QA:您對唐納德·特朗普購買格陵蘭島有何看法？

Brian Keenan
He is still living in the 1800’s when it was legal to buy and sell people. However slavery has been outlawed and Trump would be up before the UN council on human rights if he tried

他仍然生活在19世紀，當(dāng)時買賣人口是合法的。然而，奴隸制已被宣布為非法，如果特朗普試圖這樣做，他將在聯(lián)合國人權(quán)理事會面前受審。

Anthony M Anderson Negative
This loser doesn't realise that we aren't in the 19th century. The americans bought the philippines, puerto rico, guam and cuba from spain after it had lost the spanish-american war. It bought the danish virgin islands in 1917 and renamed them as US virrgin islands. We don't do this in the modern times as we have an international law that recognises the right to self determination or not. He doesn't get over this and it would be a clear violation had this happened if denmark had to comply under intense pressure. The US would be condemned internationally with it's allies seeing it as untrustworthy and the enemies pointing out the double standards. In 2019, Denmark and Greenland told him no which made him unhappy about it and he was laughed with others calling him stupid or idiot.

否定。
這個失敗者沒有意識到我們不是生活在19世紀。 在美西戰(zhàn)爭失敗后，美國人從西班牙手中買下了菲律賓、波多黎各、關(guān)島和古巴。1917年，它買下了丹麥維爾京群島，并將其更名為美國維爾京群島。 在現(xiàn)代，我們不這樣做，因為我們有一項承認自決權(quán)或不承認自決權(quán)的國際法。他沒有克服這一點，如果丹麥不得不在巨大壓力下出售，這將是一種明顯的違規(guī)行為。美國將受到國際譴責(zé)，其盟友會認為美國不值得信任，敵人則會指出美國的雙標。 2019年，丹麥和格陵蘭島拒絕了他，這讓他很不高興，他被別人嘲笑為愚蠢或白癡。

5 years later, he repeats the same thing with greenland and denmark reiterating the statements made they did. It was a concidence this happened given the fact he called Canada 51 US state and threatening to take over the panama canal. It shows how bananas he has gone through his mind and most americans are embarrassed of this rhetoric. Greenland has its own parliament, laws and flag as a constituent country of denmark enjoying full degree of self governance since 15 years ago. Greenland is Greenland and it isn't for sale

五年后，他又對格陵蘭和丹麥重復(fù)了同樣的事情，重申了他們發(fā)表的聲明。巧合的是，他還稱加拿大為美國的第 51 個州，并威脅要接管巴拿馬運河。這表明他的想法是多么瘋狂，大多數(shù)美國人都對這種言論感到尷尬。 格陵蘭島作為丹麥的組成部分，擁有自己的議會、法律和旗幟，自 15 年前以來，一直享有完全的自治權(quán)。 格陵蘭就是格陵蘭，它不是用來出售的。
賀 王

It feel like this to me: US holds a feast for its allies, Canada and Denmark come into the dining room, but can’t find their seats. Canada&Denmark: Where should we sit, boss? US: Oh! You guys are not at the Table, you are on the Menu.

我覺得是這樣的：
美國為盟友舉辦宴會，加拿大和丹麥來到餐廳，卻找不到座位。
加拿大和丹麥：老板，我們坐哪兒？
美國：哦！你們不在餐桌上，你們在菜單上。

Christen Carlé
I understand why most people react the way they do to the idea of America acquiring Greenland, but I think the reason people have that reaction probably boils down to the fact that all they really know about Greenland is that it exists, America doesn't own it now, and it's icy. Slightly more informed people (or anyone who has read the news since the idea has been brought up again in the last few weeks) might know it's currently a territory of Denmark, but generally speaking, the average person doesn't see how this arrangement would benefit the US or Greenland, or why Denmark would want to give it up, so here are some facts to explain why it would actually benefit everyone involved if this were to happen. It's a bit of a long read, but I promise this will help you understand the situation better than what you get from the news, whichever channel you happen to prefer.

我理解為什么大多數(shù)人對美國收購格陵蘭島的想法會有這樣的反應(yīng)，但我認為人們有這種反應(yīng)的原因可能歸結(jié)為這樣一個事實：他們對格陵蘭島的真正了解僅限于它存在，美國現(xiàn)在不擁有它，還有它很冷。
稍微了解一點的人（或者在過去幾周這個想法再次被提出以來讀過新聞的任何人）可能知道它目前是丹麥的領(lǐng)土，但一般來說，普通人看不出這種安排對美國或格陵蘭島有什么好處，也看不出丹麥為什么要放棄它，所以這里有一些事實來解釋為什么如果發(fā)生這種情況，它實際上會給所有相關(guān)人員帶來好處。
這篇文章有點長，但我保證這會比你從新聞中得到的信息更能幫助你了解情況，無論你喜歡的是哪個新聞渠道。

