Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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.





> to become some sort of Venezuela of the north

if it becomes US territory would it not be more like be more like Alaska than Venezuela?

> full rights as EU citizens and local autonomy to decide who gets the mining concessions

There is no such thing as an EU citizen - people are citizens of EU states. Would an independent Greenland join the EU? Would it join NATO? I can see advantages for a small (in population) country with rich national resources playing the big powers against each other.

Indigenous Greenlanders have also been treated pretty badly by Denmark, even very recently, not just a long time ago when it was a colony:

https://www.arctictoday.com/a-view-from-greenland-about-forc...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yelp5466no


> There is no such thing as an EU citizen - people are citizens of EU states.

People are citizens of both the EU and the member states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_citizenship


Alaska received statehood a century after it was acquired, and only after being substantially colonized by Americans. It's entirely laughable to suggest that US will grant 2 seats ~= 4% of the Senate (plus one representative and 3 electors) to basically a small city of Inuits and Danes, most of which won't even speak English for a good many years to come.

>if it becomes US territory would it not be more like be more like Alaska than Venezuela?

Why not something like Puerto Rico? why would Trump give rights to natives of Greenland? those people would vote Democrats , less of the two evils.


it would probably be like ouerto rico yes. Favors would go in one direction only.

can you clarify on what grounds it is irrelevant? As I see it, most things in the world are arranged in their current way for 'hysterical raisins', so I don't quite follow? There are approximately 200 countries that could carry continued support for greenland,but currently denmark is the one doing it, for HR. By the same logic,greenland could go to China or Russia?

I don’t think the wishes of the population are being taken into account. Maybe they should hold a vote?

The government of Greenland has a right to call an independence referendum so it could happen depending on who wins elections.

So did Catalonia and Scotland, but neither of those were conducted properly. In both cases, a full array of state apparatus was brought into play.

In the case of Scotland the state resources (those of the Scottish govt) were promoting the leave side.

Both of those have very different histories and circumstances Greenland was a colony and in thr current (or at least very recent) treatment of indigenous people.


There was an election in 2025. 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.


Independence is what the US wants to stop as it carries a risk of changes such as not joining NATO and EU, rethinking US bases.

One of the tricky situations now is that full independence for Greenland now would leave it weak to more aggressive imperialist predation from the USA.

Not that Denmark (or even the EU) is capable of militarily defending it now. But politically it carries more clout than a tiny population in its own state.

I think the situation of Quebec here in Canada does show it's possible for regions/provinces to become somewhat more sovereign in their own land without full legal independence. Even if that has been fraught with all sorts of ridiculous conflict.


> It seems the issue boils down to what the Greenlanders want

It's never been about what greenlanders want. It's why greenland was a colony for hundreds of years. It's why the argument over Greenland is between the US and Denmark/EU without much involvement from greenlanders. The US has been trying to buy Greenland from Denmark since we bought Alaska from the russians ( not the native alaskans ).

> 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.

In an ideal world sure. But we don't live in an ideal world. The US is not going allow the EU, Russia and most importantly China or anybody else to set up a significance presence in greenland.

Greenland is US territory in everything but name. Trump is just formalizing it and letting the international community come to terms with it.


Please elaborate on how Greenland is US territory.

The US officially took over greenland after denmark allied with nazi germany during ww2. People forget that the danes were nazi collaborators. We defended greenland against the nazis/danes during ww2 and the soviets during the cold war. I'd say greenland is more of a US territory than even puerto rico or american samoa is. All trump has to do is make it official.

Seems Greenlanders didn't get the memo, the vast, overwhelming majority still think of themselves as "not Americans".

This is the problem with historical narratives, history is not established fact but a continuous re-evaluation of the past. There is always that wako who will interpret some convenient or made up facts as proof that "Greenland is American in all but name".


Oh boy, here we go. Now they even adopted Russia's playbook word by word.

> The US officially took over greenland after denmark *allied* with nazi germany during ww2. People forget that the danes were nazi collaborators.

Was occupied, comrade, is the word you're looking for. They've forgot to put it in your metodichka.


> Was occupied

Occupied? More like warmly welcomed in. Read about the german "invasion" of denmark if you want a good laugh. Denmark was nazi collaborators.


> Read about the german "invasion" of denmark if you want a good laugh.

Your comments are more than enough, don't need to go there.


Greenland left the EU decades ago in case you haven’t gotten the memo

Greenland was never in the EU. It left the EEC, a predecessor of the EU, as did the Faroes Islands.

But denmark didn't. And the EU is backing denmark. That was my point.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: