Will Kymlicka’s Liberal Theory of Multiculturalism : A case study of Greenland

(1)

Will Kymlicka’s Liberal Theory of Multiculturalism

A case study of Greenland

Anne Cecilie Gynther Bechmann

Human Rights Bachelor Thesis 12 credits

Spring semester 2021 Supervisor: Jon Wittrock

(2)

ABSTRACT

The Inuit people in Greenland are internationally recognized as indigenous. They, therefore, have been granted protective measures, such as self-government rights in 2009. However, some scholars have started to question whether protective measures are still a necessity because of their increased autonomy rights. To contest this questioning, this paper examines the contemporary political discourse in Greenland regarding the Inuit people’s emphasis on their cultural heritage, ongoing identity issues, and aspirations of independence, in the light of Will Kymlicka’s liberal theory of multiculturalism. The paper concludes that the Inuit people in Greenland, to a large extent, apply to Kymlicka’s theory regarding his criteria of national minorities and the importance of belonging to a societal culture. However, the study also finds that his theory is limited in protecting potential sub-cultures and lacks nuances about secessionist thoughts among indigenous groups. The results underline the importance of continuingly protect indigenous peoples in Greenland and suggests considering additional measures to other minorities on the island.

Key words: Greenland, Inuit, indigenous, identity, independence, multiculturalism. Word count: 13.886

(3)

1. INTRODUCTION

Around 90 percent of the 56.241 population in Greenland perceive themselves as being Inuit (Statistics Greenland, 2021; Moltke et al., 2015) – recognized by Denmark and internationally as indigenous peoples. The Inuit have throughout colonial times been deprived of their land, resources, and cultural practices by the Danish people and government, whose norms and standards are still affecting the Greenlandic society today. In 1996 Denmark ratified the ILO Convention No. 169 (the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention) and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007. This was done to protect the fundamental rights of the Inuit people and their cultural identity and mend some of the harm done to them during colonialism (Parellada et al., 2008). However, some scholars and activists argue that there still exists a post-colonial tendency to neglect the Greenlandic people's full autonomy rights and that there is a continuous need for special protection of the Inuit population (Bjørst, 2015; Nuttall, 2009; Kuokkanen, 2017).

An increased interest in the Arctic region in the past decade has further problematized the protection of the Inuit people. Countries such as the United States, Russia, and China have all expressed great interest in Greenland due to both its desirable military position and unexplored possibilities of natural resources, as well as new sailing routes produced by climate change (Breum, 2013:7-18). The Inuit people now find themselves in the middle of negotiations between the international arena, Denmark, and the Greenlandic government, about access to these resources, which could affect land rights and their fundamental human rights. In the meantime, the indigenous population is also grappling with their identity influenced greatly by the Danish culture (Lynge, 2006; Breum, 2014:11-17).

A recent snap election, turning Greenland in a new political direction, current debates about the protection of the cultural heritage in Greenland, and the population’s aspiration of independence, further suggests the topic of indigenous rights to be highly relevant to investigate. Among others, scholars are advocating a greater concern for the indigenous population in Greenland. They have urged the Greenlandic government to, for example, think twice before allowing a more controversial mining extraction of uranium, which could harm the environment and smaller Greenlandic settlements, thus impacting the indigenous communities (Bjørst, 2015; Kuokkanen, 2017).

(6)

On the other hand, some studies have started to question the Inuit people’s status as indigenous since Greenland has been granted self-government rights, established its own parliament, and taken up the majority vote in decision-making processes (Barten & Mortensen, 2016; Hansen, 2015; Johnstone, 2020). This thesis intends to contest this questioning of the Inuit people’s recognition as a group in need of protection by using Will Kymlicka’s liberal theory of multiculturalism.

Will Kymlicka is known for emphasizing cultural minorities, whom he suggests should be protected by group-specific rights if they fulfill certain criteria. He contends that such rights will promote the liberal value of individual autonomy and form a more equal society. Previous studies examining Greenlandic affairs have so far failed to utilize Kymlicka’s framework to assess indigenous rights, which makes it relevant to explore further. With this in mind, the thesis will more specifically examine:

To what extent does Will Kymlicka’s liberal theory of multiculturalism apply to the case of Inuit people in Greenland, and in what ways is this group still in need of special protective

rights as indigenous?

To answer these questions, the study will first provide an assessment of existing literature concerning the historical background of Inuit people in Greenland, as well as their rights, resources, and desires. The literature review chapter will also underline how the relationship between Greenland and Denmark functions contemporarily. This overview will highlight the self-government rights currently existing in Greenland, what social implications a mixed identity has led to, and the economic and social issues connected to achieving Greenlandic independence. The theory chapter will outline key concepts from Will Kymlicka’s theory, limited to an outline of his views on indigenous peoples. This will create a framework that will enable an understanding of the challenges the Inuit people face as indigenous and whether they deserve special protection. The chapter on methodology will explain the use of qualitative content analysis while analyzing primary sources and the complementation of an analysis of secondary sources. Moreover, it will justify the choice of case and material. The analysis chapter will determine whether the Inuit people in Greenland deserve special protection according to Kymlicka’s framework and discuss the contemporary situation in Greenland affected by identity issues and desires of independence.

(7)

The thesis concludes that indigenous peoples in Greenland are still in need of special protection as they apply to key concepts of Will Kymlicka’s theory. Moreover, on the grounds that they, in the human rights discourse, are considered some of the most vulnerable people because of their cultural differences to the dominant society, and they keep being left out of decision-making processes concerning their livelihoods (UNDP, 2004:29). However, the thesis will also conclude that Kymlicka’s theory has shortcomings due to its lack of consideration of potential sub-cultures of indigenous peoples, as well as it is insubstantial when considering indigenous peoples’ desires for independence.

