All about the lithium
February 3, 2025 11:00 AM Subscribe
Big Tech Stands to Profit From a US Takeover of Greenland
In 2019, Trump’s ambassador to Denmark and Greenland visited a major rare-earth mining project on the island shortly before Trump’s first calls to buy the country. Opposition to the mine ushered liberal political party Inuit Ataqatigiit into power two years later, which halted the mine and banned all future oil development.
The president’s renewed intention to take over Greenland has reignited debates over its sovereignty, as the country grapples with the trade-offs between economic opportunity and independence from Denmark. As the country’s glaciers recede, it’s also facing sweeping climate-driven transformations, threatening traditional industries like fishing and hunting and exposing valuable mineral resources.
These shifts have prompted interest from powerful players associated with Trump. Tech moguls in the front row of his inauguration, like Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, are also investors in a start-up aiming to mine western Greenland for materials crucial to the artificial intelligence boom.
In 2019, Trump’s ambassador to Denmark and Greenland visited a major rare-earth mining project on the island shortly before Trump’s first calls to buy the country. Opposition to the mine ushered liberal political party Inuit Ataqatigiit into power two years later, which halted the mine and banned all future oil development.
The president’s renewed intention to take over Greenland has reignited debates over its sovereignty, as the country grapples with the trade-offs between economic opportunity and independence from Denmark. As the country’s glaciers recede, it’s also facing sweeping climate-driven transformations, threatening traditional industries like fishing and hunting and exposing valuable mineral resources.
These shifts have prompted interest from powerful players associated with Trump. Tech moguls in the front row of his inauguration, like Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, are also investors in a start-up aiming to mine western Greenland for materials crucial to the artificial intelligence boom.
there's something rotten in the state of . . . oh, wait, that's US
posted by gkr at 11:31 AM on February 3 [5 favorites]
posted by gkr at 11:31 AM on February 3 [5 favorites]
It is weird to see an article in *Jacobin* about the implications of the US taking over Greenland and not, like, the essential monstrosity of the idea. I should read the article! But its existence /framing cedes more ground than I would want to see in any paper, let alone that one.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:32 AM on February 3 [19 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 11:32 AM on February 3 [19 favorites]
Does NATO’s collective self-defense obligations cover when the attacker is itself a NATO member?
posted by Lemkin at 11:35 AM on February 3 [4 favorites]
posted by Lemkin at 11:35 AM on February 3 [4 favorites]
This still seems like searching for justification for something that Trump just feels like he wants to do. There's a giant lithium deposit under the desert in southern Oregon. Mining there is complicated by environmental regulations, but if we're throwing NATO out the window I don't think that the endangered species act counts for much.
posted by Just the one swan, actually at 11:44 AM on February 3 [31 favorites]
posted by Just the one swan, actually at 11:44 AM on February 3 [31 favorites]
It is weird to see an article in *Jacobin* about the implications of the US taking over Greenland ...
I assume they are still politely pooh-poohing the idea over at the "respectable" outfits? I will continue to point out that the tone of coverage at the journalistic institutions such as the New York Times acts as a de facto establishment of norms for national debate based on the collective opinion of multi-generational Ivy League wealth, especially 3rd and 4th generational Princeton, Harvard and Yale folks who are now in their 50s-70s. But as a key, it has NOTHING to do with facts, and In this case, the savvy gentlemen's chuckle, "oh, he doesn't mean it" coverage coming out of the Times, WSJ, NPR, Atlantic and etc is a form of running cover for the Trump administration. These publications are not for us, and are not about informing the people. They are about managing the national debate. And in this instance, it does not serve the interests of those who would benefit from this (not just tech moguls, but other investors) to have this idea taken seriously and debated as a real question, since it is obviously something that shreds the Post-WWII diplomatic order and ushers in an era of dramatically increased global instability (which upsets the markets, don'tcha know).
There is still a chance that we do not invade and occupy Greenland, but it depends more on the perspective of top brass at the Pentagon, who can and will find creative ways to say no (or, more typically, "give us a minute, that's going to take time to prepare for" and then slow walk a thing to death), if they think something is stupid and/or too likely to fail.
I for one, am thrilled that Jacobin is starting to embrace RealPolitik reporting. The ideological crybaby act they've previously run with was never appealing to me.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 11:56 AM on February 3 [13 favorites]
I assume they are still politely pooh-poohing the idea over at the "respectable" outfits? I will continue to point out that the tone of coverage at the journalistic institutions such as the New York Times acts as a de facto establishment of norms for national debate based on the collective opinion of multi-generational Ivy League wealth, especially 3rd and 4th generational Princeton, Harvard and Yale folks who are now in their 50s-70s. But as a key, it has NOTHING to do with facts, and In this case, the savvy gentlemen's chuckle, "oh, he doesn't mean it" coverage coming out of the Times, WSJ, NPR, Atlantic and etc is a form of running cover for the Trump administration. These publications are not for us, and are not about informing the people. They are about managing the national debate. And in this instance, it does not serve the interests of those who would benefit from this (not just tech moguls, but other investors) to have this idea taken seriously and debated as a real question, since it is obviously something that shreds the Post-WWII diplomatic order and ushers in an era of dramatically increased global instability (which upsets the markets, don'tcha know).
There is still a chance that we do not invade and occupy Greenland, but it depends more on the perspective of top brass at the Pentagon, who can and will find creative ways to say no (or, more typically, "give us a minute, that's going to take time to prepare for" and then slow walk a thing to death), if they think something is stupid and/or too likely to fail.
I for one, am thrilled that Jacobin is starting to embrace RealPolitik reporting. The ideological crybaby act they've previously run with was never appealing to me.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 11:56 AM on February 3 [13 favorites]
The same article with the same author is also in The Lever, so my guess is that this is an independent journalist licensing their work to more than one publication.
I actually heard about this from a discord friend subscribed to The Lever, but Jacobin doesn't have a subscription wall so I used their link. Cancelled my Jacobin subscription a few years ago, it was too naval-gazing for me.
posted by subdee at 11:58 AM on February 3
I actually heard about this from a discord friend subscribed to The Lever, but Jacobin doesn't have a subscription wall so I used their link. Cancelled my Jacobin subscription a few years ago, it was too naval-gazing for me.
posted by subdee at 11:58 AM on February 3
I'm crossing my fingers for "Americaland".
Everytime I think this timeline can't get any more stupid ...
posted by reedbird_hill at 11:58 AM on February 3 [2 favorites]
Everytime I think this timeline can't get any more stupid ...
posted by reedbird_hill at 11:58 AM on February 3 [2 favorites]
The media-driven normalisation of horrendous possibilites has really reached a middle. Yay, WWIII! Can't wait!
posted by fight or flight at 11:59 AM on February 3 [9 favorites]
posted by fight or flight at 11:59 AM on February 3 [9 favorites]
I mean, I guess. Turns out there's a lot of lithium around now that people are looking for it:
Using a combination of water testing and machine learning, a U.S. Geological Survey-led study estimated between 5 and 19 million tons of lithium reserves are located beneath southwestern Arkansas. If commercially recoverable, the amount of lithium present would meet projected 2030 world demand for lithium in car batteries nine times over.
But maybe we don't need all it? Lower-cost sodium-ion batteries are finally having their moment.
posted by gwint at 12:02 PM on February 3 [18 favorites]
Using a combination of water testing and machine learning, a U.S. Geological Survey-led study estimated between 5 and 19 million tons of lithium reserves are located beneath southwestern Arkansas. If commercially recoverable, the amount of lithium present would meet projected 2030 world demand for lithium in car batteries nine times over.
But maybe we don't need all it? Lower-cost sodium-ion batteries are finally having their moment.
posted by gwint at 12:02 PM on February 3 [18 favorites]
Trump would never in a million years come up with the idea of buying Greenland on his own, someone with his ear put the idea there. Whether it was a tech bro for the lithium, a Russian agent hoping to break up the NATO alliance, some combination of the two, or something else, I don't think any (?) of us here can really know.
But I think from reading the article, you can see that this is an idea that's been floating around Trumpworld for a while, not just some crazy recent flight of fancy.
Maybe this time he / his people / the tech oligarchs are drunk enough on their own perceived power to try something, whether it's likely to succeed or not.
I'm sure Greenland is an attractive location for the climate apocalypse bunkers these fuckers are all planning for, too.
posted by subdee at 12:06 PM on February 3 [9 favorites]
But I think from reading the article, you can see that this is an idea that's been floating around Trumpworld for a while, not just some crazy recent flight of fancy.
Maybe this time he / his people / the tech oligarchs are drunk enough on their own perceived power to try something, whether it's likely to succeed or not.
I'm sure Greenland is an attractive location for the climate apocalypse bunkers these fuckers are all planning for, too.
posted by subdee at 12:06 PM on February 3 [9 favorites]
It is weird to see an article in *Jacobin* about the implications of the US taking over Greenland and not, like, the essential monstrosity of the idea. I should read the article! But its existence /framing cedes more ground than I would want to see in any paper, let alone that one.
The entire article is grounded on an assumption that a takeover is bad -- a socialist magazine talking about "Trump tech donors’ plans to profit from the island’s mineral deposits and build a libertarian techno-city" and talking about plans to end local environmental regulations is not being ambivalent about the rightness or wrongness of the idea, folks.
posted by kensington314 at 12:12 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
The entire article is grounded on an assumption that a takeover is bad -- a socialist magazine talking about "Trump tech donors’ plans to profit from the island’s mineral deposits and build a libertarian techno-city" and talking about plans to end local environmental regulations is not being ambivalent about the rightness or wrongness of the idea, folks.
posted by kensington314 at 12:12 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
It is weird to see an article in *Jacobin* about the implications of the US taking over Greenland ...
I assume they are still politely pooh-poohing the idea over at the "respectable" outfits?
I have no idea about what they are doing at the “respectable” outlets. Rather, I would hope Jacobin would cover this less as a story about what tech oligarchs want and instead focus on how NATO would respond if this thing happens. I want to see reporting on its possibility as an existential threat because the President is a wild man, not as something that has interesting tax implications.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:29 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
I assume they are still politely pooh-poohing the idea over at the "respectable" outfits?
I have no idea about what they are doing at the “respectable” outlets. Rather, I would hope Jacobin would cover this less as a story about what tech oligarchs want and instead focus on how NATO would respond if this thing happens. I want to see reporting on its possibility as an existential threat because the President is a wild man, not as something that has interesting tax implications.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:29 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
Jacobin would cover this less as a story about what tech oligarchs want and instead focus on how NATO would respond if this thing happens.
Now see, that would be awesome. A world in which Jacobin takes their reporting seriously enough to cultivate sources inside important national and global institutions despite their ideological enmity would be a better one. As it is, it looks like this was simply an article they were willing to pay for. Still, progress as far as I can see.
I want to apologize if I made unfair assumptions and/or stepped on your toes, Going to Maine. I was raised by horrible people* who did not model basic consideration for others' feelings very well. I am working on it, but all too frequently I fail along predictable lines.
*to be fair, it's complicated
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 12:53 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
Now see, that would be awesome. A world in which Jacobin takes their reporting seriously enough to cultivate sources inside important national and global institutions despite their ideological enmity would be a better one. As it is, it looks like this was simply an article they were willing to pay for. Still, progress as far as I can see.
I want to apologize if I made unfair assumptions and/or stepped on your toes, Going to Maine. I was raised by horrible people* who did not model basic consideration for others' feelings very well. I am working on it, but all too frequently I fail along predictable lines.
*to be fair, it's complicated
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 12:53 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
Goddammit. That is all I have left today. Well, that and a prayer for Giant Meteor.
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 12:56 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
posted by JustSayNoDawg at 12:56 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
How does it feel living inside a fascist country? I remember thinking the first term would be this, then I thought ok maybe it will be ok. Only two people (including me) I know in meatspace ever had thoughts about this. Can't wait for my fellow morons to justify every atrocity that's going to come weee
posted by mayoarchitect at 12:59 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
posted by mayoarchitect at 12:59 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
Interesting article, I hope it is distributed in Greenland.
