Trump v. Greenland
4mon 28d ago by lemmy.ml/u/kingshrubb in microblogmemes from lemmy.ml
It would actually be the other way around, hence why Greenland will fight tooth and nails to not become part of the US.
Yeah, hey, on that note, maybe Denmark would like to acquire the United States.
The funniest thing about this is that if they did actually propose it, Trump would be absolutely stupid not to support it; it would basically ensure GOP domination in every major election for the foreseeable future if we lost California's blue votes.
What I'm saying here is, don't stop at California, include all the other blue states, too, please. Take us with you. :(
Well...
California contributes more than 10% of the USA's GDP, so while it might be tempting to gain power, it would probably demolish the economy.
Which Trump is also actively doing on a grand scale.
Oh, definitely. Just wanted to stress that it would be even worse without one of the richest and most productive states.
This I think is indeed the main reason why Greenland does not wish to be part of the US. Trump offered to pay 100.000 to each citizen of Greenland, to buy it. But this is less than what Denmark spends on Greenland every year.
I honestly believe that there are more people who want the US to become part of Denmark, than there are people who want Greenland to become part of the US
One of the biggest reasons I do not want to join the USA is that I do not want to lose our healthcare.
No more health care for you. We need that money for our Bombz4Kidz program.
That's one of the reasons he wants the EU destroyed. We set a bad example. Things can be done differently, even under capitalism.
"No good deed goes unpunished" or something like that.
People thought capitalism could be controlled here in the USA as well. May your capitalism not regress into late stage during your lifetime. To bad about your kids though.
Pro tip for white people, because your colonizer indoctrination has made you blind to this:
No one that gets invaded by anyone ends up better than they started. Yes, that includes all the countries you've invaded too.
I generally agree, and I have the same mindset. So you can imagine how surprised I was when my Taiwanese friend told me how much better off Taiwan was after the Japanese occupation. Probably the only Asians with a positive opinion of Japan...
Their family probably came to Taiwan after the Japanese invasion.
Japan was notoriously brutal to the indigenous population, but most of the people in Taiwan came there in the civil war.
In fact, stamping out the indigenous culture has been an ongoing part of the post civil war Taiwanese government, and it's only recently that the Taiwanese language has been allowed to be taught in schools.
I guess it's only the case for the Mandarin-speaking population
To be fair, the Japanese occupation of Taiwan ended in 1945, so who knows what you're friend is basing that on.
He said his grandparents told him so
As a PoC who grew up in the West the colonizer indoctrination is directed at everyone here, not just white people. We're just more likely to decolonize our mindset due to attachment to communities negatively impacted by colonial institutions.
Pro tip for Americans* All children in American schools, no matter the race, are receiving colonizer indoctrination.
Have you even met any Americans? If you have, then you'd know this, if you are American .. then bless you, you haven't seen the world. This is purely a culture thing. There are actual Venezuelan immigrants in my state who are MAGA and are CHEERING for the takeover of Venezuela.
I legitimately thought this a while back. American indoctrination is sleepwalking people into being comfortable with autocracy.
I have an American coworker whose family are undocumented from the Philippines that overstayed their visa. He himself has no papers when he was brought here as a child, and right now is just a green card holder through his husband. He is constantly astounded that they are MAGA, but have no energy to deal.
Yes exactly. If that's all you know then of course it's right and normal. We are not taught everything and if we are, the US is always painted in a very positive light. The USA does no wrong and if it was wrong, it wasn't that bad. I'm sure you know the rest of the poem.
This completely misses the point and no one thought that.
Most Europeans and Americans believe this.
"If we just invade them and force them to adopt our ideologies for 80 years there will be so much natural progress.
And as payment for our contributions, we can monopolize all their their resources to our private companies where locals will work for near-slavery conditions."
You need to talk to some MAGA folk.
Yes, that includes all the countries you’ve invaded too.
Even "women cannot become doctors"-Afghanistan?
