarding all environmental protection rules and destroying large swathes of land - They either mine the minerals responsibly or ask their king to take over the country so they can mine irresponsibly - Bribery to vote for independence and subsequent joining with the US is the only legal way that Greenland will become part of the US. It would have to be accepted by the Kingdom of Denmark - Depends on whether it is done legally or with force. If done with force NATO would go under pretty fast. If done with bribery NATO is probably done anyway just way further out.
- bitcurious 10mo ago
  > displacing any local population Why displacing? Greenland is 3x the size of Texas and only 60k people, mostly concentrated around a single village.
  - LarsKrimi 10mo ago
    Because there's absolutely no infrastructure where noone lives. For good reason The mineral dream is a dream for a reason. Americans have tried. The Chinese have tried. The Danes have tried. None have made a profit, and none have kept up operations But I'm sure the US will be able to do it this time. Afterall the US has someone with an acute sense of realism in absolute power
  - nephihaha 10mo ago
    Nuuk is small but not really a village considering it contains thousands of people

newyankee 10mo ago

[flagged]

thordenmark 10mo ago
This is the history of the world. This day and age is nothing special in that regard.
- therobots927 10mo ago
  Except we are supposed to evolve as a species and as a civilization. Is slavery okay because “it’s always been done”?
  - brookst 10mo ago
    The US increasingly rejects evolution, in every sense including this one.
    - therobots927 10mo ago
      It always has. Or at least tried to. Despite that the Civil Rights movement achieved massive success during a much more regressive period of US society. Trump represents a swing of the pendulum that has been brewing ever since. The election of Obama supercharged this reaction and incited panic in the white nationalist segments of the population. This too shall pass.
  - hearsathought 10mo ago
    Slavery is not okay because the guys with the bigger guns said so. Read up on the civil war.
    - therobots927 10mo ago
      That’s why slavery “no longer exists in the US” (up for debate). That’s not what makes it morally unacceptable. Force doesn’t determine morality. It determines what happens. Your statement amounts to a tautology: “whatever happens is what happens” And by the way, that’s not even the whole story. The civil rights movement succeeded without force or violence for the most part. So your whole framework is pretty flimsy I think.

cornholio 10mo ago

It seems the issue boils down to what the Greenlanders want: to become some sort of Venezuela of the north in Trump's imperial crown, and be used to maximize the profits of the American corporations that ultimately get to own it; OR full rights as EU citizens and local autonomy to decide who gets the mining concessions, under competitive terms open to all countries that maximize their profits, which stay in their hands. The historical path of Greenland in DK is irrelevant.

VoodooJuJu 10mo ago
[dead]
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
therobots927 10mo ago
I don’t think the wishes of the population are being taken into account. Maybe they should hold a vote?
- graemep 10mo ago
  The government of Greenland has a right to call an independence referendum so it could happen depending on who wins elections.
  - yorwba 10mo ago
    There was an election in 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Greenlandic_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Greenlandic_general_elect... Pro-independence parties won a supermajority. The only party whose leader said that he trusts Trump in the debate before the election got 305 votes and no seats. The next parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2029, too late for a pro-Trump swing unless he manages to stay in office somehow.
    - graemep 10mo ago

lysace 10mo ago

I see so many americans suddenly hyperfocus on the strategic importance of Greenland because Trump again talks about stealing it. They fall over themselves inventing fantastically involved rationales and really weird moral justifications. Meanwhile Donald is above such pretense. He just wants it. (In way that honesty is refreshing.) It's especially tragicomical when they frame it as a defense measure against Russia - which those same people are generally aligned with.

davidw 10mo ago
> It's especially tragicomical when they frame it as a defense measure against Russia There is more than a hint of "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it" to those kinds of rationalizations.
graemep 10mo ago
> It's especially tragicomical when they frame it as a defense measure against Russia - which they are generally aligned with. How is a country that has sanctions against Russia, sends aid to a country it is at war with, and has recently been seizing Russian ships be aligned with Russia?
- lysace 10mo ago
  I edited my comment to clarify that I meant the people who make these absurd statements. It was kinda clear before the edit ("they"); now it's very clear.
- analog31 10mo ago
  I don’t think “aligned with Russia” is what’s happening. Instead, I think they are aligned with the old fashioned “spheres of influence” concept, where each superpower owns and operates its own region. Thus, Russia owning Ukraine and the US owning Greenland are not inconsistent. US aid towards Ukraine is just strong enough to keep the conflict going indefinitely (the “forever wars” policy) without resolving it.
  - graemep 10mo ago

mg 10mo ago

I wonder what would happen if the USA offered to pay $1,000,000 to every Greenlander if Greenland becomes part of the USA. That would be just $50B - a pretty cheap way to increase the size of the USA by 20%.