(8)

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This section will provide an overview of the origins of Inuit people in Greenland, since these facts help determine whether a group fulfills specific criteria to be granted status as indigenous by protecting bodies, such as the International Labour Organization (ILO) or the United Nations (UN). A description of the historical background of Greenland will create an understanding of Greenland’s ongoing relation to Denmark and how this has been framed by colonialism and historical agreements. Furthermore, an outline of what has been done to protect the Inuit people will be provided, together with reasonings for having afforded special protection.

2.1. Historical overview

The colonization of Greenland began in 1721 under Danish-Norwegian rule to start a trading business from the island. In 1814, when Denmark and Norway separated, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Iceland, remained the property of Denmark, whose settlers became more and more present on the island (Gad, 2014:5; Barten & Mortensen, 2016:10). During this time, a group of ‘hybrids’ emerged between Danish and Greenlandic people, which created identity issues for those exposed to both Danish and Inuit traditions. For example, boys with a Danish father often missed a figure to teach them the skills of hunting and fishing, which left them alienated from the Inuit culture. On the other hand, they were still seen as Greenlanders in the eyes of the Danes (Gad, 2014:5).

In 1953, when the decolonization movement had started to develop worldwide, Denmark decided to amend its constitution and integrate Greenland into the Danish realm by removing its status as a colony and making it a county. This was done to ensure the sovereignty over Greenland while maintaining a good relationship with the population - at the same time as it held back the UN to interfere in the country’s decolonization processes (Johnstone, 2020:2-3; Barten & Mortensen, 2016:10).

To convince the Greenlandic population, they were promised the same living standards as the Danish people (Johnstone, 2020:2-3). However, Greenlandic people were left as inferior – Denmark took the political decisions, Danish was now taught in schools to ‘civilize’ the people, and an overall modernization process was started to develop the society (Gad, 2014:6). Lynge (2008) refers to this as the ‘Danization’ period, where all planning was done in Denmark,

(9)

territory (Lynge, 2008:15). The Greenlanders went directly from being a colony to becoming part of Denmark, which started a tendency of the Greenlandic people to compare themselves with the Danes. They became determined to become equal citizens in ‘Rigsfællesskabet’ (the unity of the realm between Denmark, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland) by striving for the same ideals as the Danish people. Greenlanders also started only to show what they perceived as appropriate aspects of their distinctive identity and created a mindset saying they should be “as good as the Danes” (Lynge, 2006:3).

Two decades later, the Greenlandic mentality started to change. An uprising started among the population, who wanted to embrace their Inuit culture and traditions instead of suppressing them - a form of Greenlandic nationalism, to respond to the ‘Danization’ processes (Gad, 2014:6; Lynge, 2008:15). This revolution led to the development of the Greenlandic citizens’ rights, as Denmark in 1979 granted Greenland ‘home rule’ by signing the Home Rule Act (HRA) – the first legislation governing the relationship between Greenland and Denmark (Nuttall, 2008b:65). This act accorded Greenland to organize politically and to have the authority over several internal affairs such as taxation, environmental protection, and trade. One of the Greenlandic government’s initiatives included a new language policy emphasizing the importance of using the Greenlandic language more extensively (Johnstone, 2020:4; Danish Parliament, 1979; Gad, 2009:11). However, Lynge (2006) proclaims that even after many years of home rule, discussions about identity still took place, and the citizens called for stronger cultural self-worth and confidence. She argues that the Greenlandic people have never de-colonized mentally, which explains the nationalistic trends that continued despite the achievement of home rule and until the implementation of the latest expansion of autonomous rights in Greenland – the Self-Government Act (SGA), introduced in 2009 (Lynge, 2006:2).

The SGA advanced the political organization in Greenland, which was now allowed to establish a Greenlandic parliament instead of having only representatives in the Danish parliament. Furthermore, the act introduced by paragraph 20 that West-Greenlandic was now the official language, as they wanted to ensure that the native language was available in public institutions (Barten & Mortensen, 2016:10; Danish Parliament, 2009; Gad, 2014:2). Some of the most significant amendments of the SGA were the right to decide over natural resources and extractive industries, which was seen as the pathway to economic independence, even though public administration and fisheries were the largest job suppliers in Greenland (Nuttall, 2008a:47; Bjørst, 2015). Secondly, paragraph 21 has given Greenland the right to withdraw

(10)

from Denmark whenever the majority of the Greenlandic population vote for it. The main obstacle for independence is the economy that needs to be sustainable without the annual block grant from Denmark. As of 2020, Denmark provides a block grant annually at around 3.9 billion Danish kroner (approximately 585 million USD). This amounts to more than 50 percent of the public budget and around 20 percent of Greenland’s GDP (Barten & Mortensen, 2016:11; Danish Parliament, 2009; International Trade Administration, 2020).

Current research portrays a growing confidence among the Greenlandic citizens to become independent since most Greenlanders wish to experience independence within their lifetime (Nuttall, 2008b; Kuokkanen, 2017:46). If Greenland reaches independence, the island will become the 13th largest country globally (Nuttall, 2008b:65), leaving a great responsibility on a fairly new government that is lacking behind on mature legislation (Cassotta & Mazza, 2015:27). Those in favor of independence welcomed the ownership of natural resources that came with implementing the SGA. However, governmental incompetence has shown the difficulties of achieving independence and generated concerns among people across Greenland. Many are sceptical about the economic rise of natural resource exploitation and the effects on the climate. They argue that the time is not right for secession, as Greenland is not ready to stand alone economically (Nuttall, 2008a; Nuttall, 2008b).

2.2.Special protection

Along the historical process of Greenland going from being a colony to a modern society, it is evident that the country has achieved special rights regarding both the HRA and the SGA. Due to both international and internal pressure from the Greenlandic citizens, Denmark has sought to compensate for the unequal relation by ratifying the ILO Convention No. 169 (C169) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and implement the measures in their legislation (Parellada et al., 2008).

To decide whether the Inuit population in Greenland still deserves these special measures, it is necessary first to determine if the Inuit people live up to the international criteria set forth to recognize indigenous peoples. Second, it is vital to assess previous arguments for granting Inuit people status as indigenous while considering their unique circumstances.