Greenland's economy is almost entirely derived from fishing, and the revenue this generates is nowhere near enough to actually sustain Greenland independently. It receives about a half billion dollar subsidy each year from Denmark that makes up the difference, so Denmark has been losing literally billions of dollars for decades now supporting the island. This is also about where Danish support ends: you may have heard that Greenland is very rich in natural resources, but it does not have the infrastructure for them to take advantage of that. There aren't even any roads connecting different towns on the island. None, zero. No railways either. Nearly all transportation, when weather permits, is by air, water, or dogsled, and Denmark has shown zero interest in developing the island beyond that, nor does it probably have the financial means to do so if it wanted to. Greenland has been pushing for independence for years, but if it achieved this, it would not be able to support itself without outside investment. The US has the resources and motivation to invest in this, and if it did, Greenland's economy would indeed be exponentially more prosperous than it is under Danish rule.

格陵蘭的經(jīng)濟幾乎完全來自捕魚，而捕魚帶來的收入遠遠不足以維持格陵蘭的獨立。每年丹麥會向格陵蘭提供大約 5 億美元的補貼來彌補差額，因此丹麥幾十年來在支持該島方面損失了數(shù)十億美元。
丹麥的支持也到此為止了：您可能聽說過格陵蘭的自然資源非常豐富，但它沒有基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施來利用這些資源。島上甚至沒有連接不同城鎮(zhèn)的道路。一個也沒有。也沒有鐵路。天氣允許時，幾乎所有的交通工具都是通過空中、水路或狗拉雪橇，丹麥對進一步開發(fā)該島毫無興趣，即使它想這樣做，也可能沒有財力。
多年來，格陵蘭一直在爭取獨立，但如果它實現(xiàn)了獨立，如果沒有外部投資，它將無法自給自足。美國擁有資源和動力對此進行投資，如果美國這么做了，格陵蘭的經(jīng)濟確實會比在丹麥統(tǒng)治下繁榮得多。

Another thing Denmark doesn't do for Greenland, but the US does, is protect it militarily. Denmark has a few boats patrolling the shores, but they're not really what you would call protection because they're not up to defending the island were it to actually be attacked by anybody. Greenland's native ability to protect itself is so lacking that, on the occasions they have detected Russian or other foreign subs coming through their territorial waters, it was by accident because they don't even have the means to run modern surveillance. The US has maintained a military presence there since the 1940s when Denmark fell to the Nazis. We obviously didn't want Nazis using it to stage an attack on North America, so in a bilateral agreement, America set up a military base (Thule Air Base) that exists to this day, and the agreement we've had with Denmark since then has been that the United States is responsible for military defense of the island, not Denmark.

丹麥沒有為格陵蘭做的另一件事，那就是軍事保護，這是美國做的。
丹麥有幾艘船在海岸巡邏，但它們并不是真正的保護，因為如果格陵蘭真的受到任何人的攻擊，它們無法保衛(wèi)該島。 格陵蘭本土的自衛(wèi)能力非常薄弱，以至于他們偶爾會發(fā)現(xiàn)俄羅斯或其他外國潛艇穿越其領(lǐng)海，這是偶然的，因為他們甚至沒有進行現(xiàn)代監(jiān)視的手段。
自 1940 年代丹麥淪陷于納粹手中以來，美國一直在那里駐軍。我們顯然不希望納粹利用它對北美發(fā)動襲擊，因此在雙邊協(xié)議中，美國建立了一個軍事基地（圖勒空軍基地），該基地至今仍然存在，從那時起，我們與丹麥達成的協(xié)議是美國負責(zé)該島的軍事防御，而不是丹麥。

In essence, the Danish treat Greenland like that one side of your house that you don't really have room to do anything with and never mow the grass, and you would never sign it over to your neighbors, but you don't lose much sleep if their kids occasionally kick their soccer balls over the property line. They have shown almost no interest in doing anything more than throw them that token half billion a year, otherwise leave them to manage their own affairs, and let the United States defend it for them for the last 85 years. They're kind of like the geopolitical equivalent of a deadbeat dad.