Yes. Motherfuckering liberals still out here like, "We had to murder hundreds of thousands of your civilians to save you from yourselves," even about a project that (entirely predictably) ended in complete, abject failure and left everyone worse off except oil companies and arms dealers.
It's incredible how much this 1800s colonizer mindset lives on in modern day people.
Maybe the region would not have stalled their progress so much if they weren't invaded during colonization, cold war, and the US oil fetish.
So yes, even "sometimes slightly browner people" Afghanistan.
That is the current reality of Afghanistan, yes? Is this before or after their most recent invasion by the West?
This is straight after the US left
Nice
Has anyone ever said that racism is bad even when it's against white people? Just don't do it to anyone as we're all the same, and such?
Pro tip: just replace any color with a different color. If all of the sudden it sounds offensive to you, then it was offensive to begin with.
I now sincerely wonder how many people will come by to tell me that racism towards white people is fine because a group of white people were assholes, so we all must be assholes
The worlds tiniest violin has never stopped playing for the white folks subjected to what they think racism looks like.
And another "racism is okay if it's against the people I don't like" type
Make fun all you want, you know what you are
Taking someone else's yogurt out of the fridge and murder are both wrong, but I'm far more concerned about the addressing the latter than the former.
It doesn't say that it's right or okay, just silly to compare the two as if they're the same.
Yes, you're right, one thing is worse than the other, but they're still the same thing
Racism is racism.
You can't say you want racism to stop by making racist remarks. If you really want discrimination to stop, be it for race, color, gender, sex, preferences, whatever, then just stop being racist first. Stop it all.
You can't just be racist to other and say "well I'm justified, because your kind has treated me worse", because like that it'll never stop
What does it look like?
Japan?
In the short run, no. In the long run, it depends.
Many countries that were colonized had absolutely terrible child mortality rates. Parents had to expect that a third of their children would die before they became teenagers. One in five didn't make it to one year old. Being colonized eventually brought medicine which reduced childhood mortality so parents didn't have to watch their children die.
How important that is depends on your point of view. Maybe you personally don't care much about your children dying, and having unspoiled nature is more important. If so, then maybe there are no major benefits to being invaded / colonized, even decades or centuries later.
For the folks that told me "no that isn't what people think" here you go. Hot fresh colonizer mindset, for your pleasure.
There you go, someone who is unwilling to actually think.
My friend from India said this once. The British are like when someone visits your apartment and they brought cake. Then proceeds to smash your TV and kill your grandma, and steal your safe. At least you have cake I guess.
Yeah, not particularly a good trade off.
The British might have killed grandma, but they also eventually shared medicine that ensured that junior didn't die.
In 1800, more than 1 in 2 children in India died before reaching 5 years old. From 1900 to 1915 it dropped from 535 deaths per 1000 to 332. By the time India gained independence it had dropped to 260.
I'm not arguing that colonization is wonderful. But, it tends to happen when a technologically advanced civilization encounters one that's technologically behind. The eventual result is that the less technologically advanced civilization has their technology level advance. One of the most dramatic results of that is that childhood mortality drops. Does that make you better off? In the modern world, most parents would say that the death of a child is one of the worst things that can happen in your life. Parents would do just about anything to avoid having that happen. Then again, in civilizations with high childhood mortality, there appears to be much less of a bond between parents and children, because parents don't invest emotionally as much in their children because they know they might die.
So, maybe from the perspective of an Indian in the 1800s, the colonization wasn't worth it. But, would a modern Indian be willing to go back to a pre-colonization lifestyle, not only with massive childhood deaths, but also with a rigid caste system, constant internal wars, etc.?
I find it telling that you don't think India would have figured out some of the issues without the British's "help" is pretty classic colonialist thinking. And without the British they would be back to "pre-colonial" times right now. That's wild.
