
Why Didn’t Denmark Sell Greenland? - zw123456
https://www.gwern.net/Greenland
======
m12k
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 them much more prone to alcoholism, which is
still rampant to this day. Like other old colonial powers we owe a debt to the
our colonies for the harm we've caused them, but unlike most we insist on
actually paying that debt, because it's the right thing to do. (And don't tell
me that's immoral like the article says in item 10 - we support plenty of NGOs
in Africa, but Greenland was our colony, so that's the first debt we pay). And
I think we know that to the Americans, the Inuit people would have been
treated like nothing but a balance sheet like this article does (to me it
looks like shareholder primacy raised to the national level, and I find it
frankly pretty disgusting - that's no way to think about your fellow
citizens). We've already seen how the Americans have treated their native
population, and I think we can be pretty damn confident that they're better
off with us (what would the Americans have done; let the Inuit build tax
exempt casinos? I'm sure that would have worked wonders against the
alcoholism...)

~~~
goto11
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.

------
jmaa
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!"

~~~
lokimedes
As a Dane, I agree. Why don’t the US sell the Rust Belt to China? If people
had any idea how much of the danish kingdom is already lost over the
centuries, one would understand why the country will cling to the last
remnants for no other reason that maintaining national cohesion.

~~~
LeonidasXIV
While I see your point but as a person living in Denmark I can't help but
consider the

> national cohesion

to Greenland and Faroe Islands for that matter to be minimal. It doesn't feel
like "proper" Denmark with shipping more expensive, not being part of
EU/Schengen, their own respective Kroner-like currencies. I know some Faroese
coming to Denmark to study but that's about it. It is not comparable to the
rust belt which is more comparable to eastern Germany, more to the Dutch
Carribbean which similarly has probably minimal national cohesion with the
Netherlands.

In a way it is like with Iceland. That ship has sailed and over time both
Faroe Islands and Greenland will break away too, to hardly any change for
people living in Denmark. I think Denmark will wish them well for their future
endeavors and that chapter of colonialism will finally be closed.

~~~
KozmoNau7
As a Dane with Faeroese and Greenlandic friends, I consider them all as
brother peoples, just like Swedes and Norwegians. Different in some ways, but
connected by a common thread.

------
anbop
National territory has a psychological and strategic value that cannot be
bought and sold. Countries have gone to war over infinitesimally tiny pieces
of land (Gaza, Falklands, Northern Ireland)... we do not need to look to a
crystal ball to see why Denmark holds onto a gigantic landmass like Greenland.

~~~
m3at
Landmass is sometimes valued much lower than we might expect. In the eighteen
century, France perceived Guadeloupe (an island in the carribean) as more
valuable than Canada [1] and chose to keep the former over the later. Voltaire
is often quoted to have dismissed Canada as "Quelques arpents de neige" (a few
acres of snow).

Granted, France lost a war and had limited saying in what to keep, but the
difference in perceived value is interesting.

[1]
[https://utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/chr.91.4.637](https://utpjournals.press/doi/10.3138/chr.91.4.637)

~~~
ThrustVectoring
I'd honestly agree with that assessment given the situation at the time.
Canada is more valuable than Guadeloupe in a vacuum, sure, but in the context
of geographic and naval concerns Guadeloupe was likely more of a net positive
_to France_. The primary output of sugar was much more economically important,
and the relative size just adds defense costs for Canada. Also, while the main
port in Guadeloupe is relatively unsheltered and poor, it is well-situated
strategically in the Carribean against their main rivals (English and Dutch).

------
madaxe_again
I think, in hindsight, it will turn out to have been an exceptionally good
call to retain Greenland.

They have an interesting setup - there is no land ownership other than by the
state, and you can only get permission to build by winning a lottery. There
are minor exceptions for building small hunting cabins in the fjords, but this
is negligible. The reason is to prevent private ownership from hindering
possible opportunities for the state in the future.

So, why a good call?

Climate change.

1) Greenland has _vast_ reserves of fresh water. This resource will become
increasingly valuable as clean fresh water grows scarcer globally.

