272

Danish king changes royal coat of arms in apparent rebuke of Trump over Greenland row (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 3 days ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

Danish King Frederik has redesigned the royal coat of arms to prominently feature symbols of Greenland and the Faroe Islands, replacing the historical three crowns, in an apparent rebuke to Donald Trump's renewed interest in buying Greenland.

The change underscores Denmark’s commitment to maintaining its territorial integrity.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede firmly rejected Trump’s suggestion, declaring, “Greenland is ours.”

This marks the fourth revision of Denmark’s coat of arms since 1819 and highlights Greenland's century-long political and cultural ties to Denmark despite U.S. military presence on the island.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] shaserlark@sh.itjust.works 30 points 2 days ago

My first thought was that it’s very entertaining to see far right people clashing. Denmark is heavily infested with right wing politics as well.

My second thought was that last time the whole world decided to go right wing we got 2 world wars.

[-] sith@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago

This will unite the left and right in Denmark. And Denmark is probably the most left-wing country in the world, if you look at economic policy (maybe Norway beats them).

However, one should not forget that Denmark-Greenland is a real colonial problem, and Greenland deserves independence.

Still, I side with Denmark in this conflict. They should not be bullied into anything by US fascists that for sure will be even worse colonial overlords.

[-] shaserlark@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

https://jacobin.com/2021/02/denmark-zero-asylum-immigration-refugees

After Denmark’s Social Democrats returned to office in 2019, backed by the left-wing parties, some hoped for an end to the previous right-wing government’s extreme anti-migrant measures. The outgoing administration had introduced an infamous “jewelry law,” forcing immigrants to give up valuables when applying for asylum, and a “ghetto plan” making it possible to force immigrants out of their homes. Yet, such hopes of change were quickly foiled. The incoming government enthusiastically maintained and even bolstered migration policies that were once the preserve of the far right. And in recent weeks, the ruling Social Democratic Party has sunk to new lows. In an interview at the end of January, integration and immigration minister Mattias Tesfaye announced the aim for Denmark to accept “zero” asylum seekers. The following day, prime minister Mette Fredriksen clarified Tesfaye’s statement by confirming this stance: “We cannot make a promise of having zero asylum seekers, but we definitely can put forward such a vision.”

Denmark is at the forefront of normalizing right wing ideas in general, and racism and Islamophobia in particular.

They are most certainly not the most left-wing country in the world.

[-] sith@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

When it comes to economic policy, they are.

[-] shaserlark@sh.itjust.works 1 points 23 hours ago

Might be true if you’re white and not Muslim. It’s not mutually exclusive to be nationalistic and socialist at the same time if you think about it.

[-] sith@lemmy.zip 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Probably true even if you're a Muslim.

Anyway, the one dimensional political scale is useless (though for western alt-right movements it's been quite useful). And most socialist movements have been nationalistic and internationalistic. If a country has to provide welfare to all citizens of the world, to be considered left-wing, well do you know of any such example?

The german national socialists, which you might be referring to, were not very left-wing on economic policy. At least not after 1934. Both the national socialists and the danish social democrats advocate some form of corporatism, but the Danish social democratic version is much more social leaning and labor unions are independent and relatively powerful.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I don't know that it technically is a colonial problem because the Inuit came to Greenland after the Vikings had already settled it (it was unsettled before the Vikings), but then Denmark came back after the Vikings had abandoned Greenland and re-claimed it.

The Inuit and the Vikings settled different parts of Greenland, but were close enough that they could see each other across the fjords. There isn't much evidence for direct contact, probably because the devoutly Christian Vikings did not care for the animist Inuit.

All that aside, I do agree that they deserve independence if they want it.

[-] sith@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Maybe imperialist is a better word. I'm not sure if the definition of "colonial" require that the subject population was there first.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I would say imperialist works better here. And I would agree with you about colonial as a use-phrase in general, but this is a special case where the Danes were there first and then they left and then came back. So it's hard to call that colonial in this specific case.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago

Heyyyy then we got mild socialism that kinda worked until a conservative court overturned all of the most effective reforms in favor of business....

this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025

272 points (96.6% liked)

World News

39504 readers

3106 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.