(11)

2.3.Definition of indigenous peoples

Defining indigenous peoples is not straightforward due to differences in the various groups recognized as such, ranging from aboriginals in Australia to Native Americans in the United States. Nonetheless, various international institutions and protecting bodies of indigenous peoples have proposed certain characteristics that can help legitimize the special rights granted these groups of people. These institutions count, among others, the World Bank, the ILO, and the UN (Barten & Mortensen, 2016:6-8; Cassotta & Mazza, 2015). The characteristics set forth by the C169 and the UNDRIP are widely used and perceived as the most important instruments for protecting indigenous peoples’ rights. Hence, it seems evident to assess both with regards to their definitions, similarities, and differences. Both will thus be presented to delineate the interpretation of indigenous peoples utilized in this paper.

Neither the C169 nor the UNDRIP define indigenous peoples as such but put forward specific criteria that should be fulfilled for a people to be recognized for special protection. The C169, Art. 1 of the convention states that indigenous peoples should have historical continuity in a specific geographical area before the arrival of colonizers or the like; maintained a traditional way of living; and have retained their own institutions (ILO, 1989). The criteria outlined in the UNDRIP are similar. It lays out that indigenous peoples consider themselves different from the majority and have historically suffered from colonization and deprivation of their land and rights to exercise their cultural traditions and organize themselves through institutions (UNDRIP, 2007). The special protection of indigenous peoples is evident in, for example, Art. 4 and 5 of the C169 that concern a state’s obligation to adopt ‘special measures’ to protect distinct peoples. However, the convention does not provide indigenous peoples the right to self-determination, which in contrast, is provided in the UNDRIP that grant this right in Art. 3 of the declaration (ILO, 1989; UNDRIP, 2007).

Since the C169 is legally binding for states once ratified, many authors turn to this as one of the most important steps for protecting indigenous peoples. Others argue that the UNDRIP provides a broader scope with an emphasis on the principle of ‘free, prior and informed consent’ (FPIC) – a principle that scrutinizes the importance of indigenous peoples’ ability to participate in decision-making processes (Hansen et al., 2015:31; UNDRIP, 2007).

(12)

2.4. Inuit as indigenous

Particularly the question of whether Inuit people in Greenland can be categorized as indigenous or not is widely discussed, despite the recognition by Denmark of having ratified the C169 and signed the UNDRIP.

As Inuit people in Greenland take up 90 percent of the total population in the country, some argue that they cannot be perceived as indigenous because they are the majority represented – meaning they have the majority vote in political decision-making processes. Others argue that the Inuit people in Greenland need special protection since they are formally citizens of Denmark and potentially subjects to decisions affecting their culture and living (Barten & Mortensen, 2016; Kuokkanen, 2017:47; Johnstone, 2020:4-6). When looking at the characteristics set forth by the ILO and the UN, the only characteristic that can be questioned in terms of the Inuit people is thus the UNDRIP’s ‘feeling of being different’ from the majority of the population. Some argue that by signing the SGA, the Greenlanders’ affiliation to Denmark changed, and hereby also the status of the Inuit people as ‘being different’ into being the dominant culture (Johnstone, 2020; Barten & Mortensen, 2016).

Reasons for granting Inuit people special protection are provided by previous researchers, NGOs, and protecting bodies. For example, the organization Cultural Survival argues that the Inuit population in Greenland needs special rights to protect them against extractive industries hoping to expand throughout Greenland. These industries will potentially harm the environment, which the Inuit people are dependent on, both for their physical and cultural survival (Cultural Survival, 2015:2). Whaling is among the practices affected by environmental impact, which has been heavily discussed because animal rights groups have criticized the Inuit people for maintaining this hunting practice. However, Greenland and Denmark have succeeded in preserving their right to conduct whaling since it has economic, nutritional, and symbolic significance for the Inuit people (Parellada et al., 2008:27).

2.5. Summary

The historical overview reveals some of the consequences the Inuit population in Greenland has suffered due to colonialism - both throughout and after it took place. The Inuit people were deprived of their land, forced to learn a new language, and adapt to new norms, which affected their ability to protect and control their cultural heritage and identity, making

(13)

indigenous by several governmental and non-governmental bodies suggests that Greenland is an uncommon and unique case. Because of their newly achieved self-government rights and since they more or less occupy their own territory, the Inuit people have gained the majority vote in many decision-making processes. Therefore, they do not easily or directly fit the criteria of special protection prompting the question of whether or not Denmark and the rest of the world can or should grant the Inuit special rights and increased protection.

This study aims to unfold whether the Inuit people in Greenland still deserve the special protection already provided them. By utilizing Will Kymlicka’s liberal theory of multiculturalism, the study will explore to what extent the status of Inuit people as indigenous – according to international bodies – corresponds to Kymlicka’s concept of national minorities. This concept sets forth specific criteria, which he argues determines whether a group should be protected and how. This will unfold a nuanced perspective on the rights provided the Inuit people in Greenland and guide the study to answer the research questions.

(14)

3. THEORY

Several liberal scholars have argued that minorities or minority groups do not need special rights and protections, as they, like everyone else, are protected by fundamental human rights. Will Kymlicka argues the opposite and provides in his book ‘Multicultural Citizenship’ a framework for more equal and fair treatment of minorities because he believes ‘traditional’ human rights fails to address issues of language, education, territory, politics, and culture. In fact, he argues that group-specific rights are congruent with liberal principles and that these principles could even require those rights (Kymlicka, 1995:2-5).

This study highlights why the indigenous group of Inuit in Greenland deserves special protection by utilizing Kymlicka’s liberal theory of multiculturalism. His theory aims to justify that group-specific rights should be granted two central patterns of cultural diversity, namely, ethnic minority groups and indigenous peoples. He argues that due to these groups’ historical implementation and role within their state, they deserve special protection.

