As many people know — especially, the people living there — Greenland is not green. It’s white. See the map, above, for visual proof.
Most of the world’s habitable land is green, or maybe tan. But not Greenland.
So we might wonder how it got its name? I mean, now that it might be annexed by the U.S. (More about that in a moment.)
It seems that, around 990 AD, a group of Vikings led by Erik Thorvaldsson, AKA Erik the Red, established settlements along the southern coast of a big, white island. Hoping to attract more settlers, Erik and his realtors announced that the name of the island was Grœnland, which translates as “Greenland”.
The Saga of Erik the Red states: “In the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it had a favorable name.”
So evidently, the name was part of a real estate marketing fraud. It wasn’t until the unsuspecting settlers arrived, that they discovered they’d been hoodwinked.
Similar ploys have caused people to buy property in Pagosa Springs, but that’s a story for another day.
Erik the Red had been exiled from what is now called Norway — something to do with murdering multiple people — and under his leadership, three settlements sprung up, named, appropriately enough, The Western Settlement, the Eastern Settlement, and the Middle Settlement. Those settlements lasted until about 1450.
Native peoples had settled the northern part of the island starting in 2400 BC, but they didn’t try to fool anyone about the color.
Later, the Danes and Norwegians “re-discovered” the island, and claimed it as a colonial possession, as was the fashion among European countries in those days.
Following World War II, the United States developed a geopolitical interest in Greenland, and in 1946 offered to buy the island from Denmark for $100 million. The Danes rejected the offer, for whatever reasons, but they did allow the U.S. to establish Air Force bases on the island, starting in 1951.
We can see, on certain maps, why the U.S. might have wanted a military presence in Greenland.
(Don’t be fooled by this map. Greenland is not green. That’s just someone’s sense of humor.)
My intention, in sharing this map, is to point out that Greenland looks closer to Russia than to the U.S. As the crow flies. Maybe it’s just me? But it sure looks that way.
(Why a crow would be flying above this God-forsaken place, I cannot say.)
Lately, the U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has been making statements about annexing Greenland. Or maybe buying it. The Danish and Greenland governments have expressed a dislike for the idea.
But we have tariffs. And we can increase them.
Donald Trump’s recent threat to drastically increase tariffs on Danish goods — if they refuse to hand over Greenland — might make everybody think twice. I mean, it’s a big, frozen island. Do the Danes want to die on this hill? This cold, white hill?
And does the rest of the European Union have any influence over Denmark? Trump’s threatened 10% tariffs on all U.S. imports could significantly disrupt European economic growth. But the tariffs on Danish goods… could be even higher than 10% if the Danes don’t cooperate with our incoming President.
Another big question: Why does Trump think this white, frozen island is important?
Because he’s been looking at a Mercator Projection map of the world. A Mercator Projection stretches the north and south poles to the width of the Equator, and makes Greenland look twice the size than the U.S. and Canada put together.
In reality, Greenland’s only a bit larger than Alaska. Another God-forsaken place.
This type of map also makes Greenland look closer to the U.S. than to Russia. (Which it isn’t.)
I think Congress should invest in an accurate globe for Donald Trump’s office, and take the time to point out Greenland to him.
Mainly because, one of the main Danish industries potentially affected by punishing tariffs would be pharmaceuticals. For example, America’s entire supply of Ozempic is manufactured in Denmark by Danish company Novo Nordisk.
So… what’s really at stake, here?