And why do you keep going on about that one factor? It's barely relevant in modern times. Many uncolonized countries are also doing fine with their infant mortality rate, with or without colonization. Why? Because global medical collaboration, change in poverty rates, and higher education rates. Raising infant mortality rates is also to the benefit of the British. More people alive means more labor and resources, it was not from the goodness of their heart. If you have statistics comparing infant mortality rates of previously colonized VS uncolonized countries and that shows something of statistical significance, then we can talk.
Constant internal wars are part of a nation figuring it out. China had Warring States for hundreds of years before unifying. They did it without "help". I'm sure India would have been fine too without interference. I've heard the same brain dead logic that Aboriginal tribes were fighting amongst themselves anyways, so the British did them a favor too.
And I can tell you don't know anything about India's history because the British co-opted and greatly exacerbated the social effects of the caste system to their benefit. The rigidity made the people easier to exploit and govern, by dividing the people. Please read up on it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48619734
Anthropologist Susan Bayly writes that "until well into the colonial period, much of the subcontinent was still populated by people for whom the formal distinctions of caste were of only limited importance, even in parts of the so-called Hindu heartland… The institutions and beliefs which are now often described as the elements of traditional caste were only just taking shape as recently as the early 18th Century".
In fact, it is doubtful that caste had much significance or virulence in society before the British made it India's defining social feature.
This and the Hutus and Tutsis are prime examples of colonialists stirring the shit. That not only killed grandma, killed all her children, and grandchildren too.
I find it telling that you don't think India would have figured out some of the issues without the British's "help" is pretty classic colonialist thinking.
Sometimes things are invented multiple times. But, typically it's hundreds of years between their invention. I find it telling that you somehow think that India, which was hundreds of years behind in technology, would have magically discovered that technology on their own without contact with more technologically advanced civilizations.
And why do you keep going on about that one factor?
Because it's widely seen as one of the most important changes in human history.
Constant internal wars are part of a nation figuring it out
Ah, ok. Figuring it out is good if it's your own people killing you. It's only bad if the person has white skin.
Please address all my points.
And here you go: https://www.eduresearchjournal.com/index.php/ijhars/article/download/82/75/192
Why do you think only white people had extensive medical knowledge. That's so ignorant.
Ah, ok. Figuring it out is good if it's your own people killing you. It's only bad if the person has white skin.
Wow, very original rebuttal. Thank you. Sorry, I'll add it's also bad when the Japanese colonized parts of East Asia.
Please address all my points.
No.
I don't support the American takeover of Greenland, but I fully support the Greenland takeover of America. Where do I vote?
Trump is upset all those people are happy. This will fix that.
I think his plan is to take all of that away from them.
Greenlanders also recieve scholarships, free transportation (planes and helicopters) as well as free dental, which the rest of us don't.
I would kill for free dental and free public transport.
I would kill for free dental and free public transport.
It appears you may have to ..
What does that mean? Whether or not we lose Greenland, I won't get free dental and free public transport anytime soon. The greenlandic, on the other hand, either get to keep these perks or they get to be part of the US which I'm sure they don't want. I sure as shit don't want them to end up the new Puerto Rico because I have zero trust that the Americans will treat them as people with human rights.
I have zero trust that the Americans will treat them as people with human rights.
As if muricans have a track record of trampling natives... oh.
I want my free helicopter. Do I have to fill in a form or what?
You have to be born inuit on greenlandic soil to get that perk.
I would kill for free dental and free public transport.
That's good. Because our government would kill us to prevent it.
*6 weeks of paid vacation.
7* here 😁
...add the religious and national holidays too. Yep, US labor laws suck shit.
52 weeks is mind blowing. They got it good over there. Almost like the government wants people to create families/communities.
That's the power of unions. They got so powerful the politicians were scared of them and started improving worker rights out of self-preservation.
It's the same in Canada
I'm surprised, I just looked it up that Greenlanders are allowed to own long guns without a permit. They're just like the US, but better. Why the hell would they want to be apart of the US?
