Greenland should be a part of Canada!

I was reading the usual stuff about Drumpf when the subject of 
Greenland came up.... so I asked my friendly personal A.I. SAL-9000... 

Sal, anything new over the weekend about the U.S. trying to take over Greenland, and the chances of Canada accepting Greenland as a new territory?

 If that's what they want?

 SAL-9000 said: Here’s the latest situation (as of this weekend) regarding the U.S. interest in Greenland and the idea of Greenland becoming part of Canada (or anything like that):

1. U.S. Talk About Taking Over Greenland Has Escalated. President Donald Trump has renewed statements suggesting that the U.S. needs to take over Greenland, claiming it’s critical for national security and the Arctic situation (especially with Russian and Chinese activity in the region). 

2. Denmark and Greenland Reject the Idea Strongly. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen has publicly said the U.S. has no right to annex Greenland and that any attempt to do so would undermine NATO since Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO member. 

Greenland’s own Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has said talk of annexation is “completely unacceptable” and insisted Greenland will remain sovereign under Danish rule unless Greenlanders decide otherwise. 

3. Greenland’s Position. Much of Greenland prefers independence from Denmark, but polls have consistently shown very low support for becoming part of the United States. 

There’s no political movement in Greenland advocating joining Canada, and the idea of becoming a Canadian territory hasn’t been raised by Greenlandic leaders or the public in any serious way in current reporting.

4. Canada’s Position. Canada has not signalled any interest in Greenland becoming Canadian territory. In fact, Canadian officials have affirmed support for Greenland’s and Denmark’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. 

Canada is focusing on Arctic cooperation and security... but not on territorial claims related to Greenland.

5. International Legal and Practical Reality

International law prohibits the annexation of territory by force, especially between allied countries.

Denmark and Greenland would have to agree willingly for any territorial change, and there’s no indication of that.

Greenland is in the process of increasing autonomy, with discussions over future independence from Denmark. 

Summary:

U.S. rhetoric: Renewed talk from Trump about taking over Greenland for “security” reasons. 

Denmark & Greenland: Firmly reject this. Denmark warns that any military move would break NATO; Greenland insists it won’t be annexed. 

Canada: Not pursuing Greenland as a territory; supports sovereignty and stability in the Arctic. 

Reality on the ground: No credible diplomatic or legal movement toward Greenland joining the U.S. or Canada.

If you want, I can also summarize the geopolitical motives behind why the U.S. is talking about Greenland again (strategic location, Arctic shipping routes, resources, etc.).

You said: No, we know why... give me ways to increase interest in Greenland becoming a Canadian territory

SAL-9000 said: Below are realistic, non-coercive ways Canada could increase Greenlandic interest in a voluntary Canadian territorial association, if Greenlanders themselves ever wished to explore it.

This is framed as soft-power attraction, not annexation or pressure.

1. Frame Canada as a Stepping-Stone to Independence, Not a Replacement Ruler. Greenland’s dominant long-term aspiration is independence from Denmark, not absorption by another great power.

Canada could position itself as: A transitional federal partner. Offering autonomy + protection, not control (A model similar to Canada’s relationship with its northern territories!)

Key message: “Join Canada temporarily or conditionally as a territory, with an explicit, protected path to full independence later.”

1. That is far more appealing than: Remaining under Denmark indefinitely or becoming a U.S. possession with limited self-determination!

2. Emphasize Cultural & Arctic Parallels, Not Nationalism: Canada has credibility here that the U.S. does not.

Highlight shared realities:

- Arctic governance.

- Small, remote communities.

- Indigenous language preservation.

- Subsistence traditions.

- Climate-frontline adaptation.

Canada should stress parallels with Nunavut, including:

- Inuktitut language protection.

- Local control over land use.

- Co-management of wildlife.

- Cultural autonomy embedded in law.

This frames Canada as: “A country that already lives the Arctic reality... rather than exploiting it.”

3. Offer Concrete Economic Guarantees, Not Abstract Promises! Greenland’s fears include:

- Resource extraction without local benefit.