throw8892 10mo ago
And then their children have to put up with racist Americans forever
nephihaha 10mo ago
There was a similar argument some years ago about the Falkland Islands, that every single local could be bought off by Argentina. I think most Americans are much more mobile and not used to the idea that someone could be strongly attached to an area as their home.
- cmrdporcupine 10mo ago
  Canadian perspective: it seems like many (not all) Americans are also explicitly brought up with, and heavily absorb, "greatest country in the world" rhetoric that also leaves them incapable of understanding that this is not necessarily how people outside of it see the USA. Trying to be diplomatic? I've seen a lot of really insane shit in comment sections -- and even more insane shit from public officials -- over the last year since these "topics" came up. Belief in or unconscious absorbance of the concept of "manifest destiny" and American exceptionalism seems to run deep in a portion of the American psyche. No, it's not "their" continent to take. Might doesn't make right. And it certainly doesn't make for superiority in anything but brawn and bravado. I'll also add this: the (imho encouraging) trend in the north and with the indigenous populations there has been in the opposite direction from what the Trump regime is proposing: sovereignty and autonomy for the Inuit to run their own lands. Canada carved out new Inuit administered territories, trying in some respect (and inconsistently) to rectify over a century of mis(mal?)governance and exploitation and mistreatment. From the polls I see the Inuit in Greenland want more self governance, not a new external boss.
  - 10mo ago

andsoitis 10mo ago

For context, The Guardian reports[1]: Inuit people are understood to have lived in Greenland since as early as 2,500BC and it was reached by Norse seafarers in the first millennium AD, who established settlements lasting several centuries. Modern colonisation began after the arrival of Hans Egede in 1721, acting with the support of what was then Denmark-Norway. During the second world war, when Denmark was occupied by Germany, Greenland was occupied by the US and was returned to Denmark in 1945. It became part of the kingdom of Denmark in 1953, and in 1979 home rule was introduced. But Denmark still controls Greenland’s foreign and security policy. It has its own parliament, Inatsisartut, and two MPs in the Danish parliament, Folketing. But calls for independence have been growing. Tensions have escalated significantly between Greenland and Denmark in recent years. There is intense anger in Greenland over investigations into the forced contraceptive (IUD) scandal of the 1960s and 70s, prompting the former Greenlandic prime minister to accuse Denmark of genocide. There have also been protests in Copenhagen and Nuuk over the separation of Greenlandic children from their parents. Denmark has banned the use of highly controversial “parenting competency” tests on Greenlandic people that have resulted in Greenlandic mothers being separated from their children. In September, after years of failing to acknowledge the violations, Denmark officially apologised to the victims of the IUD scandal, in which thousands of Greenlandic women and girls were forcibly fitted with contraceptive coils without their knowledge or consent. And in December, victims won a legal fight with the Danish government to receive compensation. In recent years there has been growing support for Greenlandic independence. But amid the spectre of Trump’s threat, Greenland in March formed a new four-party coalition government in a show of national unity, with the first page of the coalition agreement stating: “Greenland belongs to us.” The pro-independence party, Naleraq, which is the most US- and Trump-friendly party, came second in the election and is now in opposition. According to a 2009 agreement with Denmark, Greenland must hold a successful referendum before declaring independence. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/06/why-is-donald-trump-renewing-calls-for-takeover-of-greenland https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/06/why-is-donald-...

