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

Greenland’s status and self‑determination

• Many commenters argue the only legitimate question is what current Greenlanders want, not historical claims.
• Cited polls show overwhelming opposition (about 85% vs 6%) to becoming part of the US.
• Greenland has home rule and a legal “blueprint” for independence; independence must be approved by referendum and the Danish parliament.
• Some note pro‑independence parties hold a supermajority, but support drops if independence threatens the welfare state.

US ambitions and scenarios for annexation

• Speculation about US paths: outright purchase, bribing residents with large payouts, backing an independence vote then bringing Greenland into a US “compact,” or even military coercion.
• Several highlight a 1916 treaty where the US accepted Danish control over Greenland; breaking this would further erode trust in US treaties.
• Others say power politics and military spending mean treaties are weak constraints.
• There’s concern that any US move—by force or heavy coercion—would shatter NATO and global trust, though some doubt the US public would support a war with a NATO ally.

Mining, resources, and environment

• Questions raised about rare earths and whether EU or US firms will dominate extraction.
• Some argue profitable mining likely implies environmental damage and displacement; others frame responsible mining under Greenlandic control as key to funding independence.

Denmark, colonial history, and EU ties

• Several point to recent Danish abuses (forced contraception, child removal, “parenting competency” tests) as evidence of ongoing colonial patterns.
• Others counter that, despite this, Denmark provides welfare and political backing that shield Greenland from harsher US pressure.
• Greenland is outside the EU, but residents tied to Denmark have EU citizenship; this complicates any switch to US sovereignty.

US culture, system design, and exceptionalism

• Long subthread contrasts US “manifest destiny” / Monroe Doctrine attitudes and McMansion‑style prosperity with Canadian/European preferences for welfare states and smaller footprints.
• Another subthread criticizes presidential systems as unstable “elected monarchy,” contrasting them with parliamentary or consensus models (Germany, Switzerland) that are seen as more resilient.