Written by Mie Roesdahl, Co-Director and Founder at Conducive Space for Peace. The OpEd was published in the Danish newspaper Politiken and you can read the Danish OpEd here.

There is much to criticise about Trump Jr.'s trip to Nuuk in January. A great deal, in fact, not least in relation to the stated desire of the U.S. to control Kalaallit Nunaat/Greenland and the unreasonable pressure placed on Naalakkersuisut (the Greenlandic government) in this regard. However, one positive outcome emerged. It was said loudly - so loudly that the Danish government and population could not avoid hearing it - that Inuit/Greenlanders are subjected to prejudice and racism, and that there is no equity in the Danish-Greenlandic relationship.  

The initial reactions from both Danish politicians and ordinary Danes were the same as before. "It's an exaggeration"; "it's not that bad"; "think of how much money we spend on helping them"; "we're only joking when we say 'Greenlander-drunk'"; "it's their own fault when they sit on the street drinking beer." There are many variations, often far more subtle than in the comments here, but the main theme is the same. We Danes are the benevolent helpers, and the Inuit/Greenlanders should be grateful for the help we have given them.  

These are comments based on a self-image of us Danes and Denmark as the benevolent colonial power. But this is absurd when we know full well that Denmark made a fortune transporting slaves to the West Indies to work themselves to death on sugar plantations, which in turn supplied sugar to Danish consumers and wealthy businessmen who invested in and built much of central Copenhagen. But have we at least been the benevolent coloniser in Greenland? 

We have been like most colonial powers. We traded in lamp oil and profited well from the trade in the otherwise darkened city of Copenhagen. We made money from mining, and no matter how much one criticises the economic calculation models and the timing of the TV broadcast about the cryolite mine in South Greenland, there is no doubt that Denmark and wealthy businessmen made a lot of money from the mine. That was before the Self-Government Act of 2009, when Kalaallit Nunaat/Greenland finally gained ownership rights to the subsoil. 

In the 1950s and 1960s, we contributed 'with the best of intentions' to the modernisation of Kalaallit Nunaat by forcibly relocating hunters to apartment blocks in the larger towns, with the Danish language at the top of the school curriculum and the Greenlandic language marginalised, and limiting population growth through the spiral campaign. These measures resemble those implemented by other colonial powers, perhaps ‘with the best of intentions’ at the time and with a focus on fighting the poverty that many in Kalaallit Nunaat lived in, in 1953 when they became a formal part of Denmark and the Danish Realm.  

Greenlandic politicians who were part of the political class at the time protest against placing the responsibility solely on Denmark. It is seen as a rejection of the Greenlandic politicians who fought to improve conditions for the Inuit/Greenlanders and for greater recognition and self-determination, first with the introduction of Home Rule and later with Self-Government. They were elected by referendum to represent the interests of the Inuit/Greenlanders, so if human rights violations were committed during those years, Greenlandic politicians bear some of the responsibility, just as the Danes do.  

But regardless of who shares the responsibility, many of the challenges facing Kalaallit Nunaat today are due to the fact that the colonial period before 1953 was characterised by non-interference and isolation from the rest of the world's development, while the years that followed, from the mid-1950s, 1960s, and the 1970s were characterised by a massive wave of modernisation, which created major challenges both at the time and for future generations of Inuit/Greenlanders.  

Several investigations are underway to clarify whether human rights violations have occurred in the Danish-Greenlandic relation. Two of these investigations focus on the ‘spiral case’ and the girls and women who have been subjected to having IUDs inserted without their prior consent. The first was published on 9 September 2025 and was tasked with establishing what actually happened and how it related to Danish law. The second is scheduled to be completed by the end of January 2026 and will uncover the extent to which the spiral case constitutes a violation of human rights and international law. In addition, a historical investigation has been launched with a broader focus on all events since colonial times that have been marked by a lack of recognition and respect for the Inuit/Greenlanders. Presumably, these investigations will make us wiser about what has happened in the Greenlandic-Danish relation, how decisions have been made, and who bears responsibility for the violations that have taken place. But is that what is needed: for experts to dig up the historical facts? It is ALSO what is needed, but it is not enough.  

Other countries with similar colonial histories, such as Canada and Australia, have implemented a number of measures to uncover the truth and bring about reconciliation. Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission resulted in 94 action points to address the negative consequences of colonial history, including boarding schools where Inuit and other indigenous peoples were not allowed to speak their own language and were cut off from contact with their own families. In Kalaallit Nunaat, there has been a reconciliation commission, but it was one-sidedly Greenlandic. Both truth and reconciliation require both parties to be involved in the process. There is much to learn from other contexts about truth and reconciliation. Fortunately, the Danish Parliament's Greenland Committee has realised this and has just been to northern Canada to learn more about this very issue. 

Should we then embark on similar processes in Denmark, and should we promote truth and reconciliation at a time when Kalaallit Nunaat is working towards independence? Yes, I believe we should. Regardless of whether one is working towards independence or not, Denmark and Kalaallit Nunaat have been connected for more than 300 years, and many families, both in Greenland and in Denmark, live in the complex reality of having two ethnic identities. So, no matter what, we need to strengthen equity and do away with the prejudices against Inuit/Greenlanders in Denmark and the structural inequity that still exists. And we must look together at a history that has not been pretty, and which has contributed greatly to the major social problems among Inuit/Greenlanders in Denmark and Kalaallit Nunaat. It is important to understand that these social problems are NOT culturally determined and are NOT due to 'weak personalities' but are rooted in a specific historical reality. 