AlotOfReading 10mo ago
The guardian's historical overview is a bit lacking. The "Inuit" didn't exist in 2500BCE to inhabit Greenland. The Arctic small tool tradition did, but the branch which inhabited Greenland isn't the one that modern Inuit trace their ancestry to and it went extinct when the Dorset culture disappeared. The Thule culture that became modern Inuits arose in Alaska around 1000CE and spread eastward. Modern Greenlandics are related to those first inhabitants, they simply weren't Inuit.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

dolphinscorpion 10mo ago

$1 trillion divided equally. Case closed

parpfish 10mo ago
The maga base would lose their minds. Stopping “Foreigners living off government handouts” is one of their founding tenets.
- barbazoo 10mo ago
  At the same time, nothing is consistent and just a matter of how you spin it as long as it's good for the in-group and bad for the out-group.
torlok 10mo ago
Not everybody's for sale, even more so in actually developed countries with functioning public services. Buying votes is illegal even in the US, in theory.

nephihaha 10mo ago

This was oddly predictive https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2008/12/01/our-friends-in-the-north/ https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2008/12/01/our-friends-in-the-...

heresie-dabord 10mo ago

Greenlanders appear to understand as well as the rest of the EU that the current US administration is only capable of ludicrous offers and a deeply abusive relationship. > A poll from January shows that only 6% of Greenlanders are in favor of joining the U.S., with 85% against it.

epolanski 10mo ago
This won't bother at all this administration. Say what you want but presidential democracies where presidents are elected by popular vote are a disaster for stability and democracy. What's happening with this doing and undoing in the US (or Russia, Belarus, Hungary and countless other presidential republics) fully displays why this is a terrible political system: 1. Winner takes all. You may have been voted by 50% + 1 (even less) citizens but the other half is totally not represented like in a parliament. 2. No parliament/party that you need to have backing of. In a parliamentary democracy the prime minister won't just lose opposition's votes, but has to govern in a way that its own party won't boot you. 3. Single person can claim popular mandate. Often in opposition to the parliament/senate whatever. So you end up in situations like the disaster in Poland where government and president are from different parties and the government gets vetoed everything. 4. Extremely hard to remove. A prime minister is a vote of no confidence away from losing its seat. The president can ask them to resign in extreme situations. A president? Removing them is beyond difficult. Honestly this is such an obvious disaster to have people vote for a president rather than a parliamentary prime minister. The last parliamentary democracy to turn authoritarian has been Sri Lanka 50+ years ago. It's very hard to get so bad so fast in parliamentary republics. Honestly I can't comprehend Americans thinking their constitution is some holy grail. It's old and has been written centuries ago without all the experience we have in modern democracies. Eastern Europe too has made very bad choices with similar setups and democratically elected presidents. Say what you want but Germany or Italy have built in way more resilience to these absurdities by having the parliament elect the president which forces them to elect mostly neutral unbiased figures that will support and oversee whoever ends up being in government.
- cmrdporcupine 10mo ago

SilverElfin 10mo ago

The US agreed to recognize Greenland being a part of Denmark in the same treaty where the US purchased the Virgin Islands. If the US changes its mind right now and uses force or other coercion, why would anyone trust any treaty or other agreement with the US ever again? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_the_Danish_West_Indi... > During 1916, the two sides agreed to a sale price of $25,000,000, and the United States accepted a Danish demand for a declaration stating that they would "not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland".

skywal_l 10mo ago
And does it mean the Virgin Islands revert back to Denmark?
wiseowise 10mo ago
> why would anyone trust any treaty or other agreement with the US ever again? Nobody would, but 1 trillion defense (scratch that) war budget says you have to agree.
- torlok 10mo ago
  The 1 trillion budget says the US can flex its muscles, but once sovereignty is at stake, the US army becomes an ineffective money sinkhole only good at committing war crimes, as the last century has clearly shown.
- verzali 10mo ago
  If the other side have sufficient nuclear warheads it does not really matter the size of the war budget.
  - ericmay 10mo ago
    You have to be willing to use them though and suffer the consequences. Having them isn’t enough on its own.

