> As Greenland is one of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union, citizens of Greenland are European Union citizens.
> In 1985, Greenland left the European Economic Community (EEC), unlike Denmark, which remains a member. The EEC later became the European Union (EU, renamed and expanded in scope in 1992). Greenland retains some ties through its associated relationship with the EU. However, EU law largely does not apply to Greenland except in the area of trade. Greenland is designated as a member of the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) and is thus officially not a part of the European Union, though Greenland can and does receive support from the European Development Fund, Multiannual Financial Framework, European Investment Bank and EU Programmes.
Similar to French and other oversees territories, they can move to and work in the EU, but other EU citizens can't do the reverse. Don't have to follow the laws, yet get funding regardless. Pretty sweet deal.
To be fair, Greenland basically has its own version of Native Americans, complete with a history of Europeans trying to genocide them. There's historical context why EU citizens can't freely flood into Greenland lol
One of the issues they had with the EEC was basically European fishing fleets coming over and decimating their fishing stocks and thus food supplies and jobs.
The current Inuits are no more "native" than the Norse settlers, and in fact arrived later than the Scandinavians.
Comparing the treatment of Greenlanders in any way to "genocide" is terrible. A "misguided" Western intervention, perhaps, but mostly at the wish of the Greenlandic heads.
As late as the 1970s Denmark was actively involved in demographic policies of the country. Including by secretly sterilizing women without consent, which is one of the criteria for genocide in Article II (d) “ Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group”. And just like the Americans Indians, the Greenlandic Inuit had several forced relocations, including to Ittoqqortoormiit in 1925 and to Qaanaaq in 1953.
> The current Inuits [sic] are no more "native" than the Norse settlers
(added [sic] because Inuit is already plural, the singular form is Inuk)
What an utterly false narrative. Just because they migrated relatively late, it doesn’t make them any less indigenous. Greenlanders had unbroken settlements in their lands for a thousand years. The Norse left in the 15th century and than a different population returned 400 years later to colonize the Inuit. By this logic Italians could claim they are as indigenous to Britain as the Anglo-Saxons.
Denmark never sterilised Greenlandic women anymore than they did their own countrymen in Denmark. the only particular effort was in a removable contraceptive. Such efforts were called upon by the inuit Greenlandic leadership.
The "forced relocations" were due to famine!!! The towns were unsustainable due to extreme population growth.
> Greenlanders had unbroken settlements in their lands for a thousand years.
plainly wrong. Just like the Norse, the previous Greenlandic settlers died out.
Those removable contraceptives were put in without consent and without knowledge. Many women wore them for decades without knowing, and were unable to have children throughout that time. The effect here is the same whether the procedure was permanent or not, and the intention was clearly to reduce childbirth among Inuk women.
> The towns were unsustainable due to extreme population growth.
Only if you are unwilling to put in the infrastructure to accommodate. The government of Denmark was racist and didn’t want to spend money that would benefit the people of Greenland.
> The "forced relocations" were due to famine!!!
Where do you get that? Ittoqqortoormiit was established in 1925 by relocating people from Ammassalik to prevent Norway (under Quisling) from establishing a colony there. Even though most the Inuit settlers went north voluntarily (undoubtedly because the hunting grounds were better up North) not everyone did.
The case for Qaanaaq—who were forcibly relocated from Pituffik in 1953 to build an American air base—is even more clear cut. The Danish courts have even ruled that the relocation was illegal and ordered reparations to be payed to the victims. You could argue that the hunting in Ammassalik wasn’t that great in the early 1920s (though saying there was a famine is very much an exaggeration), but there was no such thing in North Greenland in the 1950s. And the people were only relocated to the next fjord over, where the hunting cant have been that much different (in fact the presence of the American military must have made it worse).
>> Greenlanders had unbroken settlements in their lands for a thousand years.
> plainly wrong. Just like the Norse, the previous Greenlandic settlers died out.
Sorry, 700 years than, that is still 450 years longer than the Norwegian/Danish settlements. The Norse and the Inuit both migrated to North America around the same time (1000 CE). The Inuit started in Alaska and spread over to Greenland around 300 years later. Meanwhile the Norse only had 2 settlements in North America, over the course of some 400 years, which they finally abandoned, and didn’t return until 300 years later, by which time the Inuit had populated south and west Greenland with dozens of settlements.
Some norse dropping by in the 10th century means Norway is right to give away an island with an inuit population to Denmark in 1814 or whatever?
Forcing contraceptives and massacres are common methods of genocide, and while it's unlikely we'll find evidence of genocidal intent the danish has acted very much like a typical colonial power.
> Norway is right to give away an island with an inuit population to Denmark in 1814 or whatever?
not only do you lack knowledge of North American history, you do not know the relationship between Norway and Denmark. Would you say the same thing about Iceland, because they are not Brown?
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
> As Greenland is one of the Overseas Countries and Territories of the European Union, citizens of Greenland are European Union citizens.
> In 1985, Greenland left the European Economic Community (EEC), unlike Denmark, which remains a member. The EEC later became the European Union (EU, renamed and expanded in scope in 1992). Greenland retains some ties through its associated relationship with the EU. However, EU law largely does not apply to Greenland except in the area of trade. Greenland is designated as a member of the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) and is thus officially not a part of the European Union, though Greenland can and does receive support from the European Development Fund, Multiannual Financial Framework, European Investment Bank and EU Programmes.
Similar to French and other oversees territories, they can move to and work in the EU, but other EU citizens can't do the reverse. Don't have to follow the laws, yet get funding regardless. Pretty sweet deal.