I can totally envision some conservative/libertarian white people in Denmark explaining to Carla Sands that there are tons and tons of ressources in Greenland, and that it is a problem that Greenland is socialist and the Greenlanders probably either want to keep their land pristine and safe or sell it all to the Chinese.
Support for Greenland's independence goes quite far across the aisle in the Danish Parliament, and among the population. But that doesn't mean there aren't rich far right racist crackpots in Denmark. There are enough to fill a very big garden party at the ambassador's residence, so she could get the impression that there is a hidden consensus that could be exploited by the Trump people. As an aside, it made me think how American ambassadors can get very weird impressions of the countries they are appointed to, depending on their own personality.
The part about the tech bros and the imaginary city echoes other things that have been posted the last few days in the other US politics threads, and I find it totally believable that they would think that way and also totally unrealistic. Remember Thiel's Seastead project. I think before they imagine all the mines and cities and stuff they want to build in Greenland, they should go and take a good look at Alaska. Most of Greenland is further north than any of Alaska. It's dark all winter and covered with ice. Even with global heating. Anyway, Trump would probably give them some of the public land in Alaska to mine and build on, if they called him sir.
Regarding NATO, I don't think NATO as an organisation knows what to do about this, or the Canada situation. Or any of all this (waves hand about). I used to know quite a lot about NATO thinking, but I've lost the connection, so now I can only speak from that former experience to say this is something NATO is not built to manage at all, and I can't imagine how chaotic it must be right now in Bruxelles.
Also Mark Rutte is very new on the job. I don't think he is necessarily bad at it, but to have Trump elected president when you are just one month in must be horrible, even for the most competent leader.
You could obviously write an article about this confusion and Rutte's lack of experience, but I don't think you'd find a lot of good sources for that.
posted by mumimor at 1:02 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
I can totally envision some conservative/libertarian white people in Denmark explaining to Carla Sands that there are tons and tons of ressources in Greenland, and that it is a problem that Greenland is socialist and the Greenlanders probably either want to keep their land pristine and safe or sell it all to the Chinese.
Support for Greenland's independence goes quite far across the aisle in the Danish Parliament, and among the population. But that doesn't mean there aren't rich far right racist crackpots in Denmark. There are enough to fill a very big garden party at the ambassador's residence, so she could get the impression that there is a hidden consensus that could be exploited by the Trump people. As an aside, it made me think how American ambassadors can get very weird impressions of the countries they are appointed to, depending on their own personality.
The part about the tech bros and the imaginary city echoes other things that have been posted the last few days in the other US politics threads, and I find it totally believable that they would think that way and also totally unrealistic. Remember Thiel's Seastead project. I think before they imagine all the mines and cities and stuff they want to build in Greenland, they should go and take a good look at Alaska. Most of Greenland is further north than any of Alaska. It's dark all winter and covered with ice. Even with global heating. Anyway, Trump would probably give them some of the public land in Alaska to mine and build on, if they called him sir.
Regarding NATO, I don't think NATO as an organisation knows what to do about this, or the Canada situation. Or any of all this (waves hand about). I used to know quite a lot about NATO thinking, but I've lost the connection, so now I can only speak from that former experience to say this is something NATO is not built to manage at all, and I can't imagine how chaotic it must be right now in Bruxelles.
Also Mark Rutte is very new on the job. I don't think he is necessarily bad at it, but to have Trump elected president when you are just one month in must be horrible, even for the most competent leader.
You could obviously write an article about this confusion and Rutte's lack of experience, but I don't think you'd find a lot of good sources for that.
posted by mumimor at 1:02 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
I have no idea about what they are doing at the “respectable” outlets. Rather, I would hope Jacobin would cover this less as a story about what tech oligarchs want and instead focus on how NATO would respond if this thing happens. I want to see reporting on its possibility as an existential threat because the President is a wild man, not as something that has interesting tax implications.
I am not super invested in Jacobin but something in this response made me feel a need to respond further. I think it's just because I feel like this is a bad reading (or non-reading, as you acknowledge) of the article, to say that it is ceding ground to Trump.
I would argue that US tech-oligarchs' designs on Greenland are at least as worthy of publication as NATO's response is--surely both are worthy of consideration and knowing about. Jacobin has published at least three other pieces on Greenland. Predictably for its perspective, Jacobin is both less focused on NATO (about which on the socialist left there is not consensus) and more focused on independence (within which the NATO conversation might be considered either moot or hostile). I think that's fine--there are multiple news-and-views publications out there worth reading!
"The Coming Battle for Greenland:" Greenland, rich in minerals, faces pressures from Donald Trump’s aggressive purchase ambitions and competing global interests. Without a sensible resolution, Greenland risks exploitation that will reduce it to an energy sacrifice zone.
"Greenland Is Not for Sale," by Aidan Simardone objects to Trump's "imperialism" by name and explicitly, but is more concerned with Greenland independence:
For independence to become a reality, Greenland must first achieve greater economic self-sufficiency. Without such support, Greenland risks remaining a colony in all but name, even if it gains formal independence. If Greenland uses this moment to stake out a path to independence, it will likely seek partnerships with countries and organizations that respect its economic aspirations — not sell its autonomy to the highest bidder.
"The US Already Has Too Much Influence Over Greenland," by Huw Paige is similarly concerned with Greenland autonomy, but also with the tensions inherent to the desire for independence, namely that without greater economic and military independence, Greenland would sorta be fucked:
The idea that Greenland could ever be “sold” is far-fetched. But with the United States anxious to maintain its control over the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans and gain ground in its rare-earth competition with China, Trump’s statements outline how difficult Greenland will find determining its own future to be.
---
Now see, that would be awesome. A world in which Jacobin takes their reporting seriously enough to cultivate sources inside important national and global institutions despite their ideological enmity would be a better one. As it is, it looks like this was simply an article they were willing to pay for. Still, progress as far as I can see.
I think this misunderstands what Jacobin is. It's an ideological rag that has a tiny print circulation and probably a couple million people who access their primarily editorial content for free. They don't have like, a fleet of staff reporters who cultivate relationships within NATO or something. They do exactly what you said--pay writers for content that advances their viewpoint. I'd be surprised if they had a dozen full-time staff among the few dozen people listed on their About page. I don't think it's worth pining for a world where Jacobin is a large circulation newspaper, personally.
posted by kensington314 at 1:36 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
I am not super invested in Jacobin but something in this response made me feel a need to respond further. I think it's just because I feel like this is a bad reading (or non-reading, as you acknowledge) of the article, to say that it is ceding ground to Trump.
I would argue that US tech-oligarchs' designs on Greenland are at least as worthy of publication as NATO's response is--surely both are worthy of consideration and knowing about. Jacobin has published at least three other pieces on Greenland. Predictably for its perspective, Jacobin is both less focused on NATO (about which on the socialist left there is not consensus) and more focused on independence (within which the NATO conversation might be considered either moot or hostile). I think that's fine--there are multiple news-and-views publications out there worth reading!
"The Coming Battle for Greenland:" Greenland, rich in minerals, faces pressures from Donald Trump’s aggressive purchase ambitions and competing global interests. Without a sensible resolution, Greenland risks exploitation that will reduce it to an energy sacrifice zone.
"Greenland Is Not for Sale," by Aidan Simardone objects to Trump's "imperialism" by name and explicitly, but is more concerned with Greenland independence:
For independence to become a reality, Greenland must first achieve greater economic self-sufficiency. Without such support, Greenland risks remaining a colony in all but name, even if it gains formal independence. If Greenland uses this moment to stake out a path to independence, it will likely seek partnerships with countries and organizations that respect its economic aspirations — not sell its autonomy to the highest bidder.
"The US Already Has Too Much Influence Over Greenland," by Huw Paige is similarly concerned with Greenland autonomy, but also with the tensions inherent to the desire for independence, namely that without greater economic and military independence, Greenland would sorta be fucked:
The idea that Greenland could ever be “sold” is far-fetched. But with the United States anxious to maintain its control over the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans and gain ground in its rare-earth competition with China, Trump’s statements outline how difficult Greenland will find determining its own future to be.
---
Now see, that would be awesome. A world in which Jacobin takes their reporting seriously enough to cultivate sources inside important national and global institutions despite their ideological enmity would be a better one. As it is, it looks like this was simply an article they were willing to pay for. Still, progress as far as I can see.
I think this misunderstands what Jacobin is. It's an ideological rag that has a tiny print circulation and probably a couple million people who access their primarily editorial content for free. They don't have like, a fleet of staff reporters who cultivate relationships within NATO or something. They do exactly what you said--pay writers for content that advances their viewpoint. I'd be surprised if they had a dozen full-time staff among the few dozen people listed on their About page. I don't think it's worth pining for a world where Jacobin is a large circulation newspaper, personally.
posted by kensington314 at 1:36 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
At least Canada has launched some economic retaliation, seemingly without much government control, so the US should continue suffering even if Trump never imposes the tariffs.
British Columbia’s premier says major companies in the province are in the process of redirecting critical minerals and energy products to markets outside the United States as the reality of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs sets in.
Ideally, Mexico should redirect their oil exports away from the US too, but again ideally without direct government control, because US oil import look like Canada 60%, Mexico 10%, Saudi Arabia 7%, Iraq 4%, and Colombia 4%.
If Trump depletes the SPR like Biden did in 2021 and 2022, maybe expecting drill-baby-drill permits replenishes the SPR, but nolonger has friends, and maybe faces internal sabatoge, then new oil shocks could wipe out the US economy, and solve this whole problem.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:43 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
British Columbia’s premier says major companies in the province are in the process of redirecting critical minerals and energy products to markets outside the United States as the reality of U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs sets in.
Ideally, Mexico should redirect their oil exports away from the US too, but again ideally without direct government control, because US oil import look like Canada 60%, Mexico 10%, Saudi Arabia 7%, Iraq 4%, and Colombia 4%.
If Trump depletes the SPR like Biden did in 2021 and 2022, maybe expecting drill-baby-drill permits replenishes the SPR, but nolonger has friends, and maybe faces internal sabatoge, then new oil shocks could wipe out the US economy, and solve this whole problem.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:43 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
I should read the article! But its existence /framing cedes more ground than I would want to see in any paper, let alone that one.
Absolutely. You point to a country on the map and you'll find a reason someone in the oligarchy who could benefit from a hostile takeover. Well, of course they would. This kind of framing normalizes the ideology of smaller nations being economic playthings. It's weird for me to see people treat it like some kind of inside joke for the same reason.
posted by UN at 1:59 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
Absolutely. You point to a country on the map and you'll find a reason someone in the oligarchy who could benefit from a hostile takeover. Well, of course they would. This kind of framing normalizes the ideology of smaller nations being economic playthings. It's weird for me to see people treat it like some kind of inside joke for the same reason.
posted by UN at 1:59 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
This kind of framing normalizes the ideology of smaller nations being economic playthings.
But, the article is partially just a literal description of Greenland being treated like an economic plaything across centuries. Is that a normalization? Or is it actually just the writer explaining the role of imperialism to the reader? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in how differently I've read the intentions and literal text of this article than other people.
posted by kensington314 at 2:04 PM on February 3 [7 favorites]
But, the article is partially just a literal description of Greenland being treated like an economic plaything across centuries. Is that a normalization? Or is it actually just the writer explaining the role of imperialism to the reader? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills in how differently I've read the intentions and literal text of this article than other people.
posted by kensington314 at 2:04 PM on February 3 [7 favorites]
But, the article is partially just a literal description of Greenland being treated like an economic plaything across centuries. Is that a normalization? Or is it actually just the writer explaining the role of imperialism to the reader?
Unfortunately the habit of taking description for endorsement is not a foreign one to MeFi. Nor the habit of being vaguely upset that an article isn't a different article from a different publication altogether!