- Becoming a strategic pawn.

- Cultural dilution.

Canada could counter with specific, written guarantees, such as:

- Greenland-controlled resource royalties.

- Mandatory local employment quotas.

- Canadian investment in ports, housing, broadband, and healthcare.

- Arctic research hubs headquartered in Greenland, not Ottawa

This contrasts sharply with U.S. perceptions of:

- Military-first priorities.

- Corporate extraction.

- Washington-centric decision-making.

4. Position Canada as a Shield Against U.S. Pressure, Not a Proxy! This is delicate... but powerful. Canada could quietly signal:

- Greenland within Canada would be inside NATO already

- No U.S. annexation pressure

- No “buyout” politics

- No sudden militarization beyond existing defence agreements!

In other words: “Canada is boring... and that’s the point.” For a small population, boring governance is often preferable to the attention of great powers!

5. Promote a Greenland-Led Referendum + Constitutional Convention... Interest increases when people feel ownership of the process!

Canada should never “propose annexation.” Instead, it could support:

- Greenland-initiated public discussions.

- Academic exchanges on governance options.

- Joint commissions exploring all futures: independence, association, confederation.

This mirrors how Canada handles internal constitutional change... slow, legal, consent-based!

6. Use Climate & Science Leadership as the Primary Hook! Greenland is ground zero for:

- Ice melt

- Sea-level rise

- Climate research

- Arctic data sovereignty

Canada could propose:

- A Greenland-based Arctic Climate Authority

- Joint stewardship of polar science.

- Long-term funding without political strings.

This frames Canada as a partner in survival, not a bidder in a real-estate deal!!!!!

7. What Not to Do! (This Matters.)

Any of the following would kill interest instantly:

- Public Canadian political enthusiasm for “acquiring” Greenland!

- Military framing!

- Economic leverage threats!

- U.S.-style “security necessity” language!

Media speculation driven by outsiders!

Greenlandic interest only grows if: The idea feels like Greenland’s idea.

Bottom Line: Could Canada increase Greenlandic interest?

Yes... but only by offering:

- Autonomy before authority!

- Partnership before power!

- Exit options before permanence!

- Cultural respect before economics!

Canada’s strength here is not ambition... It’s restraint!

Compare Canada vs. the U.S. vs. Independence from a Greenlandic perspective, point by point.

Below is a Greenland-centric comparison, written from the perspective of Greenlanders deciding their own future, not outside powers arguing over them.

***

Greenland’s Strategic Futures... A Ground-Level Comparison: 

Option A: Full Independence. (Greenland stands alone as a sovereign Arctic state)

Advantages:

- Complete political self-determination.

- Full control over resources, foreign policy, and identity.

- Strong symbolic and cultural fulfillment of long-held aspirations.

- Ability to choose partnerships case-by-case.

Risks / Challenges:

Extremely small population managing:

- Defence.

- Currency stability.

- International diplomacy.

- Infrastructure costs.

- High vulnerability to pressure from larger powers. (U.S., China, EU)

- Economic dependence on resource extraction and tourism.

- Climate costs borne alone.

Greenlandic Reality Check: Independence is emotionally compelling, but structurally fragile unless paired with a powerful, non-dominating partner!

Option B: Association with Canada: (Greenland becomes a Canadian territory or associated entity by consent)

Advantages:

- Retains strong local autonomy. (territorial governance model)

- Embedded Indigenous rights framework. (proven, legal, constitutional)

- Stable currency, healthcare system, and social safety net.

- Shared Arctic governance experience

- NATO membership without U.S. political dominance.

- Lower geopolitical profile → less great-power pressure.

Risks / Tradeoffs:

- Some loss of symbolic sovereignty

- Cultural dilution concerns if poorly handled

- Ottawa distance (though less than Copenhagen in practice.)

* Requires constitutional innovation! (but Canada has precedent!)

Greenlandic Reality Check:

- Canada offers boring stability, cultural respect, and legal predictability.