從本質(zhì)上講，丹麥人對待格陵蘭就像對待你家外面那一側(cè)的土地，你真的沒有空間去做任何事情，你從不修剪草坪，你也永遠不會把它轉(zhuǎn)讓給你的鄰居，但是即使鄰居的孩子偶爾把足球踢過地界，你也不會睡不好覺。
他們幾乎沒有表現(xiàn)出任何興趣，除了每年給他們象征性的五億美元，然后就是讓他們自己管理好自己的事務(wù)，美國在過去 85 年里為他們保衛(wèi)它。他們有點像地緣政治版的不負責(zé)任的父親。

Okay, but cultural identity, right? If Greenland becomes part of the United States, won't their history, culture, language, etc disappear under the weight of American influence? Well, couple of things there. First, the idea that the US will seek to squash their culture is ridiculous. Yes, US law, education standards, separation of church and state, economic and defense policy will apply to them as it would anywhere else in the country, there will be a cultural influence in terms of media and so on, and there would be changes that come with that, but as we've seen with the fa‘a(chǎn) Samoa in American Samoa, the balance between US citizenship and Boricua culture in Puerto Rico, as well as Hawaii, Texas, and on and on, there is no one, monolithic "American" culture that applies everywhere, and it's hard to make the claim that being part of America means your native culture disappears without a trace or that the United States is interested in doing so.

好的，但是文化認同呢？ 如果格陵蘭成為美國的一部分，他們的歷史、文化、語言等會不會在美國影響的重壓下消失？ 嗯，有幾件事。 首先，美國會試圖壓制他們的文化的想法是荒謬的。
是的，美國法律、教育標準、政教分離、經(jīng)濟和國防政策將適用于他們，就像在美國其他地方一樣，在媒體等方面也會有文化影響，并且會隨之而來變化，但正如我們在美屬薩摩亞的波多黎各的美國公民身份和波多黎各文化之間的平衡，以及夏威夷、德克薩斯等地所看到的那樣，沒有一種單一的、適用于所有地方的“美國”文化，很難說成為美國的一部分意味著你的本土文化會消失得無影無蹤，或者美國會有意這樣做。

On the other hand, beginning in the 1950s, the Danish launched a campaign of "modernization" that involved forced relocation to support rapid industrialization, a law restricting Greenlandic civil servants to earning no more than 85% of what Danish-born civil servants could, children were taken from their families and sent to Denmark for education, and the only people controlling the government and industry on Greenland were transplants from Denmark. Prior to that, they forced Christianity and Danish culture/language on the Inuit natives for over 150 years. Greenland only managed to change their official language from Danish back to Greenlandic in 2008. Sitting the two models side-by-side, it's hard to say Greenland's cultural identity would be better off under Danish rather than American control. So, Greenland's options basically boil down to either a)staying part of Denmark, which they've been clear they do no want to do, b)declare full independence and take their chances, or c)join the United States, maintain their cultural identity, but still benefit from the American economy, military, education system, and investment, an arrangement that, outside of Danish ownership and the half billion in cash per year, is already not far off from how they have been operating since 1941.

另一方面，從 20 世紀 50 年代開始，丹麥人發(fā)起了一場“現(xiàn)代化”運動，其中包括強制遷移以支持快速工業(yè)化，一項法律限制格陵蘭公務(wù)員的收入不得超過丹麥出生公務(wù)員的 85%，兒童被從家庭中帶走并送往丹麥接受教育，唯一能控制格陵蘭政府和工業(yè)的人是來自丹麥的移民。 在此之前，他們強迫因紐特人接受基督教和丹麥文化/語言超過 150 年。格陵蘭直到 2008 年才設(shè)法將其官方語言從丹麥語改回格陵蘭語。
將這兩種模式并列放在一起，很難說格陵蘭的文化認同在丹麥而不是美國控制下會更好。 因此，格陵蘭的選擇基本上可以歸結(jié)為以下兩種情況：
a)繼續(xù)作為丹麥的一部分，但他們已明確表示不想這樣做；
b)宣布完全獨立，碰碰運氣；
c)加入美國，保持其文化特征，但仍可受益于美國的經(jīng)濟、軍事、教育體系和投資，這種安排，除了丹麥所有權(quán)和每年 5 億美元現(xiàn)金外，已經(jīng)與他們自 1941 年以來的運作方式相差無幾。

Options A and C are pretty straightforward, so let's explore option B and say Greenland declares full independence, something they have been pushing toward for years, and which the Danish government has said they will not stand in the way of. This leaves them with a negative economy, no infrastructure, no military, and no guarantee that they will be admitted to NATO, because being an emancipated former part of a NATO member does not mean you automatically get grandfathered in upon achieving your own independence (this came up when Scotland tries to secede from the UK a few years ago). Now, they would of course have their independence and cultural identity, but they would also have Russia, who would LOVE to have a military presence on America's doorstep, about 1600 miles away, or roughly the distance from Seattle to Chicago. Without some kind of NATO or US protection, the 55,000ish people living there would almost certainly, and almost immediately, find themselves in Russia's crosshairs, and I think even the most contrarian person reading this would realize, based on what we've seen in Ukraine, that Russian rule would be way worse for Greenland in every way than Danish or American control ever possibly could.