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:10 PM on February 3 [10 favorites]
Unfortunately the habit of taking description for endorsement is not a foreign one to MeFi. Nor the habit of being vaguely upset that an article isn't a different article from a different publication altogether!
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 2:10 PM on February 3 [10 favorites]
a commenter in a different thread stated and I'll paraphrase that perhaps the power structures realize the effects of climate change especially over the last 3 years that's creating a social rift as far as resources and greed. Russia is making claims here and there in the Arctic, I'd like to think this is some sort of sick joke like rearranging the map and saying no no you want Greenland not Iceland. the cooperation of Iceland and Greenland with the United States and its allies during the second World War is one key for the United States to make a claim. Another threat, I think it was Ezra Klein who said Trump is acting like a king if I have that right. LBJ had a way of convincing water to boil on its own volition but Lyndon had mechanisms and small bits of theater that seemed rather large to help convince, whether a senator or a diplomat or a foreign leader, to the how shall we say, see it his way. if you take the New nationalism from Theodore Roosevelt and apply it today over 100 years later what can be deduced by such an insane proposition. territorial expansion and widening markets and the allocation of resources by diplomatic or military means.
contrast with Roosevelt is that for the United States was just becoming a powerhouse in manufacturing and some scientific innovation as well as technical and industrial, in other words, a lot of land, cash, and souls to burn through all the while appropriating some of the lefts platform of shorter work weeks, better work conditions etc.
the whole fiasco should be lampooned.
posted by clavdivs at 2:23 PM on February 3
contrast with Roosevelt is that for the United States was just becoming a powerhouse in manufacturing and some scientific innovation as well as technical and industrial, in other words, a lot of land, cash, and souls to burn through all the while appropriating some of the lefts platform of shorter work weeks, better work conditions etc.
the whole fiasco should be lampooned.
posted by clavdivs at 2:23 PM on February 3
Trump would never in a million years come up with the idea of buying Greenland on his own, someone with his ear put the idea there
This is not a joke: I'd assumed he'd seen it on a Mercator projection and was impressed by its apparent/illusory size. Manufacturing putting the idea in his head makes more sense
posted by HeroZero at 2:24 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
This is not a joke: I'd assumed he'd seen it on a Mercator projection and was impressed by its apparent/illusory size. Manufacturing putting the idea in his head makes more sense
posted by HeroZero at 2:24 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
I'm crossing my fingers for "Americaland".
It will not be possible for Trump to make history and NOT write his name in it. Never.
“New Trumpland” it will be.
posted by uncle harold at 2:31 PM on February 3
It will not be possible for Trump to make history and NOT write his name in it. Never.
“New Trumpland” it will be.
posted by uncle harold at 2:31 PM on February 3
But, the article is partially just a literal description of Greenland being treated like an economic plaything across centuries. Is that a normalization?
Yes. It's a lot of words to say that there are mineral resources Greenland. Well, sure. There's a canal in Panama. There's oil in Nigeria. There is an extremely lucrative manufacturing sector in South Korea.
I mean, take note of the jokes being posted here. It's a symptom of how the issue is being presented to Americans. The framing of an issue (intentional or not) isn't simply which facts are presented, but how and in which context. So Denmark and Greenland have a dark history. Why is the author bringing this up now?
posted by UN at 2:44 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
Yes. It's a lot of words to say that there are mineral resources Greenland. Well, sure. There's a canal in Panama. There's oil in Nigeria. There is an extremely lucrative manufacturing sector in South Korea.
I mean, take note of the jokes being posted here. It's a symptom of how the issue is being presented to Americans. The framing of an issue (intentional or not) isn't simply which facts are presented, but how and in which context. So Denmark and Greenland have a dark history. Why is the author bringing this up now?
posted by UN at 2:44 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
Does NATO’s collective self-defense obligations cover when the attacker is itself a NATO member?
There's no exception for that case, so one can only assume they do. In fact, the US would be obligated to come to the aid of Denmark in defending itself from an attach from the US.
posted by ssg at 2:54 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
There's no exception for that case, so one can only assume they do. In fact, the US would be obligated to come to the aid of Denmark in defending itself from an attach from the US.
posted by ssg at 2:54 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
This is not a joke: I'd assumed he'd seen it on a Mercator projection and was impressed by its apparent/illusory size. Manufacturing putting the idea in his head makes more sense
I think your first assumption is reasonably close. The way I heard it the first time he wanted to get Greenland in his first term was that someone at a social event mentioned that maintaining Greenland actually cost Denmark money, so he decided that he could probably buy it from Denmark and started up a whole state visit thing to make it happen without even asking about it. When Denmark found out what the visit was about they were all "dude, WTF, no".
Combine that with his idea about Russia invading Ukraine being great because Putin trying to make his country bigger (purely in terms of map size) was a beautiful thing, and you're pretty much there. With that and the narcissistic injury of being told "no" already, it's likely a fixation for him. The dumbest possible explanation is probably right.
From the Wikipedia article: Trump later told New York Times journalists Peter Baker and Susan Glasser in an interview for their book, The Divider, that he was enamored by the deal for the size of the island, and thought it was a great real estate deal that would secure his place in history.
posted by LionIndex at 2:59 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
I think your first assumption is reasonably close. The way I heard it the first time he wanted to get Greenland in his first term was that someone at a social event mentioned that maintaining Greenland actually cost Denmark money, so he decided that he could probably buy it from Denmark and started up a whole state visit thing to make it happen without even asking about it. When Denmark found out what the visit was about they were all "dude, WTF, no".
Combine that with his idea about Russia invading Ukraine being great because Putin trying to make his country bigger (purely in terms of map size) was a beautiful thing, and you're pretty much there. With that and the narcissistic injury of being told "no" already, it's likely a fixation for him. The dumbest possible explanation is probably right.
From the Wikipedia article: Trump later told New York Times journalists Peter Baker and Susan Glasser in an interview for their book, The Divider, that he was enamored by the deal for the size of the island, and thought it was a great real estate deal that would secure his place in history.
posted by LionIndex at 2:59 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
So this is secretly some play by Jacobin to carry water for the trump admin seizing Greenland via normalization of the topic? This is some galaxy brain shit
posted by Ferreous at 3:10 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
posted by Ferreous at 3:10 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
Yeah that’s exactly it. Jfc
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:20 PM on February 3
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:20 PM on February 3
About the colonial past: it is just a lot more complicated than it is described in English language media who almost always extrapolate their own experiences onto the Greenlandic one.
Among the three Jacobin articles linked above by kensington314, the first two are filled with faults and misunderstandings. I guess you can't use google translate for articles in Greenlandic and Danish -- the languages are too small for the machine to learn -- so it's hard for foreign journalists to get the politics and feelings of modern Greenland.
IMO the article in the FPP is better, because it is about the American perspective and American's interactions with Greenlanders and Danes, rather than the Greenlanders and Danes themselves.
There are also one or two misunderstandings in the last one; most importantly the reason the EU now has an office in Nuuk is not European imperialism, but an expression of the fact that the Greenlandic people now have more say over their own trade and foreign policy, and they want an EU office to facilitate direct trade outside Denmark.
Greenland is in a very difficult situation right now, where their hopes and dreams for the future are under threat. I don't appreciate the jokes.
Neither the Trumpists nor the well-meaning leftist writers seem to understand just how rough a country Greenland is, specially the East coast. It's not like you can just invade it and then you have it. Actually, the Germans did try to build some posts during WW2, and the allies didn't do much to stop them, because when they arrived, they couldn't really go anywhere or do anything. It was easy for the local defenders to just shoot anyone who went out of the camp periphery. Though we now have high tech weaponry, it doesn't make much of a difference. Build a camp, bring all your stuff, walk or ski 10 km away from your camp and get shot by someone who understands the land or get eaten by a bear.
As I understand it, the people up in the one remaining US base just live and work on the base, and rarely venture far outside. (I met a student whose dad works there, he is my sole source, so I may be wrong).
posted by mumimor at 3:25 PM on February 3 [11 favorites]
Among the three Jacobin articles linked above by kensington314, the first two are filled with faults and misunderstandings. I guess you can't use google translate for articles in Greenlandic and Danish -- the languages are too small for the machine to learn -- so it's hard for foreign journalists to get the politics and feelings of modern Greenland.
IMO the article in the FPP is better, because it is about the American perspective and American's interactions with Greenlanders and Danes, rather than the Greenlanders and Danes themselves.
There are also one or two misunderstandings in the last one; most importantly the reason the EU now has an office in Nuuk is not European imperialism, but an expression of the fact that the Greenlandic people now have more say over their own trade and foreign policy, and they want an EU office to facilitate direct trade outside Denmark.
Greenland is in a very difficult situation right now, where their hopes and dreams for the future are under threat. I don't appreciate the jokes.
Neither the Trumpists nor the well-meaning leftist writers seem to understand just how rough a country Greenland is, specially the East coast. It's not like you can just invade it and then you have it. Actually, the Germans did try to build some posts during WW2, and the allies didn't do much to stop them, because when they arrived, they couldn't really go anywhere or do anything. It was easy for the local defenders to just shoot anyone who went out of the camp periphery. Though we now have high tech weaponry, it doesn't make much of a difference. Build a camp, bring all your stuff, walk or ski 10 km away from your camp and get shot by someone who understands the land or get eaten by a bear.
As I understand it, the people up in the one remaining US base just live and work on the base, and rarely venture far outside. (I met a student whose dad works there, he is my sole source, so I may be wrong).
posted by mumimor at 3:25 PM on February 3 [11 favorites]
You state the articles are full of faults and misunderstandings, can you cite what those are because it seems reasonably well sourced and it's hard to argue that Greenland is a colonized nation, even if it is a very rough country to live in.
posted by Ferreous at 3:40 PM on February 3
posted by Ferreous at 3:40 PM on February 3
I guess you can't use google translate for articles in Greenlandic and Danish -- the languages are too small for the machine to learn --
This is 100% bullshit.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:44 PM on February 3
This is 100% bullshit.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:44 PM on February 3
the languages are too small for the machine to learn
I was googling for information in Finnish the other day, and it was hard to get anything near clean copy. I assumed it was because (1) the Finns are so bilingual and (2) the syntax of Finnish appears to be distinct from English, and the translators aren't good enough to handle it. I don't know if either might apply to Danish and Greenlandic.
About the colonial past: it is just a lot more complicated than it is described in English language media who almost always extrapolate their own experiences onto the Greenlandic one.
All I know about Greenland, really, is from Borgen, so it's a few years old now. They had two fascinating (albeit fictionalized) episodes on it. My takeaway was that Greenland was surprisingly poor and something like a Native American reservation.
Feel free to correct me, mumimor.
posted by Violet Blue at 4:05 PM on February 3
I was googling for information in Finnish the other day, and it was hard to get anything near clean copy. I assumed it was because (1) the Finns are so bilingual and (2) the syntax of Finnish appears to be distinct from English, and the translators aren't good enough to handle it. I don't know if either might apply to Danish and Greenlandic.
About the colonial past: it is just a lot more complicated than it is described in English language media who almost always extrapolate their own experiences onto the Greenlandic one.
All I know about Greenland, really, is from Borgen, so it's a few years old now. They had two fascinating (albeit fictionalized) episodes on it. My takeaway was that Greenland was surprisingly poor and something like a Native American reservation.
Feel free to correct me, mumimor.
posted by Violet Blue at 4:05 PM on February 3
Ukraine also has lithium.
From a 2022 Washington Post article:
From a 2022 Washington Post article:
After nearly six months of fighting, Moscow’s sloppy war has yielded at least one big reward: expanded control over some of the most mineral-rich lands in Europe. Ukraine harbors some of the world’s largest reserves of titanium and iron ore, fields of untapped lithium and massive deposits of coal. Collectively, they are worth tens of trillions of dollars....posted by Violet Blue at 4:11 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
Russia possesses vast amounts of natural resources. But denying Ukraine its own has strategically undermined the country’s economy, forcing Kyiv to import coal to keep the lights on in cities and towns. Should the Kremlin succeed in annexing the Ukrainian territory it has seized — as U.S. officials believe it will try to do in coming months — Kyiv would permanently lose access to almost two-thirds of its deposits.