The following section will detail the study's theoretical framework, drawing on key concepts provided by Kymlicka that all serve as arguments for protecting minorities. In this thesis, Kymlicka’s notion of ‘national minorities’ is equivalent to the above definition of indigenous peoples. This group, Kymlicka argues, should be granted certain group-differentiated rights to preserve their ‘societal culture’ since this is of dire importance for the individual members’ autonomy. These elements and concepts of Kymlicka’s theory will be explained and exemplified to envision how they have been understood and applied in this paper, as well as they will constitute the theoretical framework capable of addressing the research question (Halperin & Heath, 2020:108-109, 131-132).

3.1. Patterns of cultural diversity: national minorities

Kymlicka argues that minorities can be divided into two ‘patterns’ of cultural diversity – polyethnic minorities and national minorities. The latter pertinent to the Inuit people in Greenland and the one closest to the international definitions of indigenous peoples. The pattern of polyethnic minorities refers to a minority group that moved to another state

(15)

voluntarily, such as immigrants. Since the Inuit population in Greenland cannot be defined as a polyethnic minority, it will not be outlined further.1

When it comes to national minorities, Kymlicka explains that cultural diversity arises when two or more nations co-exist within the same state. This he refers to as a ‘multination state.’ Polyethnic minorities, on the other hand, inhabits a ‘polyethnic state.’ A state can also be determined as both. For example, Native Americans and immigrants live among the majority culture in the United States (Kymlicka, 1995:11-13). In a multination state, the smallest group is the national minority, which Kymlicka defines as “a historical community, more or less institutionally complete, occupying a given territory or homeland, sharing a distinct language and culture” (Kymlicka, 1995:11). These criteria of a national minority come close to the international definitions of indigenous peoples. In many instances, national minorities have had a hard time sustaining their institutions or language, despite their will to stay distinct. Kymlicka argues, therefore, that this group of minorities need special rights, as their cultural heritage – which he refers to as a ‘societal culture’ - plays a significant role in their identity. A sense of group belonging and participation in public life is, according to Kymlicka, crucial, and he believes that minority claims will, in fact, promote the liberal thought of individual freedom because freedom is linked with one’s choice of culture (Kymlicka, 1995:4-12).2

3.2. Societal Culture

Kymlicka defines ‘societal culture’ as a culture most often territorially based and with a shared language. It provides members with a meaningful relationship, which the identity of an individual is bound to. Furthermore, this relationship provides individuals with a secure belonging, helping them form their self-identification (Kymlicka, 1995:82-84). Individuals can have a sense of belonging to this societal culture while living in a country with another dominant culture. For example, in the United States, the Native Americans governs themselves

1_{Kymlicka focus only on the two patterns of cultural diversity (polyethnic and national minorities) and does not}

assess rights for other minority groups, whom he refers to as ‘non-ethnic or social groups,’ such as homosexuals or atheists (Kymlicka, 1995:10-18).

2_{Note: Kymlicka’s differentiation between polyethnic groups and national minorities has both a descriptive and}

a normative level. On the descriptive level, the differentiation contends that there are pertinent contrasts between both groups of minorities. This in terms of desires, history, and relevant characteristics. Normatively, the differentiation implies that specific rights for respectively national minorities and polyethnic groups are reasonable. As consent by the population is fundamental to political legitimacy, it is justifiable to grant special rights to national minorities who did not join the dominant community voluntarily (Kymlicka, 1995).

(16)

through institutions and has their own societal culture but co-exist with the dominant culture in America (Kymlicka, 1995:79).

Many groups of national minorities have, across the world, maintained their own societal culture despite colonization or conquest, as many Western countries have not succeeded in assimilating them into the dominant culture (Kymlicka, 1995:76-79). Kymlicka contend that individuals should, according to liberal values, have the freedom of choice to live in the societal culture they desire; a choice to remain within or to leave the societal culture one inhabits. This choice, he argues, provides individual members with meaningful options, as it is meaningful for individuals to share traditions and language. However, group members should not be retained from information about other societal cultures, as they should maintain the possibility to switch cultures. Also, smaller societal cultures can choose to participate in the dominant culture, which Kymlicka sees as merely enjoying a diversity of options (Kymlicka, 1995:80-86).

The strong connection to one’s culture exists because it plays a role in individuals' self-identity since cultural membership affects how others perceive us. In other words, a societal culture gives us a sense of belonging (Kymlicka, 1995:86-89). Maintaining one’s societal culture does not mean that this culture cannot develop or be revised, as no cultures are static. Using English words or having a normal job does not mean that the Alaskan Eskimos in North America move away from their societal culture or value their traditions less. What it means is that the culture is developing dynamically with the modern world. What self-government rights do, is helping indigenous societies to control the direction and pace of these changes (Kymlicka, 1995:100-106).

3.3. Group-differentiated Rights

Kymlicka suggests that minorities should be granted what he refers to as ‘group-differentiated rights’ to help ensure access to their societal culture. He recommends three types of rights: self-government rights, polyethnic rights, and special representation rights – the former and the latter suitable in discussing national minorities, why only these will be elaborated on (Kymlicka, 1995:26-33).

Self-government rights should provide national minorities with the possibility of developing their culture in the people's interest and are especially suitable in cases where the

(17)

national minority is territorially situated. This allows the group to draw internal boundaries and form a majority in a sort of sub-unit to the dominant society. This way, they can establish their own community that the dominant society would not necessarily outvote regarding issues compelling to them (Kymlicka, 1995:37-38).

Kymlicka perceives national minorities who wish for secession as extreme cases and contends that self-determination has most often been discussed in terms of overseas national minorities rather than internal national minorities, such as aboriginals in Australia or Native Americans in America. Lastly, self-government rights are, according to Kymlicka, a permanent measure taken because the rights are essential for national minority cultures to survive. Due to this importance, national minorities have often sought to have the rights formally written down into legislation (Kymlicka, 1995:27-30).

