Denmark committed atrocities during the conquest of Greenland.

The 18th century contained no conquest of Greenland, as Greenland was already a subject of Denmark via a royal marraige with Norway, each entirely peaceful.As the map I showed you shows, foreign presence, by the Norwegians, in Greenland is, before Denmark's takeover, limited to the coasts. It's only in the 19th century, when the union breaks, that Denmark takes all of Greenland over. See the map in the first round.My opponent as offered nothing but red herring arguments involving other nations and peoples, such as the Visigoth Kingdom, which is several hundred miles from Denmark, and has nothing to do with this debate.The Visigoths also only existed from 5th to the 8th centuries, not the 18th century. The last Visigoth King ruled in what is now modern day Spain, in the 700s.SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org......Ostrogothic Kingdom- also ended in the 6th century, a full 1000 years before the 18th century.There is actually no such thing as the "kingdom of danelaw" as Danelaw is a name for a regional culture, not a nation. It also left existence roughly 1000 years before the 18th century.SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org......Actually there are no red harrings. I only put those as a side note in parenteses to display some of the Germanic nation-states that conquered parts of Italy and Spain (and no they were not Christian). And yes Danelaw was indeed a Danish conquest of Britain. http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.historyworld.net...My opponent has yet to show examples of any conquest on the part of the Danes, nor has he shown any atrocities committed during the fictional conquest.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. Only when the Union broke up Denmark launched an invasion of Greenland, expanding territories. And yes trade can be forced. The British invaded for trade too. There was also looting of Greenland, as Denmark today contains many of the resources that originated in Greenland such as Greenlandic fish.My opponent has not provided a source for this claim, aside from his opinion. His picture of colonial holdings does not refute the myriad of historic accounts which state Greenland was uninhabited when the first settlers arrived.SOURCE: http://en.wikisource.org......SOURCE: http://www.greenland-guide.gl......http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...This is anything but uninhabited.My opponent here is attempting to confuse readers. He has attempted to claim that because his provided map does not indicate Greenland is currently uninhabited, that it never was uninhabited, which is not a sound argument at all.Greenland is not considered an overseas territory,specifically because it was a nearby trade settlement, rather than a colony,The words for colony and trade settlement are the same in Danish.http://www.rnw.nl...If you had payed attention to the map, you wouldn't say stuff that's made up. I will show what it shows here. The yellow star means "Overseas territories and countries." Greenland has a yellow star, which means it's an overseas territory, meaning colonial history.My opponent wants to dismiss the cultural history of Greenland, because he realizes the Norse ancestral claim is very strong, and there was never any conquest on the part of the Danes.Norse and Danish are not the same. Norse are Norwegians, and it's even possible that Norwegians might be Celtic, unlike the Germanic Swedes and Danes.We are discussing the entire history of Greenland, so it can be illustrated that Denmark has never conquered or set it's military against Greenland. My opponent has yet to show a single instance where Denmark used it's military against Greenland.http://en.wikipedia.org..."Before the war, Greenland was a tightly controlled colony of Denmark, otherwise closed off to the world."Tightly controlled, it says. If that doesn't showcase brutality and ruthlessness, I don't know does.The Thule/Inuit cultures arrived in southern Greenland in the 1300's. About 500 years after the first Norse settlements. They were not native to the region. As a matter of fact, the Inuits (descendants of the Thule) Did not migrate to Greenland in large numbers until the 1800's.See links to the historic peoples of Greenland I gave, such as the Dorset people.A single example of a human rights violation which occurred during a time of peace is nothing compared to the brutality of England's occupation of India. England did not found India, the Norse did found Greenland. Apples and oranges.A couple of obvious errors here. It was Britain, not England. Scotland was just as responsible for the atrocities and oppression, if not equally so. Many of the royal governors came from Scotland. Many of the officers were Scottish. So my opponent is wrong once again. If anything England was the least invovled of the two. It's stated facts that many of the lietuants were all Scottish.SOURCE: http://www.arcticjournal.ca......Paleo-Eskimos lived in the most northern reaches of Greenland as far back as 4500BC, but never moved to the southern coasts until the Thule/Inuit migration between 1350-1850 CE AKA the little Ice age. The Paleo-Eskimos died out due to harsh conditions. Their descendants migrated back to Greenland in the 13th century.SOURCE: http://www.cbc.ca......Again this is about all of Greenland. There were more groups than just Inuits.It wasn't, and my opponent has not shown otherwise.Yet I have shown other tribes that were in Denmark during the 15th and 16th century, that were all over the island.3. The Napoleonic WarClaiming something is "common knowledge" does not make it so.My opponent claims it is common knowledge that the Danish people are "cruel", yet he cannot provide sources to indicate there was any conquest or cruelty in the 17th -19th century on behalf of the Danes toward Greenland.See my Greenland in WWII source from the article.This indicates my opponent has a cultural bias.Cutlural bias basically means that something is based on truth, even if might be exagerrated, which can automatically make my opponent's argument's valid. However has not proven that I'm biased.Further, Denmark was not "awarded" Greenland, as they already had sovereignty over the settlement via their personal Union with Norway, which was established In 1380, a full 400 years prior. They LOST claim on Norway due to siding with France in the Napoleonic war. They were not awarded anything. They were forced to cede Norway to Sweden.See the map I put. It's obvious that the presence in Greenland was predominantly Norse, and limited to the coast, as I've said, which means they were settlements. It wasn't until after the union broke that the entire island became Danish territory.The expansion of settlement was entirely trade oriented, not conquest. My opponent has no sources to the contrary. There is not a single example of violence from the Danes.There's no such thing as expansion for trade. That would never happen. When a country colonizes another it's usually for three reasons -- looting them of gold, or in the case of the 19th century, resources, forced settlement, or forced trade. There can also be purchase of land, which is peaceful and respectful, but Denmark never did anything like that. Plus Denmark has troops in Greenland.http://www.bbc.co.uk...I have easily refuted everyone of con's arguments. Most of his arguments were about Norway and the Norse (which have nothing to do with Denmark whatsoever). I urge you'se to vote pro based on my successful argument that Denmark was indeed a brutal power. Thank you all voters for looking at this debate I put together.