This is 100% bullshit.
It's interesting to see comments defending both the quality of US journalism on the topic Greenland, and Google's algorithm at showcasing views from Greenland in their native languages. Really now?
I'd expect you'd find more sympathy for the views of others but that's where we are now, I guess. For the country that birthed Trumpism, now pushing for aggressive moves against the island...maybe my expectations were in the wrong place. The creeping feeling that the US population is completely lost, it's there. It's a shame.
Sure, an American journalist that writes, what, a single article about Greenland has all the credibility because...what? She's American?
Google has the answers? Sorry but I'll call it out. That is bullshit.
posted by UN at 4:15 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
It's interesting to see comments defending both the quality of US journalism on the topic Greenland, and Google's algorithm at showcasing views from Greenland in their native languages. Really now?
I'd expect you'd find more sympathy for the views of others but that's where we are now, I guess. For the country that birthed Trumpism, now pushing for aggressive moves against the island...maybe my expectations were in the wrong place. The creeping feeling that the US population is completely lost, it's there. It's a shame.
Sure, an American journalist that writes, what, a single article about Greenland has all the credibility because...what? She's American?
Google has the answers? Sorry but I'll call it out. That is bullshit.
posted by UN at 4:15 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
I think the "that's bullshit" was addressing the complete handwaving of the articles via saying Google translate doesn't work for these languages.
posted by Ferreous at 4:24 PM on February 3
posted by Ferreous at 4:24 PM on February 3
I don't know about others, but ...
When I search in other languages, I use U.S. google to translate my key phrase into, say, Danish. In this case, the phrase was "News on Greenland," which was translated into Nyheder om Grønland, which then brought me to Danish Google.
I've found several things I was researching this way, but if there are better ways, I, for one, would be interested to hear it.
posted by Violet Blue at 4:28 PM on February 3
When I search in other languages, I use U.S. google to translate my key phrase into, say, Danish. In this case, the phrase was "News on Greenland," which was translated into Nyheder om Grønland, which then brought me to Danish Google.
I've found several things I was researching this way, but if there are better ways, I, for one, would be interested to hear it.
posted by Violet Blue at 4:28 PM on February 3
politico: ‘There will be many casualties’: Panama girds for war as Rubio opens talks
I've no idea how Rubio, Trump, etc handle this negotiation, maybe they'll accept symbolic gestures again, like putting Trump's name all over their existing efforts against migrants, but..
I think Panama could prevent invasion: If Trump sends American forces, then blow up Gatun Dam. It took three years to fill Gatun Lake the first time, but climate change likely lengthened this timeframe. Panama's agriculture needs Gatun Lake of course, but Trump would spend all water possible on traffic.
It's even possible Trump only wants a photo op, like when he wasted billions of gallons of CA water last week. They could let him pose by the locks while they drain out a billion gallons, like 20 ships worth of water. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 4:52 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
I've no idea how Rubio, Trump, etc handle this negotiation, maybe they'll accept symbolic gestures again, like putting Trump's name all over their existing efforts against migrants, but..
I think Panama could prevent invasion: If Trump sends American forces, then blow up Gatun Dam. It took three years to fill Gatun Lake the first time, but climate change likely lengthened this timeframe. Panama's agriculture needs Gatun Lake of course, but Trump would spend all water possible on traffic.
It's even possible Trump only wants a photo op, like when he wasted billions of gallons of CA water last week. They could let him pose by the locks while they drain out a billion gallons, like 20 ships worth of water. lol
posted by jeffburdges at 4:52 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
This timeline, the only possible response anymore is
<Voice="Sam Kinnison"> AAAAAAAAAH AAH AAAAH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!! </Voice>
posted by Enturbulated at 5:04 PM on February 3
<Voice="Sam Kinnison"> AAAAAAAAAH AAH AAAAH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!! </Voice>
posted by Enturbulated at 5:04 PM on February 3
OK guys, I don't know about machine learning, I do know that the articles are full of faults and mistakes. I was just trying to be nice about it and not blame the journalist too much. (Though I can actually see that google translate is really bad at translating from English to Danish when my students use it).
Some examples from the first article: we do not call Greenland an autonomous province. It is an independent area or region within the Kingdom of Denmark. To us, "province" sounds like something on the periphery or edge, not a center. You may think this is nit-picking, but I have not heard of provinces in other EU countries who can decide to not be part of the EU, just as one example. The Sami in Norway, Sweden and Finland do not have this degree of autonomy. Neither do any of the Spanish regions or the Sardes or Sicilians.
Informally, we call it a country, which it is. (Land means country as well as land in Danish).
Formally, Denmark still controls security and international politics, but as mentioned above, Greenland increasingly runs its own foreign policy as part of the transition to independence. I mentioned in another thread that in the same vein, Greenlanders are being recruited into military education with the purpose of them running their own defense within 10-20 years.
Hans Egede was not a violent colonizer. He was a priest who had set out to convert the ancient Norse colony from Catholicism to Protestantism, and when he realized they had died out, he instead decided to try to convert the Greenlanders from Animism to Protestantism. He translated the Bible to Greenlandic and educated Greenlanders. He believed in physical punishment at school, because this was in the 18th century, but he punished his own family in the same way, it had nothing to do with colonialism. Hans Egede went to Greenland because he thought there was a legitimate part of the kingdom that hadn't heard about the reformation. In that context, the word colony described something like Iceland, an outpost where there were only Norse inhabitants, not a violent takeover of someone else's land.
Denmark did have actual colonies as we understand it today and slaves and all the evil stuff and were as bad as others there, but Greenlanders were never treated that way. There was no land grab and no forced labor. If I were to be cynical about it, I'd say nobody could survive in Greenland in the 18th century without cooperation. But I think Egede genuinely loved Greenland and its people. There has always been education in Greenlandic as well as Danish, and already in Egede's time, boys were educated to be teachers and local leaders.
Most of the horrible treatment of people in Greenland happened after WW2 as part of a misguided and cruel modernization project. Many of the serious problems in Greenland today have their roots in those projects, because trauma lives on for many generations. But the end goal of the projects were Greenlandic independence, something that is often forgotten today. One of the effects of this was that there truly was a great deal of racism towards Greenlanders in the last half of the 20th century. As far as I can see from the statements young Greenlanders give, it still exists, but less and less.
I have already mentioned that EU has opened an office in Nuuk to accommodate an increasingly independent Greenland, not as a colonizer.
The discussion about mining in Greenland is a Greenlandic discussion. Greenland is collectively owned -- no-one can own land privately, and it is up to the parliament in Greenland to decide how to develop their land. Since this is neither security nor foreign policy in general, Denmark has no right to meddle in this. The current government in Greenland was elected to stop all ressource extraction and did so.
I mentioned above that the vast majority in the Danish Parliament support complete Greenlandic independence. Even those very few who are skeptical are mostly skeptical about the timing, not the end goal. No-one in the Danish parliament is against supporting Greenland economically.
Violet Blue, I haven't seen Borgen, so I don't know what they showed, but I bet you would be very surprised if you came to Nuuk, or Illusat where it was filmed. I know it was badly received by some Greenlanders, who felt stereotyped as poor, drunk "natives".
Yes, Greenland is a poor nation compared to Denmark. But it is absolutely not like a reservation at all. It's like a modern country with good, centrally heated homes, good schools and all the services. If you live in a small bygd and need to go to the hospital, a helicopter will come to get you. If you need some special treatment, you will be flown to Denmark. Obviously there is free healthcare and education up to the PhD level, it's a socialist country. Greenland has an amazing cultural and intellectual community compared to its size: I don't know many towns of 50.-60.000 people who have too many famous artists, writers, scientists, thinkers and TV personalities to even count. And I'm just thinking about the living, go back, and there are even more. My favorite historical architect was of Greenlandic descent.
My love for Greenland and engagement started when I worked for the National Museum in Denmark, and learnt about how Denmark had been first in handing artifacts back to Greenland (and other peoples all over the world), very much against the opinion of other ethnographical museums. Our collaboration with the Greenlandic National Museum was inspiring and obviously educating. I've only been there twice, but almost moved there, because it is both a very beautiful country and an incredibly welcoming and warm population. I hope to be able to go back one day but it is very expensive. During that time, I had the incredible opportunity to host half of the Greenlandic government and the mayor of Nuuk for dinner in my home-- it was great fun, not least because in that generation, most were strong women who had taken over from a generation of corrupt men, and were setting the country on the right course.
Lots of people with roots in Greenland live in Denmark, and they too hate the stereotyping. By coincidence, I passed by the Greenlandic and Nordic cultural centres today, and I don't think you would think of the people I saw there as poor people from reservations. You probably wouldn't even guess they were from Greenland, but as a Dane, their accent is very recognizable, it sounds sweet to us.
posted by mumimor at 5:32 PM on February 3 [37 favorites]
Some examples from the first article: we do not call Greenland an autonomous province. It is an independent area or region within the Kingdom of Denmark. To us, "province" sounds like something on the periphery or edge, not a center. You may think this is nit-picking, but I have not heard of provinces in other EU countries who can decide to not be part of the EU, just as one example. The Sami in Norway, Sweden and Finland do not have this degree of autonomy. Neither do any of the Spanish regions or the Sardes or Sicilians.
Informally, we call it a country, which it is. (Land means country as well as land in Danish).
Formally, Denmark still controls security and international politics, but as mentioned above, Greenland increasingly runs its own foreign policy as part of the transition to independence. I mentioned in another thread that in the same vein, Greenlanders are being recruited into military education with the purpose of them running their own defense within 10-20 years.
Hans Egede was not a violent colonizer. He was a priest who had set out to convert the ancient Norse colony from Catholicism to Protestantism, and when he realized they had died out, he instead decided to try to convert the Greenlanders from Animism to Protestantism. He translated the Bible to Greenlandic and educated Greenlanders. He believed in physical punishment at school, because this was in the 18th century, but he punished his own family in the same way, it had nothing to do with colonialism. Hans Egede went to Greenland because he thought there was a legitimate part of the kingdom that hadn't heard about the reformation. In that context, the word colony described something like Iceland, an outpost where there were only Norse inhabitants, not a violent takeover of someone else's land.
Denmark did have actual colonies as we understand it today and slaves and all the evil stuff and were as bad as others there, but Greenlanders were never treated that way. There was no land grab and no forced labor. If I were to be cynical about it, I'd say nobody could survive in Greenland in the 18th century without cooperation. But I think Egede genuinely loved Greenland and its people. There has always been education in Greenlandic as well as Danish, and already in Egede's time, boys were educated to be teachers and local leaders.
Most of the horrible treatment of people in Greenland happened after WW2 as part of a misguided and cruel modernization project. Many of the serious problems in Greenland today have their roots in those projects, because trauma lives on for many generations. But the end goal of the projects were Greenlandic independence, something that is often forgotten today. One of the effects of this was that there truly was a great deal of racism towards Greenlanders in the last half of the 20th century. As far as I can see from the statements young Greenlanders give, it still exists, but less and less.
I have already mentioned that EU has opened an office in Nuuk to accommodate an increasingly independent Greenland, not as a colonizer.
The discussion about mining in Greenland is a Greenlandic discussion. Greenland is collectively owned -- no-one can own land privately, and it is up to the parliament in Greenland to decide how to develop their land. Since this is neither security nor foreign policy in general, Denmark has no right to meddle in this. The current government in Greenland was elected to stop all ressource extraction and did so.
