Denmark committed atrocities during the conquest of Greenland.

1. The Map 1.1. - The initial Map Con presents only indicates where Norse settlements existed in the mid 1400's through present day, It does not establish that the expansion of settlements in the later centuries was via conquest. Expansion was through the peaceful conversion of the Norse/Thule pagan settlements to Christianity, as the histories support and detail. Con has yet to show a single instance of military aggression on behalf of the Danes toward Greenland. 1.2 ", when the union breaks, that Denmark takes all of Greenland over. " Greenland was already entirely under the rule of Denmark-Norway when the Union between Denmark and Norway was split following the Napoleonic war. Denmark retained sovereignty over the Island following the split, when they were forced to cede Norway to Sweden. "The Danish government never forgot or relinquished the claims to Greenland that it had inherited from the Norwegians; and when contact with Greenland was re-established in the early 18th century, Denmark asserted its sovereignty over the island. In 1721, a joint mercantile and clerical expedition led by Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede was sent to Greenland, not knowing whether a Norse civilization remained there. The expedition can be seen as part of the Danish colonization of the Americas. After 15 years in Greenland, Hans Egede left his son Paul Egede in charge of the mission in Greenland and returned to Denmark where he established a Greenland Seminary. This new colony was centred at Godth"b ("Good Hope") on the southwest coast. Gradually, Greenland was opened up to Danish merchants, and closed to those from other countries." SOURCE: http://www.icj-cij.org... 1.3 "foreign presence" The Norse settlers were not foreigners, as they settled land which was uninhabited. During the 1400's and the little ice age, they intermarried with the Dorset peoples, and became the peoples anthropologists call the Thule. Below is a map indicating the Norse were the very first to settle Greenland, indicating they are native, not foreign. SOURCE: http://upload.wikimedia.org... 2. (and no they were not Christian) No one has suggested they were Christian, but the Visigoths certainly converted to Christianity. In or around 589, the Visigoths under Reccared I converted from Arianism to Nicene Christianity, gradually adopting the culture of their Hispano-Roman subjects. SOURCE: Dietrich Claude, in Walter Pohl (ed.) Strategies of Distinction: Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300-800 (Transformation of the Roman World, vol. 2), 1998 ISBN ISBN 90-04-10846-7 (p.119-120: dress and funerary customs cease to be distinguishing features in 570/580) FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2.1 - "And yes Danelaw was indeed a Danish conquest of Britain. " No one has denied the Danish and Norse vikings conquered portions of England and Scotland in the 9th century. Danelaw is not the name of that conquest, but the name given to the regions where Icelandic culture (Norse and Danish), law and tradition existed in the centuries following, and even today. The Danelaw region was subject to centuries of territorial disputes between Saxon and Mercian tribes in the 9th through 11th centuries. England was not a unified nation at this time either, but rather was ruled partially by Icelandic, Norse and Germanic tribes, as well as Celtic tribes. SOURCE: "The Danelaw, as recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (also known as the Danelagh; Old English: Dena lagu; Danish: Danelagen), is a historical name given to the part of England in which the laws of the "Danes" held sway[1] and dominated those of the Anglo-Saxons. It is contrasted with "West Saxon law" and "Mercian law"." The Danelaw was never a kingdom, but a region where Norse and Danish law held sway. It was part of several kingdoms, over several centuries but not a kingdom in and of itself as Con suggested. 2.2 - "This is anything but uninhabited." Con has not provided a source or quote to support this claim. "Europeans became aware of Greenland's existence, probably in the early 10th century, 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... FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. "As I said before, Denmark didn't gain Greenland from an intermarriage, as, according to the map, Norse presence in the colony was limited to the coasts." The location of the settlements has no bearing on whether or not the land was inherited via marriage or conquest. Con has claimed the Danes conquered Greenland, yet cannot produce a single historic accounting of war between the Danes and Greenland. Denmark earned claim on Greenland via a royal union with Norway. SOURCE: "In 1261, the population accepted the overlordship of the Norwegian King as well, although it continued to have its own law. In 1380 the Norwegian kingdom entered into a personal union with the Kingdom of Denmark." FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org... DANISH RESOURCE: http://www.dokpro.uio.no...= 3.1 "Only when the Union broke up Denmark launched an invasion of Greenland" This is entirely untrue. My opponent has provided not a single source to support this claim. The Danes sent a Catholic Bishop to proselytize the settlements, they did not send any military invasion at all, and have never done so. SOURCE: "From 1711 to 1721,[29] the Norwegian cleric Hans Egede petitioned King Frederick IV for funding to travel to Greenland and re-establish contact with the Norse settlers there. Presumably, such settlers would still be Catholic or even pagan and he desired to establish a mission among them to spread the Reformation." FOUND: http://en.wikipedia.org... PRIMARY SOURCE: http://books.google.com.hk... 3.2 " There was also looting of Greenland" "Greenlandic Fish" There is no evidence of this. Denmark is the primary location where Greenland sells fish. That is the only connection to be found between the two. There is no accounting of looting, at all. Con has yet to provide any sources to prove otherwise. 4. "Greenland has a yellow star, which means it's an overseas territory, meaning colonial history." A yellow star does not change the fact that Greenland is not considered a territory, but a sovereign nation. This also does not establish any proof of conquest or atrocities. 5. "Norse and Danish are not the same." This is another example of a red herring argument. This does not show proof of conquest, or atrocities. 6. "Tightly controlled If that doesn't showcase brutality and ruthlessness, I don't know does." Not a single example of conquest or atrocities. Con has not provided a single source to support their BOP. 7. The only group which occupied Greenland in the 1900's were the Nazis and the US. "During World War II, when Nazi Germany extended its war operations to Greenland, Henrik Kauffmann, the Danish Minister to the United States " who had already refused to recognize the German occupation of Denmark " signed a treaty with the United States on April 9, 1941, granting the US Armed Forces permission to establish stations in Greenland. " 8. The Thule were of Norse and Dorset decent, as my sources have shown. 9. My opponent ends with another example of a red herring argument, detailing British agression while unable to provide a single source of Danish aggression.