‘To make Greenland a part of the U.S.’: Trump appoints new special envoy

[MarcusGregor]

‘To make Greenland a part of the U.S.’: Trump appoints new special envoy

The leaders of Denmark and Greenland insisted Monday that the United States won’t take over Greenland and demanded respect for their territorial integrity after U.S. President Donald Trump ‍announced the appointment of a ‌special envoy to the semi-autonomous territory.

www.ctvnews.ca

We're still doing this, huh? sheesh.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The article makes mention of them "demanding respect for territorial integrity" and "national borders are rooted in international law" and "Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders"

What do you think that means? (in practical terms)

Because very similar types of rhetoric pertaining the US have been labelled as something much more nefarious.


How this reads to me is "nationalism is not only okay, but preferable as long as it's westernized white people you're trying to keep out"

Sort of similar to that whole situation where there's a fair amount of self-contradiction in those conversations people have about gentrification.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The article makes mention of them "demanding respect for territorial integrity" and "national borders are rooted in international law" and

What is the problem with these statements?

"Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders"

It is only said because Greenland already have a path to independence, as such the the decision is up to the Greenlanders.

What do you think that means? (in practical terms)

Because very similar types of rhetoric pertaining the US have been labelled as something much more nefarious.


How this reads to me is "nationalism is not only okay, but preferable as long as it's westernized white people you're trying to keep out"

This is a very strange read, danes are as westernized and white as those from the US. Do you really think it would be viewed differently if Russia, China, Nigeria or Saudi Arabia had said the same thing?

What does being western and white have to do with it?

Sort of similar to that whole situation where there's a fair amount of self-contradiction in those conversations people have about gentrification.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What is the problem with these statements?

It is only said because Greenland already have a path to independence, as such the the decision is up to the Greenlanders.

This is a very strange read, danes are as westernized and white as those from the US. Do you really think it would be viewed differently if Russia, China, Nigeria or Saudi Arabia had said the same thing?

What does being western and white have to do with it?

There was a big "to do" about people saying "Germany for the Germans, Britain for the British, America for the Americans" was there not?
(because a guy with a funny mustache used that wording back in the late 30's)

Greenland for the Greenlanders gets a pass on that?

To your other point, Greenland is about 80% Inuit, and only about 8% Danish

Demographics of Greenland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stopped_lurking]

There was a big "to do" about people saying "Germany for the Germans, Britain for the British, America for the Americans" was there not?
(because a guy with a funny mustache used that wording back in the late 30's)

Greenland for the Greenlanders gets a pass on that?

That is not what you said in the post I quoted. If Greenland doesn't belong to the greenlanders who else do you believe it belongs to?

This is a statement about who should politically decide the future course for Greenland.

To your other point, Greenland is about 80% Inuit, and only about 8% Danish

Demographics of Greenland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I know, but it is part of Denmark now. So an eventual future shift from Denmark to the US, wouldn't make it any more or less white or western.



So how is that a relevant point?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That is not what you said in the post I quoted. If Greenland doesn't belong to the greenlanders who else do you believe it belongs to?

This is a statement about who should politically decide the future course for Greenland.

Replace the words "Greenland" and "Greenlanders" with "America" and "Americans" in those statements and see if the statement would pass the modern progressive PC muster

I know, but it is part of Denmark now. So an eventual future shift from Denmark to the US, wouldn't make it any more or less white or western.



So how is that a relevant point?

Because it's only considered "racist" when certain "colonial powers" assert those kinds of claims.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Replace the words "Greenland" and "Greenlanders" with "America" and "Americans" in those statements and see if the statement would pass the modern progressive PC muster

Ok, I'll say it:

The USA belongs to the americans.

Let's see who takes umbrage at that.

Because it's only considered "racist" when certain "colonial powers" assert those kinds of claims.

So do you believe that if Russia, China, Nigeria or Saudi Arabia said it, this wouldn't be a problem?