I mentioned above that the vast majority in the Danish Parliament support complete Greenlandic independence. Even those very few who are skeptical are mostly skeptical about the timing, not the end goal. No-one in the Danish parliament is against supporting Greenland economically.
Violet Blue, I haven't seen Borgen, so I don't know what they showed, but I bet you would be very surprised if you came to Nuuk, or Illusat where it was filmed. I know it was badly received by some Greenlanders, who felt stereotyped as poor, drunk "natives".
Yes, Greenland is a poor nation compared to Denmark. But it is absolutely not like a reservation at all. It's like a modern country with good, centrally heated homes, good schools and all the services. If you live in a small bygd and need to go to the hospital, a helicopter will come to get you. If you need some special treatment, you will be flown to Denmark. Obviously there is free healthcare and education up to the PhD level, it's a socialist country. Greenland has an amazing cultural and intellectual community compared to its size: I don't know many towns of 50.-60.000 people who have too many famous artists, writers, scientists, thinkers and TV personalities to even count. And I'm just thinking about the living, go back, and there are even more. My favorite historical architect was of Greenlandic descent.
My love for Greenland and engagement started when I worked for the National Museum in Denmark, and learnt about how Denmark had been first in handing artifacts back to Greenland (and other peoples all over the world), very much against the opinion of other ethnographical museums. Our collaboration with the Greenlandic National Museum was inspiring and obviously educating. I've only been there twice, but almost moved there, because it is both a very beautiful country and an incredibly welcoming and warm population. I hope to be able to go back one day but it is very expensive. During that time, I had the incredible opportunity to host half of the Greenlandic government and the mayor of Nuuk for dinner in my home-- it was great fun, not least because in that generation, most were strong women who had taken over from a generation of corrupt men, and were setting the country on the right course.
Lots of people with roots in Greenland live in Denmark, and they too hate the stereotyping. By coincidence, I passed by the Greenlandic and Nordic cultural centres today, and I don't think you would think of the people I saw there as poor people from reservations. You probably wouldn't even guess they were from Greenland, but as a Dane, their accent is very recognizable, it sounds sweet to us.
posted by mumimor at 5:32 PM on February 3 [37 favorites]
Oh I forgot one thing: you may ask how Denmark can "own" a country so far away, it seems like England "owning" colonies in America. But at the time, the Kingdom of Denmark consisted of all the lands surrounding the North Atlantic except Scotland -- the ocean was a connector not a boundary.
posted by mumimor at 5:37 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 5:37 PM on February 3 [3 favorites]
Odd that you say someone wasnt a violent colonizer and then describe basically textbook colonialism.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:53 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:53 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
Yeah that all sounds like colonialism, it might not be as severe as King Leopold in the Congo, but don't dress it up like it wasn't colonialism. Describing cultural erasure with the gloss of "but it was all part of the project to make them independent" doesn't make it not cultural erasure. Especially when the purported goal of independence hasn't occurred.
posted by Ferreous at 6:37 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
posted by Ferreous at 6:37 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
Odd that you say someone wasnt a violent colonizer and then describe basically textbook colonialism.
I understand it's exciting to see the US fall off a cliff; but pretending to be anti-colonialism when Greenlanders are being threatened today with forceful invasion which could lead to war and death.... It's not only careless, it's cruel, and it's deceptive.
The far left and far right in America are united in supporting Trump and Musk's imperial ambitions. It's completely messed up seeing both sides give support to Trump's plans with this sort of whataboutism.
The middle? Humbled into looking at this from a resources perspective. Where's Jared Kushner these days? You'd think we'd hear more about the possibility of luxury resorts on the Greenlandic coastline considering the circumstances.
posted by UN at 8:28 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
I understand it's exciting to see the US fall off a cliff; but pretending to be anti-colonialism when Greenlanders are being threatened today with forceful invasion which could lead to war and death.... It's not only careless, it's cruel, and it's deceptive.
The far left and far right in America are united in supporting Trump and Musk's imperial ambitions. It's completely messed up seeing both sides give support to Trump's plans with this sort of whataboutism.
The middle? Humbled into looking at this from a resources perspective. Where's Jared Kushner these days? You'd think we'd hear more about the possibility of luxury resorts on the Greenlandic coastline considering the circumstances.
posted by UN at 8:28 PM on February 3 [1 favorite]
Apologies if I'm mistaken and some of you here are experts on Greenland, but mumimor provided some comparatively informed perspective and if you have substantive disagreements how about lay it out there. King fucking Leopold.
posted by ginger.beef at 9:07 PM on February 3 [12 favorites]
posted by ginger.beef at 9:07 PM on February 3 [12 favorites]
Once trump started talking about taking Greenland, Denmark was definitely afraid of a completely organic colour revolution.
posted by Iax at 9:28 PM on February 3
posted by Iax at 9:28 PM on February 3
You know, as a citizen of at this point two North American settler colonies, who tries to be a principled anti-imperialist and anti-colonialist, i think there may be an appropriate time for non-indigenous North Americans to have an opinion about Denmark's colonial relationship with Greenland. However, that time is probably sometime after the point when:
a) any of the three North American settler-colonial nations has returned even one one-hundredth of the autonomy and stolen wealth to its own indigenous peoples as Denmark has to Greenlanders; and
b) one of those North American settler-colonial nations isn't threatening to invade Greenland, while the other two are almost certainly planning to lie down and let it.
Until then, i'm gonna say pretty firmly that it's not our fucking lane, except to boost the voices of native Greenlanders.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:24 PM on February 3 [13 favorites]
a) any of the three North American settler-colonial nations has returned even one one-hundredth of the autonomy and stolen wealth to its own indigenous peoples as Denmark has to Greenlanders; and
b) one of those North American settler-colonial nations isn't threatening to invade Greenland, while the other two are almost certainly planning to lie down and let it.
Until then, i'm gonna say pretty firmly that it's not our fucking lane, except to boost the voices of native Greenlanders.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:24 PM on February 3 [13 favorites]
Putting EU troops in Greenland makes sense, bloc’s top military official says: It “would send a strong signal and could contribute to stability in the region,” Robert Brieger, head of the EU’s highest military body, tells Welt am Sonntag.
posted by Violet Blue at 11:36 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
posted by Violet Blue at 11:36 PM on February 3 [2 favorites]
With musk trying to shut down USAID and NED that is one less tool to destabilize Greenland. Hard to setup "independent" "anti-corruption" NGO's when they have cut the funding
posted by Iax at 11:44 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
posted by Iax at 11:44 PM on February 3 [4 favorites]
Another thing I forgot: the forced modernization after WW2 was because the war had made the Danish government aware that it wasn't an option to let Greenland remain as it was. From the 18th century till 1940, the policy in Denmark had been to let Greenlanders live as they pleased as semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers, with trading posts with churches, schools and paramedics along the coasts. The land belonged to the Greenlanders, so Denmark hasn't really given it back. Denmark saw its role as protecting Greenland from foreign intervention, such as Portuguese, Dutch and British colonizers.
But the growth of both military and commercial air travel meant that the world came to Greenland, in the form of a war with both American and Greenlandic troops on the ground, and it became a real challenge for Greenlanders to deal with it. Also a large part of the population wanted things like heated homes, secondary schools, healthcare, communication, motorboats and other modern products. So there was a need for modernization. But it was difficult.
posted by mumimor at 12:24 AM on February 4 [5 favorites]
But the growth of both military and commercial air travel meant that the world came to Greenland, in the form of a war with both American and Greenlandic troops on the ground, and it became a real challenge for Greenlanders to deal with it. Also a large part of the population wanted things like heated homes, secondary schools, healthcare, communication, motorboats and other modern products. So there was a need for modernization. But it was difficult.
posted by mumimor at 12:24 AM on February 4 [5 favorites]
b) one of those North American settler-colonial nations isn't threatening to invade Greenland, while the other two are almost certainly planning to lie down and let it.
There's also the issue of
c) The ones doing the agitating are going all in on sieg heil..so digging up some anti Danish sentiment to support their case is siding with adolf hitler worshippers.
posted by UN at 4:27 AM on February 4
There's also the issue of
c) The ones doing the agitating are going all in on sieg heil..so digging up some anti Danish sentiment to support their case is siding with adolf hitler worshippers.
posted by UN at 4:27 AM on February 4
I understand it's exciting to see the US fall off a cliff; but pretending to be anti-colonialism when Greenlanders are being threatened today with forceful invasion which could lead to war and death.... It's not only careless, it's cruel, and it's deceptive
Wtf are you on about?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:33 AM on February 4 [2 favorites]
Wtf are you on about?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:33 AM on February 4 [2 favorites]
Apparently correcting people’s false impression of how colonialism actually functioned means that your somehow 1) pretending to be anticolonial 2) a member of the far left and 3) somehow supportive of violently invading other countries.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:36 AM on February 4 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:36 AM on February 4 [2 favorites]
Apparently correcting people’s false impression of how colonialism actually functioned
That's not what you are doing. Nobody here is confused. You are just being a jerk.
posted by grog at 5:32 AM on February 4 [10 favorites]
That's not what you are doing. Nobody here is confused. You are just being a jerk.
posted by grog at 5:32 AM on February 4 [10 favorites]
The far left and far right in America are united in supporting Trump and Musk's imperial ambitions.
I have not encountered the idea that people on the left support Trump's imperial ambitions. Can someone link to the substance of this claim?
posted by kensington314 at 9:02 AM on February 4 [6 favorites]
I have not encountered the idea that people on the left support Trump's imperial ambitions. Can someone link to the substance of this claim?
posted by kensington314 at 9:02 AM on February 4 [6 favorites]
I have not encountered the idea that people on the left support Trump's imperial ambitions. Can someone link to the substance of this claim?
I wasn't the one who wrote this, but I could try to explain how the issue looks from here. Above, I have repeatedly mentioned that Greenland is a socialist country. Almost everyone in Greenland votes Social Democratic or further left. So in Greenland, the populist demagogues are also on the left. That's the first thing to know.
Next, this year is an election year. There has to be a general election before April. Everyone expects that there will be a referendum on independence later in the year, regardless of who wins the the general. This is the political situation the Trumpists are speaking into (and BTW why it is so urgent for Trump to enter that discussion already now).
Anti-Danish sentiment is leading some politicians and a famous influencer to suggest that Greenland could get a better deal with the US. One of them is Kuno Fencker, a somewhat renegade member of the center-left Siumut party. He went to the Trump Inauguration against the party line, and has had discussions with several US politicians.
I must emphasize strongly that none of these people want to be colonized by the US, they just imagine that they could get better aid and development, and military assistance, from the Trump administration than the Danish government, during the transition towards full economic independence.
For people of this persuasion, the American and British Leftist critique of Denmark is catnip. By painting an image of Greenland as a huge squalid reservation and the Danes as cruel colonial masters who have committed genocide, they appeal to people who feel left behind. They can't use far right nationalist rhetoric because no-one in Greenland will ever move to the far right.
There are obviously tons of contradictions in this, and the people in Greenland who think they can make a deal with Trump would not be on the left in any other context, but that is the political reality of Greenland.
With dark money and social media leaning in on national elections, I think there is cause for worry. But I'm not sure Trump, Musk et. al. can actually navigate the Greenlandic political landscape.
I hope this is helpful.
Personally I'm not blaming anyone, and I do think we need to have a proper house-cleaning before we step on into the future. Obviously, I don't think Greenland can get a better deal with Trump, just as I never thought the Brexiteers could get a better deal with the US than with the EU. But that is just my opinion.
posted by mumimor at 9:58 AM on February 4 [10 favorites]
I wasn't the one who wrote this, but I could try to explain how the issue looks from here. Above, I have repeatedly mentioned that Greenland is a socialist country. Almost everyone in Greenland votes Social Democratic or further left. So in Greenland, the populist demagogues are also on the left. That's the first thing to know.
Next, this year is an election year. There has to be a general election before April. Everyone expects that there will be a referendum on independence later in the year, regardless of who wins the the general. This is the political situation the Trumpists are speaking into (and BTW why it is so urgent for Trump to enter that discussion already now).