Actually I have 6 weeks paid vacation 18% employer paid pension, but I'm a government employee. Danes in commercial industry only have 5 weeks and about 9% pension... Suckers
It's actually 6 weeks of paid vacation not counting public holidays like Easter, Christmas, etc
Actually many/most people working for the government in Denmark have 6 weeks paid vacation. Even ones in low wage positions
Wrong and very nonsensical question.
Rephrase it to "if Denmark acquires California".
We are so down with all of this. Sign California up!!
I'm a bit unhappy with my current job, because I only get 25 days of paid holidays (of course not including public holidays). That's 5 days below industry average, so my next job I'll look gor 35+ days.
Nope, it would go the other way. America is just trying to save those dear citizens of the horrors of public healthcare so they can also find the value in medical bankruptcy.
CNBC is over the top insulting zionazis this morning. "The west needs US to control Greenland for its security". When there is no pushback on the pure lie that China and Russia are about to invade the furthest place on earth to them, with the most expensive resource extraction, then there can be no pushback on invading any country, ally or not, because, while most countries have China as biggest trading partner, it is always a threat for them to move from number 2 to number 1.
The US is about to collapse. In Canada's case the strongest basis for refusal to be a US territory (Statehood not actually on table) is the US's huge debt burden. But quality of life healthcare/education system corruption, as Bernie points out, would make any states willing to become a Canadian province much better off. One path to US collapse is States escaping federal debt through secession and "irreconsilable differences" on fascism and Zionazi first rule warmongering.
But when colonies don't push back on the main lie behind US wars (Venezuela had CIA lies about election fairness and legitimacy of governance. Iran propaganda is calling Mossad rioting terrorists peaceful protestors), the the colonies are just gaslighting their people in a "stages of grief" bribery delay tactic towards acceptance of a more perfectly subservient colony.
furthest place on earth to them, with the most expensive resource extraction
Really the valuable thing is controlling the shipping lanes between Pacific and Atlantic countries, then playing kingmaker about who can trade with who.
Which is why any talk about any of this from anybody is just a pretense. :/
really the valuable thing is controlling the shipping lanes between Pacific and Atlantic countries
The only reason Chinese or Russian ships would need to go anywhere near Greenland is to deliver to north east North America, which would by definition be welcome travel. Arctic route between Asia and Europe goes through Russian waters. Closer and friendlier to China, and Chinese ships dominate world, and can pick up goods from rest of Asia.
Right, they don't need it for themselves. USA and any other power would use it for a convenient bit of force projection, preventing 3rd parties from consolidating power outside of their block. So, say Venezuela wanted to ship stuff to the Philippines. Around South America is dangerous, Panama can be expensive, but arctic is more and more open and quick, so theoretically these example countries could find some mutually profitable stuff to bring back and forth to each other.
US can get a tax or otherwise frustrate any deals if they control that shipping lane. The Alaska/Russia choke point is contested and I'm not sure who has better control on that area.
US has seized control of Panama canal this year too. The ice to the north of Greenland has never been clear (yet). A path through Canadian waters opens up for 1 month or so per year. Russia coast clears out more often, and for about 2 months. Venezuela to Asia definitely wants to use Panama canal next door. It's just slightly longer through cape horn than Canada passage.
Yeah global warming.
Canadian waters still are a shorter path that will be ice free longer.
right but that also requires us to maintain dominance in those areas... less likely if our ally denmark loses their kingdom of greemland.
We really should drop almost all trade/travel boarders between Canada/United States/Europe/Australia and New Zealand. Have one large economic zone. The US and England are the stumbling blocks to this.
pass on open trade/borders with US, their lack of regulation and standards on food means most of what they produce is garbage and/or potentially contaminated. Not to mention simply flooding the markets with their crap. When Mulroney negotiated NAFTA, it crushed so many industries in Canada, and we're really only starting to attempt to recover from that.. Maybe the only good thing Trump has done is to galvanize us to make better trade agreements with other countries and not rely on free trade with the US.