- For a small Arctic population, boring can be a feature—not a flaw.

Option C: Association with the United States.

(Greenland joins or is absorbed by the U.S.)

 Advantages:

- Massive economic capacity.

- Infrastructure investment potential.

- Military protection guaranteed.

- Immediate global influence.

Risks / Red Flags:

- Militarization prioritized over civilian life.

- Federal governance is weak on Indigenous autonomy.

- Cultural marginalization is likely.

- Strategic value outweighs local voice.

- Domestic U.S. political volatility spills over.

- Greenland becomes a military asset first, society second!

Greenlandic Reality Check:

This option offers power, but not patience. Greenland will become a strategic outpost rather than a lived homeland!

Option D: Status Quo with Denmark. (Expanded autonomy, gradual reform)

Advantages:

- Known system, low disruption.

- Financial support continues

- Strong welfare model

- International legitimacy intact

Risks / Limitations:

- Persistent colonial undertone.

- Cultural distance.

- Limited strategic leverage.

- Slower path to true self-determination.

- Growing generational dissatisfaction.

Greenlandic Reality Check:

Denmark is safe... but increasingly feels like the past, not the future!

Comparative Snapshot. (Greenland’s Interests First)

Comparative Snapshot. (Greenland’s Interests First)

Criterion	Independ	Canada	United   States	Denmark
Cultural Autonomy	★★★★★	★★★★☆	★★☆☆☆	★★★☆☆
Economic Stability	★★☆☆☆	★★★★☆	★★★★★	★★★★☆
Political Voice	★★★★★	★★★★☆	★★☆☆☆	★★★☆☆
Defence Without Domination	★☆☆☆☆	★★★★☆	★☆☆☆☆	★★★☆☆
Long-Term Resilience	★★☆☆☆	★★★★☆	★★★☆☆	★★★☆☆

From a Greenlandic perspective:

- Independence = dignity with risk.

- United States = power with loss of agency.

- Denmark = security with stagnation.

- Canada = autonomy with stability.

Canada’s unique appeal is that it offers:

- Protection without possession

- Structure without spectacle

- Partnership without urgency

 That combination is rare in geopolitics!

***

 So, after everything is said and done... Canada is complete! (Alaska and Maine as new provinces, as well as Point Roberts and that chunk of the top of Lake of the Woods, plus Greenland and the Turks and Caicos Islands as territories! (The Turks so we have somewhere to go in the winter!) 😊

(This will give us twelve provinces and five territories... plus control of the North West Passage... which we can defend with our new SAAB Gripen E jets!)

Maine Senator wants to Assimilate Western Canada!

For those who haven’t heard... about a week ago... a Member of British Columbia's Legislative Assembly... Brennan Day, made public that the American Senator Joseph E. Martin of Maine sent an invitation to all elected officials in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba to join the U.S.A!

A Maine State senator named Joseph E. Martin sent letters to Western Canadian MLAs.  In those letters, he laid out how Canada should join the United States. He said our provinces would benefit under the Great Constitution, and he even explained how ties to Canada would have to be given up... and how Canadians would need to assimilate to become US citizens.

"Maine State Senator Joseph Martin thought he could lecture Canada with a letter telling us how to give up our sovereignty and assimilate into the United States!" 

What he didn’t expect was the response!

By the hundreds, if not thousands, Canadians sent him emails and phone calls calling his letter ignorant, disrespectful, and completely out of touch. 

Many of those powerful messages prove Canadians are standing together!

It wasn’t just Canadians either. 

Citizens from the UK and Germany also joined in... sending their own replies... and showing that Canada has international allies who see right through this 51st state rhetoric and Trump-style annexation talk!

Here's what this guy is suggesting:

Meanwhile, a lot of delusional Canadians are suggesting THIS map!

BUT...

A more realistic map would look like this:

That's right, Bunky... Alaska and Maine should join Canada as our 11th and 12th Provinces... While Greenland and the Turks and Caicos Islands should become Canadian Territories!

