Denmark should rename Greenland

Just change it to Biden Island, and nobody will talk about the files for 4 years.

I don't think you realise how vile this was to say, towards the Greenland native people.

Greenland's native people were wiped out centuries ago. Unless you're talking about Scandinavians, who were the first to reach the southern tip of Greenland. It is kind of an insult to them, though the white people living there today are not their direct descendants. But any 'natives' in Greenland are the descendants of Thule cultures, who displaced both the Dorset and the Norse during the Middle Ages. By your crazy logic, they are immigrants.

Id include both.

What would you call native?

If you'd include both, why wouldn't Americans who formed the colonies be native? Many descendants have been living in America for over 400 years - so many 'founding stock' modern Americans can trace their descent back to the Mayflower. The Thule cultures completed their arctic and subarctic conquests just around 500 years ago. Both groups originated in Siberia. In South Africa, the Bantu and Dutch arrived within a century of one another, the Dutch originating in Northern Europe, the Bantu in Central Africa, and the Afrikaans have been living in South Africa just a century less than the Thule-derived Inuit at the furthest reaches of their expansion. The Magyar/Hungarians and Turks both originate in Central Asia.

To me, native has two meanings. The first is 'has lived on a plot of earth since time immemorial'. This is exceedingly rare - the Khoisan of South Africa being one example. Even many Pacific Islanders murdered oldest indigenous populations as they expanded. The second would be something like 'has established a civilization in an area, a distinct culture, and has inhabited the area for something like twenty generations'.

Most people seem to operate on the same common-sense rules, UNLESS said population is white. Then a different set of rules apply if you're outside of Europe.

I don't think you realise how vile this was to say, towards the Greenland native people.

I'm sure the people of Greenland want Trump to shut his piehole about it more than I do.

Are Jews native to Europe?

Are African Americans native to it now?

Are South Asian and East Asian immigrants native after 3-4 generations deep immigrating to US or Europe?

Be clear.

Yes or no.

@sidewalker

Would they be fine with what yoy said?

Would they be fine with what yoy said?

Yes, they would.

You know, the people of Greenland have a word for people like you.

It's "asshole".

You speak for them?

NATO will defend Greenland from Trumps attempts to invade Greenland .

US is the biggest military power in NATO

Are African Americans native to it now?

I meant US not Europe there.

You speak for them?

Regarding your assholiness ratman, I speak for everyone.

US is the biggest military power in NATO

Not if he attacks Greenland, then we join Russia and China as the big military powers NATO is pledged to defend against.

You do not speak for everyone. It is that same delusion that is the precise judgement you abhor in some Christians.

I believe it is said that Icelanders named Greenland so everyone would go there instead of overpopulating Iceland, which truly is a delightful place. Nevertheless, Greenland is a resource-rich place, and the claim that Trump wants to "take over" or "occupy" Greenland is not what manifest destiny is. I believe without exception, the growth of these United States has not occurred by "take over" tactic, but by the will of the people who live in these places to become part of the United States, typically by territory, first, the statehood. Yes, we have had "wars" with various people over some of the landmass the U.S. now claims as sovereign, but their inhabitants' majority also Mae the choices made to become territories and states. And, yes, there are Greenlanders who oppose the effort. They have the right to oppose, but, are they in the majority? That will be the determining factor. And just because the media says the majority opposes, what gave them the privilege to do so, and what says they are correct? A sponsored poll? Bullshyte. Media-sponsored polls are exactly that. All of them, without exception, driven by an agenda.

Maybe Russia and China will join NATO in defending Greenland along with Canada. Trump might focus on the rest of South America.

Such would, in Russia's case, defeat the purpose of NATO, unless Russia defeats its own desire to "manifest" itself by force, which was the original purpose of NATO to prevent. China doesn't figure in NATO, or at least has not in the past. But NATO is, by name, a NorthAtlantic concern. China has not expressed much interest in that physical invasion. Yet.

It might be harder for Russia to break up NATO than to turn it against America in light of Trump’s ambition on Greenland. The NATO countries are already preparing to defend Greenland against Trump.

Are Jews native to Europe?

The ones that have lived in a given region for hundreds of years, yes. Many jews tend to move around a lot on a grand historical scale so they have more of a transient, in-group loyalty and are not woven in to the local fabric of the population, so are kind of native to nowhere. I imagine in a century or two the Jews in Israel could be said to be native to Israel. Orthodox communities are also very rooted, so you could say places like Brooklyn in America have a native Jewish population. Obviously these communities were disrupted by the holocaust in Europe.

Are African Americans native to it now?

Absolutely. We even have distinct regional cultures in the deep South like the Gullah with their own languages and folklore.