Sorry but we in Europe don't want chicken raised up in filth so that it must be chlorinated and even then still has much higher levels of salmonela, beef with hormones affecting the growth of young people (and making the meat shit) or chemicals allowed into public use under the principle of "it can be sold until proven bad" rather than the principle "it has to be proven not bad before it can be sold".
In other words, we're fine with our higher life expectancy and better health outcomes and don't want to suffer the consequences of shit American-style "regulation".
Dropping European trade borders would be horrible, especially with America: stuff isn't more expensive to produce in Europe because Europeans are shit at growing/making them, they're more expensive to produce here because we actually have consumer protection standards which have costs to be obbeyed rather than the Free For All of America (and to a lesser extent of most other Anglo-Saxon countries) were pretty much everything goes for maximum profits for corporates even at the cost of fucking everybody else.
This is the problem with creating a meaningful trading zone right now ... trying to get the U.S. to meaningful participate and move forward.
UK is an extra special Mi6 corrupt theocracy, but Biden's US proxy war on Russia was a war on Europe and nordstream. Essentially strengthening the colonial status of an isolated Europe. This paved the way for Trump to extort them harder with tariffs as first round, and liberating Greenland from NATO is purely for direct missile/airstrike potential on Europe.
Sure, one path to western sustainability is free trade/travel among partners. But from US perspective, collapsing the colonies for extortion power and GDP boosts is an attractive delay tactic for next election cycle, when all colonial governors political capital is from CIA/US election determination, and will support US rule over them harder.
Avoiding confronting US empire lies directly is done to sell CIA narrative to the colonial indirect slaves. The west's problem is that democracy itself, and its supposed values, is a lie. It's only a colonial empire meant to extract tribute from the colonies.
What a socialist hellhole. Time to FREEDOMIZE THIS PLACE!
/vomits
diverting to; https://mastodon.social/@m3t00/115933569255708462
IMO the biggest cultural difference is guns. Apparently there are liberals in the US who think nationalized healthcare, cheap or free university, paid parental leave, guaranteed long vacation, etc. is all wonderful. But, they love their guns so much that that would be a red line. They'd forfeit all the great things that a European socialist country has to offer if the deal also requires that they give up their guns.
Okay, hear me out. How about we get all that good stuff and just carve out a gun excepion. There'd be a lot less shooting each other if people weren't afraid of starving on the streets and were getting free mental health care.
A bit less, but not a lot less. I'm definitely not interested in living in a place where people routinely walk around armed.
Well in some of those places you kinda have to...
Who said you have to live in West Greenland?
I live in the socialist paradise Sweden and have three rifles for hunting, my wife has two, my mom three. Some of my friends have pistols for sports shooting. I don't get why Americans think guns only exist in America. Also, we currently have a right wing government. Funny thing is that is was the social democrats who made the laws that anyone could own rifles for hunting as it used to be only the land owning people who had that right before, the parties on right opposed that because they were afraid the rifles would be used to start a revolution or something.
Does anybody in the country have the right to go to a store and get a gun without question? What makes the US unique is that the constitution is currently interpreted to mean that gun ownership is a right, and that the government can't do anything to regulate it.
Except there are restrictions, which vary by state.
Or maybe it's because republicans take every opportunity to block it or remove it, like they did this past December.
You are allowed guns but the reason that you have for owning a gun has to be a little bit more than "because I want one".
Also the decision about whether or not you get a gun is up to local police. And they can deny you for any reason they like including that they know you to be a frequent flyer.
But really it's more about the fact that people aren't really interested in guns outside the US. In the US they are a cultural thing, outside they are just a tool but a useful to have if you need to make use of that tool. I don't own a gun for the same reason that I don't own a quad bike, I'm not a farmer and I live in the city, so I don't need one.
You are allowed guns but the reason that you have for owning a gun has to be a little bit more than “because I want one”.