perihelions 10mo ago

In the context of the instant "debate", this is missing the mark. The moral question isn't what happened hundreds of years ago to dead people; it's what do living people want (as is their right to self-determine), and the polls are 85% against 6% in the "we don't want to be Americans" direction. (I infer "Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut" is their word for that?) https://www.reuters.com/world/poll-shows-85-greenlanders-do-not-want-be-part-us-2025-01-29/ https://www.reuters.com/world/poll-shows-85-greenlanders-do-... ("Greenlanders overwhelmingly oppose becoming part of the United States, poll shows" / "only 6% of Greenlanders are in favour of their island becoming part of the U.S.") Here's a joint statement from yesterday by every major political party in Greenland speaking in unison, which you can't post on HN because it offends Americans and they flag these things on sight, though they desire to own the people who are speaking. ("The mineral riches hiding under Greenland's ice" (214 comments) is, of course, welcomed by HN). You're invited to translate it for yourself, as they have pointedly not released official statements in English, which is not and never has been their language. https://siumut.gl/inuiattut-ataatsimoorpugut/ https://siumut.gl/inuiattut-ataatsimoorpugut/ (Greenlandic) https://dk.siumut.gl/vi-star-sammen-som-et-folk/ https://dk.siumut.gl/vi-star-sammen-som-et-folk/ (Danish) > "Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut, qallunaajunianngilagut, Kalaaliuniarpugut."

irthomasthomas 10mo ago
Ameerikkamiuunianngilagut=American trucking company
margalabargala 10mo ago
> which you can't post on HN because it offends Americans They may be loud, but the actual percentage of Americans who want to force Greenland to become a part of the US is similar to the percentage of Greenlanders who want Greenland to become part of the US.
- dh2022 10mo ago
  This is also equal to the percentage of Americans who wanted to forcefully depose Maduro. And the low percentage did not stop Trump. Unfortunately this same low percentage by itself will not stop Trump from attacking Greenland. (On a side note, I was quite surprised when during Trump’s inaugural speech on Jan 20 2025 he said America will expand its territory. I had no idea he really meant to attack other countries. How little did I know)

bryanlarsen 10mo ago

The sad thing is there's an obvious path forward if America wants to control Greenland. 1. Campaign for Greenland's independence, and apply pressure on Denmark to achieve that. Offer security agreements and trade deals to a newly independent Greenland. A small majority of Greenlander's support independence today; this number would likely rise if they knew they had strong external support. 2. The trade agreements, security agreements and goodwill of Greenlanders for #1 would bring Greenland into the American sphere of influence. 3. Over time, use carrots and sticks to tie Greenland closer & closer to America. This strategy has a high likelihood of success, has the moral high ground and would minimize the damage to America's alliances. The only problem is that it would take multiple decades, and Trump won't be around that long.

rvnx 10mo ago
Faster: Put sanctions on Denmark, not like actual sanctions, just +10000% tariffs. Open investigations for corruption, funding terrorism, release dirty secrets of the government. Help migrants to go to Denmark. Arrange with Russia little green men to come on the island or just make it fear that Russia is planning an attack. US to the rescue. Offer lot of money to each inhabitants. Spread information that Denmark abandoned the island for so many years. Plenty of ideas. Those in my list are somewhat debatable, but you can get creative and figure out good ones. etc
- bojan 10mo ago
  > just +10000% tariffs. Denmark is in the EU, the US would have to apply this tariff to the whole of the EU. I find it surprising how many people don't know this simple fact.
  - rvnx 10mo ago
    Steel, cheese, wines, pastas, etc, are all country-specific. ...
- klatchex_too 10mo ago
  Fastest: U.S. Marine Corps expeditionary units. This could be done tonight.

eurotraveler 10mo ago

I need it ! Give it to me!

pan69 10mo ago
Since Denmark and Greenland are already NATO allies, the US has pretty much full access to Greenland. The Trump admin says they need it for defence purposes, well, there already is a US base in Greenland and I'm sure the other NATO allies would happily allow the US to expand their presence for defence purposes. Re. the minerals and what's not, also here, the US has pretty much full access. However, there is no company that's interested since digging out those minerals is very difficult and not really worth the investment at this point in time. So, the "I need it" argument is really weak as they already pretty much have it for the purposes they say they want it for. What is really happening here is part of the Monroe Doctrine [1]. Trump is trying to consolidate the Western Hemisphere. Remember Canada being the 51st state? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
- T-A 10mo ago
  > Since Denmark and Greenland are already NATO allies, the US has pretty much full access to Greenland. Not only that. This accord is in force since 1951: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp

rvnx 10mo ago

> the land belongs to the one with the bigger guns, and a willingness to use it Yes it's true, this is how US was built (and almost all countries)

dasKrokodil 10mo ago
> the land belongs to the one with the bigger guns, and a willingness to use it Not necessarily. USA certainly had bigger guns in Vietnam and Afghanistan, and yet they eventually had to retreat from both.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- ericmay 10mo ago
  The US didn’t want the land

beanjuiceII 10mo ago

lets go america!

