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.
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.
The big difference is the falkland islands are populated by brits loyal to britain whereas Greenland is populated by greenlanders who hate denmark because the danes committed many acts of genocide against greenlanders.
> 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.
You think the people in the falklands are "native" to the falkland islands?
> polls also consistently show that Greenlanders do not want independence if the price is the collapse of the Greenlandic welfare state.
Even replacing independence with becoming part of the US - any one time payment couldn't ensure the continuation of the welfare state. That is, free healthcare, free higher education, access to social support, etc.
> > Even replacing independence with becoming part of the US - any one time payment couldn't ensure the continuation of the welfare state. That is, free healthcare, free higher education, access to social support, etc.
Yes if the one time payment is then invested in a big fund like Norway has, or considering the outcome that is at play here...more like California has with its CalPers
Of course it means that the actual money would be invested in US companies , hence subject to expropriation of the stock
And even the actual money if in dollars they can be taken away at any time
Wyoming or Vermont at 1 million each would be sub trillion range. Seems like reasonable. Technically they could just transfer all the debt they hold to residents there and get deal done.
I'm too lazy, but I hope someone is less lazy and would set up a Kickstarter and collect funds to be given to every resident of US Virgin Islands once they rejoined[1] Denmark. Would happily chip in a hundred or two for a good cause.
[1] Just learned that US Virgin islands are ex Danish colony US bought from Denmark about a century ago. In that agreement United States recognized Denmark's control over Greenland. Funny that.
They would have declined, as it's obviously a bad deal. European TV channels are interviewing Greenlanders these days asking the same question. They don't want it.
Furthermore, what you are suggesting is literally a mafia practice - sell us your business/property for an unfair price or we'll take it by force anyway.
I’m not sure why anyone is surprised that trump is acting like a mafia boss trying to shake down the rest of the world. This is who he has always been, the first time around there were just more people to say no to him.
Greendland People's Republic? Actually they were American all along, USA needs to save them from nazi Denmark. Grab it quick, before Russia does its usual scheme.
Even if every person on Greenland wanted to join the US, could they? Isn't the Land property of every Dane, not just the people currently living there?
it would be a million times more probable that they would throw money to their friends in the military complex to take things by force, than to give money to strangers.
nephihaha|1 month ago
cmrdporcupine|1 month ago
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.
hearsathought|1 month ago
> 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.
You think the people in the falklands are "native" to the falkland islands?
Grikbdl|1 month ago
Even replacing independence with becoming part of the US - any one time payment couldn't ensure the continuation of the welfare state. That is, free healthcare, free higher education, access to social support, etc.
JumpinJack_Cash|1 month ago
Yes if the one time payment is then invested in a big fund like Norway has, or considering the outcome that is at play here...more like California has with its CalPers
Of course it means that the actual money would be invested in US companies , hence subject to expropriation of the stock
And even the actual money if in dollars they can be taken away at any time
victorbjorklund|1 month ago
Ekaros|1 month ago
Maybe they should try this one.
nephihaha|1 month ago
teemur|1 month ago
[1] Just learned that US Virgin islands are ex Danish colony US bought from Denmark about a century ago. In that agreement United States recognized Denmark's control over Greenland. Funny that.
luke5441|1 month ago
bojan|1 month ago
Furthermore, what you are suggesting is literally a mafia practice - sell us your business/property for an unfair price or we'll take it by force anyway.
FuckButtons|1 month ago
T-A|1 month ago
wiseowise|1 month ago
echoangle|1 month ago
xiphias2|1 month ago
didntknowyou|1 month ago
throw8892|1 month ago