This is a rather poor argument against the U.S. takeover of Greenland. If neither Denmark nor the U.S. is better, then it makes no difference if the U.S. takes over.
Edit: not sure why I’m being downvoted. I would appreciate someone explaining the headline to me because I honestly don’t get it.
It’s not about the headline, it’s about your statement:
If neither Denmark nor the U.S. is better, then it makes no difference if the U.S. takes over.
It makes all the difference to the people who live there, who don’t consent to becoming American. The question isn’t, “who can better administer the landmass and its populace”, the question is, who has the right to? The population is not consenting to America imperialism, so it makes all the difference to them. Consent matters.
If both were equally bad, then a US takeover would still come with a lot of violence and upheaval for absolutely no gain. If their relationship with the Danish has more or less settled into some arrangement (however fair or unfair it may be), uprooting it all and forcing them to readjust to their new overlords would just be a waste.
Edit: To add some more points from the actual article:
“We’ve been able to work together based on mutual respect. We’ve been able to maintain a zone of peace in the Arctic even through difficult times before,” she [Sara Olsvig, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council] said
If they have found a respectful working relationship where they have some measure of self-determination (albeit not as much as they’d wish), it seems very likely that the US would be the worse colonizer. That doesn’t make the Danes saints, but the chances of more self-determination certainly are better with them, given Denmark passed a law that allows them to become fully independent.
Laakkuluk Williamson, an Iqaluit resident who’s Greenlandic on her mother’s side of the family, said she fears Greenland becoming the Arctic equivalent of American Samoa or Puerto Rico: U.S. overseas territories where residents lack constitutional protections and representation in Congress.
As it stands now, Greenland sends representatives to the Danish Parliament and recently (2008/9) has won some important political concessions in governing themselves, including the legal process I mentioned for full independence their government can trigger. They also have an independent representation in the EU and the US.
Suppose, for something to “better” or “worse”, it would have to surpass some absolute threshold of “goodness”. This would mean “betterness” is no longer transitive with “worseness”.
If this were the case, then it’s possible for American colonization to still be worse than Danish colonization without Danish colonization being better than American colonization. Neither would meet the requirement for being “better” and as such are incomparable, but both would be meet the requirement of being “worse” and can be compared in that respect.
OK but that’s not how people generally use “better” or “worse.” I think transitivity – and reflexivity – are generally respected by people’s usage of the terms.
This is a rather poor argument against the U.S. takeover of Greenland. If neither Denmark nor the U.S. is better, then it makes no difference if the U.S. takes over.
Edit: not sure why I’m being downvoted. I would appreciate someone explaining the headline to me because I honestly don’t get it.
It makes all the difference if you’re the slightest bit interested in consent.
can you please explain how that relates to the argument? For sure I think consent is important, but I don’t see how it relates to the headline.
It’s not about the headline, it’s about your statement:
It makes all the difference to the people who live there, who don’t consent to becoming American. The question isn’t, “who can better administer the landmass and its populace”, the question is, who has the right to? The population is not consenting to America imperialism, so it makes all the difference to them. Consent matters.
If both were equally bad, then a US takeover would still come with a lot of violence and upheaval for absolutely no gain. If their relationship with the Danish has more or less settled into some arrangement (however fair or unfair it may be), uprooting it all and forcing them to readjust to their new overlords would just be a waste.
Edit: To add some more points from the actual article:
If they have found a respectful working relationship where they have some measure of self-determination (albeit not as much as they’d wish), it seems very likely that the US would be the worse colonizer. That doesn’t make the Danes saints, but the chances of more self-determination certainly are better with them, given Denmark passed a law that allows them to become fully independent.
As it stands now, Greenland sends representatives to the Danish Parliament and recently (2008/9) has won some important political concessions in governing themselves, including the legal process I mentioned for full independence their government can trigger. They also have an independent representation in the EU and the US.
Can you imagine Trump sustaining that status?
Neither can I.
A thought experiment:
Suppose, for something to “better” or “worse”, it would have to surpass some absolute threshold of “goodness”. This would mean “betterness” is no longer transitive with “worseness”.
If this were the case, then it’s possible for American colonization to still be worse than Danish colonization without Danish colonization being better than American colonization. Neither would meet the requirement for being “better” and as such are incomparable, but both would be meet the requirement of being “worse” and can be compared in that respect.
OK but that’s not how people generally use “better” or “worse.” I think transitivity – and reflexivity – are generally respected by people’s usage of the terms.
That’s just silly. Would it be better to have someone break one of your arms or two?
Eh… One.
Or… two, if you have an Oedipus complex.
Nice