_DeadFred_ 10mo ago

During the Cold War the United States military had 15,000 soldiers stationed in Greenland. That presence has been reduced by 99% to just 150 soldiers today. Denmark has given the US exclusive and full military access to Greenland but the US does not use it. This has nothing to do with security.

cf100clunk 10mo ago

Parallel discussion of Silicon Valley's impact on White House's Greenland interest: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46566444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46566444

renewiltord 10mo ago

The horrible things the Danes did to Greenlanders in living memory are unbelievable. They forced contraceptive devices on them as recent as the 1980s and kept it quiet till some of the women recently spoke up. Europe has a long and sordid history of such colonialist horrors but few perpetrated these crimes so recently. When you think about the history of Europe you are faced with a society that violently performs genocide repeatedly. Having pacified the population through these eugenic methods they now claim that present day Greenlanders would rather be part of them. Indeed one is reminded of Crimea, now assuredly Russian, and Donbas which will answer similarly.

lm28469 10mo ago
Yeah right... because America's history is free of violence, racism, and genocides lol
- renewiltord 10mo ago
  I've listened to numerous Europeans describe the Roma - online and in real life. America is not pure on the violence and racism aspect, but it's less like the pot calling the kettle black and more like the grey felt calling the BLK 3.0 black. In the end, there are people alive today who escaped the European 250k/month killings. Nothing comparable in the US.
  - JambalayaJimbo 10mo ago
    This is disingenuous because the US has massive problems with its ethnic minorities today, never-mind in the past. With mass incarceration and funky electoral borders being used to disenfranchise people.
    - renewiltord 10mo ago
      250k/month killed is a staggering number. You have to do a lot of funky electoral borders before you even come close to that kind of sin.

acyou 10mo ago

There seems to be some confusion around the basis of morals. Once you are in power and you have things arranged the way you want, you claim that violence is not the answer. Otherwise, practically speaking might makes right. So for Greenlanders and those opposed to the US imperialism, it makes sense to say that the rule of existing law must prevail, regardless of the fact that there is no traditional military willing and able to back this up. However, if you are American and you stand to benefit, what you want to happen is backed up by the most powerful military the world has ever seen. And I bet a good chunk of people in Greenland know that with no roads and no infrastructure, they can go toe to toe with the US military inland, that is until they stop getting shipments of grain. But can even the vaunted US military blockade this continent sized island, especially with zero allies in tow? So morally speaking, both parties are in the right. But you can predict what the outcome would eventually be, it is very much David vs Goliath, barring Greenlandic alignment with another foreign power in a proxy war. Ethically speaking, the chronic under development and under investment in the global North is not beneficial to humanity. Viewed from afar, it does seem that Denmark has not been handling this colonial remnant particularly well.

fl7305 10mo ago
> colonial remnant The whole southern part of Greenland was empty when Denmark landed there a thousand years ago. Bad weather and the Inuit managed to kill off the Danish settlers after that, before they returned a few hundred years later. So the Danish were one of the original settlers of Greenland. Not "colonizers". Or do you call the Inuit "colonizers" too, since they spread to lands outside of the original home?
- mint5 10mo ago
  That whole post parent is woefully uninformed, talking as if Greenland is actually green or otherwise suitable for sustained guerrilla warfare. It’s not, towns are solely on the coast and rely on the sea for a reason. The talk of reasons for might make right is simplistic as well.
  - fastasucan 10mo ago

lazylizard 9mo ago

if american oil companies just turned up offshore of guyana and started drilling willy nilly what can guyana do about it? if american mining companies just turned up on greenland and started strip mining.. what is denmark going to do about it?