2) agriculture and habitation. If Greenland continues to melt, in centuries to
come there will be vast planes of glacial till - good, fertile land. As the
climate warms, the arctic waste will potentially become far more hospitable
than (dis)temperate latitudes.

3) strategic dominance. The Arctic is going to be exceedingly important as ice
clears for both transportation and resource extraction. Greenland has vast
untapped mineral reserves, never mind the territorial waters.

~~~
BurningFrog
So far Greenland is a relatively poor and miserable place, with a population
of only 56,674.

Comparatively, Alaska offers a much better role model for arctic governance.

~~~
scythe
Alaska is _much_ warmer. Only a few sheltered coastal bays on Greenland can
sustain any trees at all. Meanwhile, Sitka and Ketchikan often enjoy snowless
winters. This is due, I believe, to the Aleutian ridge blocking the transport
of cold water from the Arctic (contrast with the Labrador current).

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Don't you think using two points along the narrow strip of land at the
southwestern tip of Alaska as indicative of the overall Alaskan climate is
just a wee bit dishonest?

~~~
pxeboot
They are apparently the 4th and 5th largest cities in the state, so not a
terrible example [1].

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Alaska](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Alaska)

~~~
BurningFrog
They're also unreachable by road from the Alaska "mainland".

Anyway, however you think about the state, those cities are clearly not part
of the Arctic.

------
nottorp
Without checking who wrote the article I can see they're from the US because
of the tendency to view everything just as profit/loss.

Newsflash: there are things money can't buy. Even the credit card companies
said so :)

~~~
jonnycomputer
That's a big bit of stereotyping you just did there. Newsflash: not all people
in the US are the same.

------
notatoad
The author compares Greenland to Puerto Rico, seeming to make the assumption
that if somebody made a good offer, America would happily sell Puerto Rico.
Can any other Americans speak to the truth of this? It seems absurd to me that
a country would happily sell off a territory and make a whole bunch of
citizens non-citizens just for the financial benefit. Are Puerto Ricans not
Americans? Do americans really view Puerto Rico as a budget line item that
could be cut if necessary?

~~~
technothrasher
> Are Puerto Ricans not Americans?

Well... sort of? The short answer is yes, of course they are. But I don't
think they quite view themselves as the same as other US citizens exactly.
Both US and Puerto Rican courts have repeatedly recognized Puerto Rican
citizenship as distinct from US Citizenship, as does the EU. Spain, for an
example, allows Puerto Rican citizens to become Spanish citizens after living
in Spain only two years (as opposed to ten years for other US citizens). The
CIA World Fact Book defines the people of Puerto Rico as "Puerto Rican (US
Citizenship)", as opposed to the entry for the US which defines the people as
"American".

Considering that statehood movements in Puerto Rico have historically been
dismal, I suspect they like to be straddling the line of being "American".

I'm not sure who would find financial or other benefit from acquiring Puerto
Rico from the US, and independence votes there have been even more unpopular
than statehood votes. So I don't think they'll be separating from the US any
time soon. But after much rhetoric from Trump and other Republican
politicians, I'm sure there are plenty of right wing folks that would delight
in seeing them go.