Are South Asian and East Asian immigrants native after 3-4 generations deep immigrating to US or Europe?

No. I said something like twenty generations and unique culture. Japanese in Hawaii or San Francisco could be at that point. Also I feel like constant waves of new immigrants joining a community disrupts the formation of a new culture and constantly ties them back to the foreign culture. Thomas Jefferson ending the slave trade, for example, led to a sudden cutoff to the influx of people from Africa, and at that point there was a sharp cultural divergence, and now African immigrants arriving to the US have little in common with American blacks, with little love lost between the two groups. If immigration is never cut off the population will continue to frame itself as a foreign cohort, will be viewed that way by the natives, and will fail to assimilate long-term into the fabric of the host country.

The Romans dispersed the Jews in 70AD after the Jewish rebellion. The Romans destroyed their temple and slaughtered the Jews and displaced them from their homeland. The Jews scattered across the Mediterranean and into Europe.

The Holocaust drove the Jews out of Europe back to their homeland Israel. By your theory the Jews today are not native to their homeland Israel since the migration only happened after the Holocaust. So one can say the Jews have lost their true identity and are just beginning to assimilate.

I think we have different social perceptions of white colonizers because the narrative for the past several centuries has been white colonists arrive, local populations suffer. If there was a different ethnicity that had done the same thing on the same scale, I'm sure we'd have different standards for them too. Not really about skin color inherently, just the power narratives we associate with skin color.

Not really about skin color inherently, just the power narratives we associate with skin color.

As opposed to black or brown tribes historically taking over an area, and the local population becomes Wakanda 2.0?

that had done the same thing on the same scale

Whites are a global minority, wdym by "scale"

Also I feel like constant waves of new immigrants joining a community disrupts the formation of a new culture and constantly ties them back to the foreign culture. Thomas Jefferson ending the slave trade, for example, led to a sudden cutoff to the influx of people from Africa, and at that point there was a sharp cultural divergence, and now African immigrants arriving to the US have little in common with American blacks, with little love lost between the two groups. If immigration is never cut off the population will continue to frame itself as a foreign cohort, will be viewed that way by the natives, and will fail to assimilate long-term into the fabric of the host country.

This encapsulates my thoughts on the topic exactly.

People look back on the immigrant scares of the 1920s and are like "Hey look, they integrated just fine". Which, they did...with a 41 year (1924-1965) moratorium on new arrivals to help nudge this process along. Nowadays we probably don't need 40 years; maybe 10-20 would suffice. And it doesn't have to be a total ban either. Just reduce the influx of new arrivals from a given large minority group to a trickle (re: enforce existing caps and try to distribute it even-ish among different countries) so they can't exercise an outsized influence on the people already here.

I watched Gangs of New York. That was a fun movie based on immigrant tribalism.

I think we have different social perceptions of white colonizers because the narrative for the past several centuries has been white colonists arrive, local populations suffer. If there was a different ethnicity that had done the same thing on the same scale, I'm sure we'd have different standards for them too. Not really about skin color inherently, just the power narratives we associate with skin color.

I'd argue that this same story has repeated itself constantly, over and over again, throughout human history, with one little difference: when white people did it, the indigenous populations survived. In the myriad other instances of one group subsuming another, the conquered group simply ceased to exist and was wiped out entirely. When you look at the genetics of the subcontinent, for example, Ancestral Indian DNA is overwhelmingly tied to mitochondrial DNA, the implicate being that the men were slaughtered and the women were all impregnated by invading Aryan-speaking steppe invaders.

This is an incredibly brutal way to invade and replace a population, and the ancient Iranian DNA of many subcontinental communities implied that this was a process that repeated itself throughout history. By contrast, when the British invaded they largely installed a colonial system of management, didn't genocide the natives, and largely improved the culture by eliminating practices like widow burning and the thugees. They even exported Indians to manage their African colonies, leading to resentment towards Indian people in Africa. This resulted in a surviving population which was alive to be filled with seething resentment towards their conquerors. So, in many ways this perspective is an example of survivorship bias - white colonizers are viewed with more ire because they were merciful enough to allow segments of the indigenous population to survive to resent them. Waves of incursion and conquest further back in the mists of time felt no such compunction, and merely massacred and replaced the indigenous populations, and people who are dead can't resent the foreigners building a new empire on their mass graves.

Greenland rejects foreign control and annexation and prefer to remain Greenlandic by asserting their identity along with Denmark.

NATO still cannot afford to seriously oppose Trump in favor of Russia, because the existence of that organization still depends on U.S. financial assistance. Trump is of a feeling that NATO is not as strategically important today as is Greenland. Greenland happens to not even be in Russia's hemisphere [nor is China, by the way], but is ion our hemisphere.