Denmark committed atrocities during the conquest of Greenland.

I. Conquest - My oponent has argued that because Norse settlers increased in number, that conquest occurred. This is not the case, as conquest requires "The subjugation and assumption of control of a place or people by use of military force".The Danish people never used military force, as I will now demonstrate.1.1 - Norse settlement - The Norse (Norwegians not Danish people) - discovered Greenland in the 10th century (estimated)."when Gunnbj"rn Ulfsson, sailing from Norway to Iceland, was blown off course by a storm, and happened to sight some islands off Greenland."During the 980s, explorers from Iceland and Norway reached the southwest coast of Greenland, found the region uninhabited, and settled there.SOURCE: http://www.academia.edu......There was no conquest, as the regions were uninhabited.There's one problem with this: I'm not talking about medieval times. I'm talking about the 18th century. Obviously conquering countries (with the exception of the few Germanic states that conquered -- like the Visigothic Kingdom, the Ostrogothic Kingdom, Kingdom of Danelaw), countries weren't really conquering anyone. And when I meant Norse, I meant Greenland before Denmark took a hold of it. Yes, the Norse settlers were peaceful people who made a colony. That's not relevant though, what we're talking about is Denmark's cruel hold on it during the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century.He sailed to Greenland, where he explored the coastline and claimed certain regions as his own. There was no conquest, because the regions were uninhabited.http://en.wikipedia.org...Obviously an unfortunate lack of common knowledge shown here (and is all too common in corrupt schools). Yes there were people in Greenland, a good decent amount of people, so there was no uninhabited territories. Uninhabited territories would be places like Antartica, which are used for scientific research in the modern day.From http://www.rnw.nl... If Greenland had been uninhabited, which for some weird reason my opponent claims, it wouldn't be listed as an overseas territory, but rather as a research zone much like the Norwegian and British zones in Antartica.He then returned to Iceland to persuade people to join him in establishing a settlement on Greenland. The Icelandic sagas say that 25 ships left Iceland with Erik the Red in 985 AD, and that only 14 of them arrived safely in Greenland.Again, the Middle Ages. No Catholic country was really into conquest during those times. The only thing they did was the Crusades which was more a war than conquest.He even named the island Greenland to attract settlers, as the southern coast was virtually uninhabited.http://en.wikipedia.org...See the source. Obviously this is a lack of knowledge on part of con. However, this also happened in the Middle Ages. So the Norse peacefully colonized the area, and the Inuits and Norse got along (but I'm not talking about Norway or the Norse, I'm talking about Denmark in the 19th century).http://en.wikisource.org......1.3 - The Norse settlers traded with the Thule natives in the north, they did not conquer them, and the only violence recorded between the two cultures was on the part of the migrant Thule tribes from the north.The Norse settlers traded peacefully with the few Thule's who lived on the norther portion of the Island.There is evidence of Norse trade with the natives (called Skraelings by the Vikings). The Norse would have encountered both Native Americans (the Beothuk, related to the Algonkians) and the Thule, ancestors of the Inuit.There was no conquest, only peaceful trade.Again, this is not about the Middle Ages. We're talking Denmark during the 19th century, when they were Protestant.There are historic accounts of raids performed by the migrating Thule (Inuit) tribes. They even took Greenlanders into slavery."Although Greenland seems to have been uninhabited at the time of initial Norse settlement, after a couple of centuries the Norse in Greenland had to deal with the Inuit. The Thule-Inuit were the successors of the Dorset who migrated south and finally came into contact with the Norse in the 12th century. There are limited sources showing the two cultures interacting; however, scholars know that the Norse referred to the Inuit (and Vinland natives) as skraeling. The Icelandic Annals are among the few existing sources that confirm contact between the Norse and the Inuit. They report an instance of hostility initiated by the Inuit against the Norse, leaving eighteen Greenlanders dead and two boys carried into slavery."That pretty much is a concession. Greenland had tribes in the north. Maybe the south was inhabited (and even then the Norse were the peaceful ones, not the Danes). Pretty soon the Inuits would come there.1.5 The Napoleonic War and the destruction of the Union.Without going into too much detail about the Napoleonic war, Denmark chose to side with France, which lost. (1801)Copenhagen was sacked by the British, and as a result of the peace settlement with the rest of Europe, Denmark was forced to break it's union with Norway, but retained claim on their colonies.As a matter of fact, no blood was shed to establish this deal between Norway and Denmark, it is the only territorial dispute in history to be decided by an international court (see source below)SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org......SOURCE: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca......That doesn't prove they weren't cruel (common knowledge). What it means was that Denmark was awarded the whole of Greenland, as the map showed wasn't really Danish until the early 19th century, which was when the Napoloenic Wars. So there wasn't conquest. 1.6 The Eksperimentet (1951)This is an excellent example of an overreach by a government, it is also a tragic case of xenophobia which was rampant in Europe during the mid 1900's. It is not an example of an atrocity committed during conquest, as it did not occur during conquest. It is also only a single example. It also led to the peaceful independence of Greenland, just two years later, as it was widely regarded as a human rights abuse.It wasn't during conquest, because Greenland had long belonged to Denmark. Obviously this was pretty much like the atrocities the British did in India during rule.It was not an atrocity, which is defined as: an extremely wicked or cruel act, typically one involving physical violence or injury. And it certainly did not occur during any form of conquest.Yes it was. Colonial troops forcefully taking kids away from their families and throwing them out, destroying families singlehandedly as a divide and conquer method. That technically is an atrocity.My opponent claims Greenland had no representation, which is false:In 1953, Greenland was raised from the status of colony to that of an autonomous province or constituent country of the Danish Realm. Despite its small population, it was provided nominal representation in the Danish Folketing.They had no representation before 1953 (or it could be 1979, depending on the source), because it was under the subjugation of another country. Using 1953 doesn't work because that was the end, so obviously today they fare better than they did. So technically you have a red harring here.My opponent forgets that my case is about Denmark during the 19th century, not the middle Age Norwegians who settled. It clearly states Denmark. I even put in my first round of debate, "Look at Greenland from 1754 to 1885 -- notice how in the beginning the presence is Norse [not Danes, Norse which are from Norway] and limited to the coast, by 1822 and 1885, the whole island is taken over by Danish conquest. That implies that conquest indeed did happen. Has to. This is common knowledge." He never really refuted anything. I can't post all that you put to refute as the word limit is there. But I clearly showed you. We're talking Denmark in the 19th century.