National minorities can also be granted special representation rights in terms of, for example, participation in decision-making processes in the central government of the dominant society (Kymlicka, 1995: 32-33). These rights are made to ensure an appropriate representation in governing institutions, to guarantee that views and interests of disadvantaged groups are heard in political processes (UNDP, 2004:7). In contrast to self-government rights, these rights are temporary because whenever a group is no longer disadvantaged or left out of decision-making processes, special representation rights are no longer needed (Kymlicka, 1995:131).

Kymlicka holds that group-differentiated rights need to be divided into two different claims of minority groups, whether it being national or polyethnic minorities. He refers to these claims as external protections and internal restrictions. External protections are relevant in the case of the Inuit people in Greenland, as this concerns the protection of a group against, for example, political or economic decisions taken by the majority vote of the dominant society. Internal restrictions do not apply to the case of Greenland, as this involves the risk of oppression within minority groups, which no previous study has suggested is common among Inuit people in Greenland (Kymlicka, 1995:35-36).

External protections, Kymlicka argues, can serve as a solution to the vulnerability of minority groups towards larger societies in enabling them to become more equal in decision-making processes regarding, for example, language, education, or land rights. Regarding the former group-differentiated rights – self-government rights and special representation rights – Kymlicka states that self-government rights go hand in hand with the claim for external protection. These rights allow national minorities to have a say in political matters concerning

(18)

their cultural heritage. The same goes for special representation rights as these, together with external protection, ensure that national minorities are also heard in matters concerning the whole country (Kymlicka, 1995:34-38).

To ensure the survival of a culture, Kymlicka stresses the importance of listening to the viewpoints of a minority group and taking them into account when governmental decisions are taken (Kymlicka, 1995:132-133). However, national minorities do not have the duty to continue as a distinct group. It is solely a group's decision whether they want to integrate into the dominant society or maintain their own societal culture. These cultures can also be “vibrant and diverse” (Kymlicka, 1995:100).

3.4.Arguments in favour of group-differentiated rights

To justify the use of group-differentiated rights, Kymlicka puts forward four arguments: the equality-based argument, the history-based argument, the value of cultural diversity, and the analogy with states. The equality argument, the historical argument, and the argument about the analogy with states apply in the case of Greenland, and an explanation of each will therefore be presented. In contrast, the argument about the value of cultural

diversity applies to polyethnic minorities and is of less relevance.

Kymlicka endorses the equality argument to accommodate differences and ensure equality, which he does not believe is protected merely by individual rights. Group-differentiated rights are important because some groups are disadvantaged when it comes to exercising their societal culture, as they can be subject to economic or political decisions taken on the grounds of the dominant societal culture. This can be avoided if, for example, special representation rights are granted, while self-government rights enable national minorities to survive as distinct (Kymlicka, 1995:107-109).

The historical argument involves considering the historical agreements made when a national minority was incorporated into a state. The group-differentiated rights then depend on whether the national minority was incorporated voluntarily or involuntarily. This argument lies close to the equality argument but is rather a question of a state’s limits to govern a national minority than it is a question of a state providing equal treatment of its citizens (Kymlicka, 1995:116-118).

(19)

Lastly, the argument about the analogy with states discloses a contradiction in the liberalist view, since they advocate individual freedom, but already with the establishment of a state has limited this freedom. Only within a liberal state can individual freedom be exercised fully, as individuals do not have the right to freely move across borders and settle in other countries. Therefore, Kymlicka suggest that citizenship in itself is a group-differentiated right, and by this, liberalists have implicitly accepted such rights, as well as the fact that a societal culture matters to the individual (Kymlicka, 1995:126).

3.5. Ties that bind

At the end of his book, Kymlicka touches upon the subject of secession. He states that granting a group self-government rights comes with the disadvantage of not serving an integrative function but rather “weakens the bonds with the larger political community” (Kymlicka, 1995:181). Furthermore, when creating a self-governing political community alongside another, it can establish a form of ‘dual citizenship,’ which potentially creates identity issues in terms of which societal culture one feels the strongest attachment to (Kymlicka, 1995:181-182).

Kymlicka proclaims that there seems to be no limit to self-government rights, as nationalist leaders would continue demanding increased autonomy until complete independence is reached. Consequently, he states that societies consisting of national minorities with self-government rights are to some extent unstable or find themselves in a stage of modus vivendi (Kymlicka, 1995:182). On the contrary, denying self-government rights, he believes “will simply promote alienation and secessionist movements” (Kymlicka, 1995:185).

Therefore, secession is difficult to avoid in one or the other way, and Kymlicka questions whether countries should be more open to this solution. Although, some national minorities do not desire secession and would have a hard time establishing a state with ease. He argues that an alternative to secession should be found to make a multination state function without conflicts regarding identity (Kymlicka, 1995:186). He uses Switzerland as an example of a successful multination state where Italian, French and German speakers exist in a federation of people. He suggests that the road to success is determined by a country’s shared identity, decided by the people “asking who they identify with, who they feel solidarity with” (Kymlicka, 1995:188), which in a nation-state comes from a shared history and language that precisely is missing in a multination state. The shared history in a multination state is often

(20)

perceived as the roots of indignation and treachery of the national minority, and Kymlicka argues that if a shared identity is to be established in a multination state, a ‘selective memory of the past’ needs to be agreed upon. Nevertheless, Kymlicka does not arrive at a solution of forming this shared identity and stresses that the challenge of a multination state is precisely to find a course towards unity (Kymlicka, 1995:188-192).

3.6. Summary

The outline of Kymlicka’s liberal theory of multiculturalism has provided a framework enabling this thesis to answer if the Inuit people in Greenland are compatible with Kymlicka’s concept of national minorities and his justifications for providing them special protection. Indigenous peoples have across the world experienced unfair treatment and coercion for nation-states to uphold their sovereignty. Therefore, the historical background of these groups is vital to determine whether it is justifiable to implement special measures to protect their culture.