Anti-Danish sentiment is leading some politicians and a famous influencer to suggest that Greenland could get a better deal with the US. One of them is Kuno Fencker, a somewhat renegade member of the center-left Siumut party. He went to the Trump Inauguration against the party line, and has had discussions with several US politicians.
I must emphasize strongly that none of these people want to be colonized by the US, they just imagine that they could get better aid and development, and military assistance, from the Trump administration than the Danish government, during the transition towards full economic independence.
For people of this persuasion, the American and British Leftist critique of Denmark is catnip. By painting an image of Greenland as a huge squalid reservation and the Danes as cruel colonial masters who have committed genocide, they appeal to people who feel left behind. They can't use far right nationalist rhetoric because no-one in Greenland will ever move to the far right.
There are obviously tons of contradictions in this, and the people in Greenland who think they can make a deal with Trump would not be on the left in any other context, but that is the political reality of Greenland.
With dark money and social media leaning in on national elections, I think there is cause for worry. But I'm not sure Trump, Musk et. al. can actually navigate the Greenlandic political landscape.
I hope this is helpful.
Personally I'm not blaming anyone, and I do think we need to have a proper house-cleaning before we step on into the future. Obviously, I don't think Greenland can get a better deal with Trump, just as I never thought the Brexiteers could get a better deal with the US than with the EU. But that is just my opinion.
posted by mumimor at 9:58 AM on February 4 [10 favorites]
With dark money and social media leaning in on national elections
please stay focused, everyone
I should think anyone who engages in threads on the Blue fairly regularly is at least moderately aware of what we are dealing with, whether it's Greenland, the US, England/UK, Romania, etc.
posted by ginger.beef at 10:16 AM on February 4 [1 favorite]
please stay focused, everyone
I should think anyone who engages in threads on the Blue fairly regularly is at least moderately aware of what we are dealing with, whether it's Greenland, the US, England/UK, Romania, etc.
posted by ginger.beef at 10:16 AM on February 4 [1 favorite]
BREAKING: The Greenlandic government will call an election for the 11th of March 2025.
Parliament also voted for a law against anonymous and foreign donations in Greenlandic politics. 22 members voted for, 8 abstained from voting. I am obviously incredibly curious about who the 8 abstainers are.
Also: Last night the European Council unanimously gave their full support for Greenland and Denmark against the threats from the US.
I can only find safe links in Danish for the latter item, I'll keep looking for English versions.
posted by mumimor at 12:22 PM on February 4 [6 favorites]
Parliament also voted for a law against anonymous and foreign donations in Greenlandic politics. 22 members voted for, 8 abstained from voting. I am obviously incredibly curious about who the 8 abstainers are.
Also: Last night the European Council unanimously gave their full support for Greenland and Denmark against the threats from the US.
I can only find safe links in Danish for the latter item, I'll keep looking for English versions.
posted by mumimor at 12:22 PM on February 4 [6 favorites]
Really truly hope that Greenland, Denmark, and the EU together manage to keep Greenland away from the US and the imperial ambitions of Trump and his billionaire backers.
posted by subdee at 12:56 PM on February 4 [3 favorites]
posted by subdee at 12:56 PM on February 4 [3 favorites]
I have not encountered the idea that people on the left support Trump's imperial ambitions. Can someone link to the substance of this claim?
EL PAÍS — Trumpist communists: The anti-imperialist MAGA movement
There's a lot of anger in former (?) US allies like Canada that I think haven't been properly analyzed yet because it's so new. Personally I think it's about betrayal . There's a lot written by Americans against Trump. But how much is written to defend neighbors and friends in Canada, Europe? Not much really. I think it's because there's more agreements with Trump policy and rhetoric than people in the US realize — but being creatures of the environment, they cannot see it. So there's silence. Again that's just my personal opinion, I'm sure it's not popular. Oh well
[Edit: apologies for the long quote, didn't have the time to trim it properly]
posted by UN at 1:00 PM on February 4
EL PAÍS — Trumpist communists: The anti-imperialist MAGA movement
You may laugh, but it is not a joke. The MAGA Communists exist, even if they are full of histrionic contradictions. They support Trump, who paradoxically wants to ban Marxists from entering the country. They admire Putin yet excoriate imperialism. They support Palestine, but not Ukraine or Taiwan. They pursue a communist future — one that subsidizes state services — but they also champion tax cuts. They are a minority movement, relegated to the far reaches of the internet, but with their incendiary, anti-imperialist rhetoric adapted to the Gaza war, they are making themselves heard.It's one example of one group. My inclination is that a few posters on here belong to this or adjacent 'movements,' if we can call them that. They're loud on the internet and, like the article mentioned, are amplified on social media by Musk & Co.
The story of Jackson Hinkle — one of the most visible figures of the MAGA Communists — illustrates the origins of this movement. As a teenager, Hinkle wore a Bernie Sanders t-shirt and took a stand against nuclear power plants and firearms. He even appeared in a video for a famous environmental organization.
But then something went wrong. Last year Hinkle defined himself on Twitter as: “American patriot, God-fearing, pro-family, Marxist-Leninist, pro-Palestine, pro-Russia and China, anti-deep state, anti-imperialist, anti-woke, pro-growth, anti-monopoly, pro-gun, pro-fossil fuel.” His radicalization crystallized with the defeat of Sanders in the 2020 Democratic primaries, when some of Sanders’ followers, rather than supporting the official Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, opted for populist and anti-institutional positions. This is how Marcos Reguera, a researcher on the American far right, tells it.
Alexander Reid Ross, author of Against the Fascist Creep, explains that Hinkle gradually became integrated into the anti-imperialist movement in the United States: “It is infested by the far right and disinformation campaigns, and advocates for overthrowing military commitments. They are against anything the U.S. does to support Ukraine or Taiwan.” In 2022, Hinkle was interviewed by the controversial commentator Tucker Carlson on Fox, where “he talked about supporting Trump to end the war and for the woke left to cease to exist,” notes Jaime Caro, an Alt-Right researcher. However, it was with the Gaza war and the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk (who powers the algorithms of the far right) that Hinkle’s fame grew.
In reality, MAGA Communists say they don’t fully agree with Trump’s political vision. But addressing the working class through him, they explain, is the only way to channel working-class militancy away from capitalism and towards a communist future.
There's a lot of anger in former (?) US allies like Canada that I think haven't been properly analyzed yet because it's so new. Personally I think it's about betrayal . There's a lot written by Americans against Trump. But how much is written to defend neighbors and friends in Canada, Europe? Not much really. I think it's because there's more agreements with Trump policy and rhetoric than people in the US realize — but being creatures of the environment, they cannot see it. So there's silence. Again that's just my personal opinion, I'm sure it's not popular. Oh well
[Edit: apologies for the long quote, didn't have the time to trim it properly]
posted by UN at 1:00 PM on February 4
What has anyone on the left on Metafilter said in support of Donald Trump? How do you come by that inclination?
Also the main person quoted in this article about MAGA-Communists concedes, in the article you linked, that the fringe "MAGA Communist" is part of the "far right," not the left.
posted by kensington314 at 1:40 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
Also the main person quoted in this article about MAGA-Communists concedes, in the article you linked, that the fringe "MAGA Communist" is part of the "far right," not the left.
posted by kensington314 at 1:40 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
Who here is championing tax cuts and supporting Russia? Name names.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:41 PM on February 4
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 1:41 PM on February 4
For what it's worth, the people I've run into who espouse that sort of shit are either "leftists" in that they rabidly anti-US to the extent that anything that causes the US to decay is treated as a good thing or they're just crypto-fascists who use leftist rhetoric as a shield. There's certainly people who long for an authoritarian leader to control the country who might start as radical leftists but pretty soon realise the right has the real uncut shit for them. I haven't seen that in this thread or in the jacobin articles linked.
posted by Ferreous at 1:55 PM on February 4 [5 favorites]
posted by Ferreous at 1:55 PM on February 4 [5 favorites]
But then something went wrong.
The thing that went wrong for Hinkle is that he learned he could get more engagement if he became a Trumpist. MAGA doesn't require a coherent philosophy--I mean, obvs, it would collapse in an instant if it did. You're allowed to believe some weird stuff that your fellow rightists don't sign on to--the chaos of it is part of the fun, one assumes. (As are the paychecks.) It reminds one of nothing so much as the period after 9/11, when there was a cottage industry of pundits proclaiming their conversion from the left to militarized Islamophobia.
posted by mittens at 2:20 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
The thing that went wrong for Hinkle is that he learned he could get more engagement if he became a Trumpist. MAGA doesn't require a coherent philosophy--I mean, obvs, it would collapse in an instant if it did. You're allowed to believe some weird stuff that your fellow rightists don't sign on to--the chaos of it is part of the fun, one assumes. (As are the paychecks.) It reminds one of nothing so much as the period after 9/11, when there was a cottage industry of pundits proclaiming their conversion from the left to militarized Islamophobia.
posted by mittens at 2:20 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
I think it's because there's more agreements with Trump policy and rhetoric than people in the US realize — but being creatures of the environment, they cannot see it. So there's silence. Again that's just my personal opinion, I'm sure it's not popular
I'm not sure I understand this statement. I think you're saying that there is broad agreement with Trump policy and rhetoric by people in the US who voted against Trump? Is that accurate to what you're saying? If so . . . say more? I don't really understand it. Everyone I know is sick to death with all this and many people are worried for their well-being and that of loved ones here in the US and elsewhere.
posted by kensington314 at 3:21 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure I understand this statement. I think you're saying that there is broad agreement with Trump policy and rhetoric by people in the US who voted against Trump? Is that accurate to what you're saying? If so . . . say more? I don't really understand it. Everyone I know is sick to death with all this and many people are worried for their well-being and that of loved ones here in the US and elsewhere.
posted by kensington314 at 3:21 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
Mittens—I remember the joke “after 9/11 I got really mad about chappaquiddick”!
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:33 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 3:33 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
There's certainly people who long for an authoritarian leader to control the country who might start as radical leftists but pretty soon realise the right has the real uncut shit for them
The tankie-to-Nazi pipeline. You hate to see it.
posted by non canadian guy at 3:42 PM on February 4 [1 favorite]
The tankie-to-Nazi pipeline. You hate to see it.
posted by non canadian guy at 3:42 PM on February 4 [1 favorite]
I think you're saying that there is broad agreement with Trump policy and rhetoric by people in the US who voted against Trump? Is that accurate to what you're saying? If so . . . say more? I don't really understand it.
Yes, unfortunately — especially in terms of foreign affairs. I see few, nearly no one, putting up a robust argument against Trump about Greenland. The prominent figures are all busy I guess. Here, you have people on this thread bringing up the history of Greenland/Denmark instead.
The rest of the world is flooded with MAGA-Communist garbage posts thanks on American social media platforms. But nobody wants to take responsibility. Most Americans on the left just want to keep their hands clean. Not their problem. Not their politics. It's just on the fringe. It's actually right wing really. And so on and so on. That's comfortable, I'm sure.
If an outsider brings up a festering wound on the left (like the El Pais article does), you'll have 10 commentators come in defense. Defense of what? Maybe....it'd be nice to see Americans be less defensive. If you can't or don't deal with these issues, and don't even want to acknowledge that they exist, well, what do you expect from the rest of the world?
Think of it this way.
A nation is ruled by a maniac doing heil hitler on TV. The entire country does a collective shrug. People from that same nation are telling others here, "hey you prove to me how there's a problem here." Umm, yeah ok.
posted by UN at 4:23 PM on February 4 [1 favorite]
Yes, unfortunately — especially in terms of foreign affairs. I see few, nearly no one, putting up a robust argument against Trump about Greenland. The prominent figures are all busy I guess. Here, you have people on this thread bringing up the history of Greenland/Denmark instead.
