Denmark should leave Greenland

Both of us are getting a little too opinionated. I'm going to focus on the fact: does Greenland have adequate funds to survive as an independent nation? I'm going to summarize everything I've said to make it easier to understand. And then, the voter can decide on which side of this argument is more logical. Here are three definitions provided by The Free Dictionary that fine the word 'civilized' - 1. Having a highly developed society and culture. 2. Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable 3. Marked by refinement in taste and manners; cultured; polished. By these definitions, we can now determine Greenland as 'civilized'. It has adequate transportation systems, acceptable health care and education. Now, let's look at the definition for the word 'uncivilized' - 1. (Social Science / Anthropology & Ethnology) (of a tribe or people) not yet civilized 2. lacking culture or sophistication Now, you said that their definition of civilization is just as good as ours. They have different meanings than we do; however, would YOU determine nomadic as civilized in any form or fashion? What Denmark has done is given an opportunity for Greenlanders to have a better chance at life, for both Natives and Danes. They have built roads, hospitals, etc. And, of course, there are going to be ethnic disputes; but you can't compare this to independence movements like the Indian movement in 1948, headed by Gandhi. Why? India could take care of themselves; they had a developed economy, one that could withstand the troubles of the times. Greenland can not. You said that the best option for Greenland was that it become its own nation and receive funding from Denmark. My question is - why would Denmark give money away to another nation that revolted? "Due to Greenland's continued dependence on exports of fish - which accounted for 89% of exports in 2010 - the economy remains very sensitive to foreign developments." Again, from the CSI World Factbook - but how can you ignore this fact? How can ignore something that may determine any hope of a free Greenland? I do not believe that Greenland has the money to run themselves as a nation. 56% of government revenue comes from Denmark. Without this revenue, less than half would remain. Less than half would be available to the government to build essentials - schools, roads, you get the picture. In one of the articles that you referenced, it said: "Infrastructure improvements are punishingly expensive and desperately needed in a place where, for instance, people travel by boat or plane because there are no roads connecting towns." Transportation is a key issue in a country that is made up of 85% ice. These needs are "punishingly expensive" and "desperately needed". Who do you think pays a majority of these costs? Denmark! "The economy remains critically dependent on exports of shrimp and fish, income from resource exploration and extraction, and on a substantial subsidy from the Danish Government. The subsidy is budgeted to be about $650 million in 2012, approximately 56% of government revenues in 2012 for the year. The public sector, including publicly owned enterprises and the municipalities, plays the dominant role in Greenland's economy. Greenland's real GDP contracted about 1% in 2009 as a result of the global economic slowdown, but is estimated to have grown 2% in 2010 and 3% in 2011. The relative ease with which Greenland has weathered the economic crisis is due to increased hydrocarbon and mineral exploration and extraction activities, a high level of construction activity in the Nuuk area and the increasing price of fish and shrimp. During the last decade the Greenland Home Rule Government (GHRG) pursued conservative fiscal and monetary policies, but public pressure has increased for better schools, health care and retirement systems. The Greenlandic economy has benefited from increasing catches and exports of shrimp, Greenland halibut and, more recently, crabs. Due to Greenland's continued dependence on exports of fish - which accounted for 89% of exports in 2010 - the economy remains very sensitive to foreign developments. International consortia are increasingly active in exploring for hydrocarbon resources off Greenland's western coast, and international studies indicate the potential for oil and gas fields in northern and northeastern Greenland. In May 2007 a US aluminum producer concluded a memorandum of understanding with the Greenland Home Rule Government to build an aluminum smelter and a power generation facility, which takes advantage of Greenland's abundant hydropower potential. Within the area of mining, olivine sand continues to be produced and gold production has resumed in south Greenland, while rare-earth and iron ore mineral projects have been proposed or planned elsewhere on the island. Tourism also offers another avenue of economic growth for Greenland, with increasing numbers of cruise lines now operating in Greenland's western and southern waters during the peak summer tourism season." This is pulled off of the World Factbook. Pros and cons can be found in this article - but the economy is still unstable, still shaky. But read this, extracted from the article: "During the last decade the Greenland Home Rule Government (GHRG) pursued conservative fiscal and monetary policies, but public pressure has increased for better schools, health care and retirement systems." It seems as though the Natives - which make up a large majority of the population - don't want to return to their old, nomadic ways. They prefer civilization rather than tradition. Your argument about how much the Inuits hate the Danish way of doing things is incorrect - they may not like Danes, but do enjoy a better standard of living. They do enjoy better schools, health care, and retirement systems." Who funds these programs - Denmark! Here are the Natives' stance on this debate, or at least how I've interpreted it. They want independence, but want a better standard of living. This is a waffled stance - the Danes have provided for them! Without them, their would be no schools, health care, or retirement systems. None of this would exist in Greenland. "If it was to help Greenland, they'd be doing trade, not taking over their government." This is what you argued - but I am going to prove it false once again. Like I said, "You also said that if Denmark really wanted to help Greenland, they would trade. Let me tell you that, according to the CIA, Denmark is Greenland's biggest trading partner - around 60%. The next biggest exporting partner is Japan, at 15%. The next biggest importing partner is Sweden, at 17%. It seems to me that Denmark, despite ethnic tensions, is doing a whole lot of good for Greenland." See? And your comment about them taking over the government was ONCE true - but now has been invalidated with the introduction of self-governance in Greenland.