I think you're wrong. Who is calling US expansionism bad, but at the same time defending Russia in Ukraine or China against the Philippines? I don't know if that is a big group, but I have never ran into one yet.

Also now you're seemingly saying that it is a function of nationality (or having a history of colonialism?), not being white and western.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Ok, I'll say it:

The USA belongs to the americans.

Let's see who takes umbrage at that.

Most progressives would take umbrage at that if a famous conservative personality were to utter those words...

Including the "super smart" people at Harvard

Politics of Belonging: Anti-Black Racism, Xenophobia, and Disinformation - Harvard Law Review

Racialized and xenophobic disinformation reinforces an anti-Black and anti-immigrant vision of America where powerful actors intentionally promulgate false information that becomes the norm defining...

harvardlawreview.org

So do you believe that if Russia, China, Nigeria or Saudi Arabia said it, this wouldn't be a problem

Russia yes, but for different ulterior reasons... After all, the only reason we have President Trump is because of Russia stuff, right?? It couldn't possibly be because there was anything off-putting happening on the other side of the fence.

But if China, Nigeria, or Saudi Arabia said it...no, I don't think progressives would take umbrage at those sentiments.

The notion of "culture worthy of preserving and preventing it from being watered down" seems to be quite selective.

During the height of covid, there were literally people defending the infected virus-prone cesspools that are Chinese wet markets, on the basis of "well, that's their tradition and part of their culture, who are we (as privileged westerners) to tell them that's wrong???"

 

[Desk trauma]

I’m glad we didn’t get caught up in minor issues like the US eyeing other nations territory and are focusing on what really matters, the rhetoric of those opposing it failing some purity test.

 

[BCP1928]

Replace the words "Greenland" and "Greenlanders" with "America" and "Americans" in those statements and see if the statement would pass the modern progressive PC muster


Because it's only considered "racist" when certain "colonial powers" assert those kinds of claims.

So you really have nothing useful to add to the conversation, just your usual whine about "liberals" not living up to your stereotype,

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Most progressives would take umbrage at that if a famous conservative personality were to utter those words...

Including the "super smart" people at Harvard

Politics of Belonging: Anti-Black Racism, Xenophobia, and Disinformation - Harvard Law Review

Racialized and xenophobic disinformation reinforces an anti-Black and anti-immigrant vision of America where powerful actors intentionally promulgate false information that becomes the norm defining...

harvardlawreview.org

But it was Mette Fredriksen who said it. If it had been the mustachioed man in 1933 after publication of Mein Kampf it would have been clear that it had racist undertones.

Russia yes, but for different ulterior reasons... After all, the only reason we have President Trump is because of Russia stuff, right?? It couldn't possibly be because there was anything off-putting happening on the other side of the fence.

What and with whom are you having that discussion with?

You have Trump as president because many americans seem to think that the Access Hollywood tapes wasn't a damning self-testimony.

But if China, Nigeria, or Saudi Arabia said it...no, I don't think progressives would take umbrage at those sentiments.

Well, I think both conservative and progressive greenlanders and danes would have a problem with it. I know the swedish right-wing government took umbrage at it.

Do you have any examples of when US progressives (are we talking about the democrats?) are excusing or defending other country's expansionism in recent times? Potentially in relation to Taiwan or actually in Ukraina perhaps?

The notion of "culture worthy of preserving and preventing it from being watered down" seems to be quite selective.

During the height of covid, there were literally people defending the infected virus-prone cesspools that are Chinese wet markets, on the basis of "well, that's their tradition and part of their culture, who are we (as privileged westerners) to tell them that's wrong???"

Relevance? Why not talk about China and the Philippines or Taiwan, which is much closer in scope to the Greenland situation?

Are you planning to come back to the white and western aspect of it?

 

[Larniavc]

The article makes mention of them "demanding respect for territorial integrity" and "national borders are rooted in international law" and "Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders"

What do you think that means? (in practical terms)

Because very similar types of rhetoric pertaining the US have been labelled as something much more nefarious.


