Yes Greenland wants to be independent under the terms that Denmark continue to pay huge regional subsidies of more than 10k USD per capita per year. On top of paying for official functions like police and defense. While still being tax exempt.

They don't want to pay for any of that themselves.

Apparently the only thing that keeps Greenland part of Denmark is money.
And AFAIK Denmark gets nothing in return.

If this support for more than a hundred years, doesn't make Greenlanders feel as if they are part of Denmark, then I don't see why we should keep supporting them.

Yes we made mistakes in the past, but good luck finding someone else to support you, that display greater respect for the autonomy of Greenland.

Yeah. But I think you’re underestimating how much people like money dude.

Land grabs are more common now than in the 19th century? That's just completely false. That was the age of Manifest Destiny and overt colonization by European powers. Conflicts like Russia's invasion of Ukraine are so notable because they are so rare in the modern era. Today, global powers are more about economic influence, trading relationships, and economic spheres of influence. Turns out it's a lot cheaper and more efficient to just trade with people than to pay for the huge expense of maintaining an old-fashioned colonial empire. Look at China. They're expanding their influence through their Belt and Road Initiative, not through outright conquest and imperial subjugation. Or look at the US trade and influence machines it built after WW2 like the WTO, the World Bank, etc. It is very very rare for the great powers to outright seize land anymore. The US doesn't need to conquer Congo and become responsible for its people in order to gain access to its resources. It can just cut a check for them.

And no, it really isn't the same government. The federal government in 2025 has an entirely different relationship with the US population than it did in 1867. Hell, the entire way the US conducts military and diplomatic policy changed after WW2 and the dawn of the atomic era. The US hasn't formally declared war on anyone since WW2, when previously it was the norm for every conflict. Programs like Social Security or policies like anti-drug laws would have been unfathomable to a US citizen in 1867.

And if you want to say it's the same people, it really isn't. We're not the same people we were then, culturally or genetically. Even just ethnically, we've had so many waves of immigrants that our ethnic admixtures have completely changed. That's to say nothing of how much our norms and culture have fundamentally shifted. Try explaining gender nonbinary people to someone from 1867.

Look, I get it. It's tempting to adopt the old world-weary saying that nothing is new under the Sun, but I don't see how one can possibly look at the monumental changes in global technology, history, and culture over the last century and a half and conclude that things are basically the same. If nothing else, the introduction of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the way the great powers manage their affairs.

Yes, you can be incredibly pedantic and say that, "well, human nature is the same, so fundamentally nothing has changed." But at that point you might as well be arguing that the US and ancient Babylon are the same country.