The historical path of Greenland in DK is irrelevant.
if it becomes US territory would it not be more like be more like Alaska than Venezuela?
> full rights as EU citizens and local autonomy to decide who gets the mining concessions
There is no such thing as an EU citizen - people are citizens of EU states. Would an independent Greenland join the EU? Would it join NATO? I can see advantages for a small (in population) country with rich national resources playing the big powers against each other.
Indigenous Greenlanders have also been treated pretty badly by Denmark, even very recently, not just a long time ago when it was a colony:
https://www.arctictoday.com/a-view-from-greenland-about-forc...
Why not something like Puerto Rico? why would Trump give rights to natives of Greenland? those people would vote Democrats , less of the two evils.
People are citizens of both the EU and the member states:
The next parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2029, too late for a pro-Trump swing unless he manages to stay in office somehow.
Both of those have very different histories and circumstances Greenland was a colony and in thr current (or at least very recent) treatment of indigenous people.
Scotland forgets its past. Most people don't know that most of Scotland including non-Jacobite areas was garrisoned in the late 1740s. Or that there was an uprising in 1820. Or famines and rioting around the Moray Firth in the 1840s so bad that the army was brought in. Most of that is forgotten.
"Indigenous" is code for tribal. Scotland was partly tribal into the Middle Ages but is never classed as such. Why the difference?
Not that Denmark (or even the EU) is capable of militarily defending it now. But politically it carries more clout than a tiny population in its own state.
I think the situation of Quebec here in Canada does show it's possible for regions/provinces to become somewhat more sovereign in their own land without full legal independence. Even if that has been fraught with all sorts of ridiculous conflict.