How this reads to me is "nationalism is not only okay, but preferable as long as it's westernized white people you're trying to keep out"

Sort of similar to that whole situation where there's a fair amount of self-contradiction in those conversations people have about gentrification.

Are you serious?

 

[Larniavc]

Greenland for the Greenlanders gets a pass on that?

Yes. Yes they do. In this situation.

Any questions?

 

[Larniavc]

Replace the words "Greenland" and "Greenlanders" with "America" and "Americans" in those statements and see if the statement would pass the modern progressive PC muster

Two clearly different things.

 

[Larniavc]

Most progressives would take umbrage at that if a famous conservative personality were to utter those words...

Including the "super smart" people at Harvard

Politics of Belonging: Anti-Black Racism, Xenophobia, and Disinformation - Harvard Law Review

Racialized and xenophobic disinformation reinforces an anti-Black and anti-immigrant vision of America where powerful actors intentionally promulgate false information that becomes the norm defining...

harvardlawreview.org

Russia yes, but for different ulterior reasons... After all, the only reason we have President Trump is because of Russia stuff, right?? It couldn't possibly be because there was anything off-putting happening on the other side of the fence.

But if China, Nigeria, or Saudi Arabia said it...no, I don't think progressives would take umbrage at those sentiments.

The notion of "culture worthy of preserving and preventing it from being watered down" seems to be quite selective.

During the height of covid, there were literally people defending the infected virus-prone cesspools that are Chinese wet markets, on the basis of "well, that's their tradition and part of their culture, who are we (as privileged westerners) to tell them that's wrong???"

Please stop. Next you’ll be comparing obvious contemporary racial slurs with olden days language and acting surprised that you have offended people.

Just don’t; we’ve heard it all before.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Please stop. Next you’ll be comparing obvious contemporary racial slurs with olden days language and acting surprised that you have offended people.

Just don’t; we’ve heard it all before.

There was a thread on here just about a month ago where it was talking about some conservative American pundit (I forget which one) saying the phrase "Britain for the British" "America for the Americans", and people getting upset because they said it was a nod to some Hitler stuff.

"Greenland for the Greenlanders" (in response to the potential for it to become part of the US) isn't getting the same treatment, why not?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So you really have nothing useful to add to the conversation, just your usual whine about "liberals" not living up to your stereotype,

Actually, some are living up to the stereotype.

...by giving the "ok" to a sentiment about Greenland that they wouldn't be okay with if it were Britain or the US.

 

[Larniavc]

There was a thread on here just about a month ago where it was talking about some conservative American pundit (I forget which one) saying the phrase "Britain for the British" "America for the Americans", and people getting upset because they said it was a nod to some Hitler stuff.

"Greenland for the Greenlanders" (in response to the potential for it to become part of the US) isn't getting the same treatment, why not?

“Jamal using the ‘n’ word seems fine but when I use it I’m not getting the same treatment; why not?”

One situation represents racism and one represents not being annexed by America.

This is trivially easy to understand and it’s beneath you.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

“Jamal using the ‘n’ word seems fine but when I use it I’m not getting the same treatment; why not?”

One situation represents racism and one represents not being annexed by America.

This is trivially easy to understand and it’s beneath you.

In your hypothetical, Jamal shouldn't be using the word either.

That aside, is their core objection to being an American territory instead of a Danish territory rooted in a desire for the preservation of culture and not wanting a bunch of people with very different ideas about governance and culture to come in and "change the vibe"?

If so, then their objections vs. the "America for Americans" objections aren't as different as you'd like them to be. It just doesn't have the same demographic dynamic that causes people to immediately attribute to racist motives.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

There was a thread on here just about a month ago where it was talking about some conservative American pundit (I forget which one) saying the phrase "Britain for the British" "America for the Americans", and people getting upset because they said it was a nod to some Hitler stuff.

"Greenland for the Greenlanders" (in response to the potential for it to become part of the US) isn't getting the same treatment, why not?

Historical context matters.