選項 A 和 C 非常簡單，所以讓我們探討選項 B，假設(shè)格陵蘭宣布完全獨立，這是他們多年來一直在努力實現(xiàn)的目標，丹麥政府表示他們不會阻撓。這將導(dǎo)致格陵蘭經(jīng)濟陷入衰退，沒有基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，沒有軍隊，也無法保證他們會被接納為北約成員，因為你以前是北約成員國的一部分，并不能保證你脫離后，還是北約的一部分。幾年前蘇格蘭試圖脫離英國時就出現(xiàn)了這種情況。
現(xiàn)在，他們當(dāng)然會擁有獨立和文化認同，但他們也會有俄羅斯，俄羅斯很想在美國家門口駐軍，距離美國約 1600 英里，大約相當(dāng)于西雅圖到芝加哥的距離。如果沒有北約或美國的某種保護，那里居住的 55,000 人幾乎肯定會立即陷入俄羅斯的攻擊范圍。而且我認為，即使是最持反對態(tài)度的人讀到這篇文章也會意識到，基于我們在烏克蘭看到的情況，俄羅斯的統(tǒng)治對格陵蘭島造成的損害在各方面都將比丹麥或美國的控制更加嚴重。

Simply put, the United States will never let it happen. Because of its strategic location and its proximity to Russia, US troops will never leave that island, and according to the 1941 agreement, the Danish or Greenlandic couldn't legally throw us out if they wanted to. The agreement also stipulates that support and service contracts for Thule Air Base shall be awarded to Greenlandic companies, so they would lose out on that revenue as well and put 1-2% of their population out of work with literally no other options. I'm also pretty sure, regardless of what country they're part of or not, the Greenlandic people are smart enough to know how vulnerable they would be without US protection. They could try to join NATO, but as we saw when Sweden's membership was held up for over a year, that would require the approval of every other current NATO member, and is not a guarantee. If the United States really wanted to play hardball, they could block them from joining or freeze them (no pun intended) out of American markets unless they agreed to American terms. That might seem like a dick move, but the reality is that the island's location makes it immensely important to our national defense posture, and we couldn't afford to stand back and watch a situation develop where Russia or China just moves right on in and we do nothing to prevent it.

簡而言之，美國永遠不會讓這種事情發(fā)生。由于該島的戰(zhàn)略位置和與俄羅斯的距離，美國軍隊永遠不會離開該島，而且根據(jù) 1941 年的協(xié)議，丹麥人或格陵蘭人即使想把我們趕出去，也不能合法。該協(xié)議還規(guī)定，圖勒空軍基地的支持和服務(wù)合同應(yīng)授予格陵蘭公司，因此他們也會失去這筆收入，并導(dǎo)致 1-2% 的人口失業(yè)，幾乎沒有其他選擇。
我也很確定，無論格陵蘭人是否屬于哪個國家，他們都很聰明，知道如果沒有美國的保護，他們會有多么脆弱。他們可以嘗試加入北約，但正如我們在瑞典的會員資格被擱置一年多時所看到的那樣，這需要得到其他所有現(xiàn)任北約成員國的批準，而且并不能保證。如果美國真的想玩強硬手段，他們可以阻止他們加入或?qū)⑺麄儯o意雙關(guān)）排除在美國市場之外，除非他們同意美國的條款。
這看上去似乎是個愚蠢的舉動，但事實是，該島的地理位置對于我們的國防態(tài)勢至關(guān)重要，我們不能袖手旁觀，看著俄羅斯或中國主動進入，而我們卻不采取任何措施阻止。

Bottom line, however you slice it, Greenland will live and die by its relationship with the United States, and if they can get past the initial shock/offense at the question even being raised in the first place, being part of the US really would check all the boxes better than any other option before them. American security interests would be assured, and Denmark would be off the hook for essentially providing an island they're incapable of defending with an expensive lump of annual welfare and getting little to nothing in return for it other than a tenuous, thousand year old cultural lix. Believe what you want, but hopefully this at least expanded your understanding of the situation, whatever your personal opinion may be.

不管你如何看待，格陵蘭的存亡取決于它與美國的關(guān)系，如果他們能夠克服最初提出這個問題時的震驚/冒犯，那么成為美國的一部分確實比他們面前的任何其他選擇都更符合條件。
美國的安全利益將得到保證，而丹麥將擺脫困境，因為他們實際上向一個他們無力保衛(wèi)的島嶼提供了一筆昂貴的年度福利，而除了脆弱的、數(shù)千年的文化聯(lián)系外，他們幾乎得不到任何回報。
無論你個人的看法如何，你都可以相信你想相信的，但希望這至少能擴大你對情況的理解。