[acyou]

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]

> 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]

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.

[acyou]

I think what I mean by colonial remnant is "administration and control from afar", not "subjugation of indigenous peoples", and it's concerned with what's happening now, rather than what happened 1000 or more years ago and it's no longer particularly relevant. By remnant, I mean that it's administered by Denmark as a byproduct of a colonial gold rush, not because they are the best entity for that job.

USA had its own legislative assemblies too before the declaration of Independence, look what happened.

[seanmcdirmid]

The vikings landed there, not Denmark, who were Norse, Erik the Red was from Norway (But was considered by then an Icelander exile?). Before Danish control Greenland was a Norwegian colony, this was the colony that died out.

[nephihaha]

The old settlers were mostly from Norway and Iceland, with a few Scottish and Irish slaves thrown in.

Very few Danes. The Danes mostly colonised the north of England, with Norwegians taking Scotland, Ireland and the North Atlantic islands.