Kymlicka’s theory helps assess the legitimate grounds to provide Inuit people protection by examining whether they fulfill his criteria of national minorities and evaluate their affiliation to their societal culture. Furthermore, the theory can help disclose to what extent the Inuit people are already protected by enjoying several group-differentiated rights and even on the road towards full autonomy rights.

By conducting a qualitative content analysis of the political discourse, particularly from a recent election in Greenland, taking place in April 2021, this study aims to unfold the current protections of the Inuit people from their point of view and consider whether their future aspirations are just. Primary material in the form of political speeches, policies, and party programs will allow for this, while secondary material will back up the findings.

(21)

4. METHODOLOGY

In the following section, the method and material will be presented, together with an outline of the validity and reliability of the chosen method and the analysis. The method of qualitative content analysis will be used for the primary sources in this thesis. This method has been chosen because it enables the researcher to interpret the meaning of the material and will be backed up by an analysis of secondary sources. The method will be described further in terms of how it will be conducted and its relevance for this paper. Lastly, the primary material consisting of political speeches, policies, a party program, and one election video from the recent election in Greenland will be elaborated upon.

The study is based on a deductive approach since the thesis aims to test whether the Inuit people in Greenland deserve protective rights by using the framework of Will Kymlicka’s liberal theory of multiculturalism. A single case study has been conducted to provide a detailed examination of the political and developmental changes in Greenland and the effects in terms of the Inuit population (Flyvbjerg, 2006:220; Halperin & Heath, 2020:167-168).

4.1.Method

4.1.1. Qualitative content analysis

As the name implies, a content analysis examines the content of a text and is an interpretive form of analysis that identifies central representations in, for example, a policy (Halperin & Heath, 2020:365). The qualitative content analysis is referred to as an ‘unobtrusive’ method because this approach can help reduce bias. Therefore, it is often used to study political speeches, election material, or policies. An ‘obtrusive’ method is, on the other hand, the method of conducting interviews or surveys, in which bias is unavoidable of both the interviewee and the interviewer. By using the qualitative content analysis, a systematic examination can be conducted of, for example, politicians’ statements from transcripts of speeches or election material to evidence their ideas and views without being dependent on their remembrance (Halperin & Heath, 2020:373-374).

A content analysis allows the researcher to investigate a larger population of material, topics, and people than would be possible by conducting surveys or interviews. Moreover, some information that could have been difficult to gain through personal contact can be accessed by looking over official documents, such as transcribed political speeches. Analyzing

(22)

this sort of material helps the researcher interpret the latent content of texts, which is the meaning of the text that may only be found by reading “between the lines” (Halperin & Heath, 2020:376).

Halperin and Heath (2020) suggest the following four steps when conducting a content analysis (Halperin & Heath, 2020:377). Each step will be presented after an overview of the main principles of the four.

1. Selection of material

2. Defining categories and topics 3. Choice of record unit

4. Creation of coding protocol

First, the relevant material for this thesis was chosen among recent political statements that would allow the study to answer the research questions. Particularly, this material would help create an understanding of the views and aspirations of the Inuit people through their political reliance, as well as political material can reveal some of the present-day issues the Greenlanders desire to overcome. Since some documents were only available in Greenlandic, the findings of this thesis are at risk of being biased due to a language barrier of the author, who only speaks Danish and English (Halperin & Heath, 2020:377). This limitation will be elaborated upon below.

The study has used various semantic domains since it has analyzed different forms of political material, and the material combines statements of several politicians (Halperin & Heath, 2020:377). The various material has been chosen to examine the winning party, Inuit Ataqatigiit’s (IA), political goals before the election that took place on the 6th of April 2021, and their promises disclosed in a Coalition Agreement from the 16th of April. This will be held against previous research on crucial matters for the election result - namely, social issues, economy, and the cultural heritage of Greenland. The Greenlanders' election of a new government is assumed to reflect the majority’s desires contemporarily.

Second, subjects and events relevant to this research were chosen, such as colonialism and identity issues in the Greenlandic society or their desires for independence. Plus, the event of the recent snap election that formed a new government in the country. In continuation, the units to look for were chosen during the third step, which mainly were to study whole texts and

(23)

themes, which allowed to search for values and beliefs among the political statements (Halperin & Heath, 2020:378).

Lastly, the fourth step helped create a ‘tag’ for each subject or event to make the coding manageable and reliable. This ensures that the author has coded the material consistently. The author has tolerated a flexibility while analyzing the texts to allow for new, relevant data to be incorporated into the coding process, which could be significant for the findings. The same goes for the choice of words, whereas the search for the subject of ‘independence’ also looked for words such as ‘secession,’ ‘self-determination’ and ‘autonomy’ – also referred to as ‘agreeing words’ (Halperin & Heath, 2020:379).

Alternative methods, such as discourse analysis or quantitative content analysis, could also have been applied to this study. This would have allowed another perspective of the research by applying an understanding of texts in relation to the social context or analyzing the manifest content – i.e., the frequency of keywords in a larger social survey. A discourse analysis could allow the study to delve deeper, while the quantitative analysis can help get clearer comparisons. However, this study is limited in what is observed and less bound to the theory than in a quantitative study, while still more bound than a discourse analysis that often works inductively. This creates a study in between the two, and therefore, the qualitative method was found most suitable to examine the content of whole texts and a larger span of information about the Inuit population in Greenland, from the perspective of Will Kymlicka’s theory (Halperin & Heath, 2020:364-377).

4.2. Case and material selection

A single case study has been chosen because it allows the research to go in-depth with a specific example, such as the Inuit people in Greenland (Flyvbjerg, 2006:220, 241). This particular case has been chosen due to its contemporary relevance since an increasing political and economic interest in the Arctic region could affect the livelihoods of the Inuit people. The investigation of the current political discourse in Greenland was chosen because the results of a recent election would provide the latest aspirations of the Inuit people. Furthermore, the case is chosen because it is an extreme case since Greenland deviates from most other indigenous groups with their outstanding achievements in terms of self-government rights. Such cases can often disclose more in-depth information and are important to investigate since they can help

(24)

“clarify the deeper causes behind a given problem and its consequences” (Flyvbjerg, 2006:229), while representative samples will not reveal the same insight (Flyvbjerg, 2006:229).