------
jessaustin
Denmark's people and (especially) leaders value what Greenland represents in
terms of geopolitics. Greenland is a seat at the table for the Danes. Without
it, they'd be like Luxembourg. With it, they're like Norway. This isn't
mysterious.

~~~
scythe
Indeed. Fretting over the possibility that Greenland is easily taken is
forgetting that it still must be _taken_. Denmark is stitched in to various
alliances and treaties, and anyone who would take what Denmark has must
withstand the ire of its partners. After all, what is power, but a lot of
memories of agreeable conversations and the meaning we attach to ink stains on
paper?

------
dang
A thread from 2017:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16032401](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16032401)

2015:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10037132](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10037132)

------
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.

------
peteretep
Worth reëxamining in 50 years time when it’s a little warmer I reckon

------
davidw
"Endowment effect"?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect)

------
arcticbull
> As an American, would I say Puerto Rico is one of the very last things that
> ought to ever be cut in the federal budget? Heck no! Puerto Rico has
> repeatedly decided it’d rather not be a state, but at least it’s still
> genuinely ruled by the USA; if Puerto Rico decided to switch to full home
> rule, I think I and the average American would care even less about them.

Yeah this part is almost entirely wrong. First, Puerto Rico has repeatedly
voted to become a state most recently a few months ago (edit: June 2017). Full
home rule for anyone is hardly the American way, though I’d speculate the
Marshall Islanders and Samoans have fairly significant self determination a la
Hong Kong. Further, America would never cede territory to anyone for fiscal
reasons either because, well, nationalism. Once you start ceding territory for
fiscal reasons I speculate you’re viewed principally through an emperor has no
clothes lens and you’re a few steps from being what’s left of the U.K.

------
dnprock
I come from Vietnam. People fight hard for inches of space. The country has
dispute with bigger nations about tiny islands. They'd fight to the teeth.
It's very irrational. I think land fight is highly related with survival
instinct. The more threaten one feels, the more they'll fight for land.

------
Mizza
Wild idea: I think we should turn Greenland into an into a new frontier nation
with completely open borders for refugees and people who are up for the
challenge of settling a new place. Sure, there's nothing there, but if you
want to build something and there's nowhere else for you, have at it.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, I started looking at Greenland on Google Maps and
found this sweet shadow of the buggy they used to street view (dirt-road view)
it:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@67.0111595,-50.7379435,3a,75y,9...](https://www.google.com/maps/@67.0111595,-50.7379435,3a,75y,93.3h,37.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQuSiFK6Vh85JUNgLihWhXQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

~~~
anbop
That could be a solution for the asylum seekers in the US, too... settle them
in the Alaskan wild. If you’re willing to go from Honduras to Nome that’s a
clear cut sign that what you’re fleeing is a very real danger.

~~~
pyuser583
There’s free movement between Alaska and other states. No way to prevent them
from moving to, say, New York.

------
arendtio
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).

~~~
cobbzilla
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 consideration? Are the Danes
really the last large “empire” in Europe, if only by land area?

If Britain could count Commonwealth countries (they are technically all under
the same sovereign), then Canada + Australia would keep GB in the top seat,
I’d think.

~~~
mrweasel
>technically isn’t Greenland in America?

Yes it is, and to add to that, Greenland also isn't in the EU. French Guiana
is France, and it is in the EU, it just happens to be in South America.
Greenland/Denmark is more like Scotland/United Kingdom.

Also it would be more appropriate to ask: Should Greenland be independent?
There's a whole list of problems with that, and until those issues are worked
out, Denmark is Greenlands least worst option.

~~~
arendtio
> French Guiana is France, and it is in the EU

Wow, I didn't know that and never noticed the small green part at the edge of
the map:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#/media/File:Glo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union#/media/File:Global_European_Union.svg)

------
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.

------
Waterluvian
This got me thinking about "things that were once okay but today are totally
unpalatable." In this case, selling land occupied by citizens.

Could you imagine if there was a decision to sell part of Michigan that
included Detroit to Canada?

~~~
wolco
Canada would gladly take them in but can we get all of northern Michigan?

------
mongol
Good for Denmark. A large arctic territory will be great to have once oil
drilling becomes viable in the region. I have no idea what reserves can be
found but that is the kind of thing that makes overseas territories valuable.

------
SergeAx
> holding on to Greenland is a bad idea

What do you mean "bad idea"? It's habitable land, there will not be more of it
on this planet (except rather small landfills, and Denmark more than others
knows the price of it).

------
zeristor
Although the Chinese could be interested in it:

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-
europe-46386867](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46386867)

------
d--b
> $100m in 1946 dollars is somewhere around $1b in 2011 dollars

Greenland is definitely worth a lot more than $1b today. So even the main
argument that it doesn’t make financial sense doesn’t hold!

------
rhacker
In today's value it's worth -16B according to this. If we're going to base
things on how negative they are, then this article should assume that the
United States land is worth -10K per acre (22 trillion debt with 2.3 billion
acres of land). So negative values aside, the math to consider how much
something is worth should never be based on the drain it has on society -
otherwise why do we even have 22T of debt? So should we just call it all
negative and sell it to china for 5B?

I know my math is ridiculous but so is considering selling 535M acres for $1
billion. 50 cents an acre... where I'm trying to buy land it seems it's around
50k/acre.