***

That would give us 12 Provinces and 5 Territories... which means we would control the top half of North America!

And what about the Turks and Caicos... you ask?

Well... Everyone needs somewhere to go in the winter... and it sure ain't gonna be Florida or Arizona!

LET'S INVADE SOME PLACES!!!!

Or at least have a referendum on them joining Canada!

And if Drumpf doesn't behave... we will take Michigan's 'Upper Peninsula...' and Pt. Roberts too!

U.S. States That Almost Became Part of Canada!

 The map of North America could have looked very different today. 

Many U.S. states nearly flew the Canadian flag instead of the stars and stripes due to border fights, land deals, and political battles that happened long ago.

The shared border between the United States and Canada wasn’t always clear, and both countries fought over land for years. 

These States were caught in the middle of these fights and almost ended up on the Canadian side of history, changing what both countries would look like forever.

Maine:

Big toss-up on whether Maine should go with the "Americans" or the British... decision still up in the air!

Vermont:

Vermont existed as an independent republic from 1777 to 1791 and considered joining British North America. Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys held discussions with British representatives about Vermont potentially becoming a Canadian province. Vermont officials negotiated with both nations to determine the most beneficial arrangement. The territory ultimately became the 14th U.S. state in 1791, though historical records indicate this decision was not unanimous.

Minnesota:

The northern Minnesota territory was disputed, with Britain seeking the mineral-rich Mesabi Range for Canada. Initial boundary proposals placed the northern shore of Lake Superior under British control. This resource-rich area became an important consideration during negotiations following the War of 1812. The boundary established by the 1842 treaty placed Minnesota’s northern border at the 49th parallel, securing these natural resources for the United States.

Montana:

Northern Montana was claimed by Britain during multiple border disagreements throughout the 19th century. The Hudson’s Bay Company established trading posts and developed relationships with Native American tribes across the region. British diplomats attempted to secure territories south of the 49th parallel, particularly focusing on areas with strategic water routes. The Oregon Treaty of 1846 established Montana’s northern boundary at the 49th parallel, though the physical border survey wasn’t completed until the 1870s.

Michigan's Upper Peninsula:

British forces occupied Mackinac Island and influenced the Upper Peninsula region following the War of 1812. Military authorities requested that the entire Upper Peninsula remain under British control as part of Canada. Their territorial claim was based on military presence and established commercial networks throughout the region. The Treaty of Ghent in 1814 returned the peninsula to American control, though the final Great Lakes boundary wasn’t fully determined until the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842.

North Dakota:

The border placement along the 49th parallel created territorial uncertainty in North Dakota for several decades. Hudson’s Bay Company established trading operations while Métis communities developed settlements near the unmarked boundary. Survey errors regarding Fort Pembina’s location contributed to geographical misunderstandings about the exact border. The boundary was officially designated in 1818 but remained unmarked until surveys were conducted in the 1870s, creating an area of jurisdictional uncertainty.

Alaska:

Russia approached both Britain and the United States when seeking to sell its Alaskan territory. Canadian representatives showed interest in acquiring the territory to extend their western territories to the Pacific Ocean. Secretary of State William Seward completed the purchase for the United States in 1867 for $7.2 million. This acquisition prevented Alaska’s substantial natural resources from becoming Canadian assets.

Wisconsin:

The fur trade made northern Wisconsin strategically important during early boundary negotiations between the United States and British North America. The Great Lakes watershed boundary was contested, with Britain claiming areas farther south than the current border. British commercial enterprises had established trading networks that they sought to maintain through territorial control. The Treaty of Paris in 1783 created a preliminary boundary, though disputes continued until the Webster-Ashburton Treaty established the final border in 1842.

New York:

Northern New York remained under British military presence for years following the American Revolution. The regions surrounding the St. Lawrence River and Lake Champlain were considered strategically significant by both nations. British military forces maintained control of forts despite treaty obligations to withdraw from American territory. The Jay Treaty of 1794 finally secured British military withdrawal, though border questions continued into the early 19th century.