Greenland's Inuit say no one owns land as Trump pushes to buy

Key Concepts

• Inuit Land Ownership Philosophy: Rejection of individual or national ownership of land, emphasizing responsibility and interconnectedness.
• Sovereignty vs. Responsibility: The distinction between legal claims of ownership (sovereignty) and the ethical obligation to care for the land.
• Collective Ownership (Greenlandic Law): Legal framework in Greenland prohibiting private land ownership.
• Impact of Colonial History: The association of land purchase/sale with historical colonization and its negative connotations for Inuit identity.
• Practical Concerns vs. Political Discourse: The contrast between the daily survival needs of Greenlanders and the abstract political debate over sovereignty.

The Inuit Perspective on Land and Sovereignty in Greenland

The recent interest from US President Donald Trump regarding the potential purchase of Greenland has sparked reactions globally, but particularly amongst the island’s indigenous Inuit population. This interest is met with bemusement and a fundamental disagreement with the very premise of land ownership. The core of the Inuit worldview, as articulated by Rakel Christianen, a descendant of shamanic practitioners, centers not on owning the land, but on responsibility for it. “The land has been here before we ever came to be and will be after we disappear. So the way that you know sees it that you cannot own something that you are part of.” This perspective views humans as intrinsically linked to the land, not separate from it, rendering the concept of ownership illogical.

Historical Context and Legal Framework

Karak Ringstead, a 74-year-old resident of Kapisillit, recounts a lifelong understanding that land is not owned, but rather leased or used with permission. This aligns with Greenlandic law, which explicitly prohibits private land ownership. Ulorf, an attorney in Nuuk, confirms this, stating, “Greenland, you can't own the land. Uh it's uh been like that ever since our ancestors came here.” This legal framework reflects a deeply ingrained cultural tradition. Trump initially proposed the idea of a purchase citing “national security needs,” later claiming to have secured “total and permanent US access to Greenland” through a deal with NATO, details of which remain largely undisclosed.

Daily Life and Prioritized Concerns

While the debate over Greenland’s sovereignty gains international attention, the immediate concerns of many Greenlanders are far more practical. Manila Matiasen, a teacher in a remote village school with only three students, highlights the focus on basic survival: “People here are interested in the day that is coming. Is there food in the fridge? Fine. Then I can sleep a little longer. If there is no food, then I will go out and catch fish or go out and shoot a reindeer.” This illustrates a disconnect between the abstract political discussions and the daily realities faced by those living in remote regions of Greenland.

The Colonial Legacy and Identity

For others, the discussion of buying or selling Greenland evokes a painful historical context. Sarah Olsig, head of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, explains that the idea of land being bought or sold carries strong negative connotations for many Inuit. She states that such talk “immediately brings with it…a worldview that resembles the worldview that started colonization in the first place.” This highlights the association of land transactions with the historical injustices of colonization and the threat to Inuit identity and self-determination. The idea of being “bought or sold” is deeply offensive, representing a return to a colonial mindset.

Demographic and Geographic Considerations

Greenland has a population of approximately 57,000, with nearly 90% identifying as indigenous Inuit, who have continuously inhabited the island for around 1,000 years. This demographic reality underscores the importance of understanding the Inuit perspective when discussing the island’s future. The island’s geography, characterized by small, isolated settlements like Kapisillit – described as “a tiny settlement of wooden houses clinging to the shore of a fjord” – further emphasizes the close relationship between the people and the land.

Conclusion

The proposed purchase of Greenland by the US highlights a fundamental clash of worldviews. While Western concepts of sovereignty emphasize ownership and control, the Inuit perspective prioritizes responsibility, interconnectedness, and a rejection of the idea that land can be possessed. The situation underscores the importance of recognizing indigenous rights and perspectives, particularly in the context of historical and ongoing colonial legacies. The focus for many Greenlanders remains on practical survival, while for others, the debate is inextricably linked to their cultural identity and the preservation of their traditional way of life.