Yeah, I don't like that and I don't even own a gun. I don't think governments should have a monopoly on violence or the tools of violence.
With the exception of nukes, but mostly because I don't think anyone should have those. If only governments have them though at least they have some level of self interest to not nuke their own population.
Then again I'm pretty nihilistic these days, maybe I'm ok with the McNuke now. As long as I'm instantly vaporized if one goes off, I don't want to experience the black rain and slow agonizing radiation death.
I also don't think its the government's business should I decide to buy a gun what I intend to do with it. Will I ever buy one? Probably not. But still, principle of the thing.
I also don't think its the government's business should I decide to buy a gun what I intend to do with it.
Personally I feel that if you're buying a gun someone should know why, and who else better than the government?
You already ID people for buying knives, and you limit how many packs of painkillers people can purchase. I don't see why it's necessarily any different for a gun.
Do you know what violent people who do not have access to guns are? Extremely annoying. That it. Then you called the police who come and deal with them. There are so many idiots that are still alive today who's drunken escapades would have got them shot in the United States rather than a stint in the cells to sober up.
You are allowed guns
Which would be a red line for Americans who think that guns are an inherent right and that the very idea that the government might be able to say "no" is unacceptable.
European socialist country? Which one?
From an American perspective? Probably all of them.
Possibly except Turkey but I suspect that most Americans don't know it exists
Of course we know about turkey! We have a whole holiday about it 🦃
/s
Beat me to it!
Well, the post is about Denmark, so Denmark?
So, that's the problem?! What will happen to the US citizens, while their country is literally performing an imperialist attack on another?
Some people are just too dumb I think.
Missing the point he's making completely
He shouldn't be making that point.
Poor Bernie has lost it if I think that that's how it works 😢
Honestly this is just a stupid post. Why the fuck would it mean that? It would mean they'd lose those things. Trump has never given a shit about taking things from people.
Its just meant to be provocative and show you what Americans are missing out on.
Particularly it's meant to peel away at American exceptionalism mythology. The US really only excels at two things globally, finance and war.
You don't understand much do ya
What exactly am I supposed to understand here? In what world would the outcome Bernie is suggesting even happen? It just makes him look stupid. If he's attempting to point out Trump's terrible leadership, no one is doing anything about that either so it just makes him look weak. It's just another "gotcha" tweet while the democrats sit on their hands. This shit does nothing to help anyone.
Critical thinking isn't for everyone it's ok bro
Trump has never given a shit about taking things from people.
He stole Chelsea's trophy
He stole childrens virginity, dignity and future
It would mean they’d lose those things.
Sounds like you figured out the point of the post and then pretended that couldn't be it
It's not a weird take.
It's a wakeup call.
Unfortunately the sleepy sheep will either call it fake news or... something, to continue justifying not getting those benefits.
I believe that was the point he was making
Bernie knows that's not how hostile takeovers work.
It's trying to break the premise that the US is "saving" Greenland. Nah dog, they have it better.
Nobody actually believes that though
The sad thing is that people do. My family is full of supporters, and they actually believe the dogshit he spouts somehow.
If nobody truly did, republicans would be in favour of universal healthcare, no?
White people have the idea that invading a country means that the people there are now better off because it's what they believe happened to all the brown people in the countries they invaded.
As a white person, I can absolutely say that every invasion we've done has royally fucked up the ones we've invaded.
I might not be the target audience though.
Neat. What are you doing about the rest?
Fck me, Defeatist Bernie, a sad sight to see.
Read the room, Bernie. Not everything is about your favorite social programs.
Trump has been saying that life would be better for Greenlanders under the US, and Bernie is pointing out that it absolutely would not be. The US is garbage and can’t even take care of what it already has, let alone a place it only wants so it can feel better about itself.
All that is clear. Love Bernie, but this messaging at this moment is still shit.
How so?
Always gotta be some jackass who “totally supports progress” but always seems to find a reason why it can’t happen just yet.
You need to ponder that orb more, wizard.