The rest of the world is flooded with MAGA-Communist garbage posts thanks on American social media platforms. But nobody wants to take responsibility. Most Americans on the left just want to keep their hands clean. Not their problem. Not their politics. It's just on the fringe. It's actually right wing really. And so on and so on. That's comfortable, I'm sure.
If an outsider brings up a festering wound on the left (like the El Pais article does), you'll have 10 commentators come in defense. Defense of what? Maybe....it'd be nice to see Americans be less defensive. If you can't or don't deal with these issues, and don't even want to acknowledge that they exist, well, what do you expect from the rest of the world?
Think of it this way.
A nation is ruled by a maniac doing heil hitler on TV. The entire country does a collective shrug. People from that same nation are telling others here, "hey you prove to me how there's a problem here." Umm, yeah ok.
posted by UN at 4:23 PM on February 4 [1 favorite]
I think it’s more like, we live here, we talk to these people, some of spend our entire adult lives ensconced in political spaces where people do politics, and when someone says “hey this thing I heard about is a really big problem” and everyone who has first hand experience with what you are talking about is like “sounds like classic bullshit about how the left are the real nazis that centrists in the US have used for literally centuries to discredit leftward opposition, maybe you should be skeptical about that one article you read”
So it’s not that you struck a nerve and now we’re seen, it’s that your parroting a line of bullshit, and we know better, because we’ve seen it all before.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:45 PM on February 4 [1 favorite]
So it’s not that you struck a nerve and now we’re seen, it’s that your parroting a line of bullshit, and we know better, because we’ve seen it all before.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 4:45 PM on February 4 [1 favorite]
Yes, unfortunately — especially in terms of foreign affairs. I see few, nearly no one, putting up a robust argument against Trump about Greenland. The prominent figures are all busy I guess.
A "left" barely exists in the US. What functions as a channel for left politics is more a centerish filter that keeps left political views out of the discourse in favor of a very confused, ah . . . I don't even know what to call the politics of the Democratic Party at this point. But, that left-filtering entity, the Democratic Party is out of power and impotent.
I don't know a single person in my lefty circles and centrist circles who wants to see the US control any aspect of Greenland. It is not a shrug: people are terrified and people do not have power. In my city yesterday thousands of people shut down the downtown area in opposition to ICE. These protesters are (1) on broad "left" in the US, (2) largely some of the most vulnerable people to deportation and other fuckery, and (3) yes, probably have a less developed set of concerns about Greenland vis a vis whether they'll return home to find their mother is gone.
I think it's just kinda weird to lay an unsubstantiated claim about left sympathy with Trump in a web forum where people from the broad US left are currently discussing whether and how to renew their passports as trans people, or whether and how to leave as LGBTQ/immigrant/Federal employee/vocal opposition/you name it residents of the US--literally discussing life and death questions for themselves and their communities. I'm gonna say it, it feels suspect, l don't know why you would deny the very real panic that millions of people are currently feeling and call it "a collective shrug" because people are insufficiently focused on Greenland! Wondering whether Elon Musk has my Social Security number and whether ICE is going to deport my next door neighbor tomorrow doesn't somehow imply that I'm otherwise supportive of Trump or shrugging my way through the nightmarescape.
If an outsider brings up a festering wound on the left (like the El Pais article does), you'll have 10 commentators come in defense. Defense of what?
I'll just point out again, Alexander Reid Ross, the author who is quoted at length in the article you linked, and on whose book the entire article seems based, says in the very same article, "Ultimately, MAGA Communism, Reid Ross notes, is “a far-right agenda placed in an anti-imperialist environment.”
There's no evidence anywhere in what you linked of a verifiable or broad sympathy on the left for Trump. Do we call Norman Podhoretz a leftist with right-wing sympathies? No! We call him a bigot and a right wing freak who was briefly associated with the left as a young man.
posted by kensington314 at 5:30 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
A "left" barely exists in the US. What functions as a channel for left politics is more a centerish filter that keeps left political views out of the discourse in favor of a very confused, ah . . . I don't even know what to call the politics of the Democratic Party at this point. But, that left-filtering entity, the Democratic Party is out of power and impotent.
I don't know a single person in my lefty circles and centrist circles who wants to see the US control any aspect of Greenland. It is not a shrug: people are terrified and people do not have power. In my city yesterday thousands of people shut down the downtown area in opposition to ICE. These protesters are (1) on broad "left" in the US, (2) largely some of the most vulnerable people to deportation and other fuckery, and (3) yes, probably have a less developed set of concerns about Greenland vis a vis whether they'll return home to find their mother is gone.
I think it's just kinda weird to lay an unsubstantiated claim about left sympathy with Trump in a web forum where people from the broad US left are currently discussing whether and how to renew their passports as trans people, or whether and how to leave as LGBTQ/immigrant/Federal employee/vocal opposition/you name it residents of the US--literally discussing life and death questions for themselves and their communities. I'm gonna say it, it feels suspect, l don't know why you would deny the very real panic that millions of people are currently feeling and call it "a collective shrug" because people are insufficiently focused on Greenland! Wondering whether Elon Musk has my Social Security number and whether ICE is going to deport my next door neighbor tomorrow doesn't somehow imply that I'm otherwise supportive of Trump or shrugging my way through the nightmarescape.
If an outsider brings up a festering wound on the left (like the El Pais article does), you'll have 10 commentators come in defense. Defense of what?
I'll just point out again, Alexander Reid Ross, the author who is quoted at length in the article you linked, and on whose book the entire article seems based, says in the very same article, "Ultimately, MAGA Communism, Reid Ross notes, is “a far-right agenda placed in an anti-imperialist environment.”
There's no evidence anywhere in what you linked of a verifiable or broad sympathy on the left for Trump. Do we call Norman Podhoretz a leftist with right-wing sympathies? No! We call him a bigot and a right wing freak who was briefly associated with the left as a young man.
posted by kensington314 at 5:30 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
I'm gonna say it, it feels suspect, l don't know why you would deny the very real panic that millions of people are currently feeling and call it "a collective shrug" because people are insufficiently focused on Greenland!
I don't deny that people are traumatized and panicked in the US. I noted above that clearly people are too busy to worry about Greenland. That's the point. If there's no opposition to Trump's imperialist agenda, as you said, Americans are fully concerned with internal affairs, then....how does that look to from the outside? No opposition is by default tacit approval.
Left leaning intellectuals in the US were always quick to criticize other countries when their governments' committed what were or were seen as either illegal, immoral, imperial, what have you. Did they think that the people living in those countries have no problems of their own? No, of course they did. So why is the double standard acceptable here?
So it’s not that you struck a nerve and now we’re seen, it’s that your parroting a line of bullshit, and we know better, because we’ve seen it all before
This is the aggressive bully language of Trump and a perfect example of what I mentioned previously. No content, no thinking, just name calling, ignorant and arrogant finger pointing. Is this coming from the "left"?
posted by UN at 6:24 PM on February 4
I don't deny that people are traumatized and panicked in the US. I noted above that clearly people are too busy to worry about Greenland. That's the point. If there's no opposition to Trump's imperialist agenda, as you said, Americans are fully concerned with internal affairs, then....how does that look to from the outside? No opposition is by default tacit approval.
Left leaning intellectuals in the US were always quick to criticize other countries when their governments' committed what were or were seen as either illegal, immoral, imperial, what have you. Did they think that the people living in those countries have no problems of their own? No, of course they did. So why is the double standard acceptable here?
So it’s not that you struck a nerve and now we’re seen, it’s that your parroting a line of bullshit, and we know better, because we’ve seen it all before
This is the aggressive bully language of Trump and a perfect example of what I mentioned previously. No content, no thinking, just name calling, ignorant and arrogant finger pointing. Is this coming from the "left"?
posted by UN at 6:24 PM on February 4
Left leaning intellectuals in the US were always quick to criticize other countries when their governments' committed what were or were seen as either illegal, immoral, imperial, what have you. Did they think that the people living in those countries have no problems of their own? No, of course they did. So why is the double standard acceptable here?
There's no double standard. You're making up a perspective on the US left which you haven't substantiated.
posted by kensington314 at 7:08 PM on February 4 [3 favorites]
There's no double standard. You're making up a perspective on the US left which you haven't substantiated.
posted by kensington314 at 7:08 PM on February 4 [3 favorites]
The far left and far right in America are united in supporting Trump and Musk's imperial ambitions.
If you're saying that no one has vocalized opposition to Trump's interest in buying Greenland, and that silence is functionally assent, you're obviously right.
There are a lot of reasons for the silence, however, and I'll say that skipping over the current threats to the American people by Trump, which are substantial for many.
The news media in the U.S. has been sickly ever since the 2008 Recession. In those nearly 20 years, something like 50,000 reporters have been laid off nationwide. The first to go were foreign correspondents because they were the most costly. The result is foreign reporting is generally abysmal, so as an "avenue of learning" that's largely been cut off.
When foreign parts do make a lot of news, it's typically because something egregious is happening overseas, like war. These last few years, some on the left have been heavily focused on the plight of the Palestinians and a bipartisan number of others have been focused on Ukraine. To the degree that resources come into it — and they do — I realized a long time ago if Ukraine has astoundingly good soil, it likely had rare earths too. When I went to look it up, I found no U.S. reporting on it at all, even though it's clearly a major draw for Putin. Thus, I also paid attention when Zelensky offered access as a come-on to Trump, and wasn't surprised when Trump bit. The question then becomes how do Trump, Putin, Greenland, and Ukraine all fit together. I have worries.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:22 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
If you're saying that no one has vocalized opposition to Trump's interest in buying Greenland, and that silence is functionally assent, you're obviously right.
There are a lot of reasons for the silence, however, and I'll say that skipping over the current threats to the American people by Trump, which are substantial for many.
The news media in the U.S. has been sickly ever since the 2008 Recession. In those nearly 20 years, something like 50,000 reporters have been laid off nationwide. The first to go were foreign correspondents because they were the most costly. The result is foreign reporting is generally abysmal, so as an "avenue of learning" that's largely been cut off.
When foreign parts do make a lot of news, it's typically because something egregious is happening overseas, like war. These last few years, some on the left have been heavily focused on the plight of the Palestinians and a bipartisan number of others have been focused on Ukraine. To the degree that resources come into it — and they do — I realized a long time ago if Ukraine has astoundingly good soil, it likely had rare earths too. When I went to look it up, I found no U.S. reporting on it at all, even though it's clearly a major draw for Putin. Thus, I also paid attention when Zelensky offered access as a come-on to Trump, and wasn't surprised when Trump bit. The question then becomes how do Trump, Putin, Greenland, and Ukraine all fit together. I have worries.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:22 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
MAGA doesn't require a coherent philosophy
The more I think about the recent US election and the perplexing anger right here in MeFi re: Israel/Palestine.. like for some, genocide was the price to keep the Worse Party out but no-one could just say that, it was wrong anyway, and as I type this and think about words like left, right, fascist, that's all we do here. Type words.
Be careful what you're sure about? There is no moral to this story
posted by ginger.beef at 9:18 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
The more I think about the recent US election and the perplexing anger right here in MeFi re: Israel/Palestine.. like for some, genocide was the price to keep the Worse Party out but no-one could just say that, it was wrong anyway, and as I type this and think about words like left, right, fascist, that's all we do here. Type words.
Be careful what you're sure about? There is no moral to this story
posted by ginger.beef at 9:18 PM on February 4 [2 favorites]
IIRC, Ukraine has four things that Russia really really wants:
- advantageous geopolitical position, including warm water ports on the Crimean peninsula and control of the Black Sea,
- lots of unexploited fossil fuels, including gas,
- lots of rare earth minerals, and
- 25% of the world's most productive agricultural land.