The material collected consists of previous empirical research, political speeches, human rights conventions and declarations, policies, and NGO reports. A various spectrum of data has been chosen to check if, for example, policies, political speeches, and reports agree due to the awareness of possible biases in the various texts, which is unavoidable no matter which method is chosen (Flyvbjerg, 2006:235). The declarations and conventions will provide the legal basis for indigenous peoples’ rights in Greenland and allow for a comparison with the findings of the previous empirical research and concepts from the chosen theory of Will Kymlicka (Halperin & Heath, 2020:192-201). By using secondary material, the study has reached further than it would have been possible by using primary data only. It also enables the comparison of changes from colonization until present (Halperin & Heath, 2020:175). Also, it was relevant to investigate previous research, as the limitation of the paper did not allow for making samples such as interviews or observations. The breadth of the findings in this study has been affected by the time frame and scope, while the qualitative data reflects only aspects of the contemporary political discourse in Greenland and does not include views of citizens directly.

4.3. Validity and Reliability

When doing research, it is essential to emphasize the analysis to be valid and the results to be reliable. According to Halperin and Heath (2020), the findings of a qualitative analysis “are valid and reliable to the degree that they are plausible to others: that is, if the researcher explains how they came up with the analysis in a way that the reader can make sense of” (Halperin & Heath, 2020:385). Therefore, transparency has been vital to include the reader of this thesis, and all analyzed material is provided in the reference list and appendices. This includes previous research, conventions, declarations, reports, and translated quotations from the political material. Also, to level up the validity and reliability of the results and the chosen material, the study's findings have been compared to previous research on relevant cases, such as identity issues and aspirations of independence in Greenland (Halperin & Heath, 2020:385).

(25)

4.3.1. Translation of official documents

A lot of the primary material introduced in this thesis was published in Greenlandic, to then being translated into Danish. Therefore, it was necessary to translate it into English to enable its usage throughout the paper. This produces a limitation to the study since it is expected that content gets lost in translation (Nes et al., 2010;313-315). Nonetheless, all material was published by political parties or the Greenlandic government, while one must assume that such official documents are translated by professional bilingual people, speaking both Greenlandic and Danish. Hence, the author has found the translations to be reliable. In addition, all the material translated from Danish to English is available for the reader in the appendices, and links for the original material are provided in the reference list.

(26)

5. ANALYSIS

The following analysis will explore to what extent it is possible to apply the case of Inuit people in Greenland to Will Kymlicka’s theoretical framework of multiculturalism. It does this to determine, according to the theory, if the Inuit people should continue to derive special protections and rights. This analysis will lead to a discussion of current issues with Inuit people as a protected group, in terms of Danish influence, social issues, outside interests, and the desire for independence, which is supported by an analysis of policies, political speeches, and election material. Moreover, the paper will assess how being a protected group under Kymlicka’s definition, the ILO, or the UN, could help ensure the survival of the Inuit culture. The argumentation will show support of the rights granted the Greenlanders in terms of the current Self-Government Act and make an effort to disclose the importance of the rights in the light of Kymlicka’s theory.

Kymlicka’s theoretical framework applies to the analysis of Inuit people’s position in Greenland on several grounds. At the outset, Kymlicka is recognized as one of the most influential scholars in the field of cultural minorities’ rights, which is apparent by the fact that his theory is widely used among scholars and has been used in prominent reports, such as the UNDP Human Development Report 2004, titled Cultural Liberty in Today’s Diverse World (UNDP, 2004). A reason to apply Kymlicka’s theory to the case of Greenland is to assess whether his theory reflects the circumstances of the Inuit population. Furthermore, using his theory helps determine and illustrate the postulation of this thesis and the typical international considerations with regards to indigenous peoples. Lastly, his theory offers a liberal approach to minority rights, and while both Greenland and Denmark are liberal states, it seems justifiable to discuss the experiences and challenges of Inuit people out of this framework.

5.1. Patterns of cultural diversity: national minorities

To assess whether the Inuit people in Greenland is analogous with Kymlicka’s theory of multiculturalism, it is necessary first to determine whether the Inuit people meet his definition of national minorities by assessing each of the criteria Kymlicka sets forth. Recalling the criteria, those are: historical community and territorial occupation, common culture and language, and governing institutions.

(27)

5.1.1. Historical community and territorial occupation

This section seeks to disclose that Inuit people historically exercised sovereignty over the Greenlandic territory and that Danish settlers later incorporated the people and territory involuntarily into the Danish realm. This will be done to confirm the Inuit people’s fulfillment of Kymlicka’s first criteria for being categorized as a national minority.

Research reveals that different Inuit tribes have inhabited the Greenlandic territory for more than 4000 years. Around the year 900, the ancestors of the living Inuit people in Greenland came from Canada, also referred to as the ‘Thule Tribe’ (Augustesen & Hansen, 2013: 8-9, Barten & Mortensen, 2016:9-10). The people survived by hunting for wild animals, such as whales, and because of this, they were attractive to Europeans. The lard from the whales could be made into cod liver oil, used for lightning. Especially the Dutch started to trade the whale lard with the Inuit tribes, who now got access to European goods such as knives, needles, and firearms (Augustesen & Hansen, 2013:11).

When Danish settlers arrived in 1721, they had a hard time communicating with the Inuit tribes, who did not see the benefits of partnering up with the Danes since they had continued trading with the Dutch. Nonetheless, at the end of the 17th century, the Danish government had successfully taken over all trade between Greenland and Europe and occupied the territory and the governing of the Inuit people. To maintain the amount of catch the Inuit tribes could deliver, the Danes set up rules about how much contact the traders and the tribes could have and how many ‘luxuries’ the tribes could access. The Danes feared that the tribes would stop hunting if their access to European products became too easy or if the society modernized (Augustesen & Hansen, 2013:11-15).