~~~
adventured
It's not just that your math is ridiculous (as you acknowledge), it doesn't
make any sense.

Greenland has almost no economy, a mere $2.7b in GDP, and few assets. You
can't use negative $22 trillion as the basis with the US while ignoring the
$110 trillion in household wealth and massive corporate & government assets
(stacked against $50t-$55t in total debt between household + corporate +
government). That's the part that makes no sense.

The asset value of everything in the US is at least $150t in the positive
after you remove all debt. That's while ignoring additional value that should
be applied to the annual output of the economic activity - and considerations
for future gains - within the US territory and any other fringe benefits that
go with it all as a package deal (USD global reserve currency, US military, 50
top universities, etc).

Greenland has 56,000 people producing a GDP per capita of $48,000. The US has
330 million people producing a GDP per capita of ~$63,500 or so (about 119%
higher than Europe's $29,000 per capita). You get the people with the
territory in the US, and they're among the most productive on earth in terms
of per capita output.

A better number would be $65,000+ per acre before you include consideration
for annual output and other benefits. If you count everything, it'd be far
over $100,000 per acre.

~~~
ngcc_hk
But if someone find diamond in the dark side of the moon, would you sell USA
or just al to evil communist for money.

Would you sell your homeland?

~~~
brighter2morrow
>But if someone find diamond in the dark side of the moon, would you sell USA
or just al to evil communist for money.

>Would you sell your homeland?

What does it mean for the USA to be my homeland? My family has been here for
centuries but the government is working more for "new Americans" than those of
us who built the country. In that sense my homeland has been given away
without my consent.

~~~
asr
Congrats on building the country! Oh wait, you didn’t, it was your ancestors.
Not sure why you think you deserve something based on your lineage—that’s an
unamerican idea if I’ve ever heard one.

Your idea that there is some deep conflict between immigrants and people
already here is also basically wrong. Immigrants have always been a huge
source of strength for America and a net benefit to those already here.

~~~
brighter2morrow
So if my ancestors building America means nothing to you then why do you say I
should care if we start selling it off in part or in full? Our rulers are
importing a new voter base so politicians can continue to target legacy
Americans for tax extraction, businesen can suppress our wages while raising
the cost of schooling and housing, without giving nearly as much back.

------
Svip
It does make me wonder what it would have been like if Denmark had not sold
the US Virgin Islands. Although, I feel the islands might be doing better
today than they are now.

~~~
abricot
As far as i understand Denmark didn't really have a choice. Either it was sold
or it would have been taken.

An important detail of the sale was that in the agreement for buying the
islands, it was actually written down for the first time that Greenland was
part of Danish territory.

So if the virgin Islands hadn't been sold Denmark's claim to Greenland
probably wouldn't have held until today.

------
WalterBright
Nobody wants to sell Alaska or the Louisiana Purchase again.

------
jakeasmith
This sounds like the setup to a bad joke.

------
thefounder
Why doesn't US sell Flint to the europeans or even the russians? Preferably in
euros or rubles.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
The Europeans would absolutely love to buy a piece of the USA if they could.

~~~
wolco
they can.. in fact most citizens of most countries can be foreign land
holders.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
But that wouldn't make it European land. The interesting part would be to buy
a plot of land in the US, declare it EU soil which would be very interesting
for airlines for instance due to flight rights.

~~~
wolco
You could pretend with a flag and treat yearly taxes as a bribe to protect
yourself against a foreign power. I guess you would have to pick a EU country
and get them on board. Easier to make your own and try to get EU membership.
You would need to sign a treaty for it to be real.

------
magwa101
It's value is going up, when those icecaps melt it will be very valuable.

