Greenland II

Americans love success…or so we’re told. Actually, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. We hate the 1%ers, even as we idolize them. We excoriate ‘the old white men’ who expanded the continental US from Plymouth Rock to Alcatraz and from the Rio Grande to the Arctic Shoreline.

Of course the culture of those times tolerated the worst forms of racism, exploitation, and ‘ethnic cleansing’. Don’t whitewash that! But just as poorly as these expansionist administrations scored on human rights, they scored just that well on business acumen.

Today, we have an opportunity to do something new. We can make strategic deals, and we can protect and even enhance human rights in the process. We no longer live in an age of ‘either/or’; this is the era of ‘both/and’ and for the sake of all parties concerned we need to take advantage of the opportunity this provides. 

In the meantime, let’s review some past transactions for guidance:

Louisiana Purchase (1803)

• Purchased from France for $15 million (about $340 million in 2024 dollars)

• Covers all or part of 15 states 

• Fiercely opposed by the Federalist Party (Washington, Adams, Hamilton):

  • Unconstitutional (the President has no authority to acquire new territory)

  • Too expensive ($15 million was 30% of the 1803 Federal budget)

  • A threat to the party’s political power

  • Incorporates more French and Spanish speakers into our population.

  • 
    

Whatever you may think of the Federalists’ motives, their arguments were not factually wrong. But imagine how different world history might have been if their narrow mindedness had prevailed!

Florida (1819)

• Acquired from Spain through the Adams-Onís Treaty

• Cost: $5 million (about $115 million in 2024 dollars)

• Today, Florida's real estate alone is valued at over $1.5 trillion

Mexican Cession (1848)

• Result of the Mexican-American War

• Cost: $18 million (about $650 million in 2024 dollars)

• Spans California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wyoming

• Today, California’s real estate alone is valued at approximately $7 trillion

Gadsden Purchase (1853)

• Acquired from Mexico for $10 million (about $330 million in 2024 dollars) 

• Includes southern Arizona and parts of New Mexico

• Opposed by politicians from Northern states:

  • Too much to pay for “worthless desert land”

  • Might strengthen the political power of the Southern (slave) states

  • 
    

Gadsen’s opponents succeeded in scuttling a proposed $50 million deal for a much larger block of land.

Alaska (1867)

• “Seward’s Folly”, purchased from Russia for $7.2 million ($140 million in 2024 dollars)

• Too much to pay for “frozen, worthless wilderness”.

And now there’s Greenland (2025), a vast land mass rich in natural resources, strategically positioned to benefit from the New Northwest Passage across the Arctic Ocean, and vital to the defense of North America in the age of ICBMs.  

A European colony at least since 1721, Greenland is not likely to emerge from Danish custody anytime soon, despite a robust national independence movement. No surprise! It was the Europeans who first introduced the Western world to the phenomenon of colonization; and how did that work out?

And what about the Greenlanders themselves? The 90% indigenous (Inuit) population ‘enjoys’ a median household income about half that of the Danes and Americans fighting over it. And what do these Greenlanders want? 

First, let me be clear: none of my best friends are Greenlanders. So far as I know, I’ve never even met a Greenlander! (I did have dinner once with the commander of NATO forces in Greenland but he, of course, was Danish.) But that won’t stop me from speculating, will it? (Hint: it never does.) I can do that because I’m willing to assume that Greenlanders want what almost everyone else on Planet Earth seems to want, the nationalist Trifecta:

Cultural Identity

Political Independence

Economic Prosperity

 If I’m wrong, I apologize. But if I’m right, the way forward consists of three ‘simple’ steps:

Political Independence from Denmark

An economic and strategic ‘special relationship’ with the Unites States

The option to choose Commonwealth Status or Statehood when and if desired

Of course, it goes without saying that the Greenlanders themselves will be driving this bus every step of the way.

For our part, the US would make a binding and verifiable commitment to preserving and strengthening the indigenous Inuit culture and its dominant language (West Greenlandic). We would extend our ‘iron dome’ strategic umbrella over the island, and we would take immediate steps to bring Greenlanders’ standard of living up to North American norms. 

This last step would be achieved primarily through massive investments in mining, manufacturing, and tourism (‘luxury’ as well as ‘eco’ - I hope I’ll be able to travel to Nuuk to see the ribbon cut at a new Four Seasons hotel and resort). However, realistically, there would probably need to be some initial investment of public funds toward ‘income support’ – not a big deal considering it includes fewer than 60,000 inhabitants, about the same size as Grand Forks, North Dakota. 

Unfortunately, the ‘forces of reaction’ in the US are at least as strong now as they were in 1803, 1853, and 1867. As a result, it is uncertain whether these steps will be undertaken any time soon. So what if they aren’t? Right now, Russia and China control 52% of the shipping lanes in the Arctic Ocean; Canada controls 23%, Denmark 17%, and the US just 6%...an intolerable situation.

Given these strategic considerations, we must ask, “Who are those in the US who oppose closer ties with Greenland?” The answer’s easy: progressive politicians, university academics, members of media editorial boards, late night talk show hosts, and  Hollywood A-Listers. Which begs the question, “Why?”

Perhaps reason #1 is Donald Trump. He favors it so it must be bad. But this is a misreading of history. In 1940 FDR defended Greenland against Nazi Denmark and in 1943, in the midst of a war in Europe and the Pacific, he diverted resources to build the giant Thule Air Force Base there. 

Nor is the incorporation of Greenland a Trump idea. It was first proposed by Harry Truman (1946), a Democrat, who offered the Danes $100,000,000 in Gold for the island. (That’s 1.5 Billion 2025 dollars, 100% of Greenland’s current annual GDP.) Denmark should have taken the deal! Today, it is costing the Danish government more than half a billion dollars a year to prop-up Greenland’s political and economic regime.

So if you take Trump-phobia off the table, anti-Greenlanders need to ask themselves which of the following reasons account for their opposition:

We are willing to strengthen Russia and China at the expense of American interests

We should direct all available resources to fund the progressive social agenda

We already have too many non-English speaking people in the US

Greenland could become the first US state with a majority non-white population

We don’t like cold weather…and nobody else should either

All of the above.

**** 

Keep the conversation going.

1. Click here to comment on this TWS.

2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link.

3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers; click here to view out Writers’ Specs.