With the bonus of a few million younger men to be dragooned into military service for the Motherland.
posted by Pouteria at 10:51 PM on February 4 [1 favorite]
- advantageous geopolitical position, including warm water ports on the Crimean peninsula and control of the Black Sea,
- lots of unexploited fossil fuels, including gas,
- lots of rare earth minerals, and
- 25% of the world's most productive agricultural land.
With the bonus of a few million younger men to be dragooned into military service for the Motherland.
posted by Pouteria at 10:51 PM on February 4 [1 favorite]
Any idea why Ukrainian soil needs less fertiliser than EU soil? It's likely damage done by industrial farming in the EU. Also, labor costs could impact the agricultural productivity there, like imagine Mexican farm worker wages in the US, but without deportation risks.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:14 AM on February 5
posted by jeffburdges at 12:14 AM on February 5
Any idea why Ukrainian soil needs less fertiliser than EU soil?
I wasn't sure if you were asking that rhetorically, but if not, take a look at Ukraine's chernozems and the (pre)history of European agriculture.
posted by mittens at 3:44 AM on February 5 [5 favorites]
I wasn't sure if you were asking that rhetorically, but if not, take a look at Ukraine's chernozems and the (pre)history of European agriculture.
posted by mittens at 3:44 AM on February 5 [5 favorites]
I was actually just reading about it in Opinion: Ukraine war also a battle for land and soil.
Just as a country's ore deposits depend on its geology, the fertility of Ukrainian soil is based on a uniquely thick humus layer and an extremely fertile material made up of what are known as loess deposits.posted by Violet Blue at 7:58 AM on February 5 [6 favorites]
This type of fertile soil, referred to as "dark earth" or "black earth" due to its color, is found in other parts of the world, too. But nowhere else in Europe is it so widespread as in southern and eastern Ukraine and the neighboring parts of Russia—in other words, precisely the regions Russia lays claim to.
By way of comparison, the thickness of the humus-rich layer typical of dark earth is often less than 20 cm. But in Ukrainian farmland, it is commonly at least 60 cm and can even be more than a meter thick. And that's across an area roughly six times the size of Switzerland.
Ukrainian soil will become even more valuable in the future. In one way or another, virtually all forms of commercial farming lead to soil degradation, which in turn has a negative impact on soil fertility and yield. As a result, much of Europe's soil is already heavily degraded and thus less resilient to disruptions such as climate change. Ukraine's dark earth will be able to successfully offset this kind of damage and loss in yield for many decades to come.
Indeed, against the backdrop of climate change, this fact takes on a new relevance.
The question then becomes how do Trump, Putin, Greenland, and Ukraine all fit together.
Actually, now that Trump is talking about beautiful seaside views in Gaza, the picture is becoming clearer. He doesn't want to work with Putin so much as outdo him albeit with a slightly more Orban-like bent.
You can't fault the guy for ambition. The dream is looking ever more something like this:
* Dominance over Panama's shipping lanes
* Dominance over Greenland's shipping lanes
* Dominance over the U.S. government and its people
* Outsourced labor in the form of Elon Musk
* Wealth from Ukraine's mineral resources
* Wealth from Greenland's mineral resources
* Wealth from pumping every last drop of U.S. oil
* Wealth from "redirecting" American tax dollars
* Wealth from Gaza redeveloped as the Riviera of the Middle East
posted by Violet Blue at 8:30 AM on February 5
Actually, now that Trump is talking about beautiful seaside views in Gaza, the picture is becoming clearer. He doesn't want to work with Putin so much as outdo him albeit with a slightly more Orban-like bent.
You can't fault the guy for ambition. The dream is looking ever more something like this:
* Dominance over Panama's shipping lanes
* Dominance over Greenland's shipping lanes
* Dominance over the U.S. government and its people
* Outsourced labor in the form of Elon Musk
* Wealth from Ukraine's mineral resources
* Wealth from Greenland's mineral resources
* Wealth from pumping every last drop of U.S. oil
* Wealth from "redirecting" American tax dollars
* Wealth from Gaza redeveloped as the Riviera of the Middle East
posted by Violet Blue at 8:30 AM on February 5
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1161
H.R.1161 - To authorize the President to enter into negotiations to acquire Greenland and to rename Greenland as "Red, White, and Blueland".
posted by subdee at 10:53 AM on February 11
H.R.1161 - To authorize the President to enter into negotiations to acquire Greenland and to rename Greenland as "Red, White, and Blueland".
posted by subdee at 10:53 AM on February 11
If we're renaming others' nations, then clearly the US should be called Trumpistan.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:28 PM on February 11 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 1:28 PM on February 11 [1 favorite]
Changing the name like that will put a lot of Greenland citizens who were indifferent over on the opposed side especially with such a US self serving option. You'd think nominal conservatives would understand that better.
I realize that TFG et. al. just don't give a fuck what a citizen of Greenland thinks but still.
posted by Mitheral at 2:06 PM on February 11
I realize that TFG et. al. just don't give a fuck what a citizen of Greenland thinks but still.
posted by Mitheral at 2:06 PM on February 11
6% of Greenlanders are for becoming a part of the US. That's a lot less than the normal crazification factor at 27%. So I don't think the name makes a lot of a difference either way.
Right now the situation in Greenland is pretty chaotic and it is unclear who will win the election, but everyone agrees that they don't want to be taken over by the US. On the other hand, it is becoming more and more clear that it will take several years before Greenland can achieve full independence, even if they vote for it in a referendum later in the year. Some are even saying that a referendum this year isn't realistic (and I can believe that).
The US threats have made everyone in both Greenland and Denmark think about things in a different way. Actually, the support for independence in Greenland is falling a bit, which does make some sense.
posted by mumimor at 2:51 PM on February 11 [5 favorites]
Right now the situation in Greenland is pretty chaotic and it is unclear who will win the election, but everyone agrees that they don't want to be taken over by the US. On the other hand, it is becoming more and more clear that it will take several years before Greenland can achieve full independence, even if they vote for it in a referendum later in the year. Some are even saying that a referendum this year isn't realistic (and I can believe that).
The US threats have made everyone in both Greenland and Denmark think about things in a different way. Actually, the support for independence in Greenland is falling a bit, which does make some sense.
posted by mumimor at 2:51 PM on February 11 [5 favorites]
Associated Press barred from Oval Office for not using ‘Gulf of America’
posted by jeffburdges at 4:01 PM on February 11 [2 favorites]
posted by jeffburdges at 4:01 PM on February 11 [2 favorites]
In A Greenland Plot More Cynical Than Fiction, Danish screenwriter Adam Price opines on Donald Trump's reality and the one Price imagined in the acclaimed political drama Borgen.
posted by Violet Blue at 7:55 PM on February 11 [1 favorite]
posted by Violet Blue at 7:55 PM on February 11 [1 favorite]
H.R.1161 - To authorize the President to enter into negotiations to acquire Greenland and to rename Greenland as "Red, White, and Blueland".
Red, White and Blueland makes me want to bang my head in embarrassment. Presumably, it, like "Gulf of America," is intended to evoke Trump's patriotism, much as his McDonald's stunt was meant to evoke his working man sympathies and Trump's occasional Biblical invocations are meant to evoke religiosity.
posted by Violet Blue at 8:02 PM on February 11
Red, White and Blueland makes me want to bang my head in embarrassment. Presumably, it, like "Gulf of America," is intended to evoke Trump's patriotism, much as his McDonald's stunt was meant to evoke his working man sympathies and Trump's occasional Biblical invocations are meant to evoke religiosity.
posted by Violet Blue at 8:02 PM on February 11
Danes offer to buy California to spite Trump’s Greenland aims: ‘We’ll bring hygge to Hollywood’
“Have you ever looked at a map and thought, ‘You know what Denmark needs? More sunshine, palm trees, and roller skates.’ Well, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make that dream a reality,” the petition reads. “Let’s buy California from Donald Trump!”
Across the top of the petition’s website, a slogan calls to “Måke Califørnia Great Ægain” and supposed supporters like Lars Ulrich of Metallica and Viggo Mortensen of Lord of the Rings fame offer their reasons for making California “New Denmark”.
“We’ll bring hygge to Hollywood, bike lanes to Beverly Hills and organic smørrebrød to every street corner. Rule of law, universal healthcare and fact-based politics might apply,” the petition continues.
posted by mumimor at 5:27 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
“Have you ever looked at a map and thought, ‘You know what Denmark needs? More sunshine, palm trees, and roller skates.’ Well, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make that dream a reality,” the petition reads. “Let’s buy California from Donald Trump!”
Across the top of the petition’s website, a slogan calls to “Måke Califørnia Great Ægain” and supposed supporters like Lars Ulrich of Metallica and Viggo Mortensen of Lord of the Rings fame offer their reasons for making California “New Denmark”.
“We’ll bring hygge to Hollywood, bike lanes to Beverly Hills and organic smørrebrød to every street corner. Rule of law, universal healthcare and fact-based politics might apply,” the petition continues.
posted by mumimor at 5:27 AM on February 12 [2 favorites]
Just a thought:
I read about the congressional hearing on Greenland in my (Danish) daily paper, and it really struck me how neither Democrats nor Republicans have any idea about how foreign countries work. The same with the so-called experts. The way the third expert talked about "indigenous people" as if they are a minority in a reservation rather than the sovereign people of Greenland makes my spine chill. Well everything he said makes my spine chill.
Obviously there are important exceptions, but most Americans are so indoctrinated with the concept that the US is the best and most free and democratic nation in the world that they are simply unable to understand how other people think. In the case of Greenland they wholly fail to understand the needs and dreams of the people of Greenland. Since WW2 other countries have just shrugged it off, since the US has been a stable ally. Now things are different.
For the US, this has meant that the US has been very dependent on the "Five Eyes" intelligence sharing along with knowledge from other democratic allies in Europe and Asia (and also on intelligence from Israel and Saudi Arabia on the Middle East which has obviously been almost useless). By breaking up the post-WW2 international order, and placing obviously unreliable people at the top posts of the administration the USA is about to access to information and knowledge from the rest of the world. Who will share knowledge with Tulsi Gabbard? Absolutely no-one.
Threatening to take over Greenland is not just about Greenland and Denmark. It is demonstrating to all allies of the US that the alliance is broken. (The same is happening with Gaza in the ME).
posted by mumimor at 5:25 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
I read about the congressional hearing on Greenland in my (Danish) daily paper, and it really struck me how neither Democrats nor Republicans have any idea about how foreign countries work. The same with the so-called experts. The way the third expert talked about "indigenous people" as if they are a minority in a reservation rather than the sovereign people of Greenland makes my spine chill. Well everything he said makes my spine chill.
Obviously there are important exceptions, but most Americans are so indoctrinated with the concept that the US is the best and most free and democratic nation in the world that they are simply unable to understand how other people think. In the case of Greenland they wholly fail to understand the needs and dreams of the people of Greenland. Since WW2 other countries have just shrugged it off, since the US has been a stable ally. Now things are different.
For the US, this has meant that the US has been very dependent on the "Five Eyes" intelligence sharing along with knowledge from other democratic allies in Europe and Asia (and also on intelligence from Israel and Saudi Arabia on the Middle East which has obviously been almost useless). By breaking up the post-WW2 international order, and placing obviously unreliable people at the top posts of the administration the USA is about to access to information and knowledge from the rest of the world. Who will share knowledge with Tulsi Gabbard? Absolutely no-one.
Threatening to take over Greenland is not just about Greenland and Denmark. It is demonstrating to all allies of the US that the alliance is broken. (The same is happening with Gaza in the ME).
posted by mumimor at 5:25 AM on February 13 [4 favorites]
Oh, I should sum up the POV of the Republicans, which goes for both Greenland and Gaza: we don't want more brown people to govern themselves.
posted by mumimor at 5:50 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
posted by mumimor at 5:50 AM on February 13 [1 favorite]
« Older Dance! The computer commands it! | The sun shines out of our behinds Newer »
Operation Atlantic Freedom, maybe.
posted by Lemkin at 11:08 AM on February 3 [2 favorites]