Some would argue that the timing is poor; that now is not the right time to delve into the past and focus on the ‘problems’ in the relationship between Denmark and Kalaallit Nunaat, given that we are in the midst of a geopolitical crisis in which the US is threatening to ‘take control’ of Kalaallit Nunaat. I would argue the opposite. Now is precisely the time to do so, because it can make us stronger, both together and separately. But of course, this requires us to think about how we do it. The worst thing we can do is to continue to sweep the difficult issues under the rug.  

Together, we must look at the reality that has shaped our history and that affects where we are today, and we must look at the current reality that we can help shape. Facing reality means seeing reality from more than just your and my perspective. It means seeing it from the perspective where we understand it least. This could be from young Inuit/Greenlanders who talk about decolonisation and want a break with Denmark; it could be from ethnic Danes who talk about all the good Denmark has done and cannot bear to be called racists; and it could be from former Inuit/Greenlandic politicians and civil servants who want to be respected for the great achievements that have been made to ensure that Inuit/Greenlanders are recognised as a people with the right to self-determination.  

It is not enough to conduct studies and investigations that are only read by a few people with a special interest in the subject. They are necessary, yes, for politicians and civil servants to take steps to address the problems created by historical mistakes and injustices. But more is needed for the broader Danish population to understand the need to redefine and renegotiate the relationship and nuance the national identity. We ethnic Danes are not the epitome of 'the benevolent helpers' who act altruistically in the world and are morally superior. We are much more than that, and it is necessary that we understand this so that we, both on a personal and societal level, can do away with norms and attitudes that stand in the way of truly equitable relationships. 

It is difficult to change norms and attitudes because they are deeply rooted in our social and cultural relationships and identity. We develop them through socialisation in childhood, and they are often reinforced by our need to belong to a group, while our fear of exclusion prevents us from seriously challenging the norms. But at certain points in history, paradigm shifts occur that require us to understand the world in a new way. This provides an opportunity to change the norms that no longer fit the world we live in. We are in the midst of such a paradigm shift, also with regard to the Danish-Greenlandic relationship.  

Understanding the world in a new way requires more than just reading a report and listening to the news. There is much that can only be understood by seeing reality from the perspective of others. Only if we can understand - and truly feel - what a lack of recognition and respect, prejudice and racism, does to people - people whose lives we can empathise with - can we bring about change. We must first understand this, then acknowledge our own role in it, and then do something to bring about change. It is a very difficult but also a very necessary process.  

I would like to use myself as an example of how difficult it is. I am of Danish ethnicity, but I spent a large part of my childhood and youth in Kalaallit Nunaat, from the age of 7 to 25. My work with peacebuilding, human rights, and equity took me far away from Kalaallit Nunaat, towards the Global South. For many years, I was employed by various international organisations, including Danida in Nepal, and while working to support local partners in their efforts to combat discrimination and inequity, I felt the ingrained inequity in the system of which I, myself, was a part.  In 2016, I established the organisation Conducive Space for Peace with the specific aim of changing the structural inequity in the international system.  

But despite having worked in this field for most of my life, it is only in the last few years that I have really opened my eyes to the structural inequity in the relationship between Inuit/Greenlanders and ethnic Danes. Why am I only seeing this now, when I am so used to looking for inequity and racism? I was born into a set of social norms that places ethnic Danes above others and see us as 'the benevolent helpers'. In both the international system and the Greenlandic-Danish relation, we cling to the narrative that we are coming to help 'the disadvantaged', when in reality we ourselves benefit just as much from the relation. And along the way, we perpetuate the idea that we are the ones who know best.  

What helped me understand it better? Among other things, fiction. I started writing because I couldn't help myself. There was something inside me that was building up and taking shape, and it was calling out to come out. My book took three years to write. URKRAFT is about the Danish-Greenlandic relationship as experienced by the main character Naja, her boyfriend Jakob, and a small handful of family members and friends, both Danish and Inuit/Greenlandic. Naja carries an anger that is fueled by both historical colonisation and contemporary inequity. With this baggage, she travels to Nepal and becomes part of the aid system and the international elite. Her values are challenged to the extreme, and she must mobilise all her inner strength to hold on to herself.    

In the process of developing and writing the book, I cried my way through the growing insight I gained into the prejudices and undignified treatment that many Inuit/Greenlanders experience in the Danish society. I felt angry alongside Naja, and I felt the powerlessness of Naja's boyfriend in relation to being Danish and not feeling able to do anything about what Naja is being subjected to. Through her boyfriend Jakob, I grapple with the question of whether ethnic Danes can and should get involved in the discussion about prejudice and racism against Inuit/Greenlanders, and if so, how. That question is huge and adds another dimension to the struggle for equitable relations; we'll take that up another time.  

Fiction, and art in general, can do something that a more knowledge-based approach to change is incapable of doing. That is why art is often an important part of truth and reconciliation processes. Changing attitudes and norms requires precisely the insight and understanding that can be created when, through fictional characters, we put ourselves in someone else's shoes, whether we are writers or readers. Art has the potential to create understanding at a deeper level, and it can challenge and question our norms and attitudes through new narratives; and make controversial topics more present by creating space for emotions. Emotions such as hope and indignation can motivate us to take action. And it is time to act. 

If we want to make our society stronger, we must dare to look at the things that are not so pretty; things that we have not done as well as we thought we had. It is ultimately our own responsibility to create a better society; a society that is better for everyone. We must stand together to understand our shared history, acknowledge the mistakes that have been made, address the inequities and challenges that still exist, and find a new way to walk side by side, as two peoples in an equitable relation. This will make us stronger, both together and separately.