If we bought Greenland, who would get the money? Denmark or “Greenland” collectively, or each Greenlander? If we paid each resident, they might very well go for it.
Not at all. They will likely become US nationals. A separate class from US citizens. Most American Samoans, for example, are US nationals. They can’t vote in elections if they move to the US. They can freely move to the US but have to apply for citizenship under the regular rules. Nationals in other US territories only became citizens when the necessary laws were passed. It’s been 120 years for American Samoa and no such law yet.
Note that the most common modern rule is that when a territory is peaceably transferred to another nation, people are allowed to retain their former citizenship if they wish.
For example, when the US took over Puerto Rico they became “Puerto Rican citizens”. (A status they still have, btw.) In 1917 an act was passed to allow them to become US citizens. Sources differ but about 287-288 declined US citizenship.
Also NO, the Norse did not steal Greenland from the Inuits. The areas they settled were occupied by the Dorset peoples. And the Inuits themselves arrived much later.
The early Norse settlements probably died out by the mid-1400s. The Thule, the ancestors of the Inuit, arrived in that general time frame. The recolonization of the island by Norway didn’t begin until the 1700s, so yes, Norway did nick it from the Inuit.
But then, the Norse were there first, they just went on a hiatus or extended vacation. Does not being there nullify existing claims? That’s a slippery slope.
I would think it makes more sense for Canada to buy Greenland. We have more experience managing that sort of territory, it’s right next door, and many of the occupants came from here…
Plus, one thing I’ve seen suggests much of the internal land mass of Greenland - if all the ice melts - is below sea level. So not as big a real estate deal as it seems.
Although Norway’s claim may have been based in part on previous discoveries and settlement, in general, lack of or abandonment of effective occupation is usually considered to open the door for colonization by other countries. At any rate, the nitpick was over which indigenous group was there when Norway (as opposed to “the Norse”) initiated its colonization, and the answer to that is the Inuit.
Not really. See Insular Cases
I stand corrected on the citizenship question. Thanks, guys; ignorance fought.
But there’s also the point that this isn’t going to happen without the consent of the Greenlanders. Currently they enjoy full citizenship, and full political participation, in the Kingdom of Denmark (plus they are citizens of the EU). Simple self-respect would prevent them from swapping that for second-class citizenship, and semi-colonial status, as a territory of the United States.
(Sure, the deal might provide for them to retain their Danish citizenship. But being a citizen of a country that you don’t live in, and that doesn’t exercise sovereign authority over you, is not quite so important as being a citizen of the country that does.)
A crazy thought: the US buys Greenland, and somehow, through some accident, becomes part of the EU. Boy, would that confuse Britain… 
Is it possible for Trump to buy Greenland personally? (Assuming enough money etc.) The way this whole thing was first described to me, it wasn’t clear whether Trump was wanting to do this as an agent of the United States or as an individual. I was reminded a little of the Congo Free State, which as far as I know was not a territory of the Belgian state, but belonged to King Leopold II personally.
I think we need to distinguish between (a) buying land in Greenland, which Trump, or indeed the US government, could in theory do (were it not for the fact that, I understand, Greenlandic law does not allow the private ownership of land) and (b) buying the sovereignty of Greenland (which doesn’t necessarily involve acquiring ownership of any particular land).
The status of the Congo Free State was (deliberately?) unclear. Did sovereignty vest in Leopold II himself, or in the International Association of the Congo, an organisation effectively controlled (though not actually owned) by Leopold? Probably the latter; in 1885 at the Berlin Conference the major European powers and the US recognised the IAC as sovereign in the territories which it controlled.
The IAC, however, hadn’t bought the territory; it has simply explored it and taken effective control of it. The view from Europe was that there was no sovereign authority in the area prior to that. Just as many European states had established sovereignty over previously “uncivilised” regions with no sovereign, so private companies were able to do so. The IAC wasn’t by any means the first sovereign company. The British East India Company had been sovereign in large parts of India (acquired by conquest or treaty) until the crown took over its Indian possessions in 1858. And there were many other similar examples of companies exercising sovereign authority over territory.
