Words: Iona McDuff (she/her)
‘Greenland is open for business, but it is not for sale.’
In 2019, Trump’s proposition to purchase Greenland made headlines worldwide. What many dismissed as a diplomatic gaffe took on a more ominous tone as the plans resurfaced following his re-election in 2024.
Recently, when asked if he would rule out military or financial means to obtain Greenland, the President implied they were still on the table. Paired with his son Donald Trump Jr. visiting Greenland in early January, this notion sent shockwaves through the country, highlighting long-standing tensions surrounding its sovereignty and reigniting debates about its future.
Formerly a Danish colony and now an autonomous territory of Denmark, Greenland has long been of strategic interest to powerful nations. Trump’s remarks reflect a broader history of territorial expansion and resource-driven geopolitics, raising concerns that Greenland could once again become a target for external control. Reading between the lines, Trump’s comments brought to light the enduring scars of Danish colonialism and the complexities of Greenland’s path toward potential independence.
Greenland’s history is one of European exploration, domination, and control. In the early 17th century, Dano-Norwegian explorers re-established contact with Greenland, setting the stage for centuries of foreign influence over the island’s Indigenous Inuit population. After Denmark and Norway separated in 1814, Greenland was transferred to the Danish crown, becoming a formal colony. It wasn’t until 1953 that Greenland was fully integrated into the Danish state, and its inhabitants were granted Danish citizenship under a revised Danish Constitution.
Despite this integration, the transition was far from straightforward. The mid-20th century was marked by policies that marginalised the Indigenous population, attempted to erase Inuit culture, and aggressively imposed a Danish way of life.
Danish colonisers sterilised Inuit girls as young as 12 in the 1960s and 70s. 2023 saw 67 victims of sterilisation come forward, demanding state compensation and legal action. Now recognised as human rights violations, the sterilisations reflected the paternalistic attitudes of the Danish authorities and a blatant disregard for the autonomy and dignity of the Inuit people.
Today, Greenlanders face significant social and economic disparities when compared to their Danish counterparts. Homelessness, alcoholism, and poverty are far more prevalent among Greenland’s population. With one of the highest suicide rates in the world, Greenland exemplifies the psychological effects of deep-rooted colonial trauma and socio-economic deprivation.
Danish clinical researchers Graven, Abrahamas, and Penderson state that ‘Several studies reveal that mainstream health services fail in meeting the needs of Indigenous peoples and that Indigenous people are often excluded and marginalised from mainstream health services’. As the eyes of the world are fixed on Greenland after Trump’s remarks, this situation highlights the systemic racism – perpetuated even by national institutions such as the healthcare system – against its Indigenous population, despite making up 88% of the overall population.
Internationally, Trump’s threat to acquire Greenland highlights the island’s strategic importance. Greenland’s vast ice sheet, natural resources, and geostrategic position in the Arctic make it a point of interest not just for the United States, but for other global powers like Russia and China. And what’s more, rising temperatures means melting ice, and melting ice means potential new shipping routes and untapped mineral resources, further increasing the island’s geopolitical significance.
For Greenland, this global attention is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it presents opportunities for economic development and increased autonomy through potential international partnerships. On the other hand, it risks turning the island into a pawn in global power dynamics, potentially undermining the question of sovereignty and the welfare of its people.
As Shane Barter, contributor for The Hill, states, ‘Joining the U.S. would run counter to its quest for self-rule. As Greenland’s leaders have made clear, there is no logic in trading one Western colonial power for another. Greenland is open for business, but it is not for sale.’
Whilst the legacy of colonialism has left deep scars, it has also fostered complex ties. Firstly, a strong link between Danish culture and the Greenlandic people. Guldborg Chemnitz, who worked as a Greenlandic interpreter in Denmark, perfectly captures this point in her 1964 article: ‘In a way I have more and more striven to be both a Greenlander and a Dane, to unite them in my personality, and simply be a human being who is fond of the Greenlandic and the Danish things in life’. Secondly, an economic dependence that would raise questions about Greenland’s ability to sustain itself without Danish subsidies.
As Greenland contemplates its next steps, it must weigh the costs and benefits of independence against the realities of economic dependency and geopolitical pressures. The island’s leaders and its people will need to chart a course that prioritises the wellbeing of their society while asserting their right to self-determination. As Greenland navigates its future among the competing interests of foreign powers, its people find themselves similarly caught between cultures, their society shaped by forces beyond their control.
