Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

gwern.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 165 posts

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#101

Post by EdwardDiego »

cobbzilla wrote: post #31
arendtio wrote: post #18

I heard that some Danes are proud of having the largest country in Europe. Selling Greenland would certainly change that. But as I am not a Dane myself, take it with a grain of salt (and it might not be true either, depending on how you measure other countries e.g. Russia).

I’m sorry to be the classic HN “but wait” guy, but wait: technically isn’t Greenland in America? The tectonic plate separating North America from Europe goes right through Iceland (the only place the Mid-Atlantic ridge is above water), making Iceland a “country on two continents”. If a European country can count off-continent lands in its “biggest country” argument, don’t all overseas territories get that considerati…

Geologically speaking, Iceland is a country on two plates, not continents, as the plate boundary runs right through it. Likewise Iceland is formed from oceanic crust, not continental.

However if you're talking geopolitically, not geological, then Iceland is usually included in Europe, and Greenland in north America, yep.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#102

Post by fulafel »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #98
fulafel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Also consider that vikings managed to colonise Iceland but not Greenland.

But they did colonise Greenland. They were there for 500 years.

Well, they had a struggling little outpost. Greenland is vast.

Edit: i'm wrong, they did spread out some.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#103

Post by goto11 »

macspoofing wrote: post #59
elliotec wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Greenland is 836,300 mi², while Denmark is 16,577 mi². Imagine the effects of climate change in 200+ years - Greenland could be VERY valuable and important then.

The issue is that if Greenland was valuable, Denmark wouldn't be able to hold it.

Denmark is a member of Nato, so the question is if Nato would be able to hold it.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#104

Post by olafg »

Click bait.

Greenland originally belonged to Norway, which entered a union with Denmark. Denmark then retained it later on. It would have been very problematic to transfer Greenland to a non-Nordic country unless the people living on Greenland strongly requested it. Which is unlikely.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#105

Post by goto11 »

m12k wrote: post #89

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 the…

Denmark 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.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#106

Post by fit2rule »

DuskStar wrote: post #85
hnzix wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark is part of NATO. Very different scenario. Invading Greenland would be declaring war with 29 countries.

That works against non-NATO countries. If the US decided to turn its military basing agreements into ownership, there's not much anyone could really do to stop them. (If I had to do it, I'd follow the general pattern of greatly expanding those bases and the surrounding communities and eventually holding a referendum on whether the island should remain Danish or join the US - a referendum in which all the island's res…

How about American citizens consider removing their heinously destabilising military bases from other sovereign states, and instead using those resources to make the lives of their own citizens better?

The world is tired of the USA bully thug politics involved in its placement of military bases around the world, and the arrogance of those who support these imperialist actions is very telling. These bases are not making the world more stable - they are, however, making the 1% of America's lifted military-industrial-pharmaceutical classes more wealthy.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#107

Post by goto11 »

jmaa wrote: post #80

Having lived in Denmark for 20 years, I find this in many ways reprehensible. Cooking down the complex geopolitical problem of whether to sell a large piece of territory (with people!) to exclusively monetary concerns. This is as culturally daft as asking "why is Ireland such a problem for Brexit? Just build a wall!"

Denmark did sell the Virgin Islands though, including the population.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#108

Post by hnzix »

DuskStar wrote: post #85
hnzix wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark is part of NATO. Very different scenario. Invading Greenland would be declaring war with 29 countries.

That works against non-NATO countries. If the US decided to turn its military basing agreements into ownership, there's not much anyone could really do to stop them. (If I had to do it, I'd follow the general pattern of greatly expanding those bases and the surrounding communities and eventually holding a referendum on whether the island should remain Danish or join the US - a referendum in which all the island's res…

> there's not much anyone could really do to stop them

I would suggest that significant % of the remaining 28 members of NATO (including the nuclear armed Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey) would come up with a few ideas.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#109

Post by alexmlamb2 »

> Greenland is a poor country. Perhaps Denmark simply wants to help out the many Inuit & Danes & descendants of both. This is ethically reprehensible. Greenland is poor, but compared to many African countries it is fabulously wealthy regardless of whether you take the $20k per capita at face value or discount subsidies etc to get a smaller number like $10k per capita

I strongly disagree with this line of reasoning. One's ability to have impact through altruism is closely linked to one's knowledge of where they're intervening. Denmark could easily have more impact in helping Greenland because they know more about what things need to be done in Greenland and can more easily get feedback on whether they've improved things. If you send money to a country that you have no connection to, how do you know that the money is being used effectively? How do you know that you're solving the right problem? How do you make improvements to your spending unless you're getting continual feedback?

There are limits to this of course and I think it can be okay to donate to international charity, but I think the impact of a well-targeted and knowledgable charity is much more certain.

Re: Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland?

#110

Post by goto11 »

Tepix wrote: post #65
Moru wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Greenland is believed by some geologists to have some of the world’s largest remaining oil resources. [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_exploration_in_the...

Good thing Denmark owns it then. Less likely to exploit it

Denmark does not own Greenland though, haven't for half a century.
Post reply on HN