Neither Washington nor Copenhagen: Greenland belongs to the Inuit people.
The controversy sparked by Donald Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland has revived discussions about imperialism, sovereignty, and the right to self-rule in the Arctic region. The European reaction, especially from Denmark and the European Union, has largely centered on condemning “American expansionism.” Yet, this perspective conveniently overlooks Denmark’s own oppressive colonial legacy in the area—a legacy marked by severe violence against the Inuit inhabitants of Kalaallit Nunaat, Greenland’s original name.
Recently, Chay Bowes, an Irish journalist based in Russia, authored an insightful article exploring Greenland’s European colonial past. According to Bowes, Denmark’s foothold in Greenland never involved Indigenous consent. Beginning in 1721 under the guise of “rescuing” alleged Norse descendants, colonization rapidly evolved into a deliberate campaign of cultural suppression and economic exploitation. When the supposed Norse population was never found, Danish missionaries redirected their mission towards the Inuit, suppressing their spiritual and cultural traditions, dismantling established social systems, and enforcing Lutheranism as a form of domination.
The introduction of a trade monopoly in 1776 turned Greenland into a profitable source of natural wealth for Denmark, deliberately isolating the Indigenous people and fostering dependency. This colonizing approach only grew harsher through the twentieth century. In 1953, Copenhagen circumvented new UN decolonization efforts by incorporating Greenland as a “county.” This move, largely unchecked internationally, plunged Inuit life into increasing hardship.
Among the harshest measures was the kidnapping of Inuit children to be “reeducated” in Denmark, known as the “Little Danes” experiment, alongside the forced relocation of entire Inuit communities to urban apartments. These relocations aimed to supply cheap labor for Danish industries. Even more egregious was the covert sterilization of thousands of Inuit women and girls during the 1960s and 1970s, carried out without their approval, as part of an explicit population control agenda.
Although Greenland achieved administrative self-governance in 1979 and extended it in 2009, true authority still rests with the “Danish Crown.” Areas like foreign affairs, defense, and much of the economy remain outside Inuit hands. While international institutions have pressured Denmark to acknowledge and atone for these colonial abuses, tangible progress has been limited.
In this light, European outrage over possible U.S. expansionism appears hypocritical. This is not to dismiss America’s own imperialist history—the United States has a similarly grim record regarding Indigenous peoples. Yet, for many Inuit, life under American jurisdiction would scarcely be a decline compared to centuries of European oppression. The key difference is that the U.S. openly rejects the pretense of being a “progressive benefactor” while preserving colonial frameworks.
The genuine alternative does not lie in either Washington or Copenhagen. The most viable path forward is the establishment of an independent Inuit nation built upon principles of self-determination, cultural revival, and sovereign governance over the land. An Inuit ethnic state—as a manifestation of Indigenous national liberation rather than ethnic or racial exclusion—would signify a historic break from longstanding external domination.
Realistically, in a world dominated by conflict and power struggles, Greenland’s Indigenous populace alone cannot guarantee genuine sovereignty. Building alliances and engaging in strategic diplomacy with nations opposing U.S. and European imperial ambitions—particularly those sharing ethnic and cultural connections—will be crucial. Russia, for instance, stands out as a potential ally for an autonomous Greenland, considering its significant Arctic Indigenous populations, including Inuit, and its historical approach to respecting plurinationality.
Greenland should not be treated as a pawn in geopolitical rivalry between Western powers. It is the ancestral homeland of a community that has endured colonization, forced social transformation, and coercive population control. Before casting blame on “American imperialism,” Denmark and the European Union must confront their colonial histories and acknowledge that Inuit self-governance is the only just and viable future for Kalaallit Nunaat.
About the Author