So, if, say, an entity within the Trump organisation were able to get Denmark and Greenland to agree to sell the soveignty of Greenland to it, would other countries recognise that company as sovereign in Greenland? Almost certainly not. Changed attitudes to colonialism, and a strong anti-colonialist trend in public international law, would almost certainly mean that the transaction would be universally rejected as illegitimate by other sovereigns. We’re not living in the nineteenth century any more. Trump might be able to buy land in Greenland, if Greenlandic law permitted this, but it is doubtful if he could buy sovereignty.
The United States could, by treaty, acquire soverignty over Greenland, but the treaty would have to respect the Greenlanders right of self-determination, meaning I think that Greenland probably couldn’t be permanently reduced to colonial status as a US possession. It could become an integral part of the United States, as a state or part of a state, or it could enter into some external association with the US as a dependent territory of some kind, but in the latter case I think it would have to retain the right to withdraw from that association in the future.
And Norway was actually in a union with Denmark at that time, and remained so until 1814 when it was forced into a union with Sweden instead following the Treaty of Kiel, while Greenland, Iceland and the Faroes remained under the Danish crown.
Don’t forget too Rupertsland, ceded by charter to the Hudson’s Bay Company by the crown. (Hence, the reason why Canada should own Fargo ND. 
) It required legal decrees to transfer this land to Canada when necessary.
I think the Danes and/or Greenies should take Trump on his offer, and begin negotiating price. It would create a useful historical record even if no price were finally agreed. As for "Where does the money come from? ", the U.S. has ample gold reserves for the purchase; if I were the Danes I might make gold payment a condition of the sale.
“in 1854 … more than two million acres of Ozarks land sold for an average price of 12.5 cents per acre.” What’s that land worth now?
Note that $7.2 million in 1867 with compound interest of 7.5% annually would be $428 billion today.
I think that part of the offer that Trump was considering is that, was that the US would take over the $500 billion a year subsidy payments that the government of Denmark pays to keep the place running. So it it were to happen (Spolier: it’s not) it might be on an installment plan.
Not $500 billion, but about $500 million.
If viewed purely with business lens it almost makes sense as a deal for both sides. To Denmark, Greenland is a money sink costing hundreds of millions of dollars annually, so they should be glad to be rid of it. Meanwhile the US can swoop like a good vulture capitalist buy it cheap, sell off all bits of it that have any value, to the highest bidder, then cut it off to founder into bankruptcy and dissolution leaving all the [DEL]employees[/DEL] residents destitute.
Of course global politics is very different from business.
Ooops typo! :smack:
I beg to differ. My calculator says nearly $428 billion. Although 7.5% interest seems rather high. At 6%, it comes to only $50 billion so small differences in the percentages lead to major differences 152 years later.
One dollar invested at 1% interest in year 0 (my calendar has a year 0, incidentally, so Jan.1, 2000 was the start of the 3rd millennium) would be worth $530 million today. At 2% interest it would be worth $158 quadrillion.
I think you and I are talking about different things. I was referring to the amount of the annual subsidy from Denmark.
If you consider it from a purely business perspective, Denmark would want to maximize its return by opening the negotiation to anyone willing to buy Greenland. Few countries are in a position to pay a lot of money, but I’ll bet that China would be very interested. I’m sure they would like to mine for iron and rare earths there. And it would be a wonderful way for them to establish a military presence in the North Atlantic.
We could have had Grenada, but the fucks in Ottawa nixxed that idea right fucking quick. Imagine Carribean vacation /Canadian Dollar.
First off, Norway was a part of Denmark in the 1700, and could not steal anything.
Second, given that the Inuit replaced the Norse in Greenland and that several theories implicate them in the vanishing of the last Norse, it seems a strange definition of nicked. “Yeah, we came here and exterminated those people, taking their land. They totally nicked it”
Third, the actual settlement of Greenland involves several waves of settlers that vanished. The late Dorset were on the northwestern tip from about 700 AD, and the Norse settled the south about 980. Both areas were empty when they came and it is uncertain whether they ever met.
The ancestors of the current Inuit started arriving around 1300, and by 1500 had replaced both the dorset and the Norse. But there is no doubt that the Norse predated them by over 300 years.