The above demonstrates that when Denmark arrived in Greenland, the Inuit people became victims of numerous measures of coercion to become part of Danish property. The Greenlanders did not ask for their incorporation into the Danish realm, and because of this, Kymlicka argues, national minorities can demand group-differentiated rights due to their historical presence in a country that was later occupied by a colonizer or the like (Kymlicka, 1995:8). This information supports Kymlicka’s criteria of a historical setting of the Inuit people before settlers arrived. Also, it supports his idea that the Inuit people could have established their own sovereign state if Denmark had not taken over their territory (Kymlicka, 1995:11-12).

(28)

5.1.2. Common culture and language

To demonstrate that the Inuit people also conform with Kymlicka’s criteria of a common culture and language, this section will reveal how the Greenlanders have remained a distinct people by holding on to the Greenlandic language and several traditional practices while being governed by Danish authorities.

First, as it is stated above, the Greenlandic people already early on hunted for wild animals. Hunting is still a widespread activity throughout Greenland, and in smaller settlements, whaling and hunting are still conducted as a way of living (Gad, 2014). Secondly, Inuit people in Greenland spoke Greenlandic until the 1950s and were taught this in school by Greenlandic teachers. However, when the colonial era ended, Denmark formed a new agenda to increase the educational level in Greenland. At this time, Danish and Greenlandic authorities agreed that this could only be achieved if the children started to learn Danish in school. From this decision, the bilingual society was created by sending Danish teachers to Greenland or Greenlandic children to Denmark (Augustesen & Hansen, 2013:39-40). It was not until Greenland achieved home rule that the people demanded to take over the educational system, where the Danish workforce should be replaced by Greenlanders, while the teaching language should be Greenlandic. Although, Danish remained part of the school as second language (Augustesen & Hansen, 2013:73-75). In 2003, a new school reform further ensured that the culture of Greenland was incorporated into the curriculum (Augustesen & Hansen, 2013:94-95,100-101).

Despite the widely recognized cultural traditions and language of the Greenlanders, some authors argue that there is a general and misguided understanding of the Inuit people in Greenland as one whole group. Ngiviu (2014) and Johnstone (2020) explain that in reality, three different groups of Inuit people exist in Greenland, who has different histories of colonization, language or dialects, traditions, and beliefs. These groups do not necessarily understand each other’s language, and it has been discussed whether they have only a dialect or a different language (Ngiviu, 2014; Johnstone, 2020; Barten & Mortensen, 2016:10). The smallest group lives in the Northern part of Greenland and is referred to as ‘Inughuit.’ They speak Inuktun and consist of around 1000 people. A second group is East Greenlanders, who consists of approximately 3000 people and speaks Tunumiit Oraasiat. Both groups were forcibly removed during the colonial era and are today among the most vulnerable societies in Greenland (Gad, 2014). For example, the politician, Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, from the IA party,

(29)

stated in a speech in 2019 that in Tasiilaq (an Eastern settlement) “every second child [has] a social case in the municipality, every third child [has] experienced sexual abuse and every fifth citizen dies of suicide” (Inuit Ataqatigiit Folketingimi, 2019). This statement is a strong indicator of the social issues that devastate the smaller settlements that feel left out of the dominant society.

The third group of Inuit is the West Greenlanders, speaking Kalaallisut (West Greenlandic), the official language in Greenland. This is the biggest group of Inuit in Greenland and the one referred to by international bodies and Denmark. It is said that the two sub-cultures in Greenland feel as much colonized by the West Greenlanders as of Denmark (Johnstone, 2020:6-7). Only the West Greenlanders are recognized as an indigenous group in Greenland, whereas the Inughuit and East Greenlanders fall under this grouping. This is stated in the SGA, which applies to “the people of Greenland” (Danish Parliament, 2009) and not any subcultures (Cultural Survival, 2015). Even the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC), which speaks on behalf of Inuit peoples across Alaska, Canada, and Greenland, only recognizes one group of Inuit (ICC, 2021).

While the political focus on the Greenlandic language and culture discloses that the Greenlanders have maintained their cultural identity alongside a modernization in the country, the two sub-cultures in Greenland suggest an ambiguity in recognizing indigenous peoples in Greenland. However, in terms of the maintenance of culture and language, the findings correspond with Kymlicka’s criteria that national minorities have maintained certain traditional practices and that societal cultures are dynamic and will, as every other culture develop over time (Kymlicka, 1995:100-106). One could argue that Kymlicka’s theory contains a fallibility since he does not consider rights for cultures of distinct peoples, whereas the two sub-cultures of the Inuit people in Greenland have simultaneously maintained their own cultural practices and languages.

5.1.3. Governing institutions

Since Kymlicka defines a national minority as “more or less institutionally complete” (Kymlicka, 1995:11), this section will show how Greenland today governs most political, social, and economic matters, even though they for several decades were subject to Danish ruling.

(30)

It was not until 1979, when Greenland achieved home rule, that the people formally started to govern themselves through institutions. By signing the HRA, Greenland was given the right to organize politically and to have the authority over several internal affairs (Danish Parliament, 1979), which, with the SGA, was extended to even wider autonomy rights. The SGA extended the Greenlandic political organization and, most importantly, gave the Greenlanders a right to independence whenever they wish for it. This can be perceived as the ultimate right a country can grant a national minority, which is not even written in the legally binding C169 (Barten & Mortensen, 2016:11; Danish Parliament, 2009).

So, even though Denmark remains in control of foreign, security, and international affairs, the Greenlandic society does fulfill Kymlicka’s criteria of governing the society through their own institutions.

5.1.4. Summary

Having explored Kymlicka’s criteria of national minorities, it is evident that the Inuit people fall within this pattern since they live up to the definition. The above information has documented the Inuit people’s historical continuity in Greenland and their territorial occupation before the arrival of the Danish settlers. It reveals how the Inuit tribes were involuntarily incorporated into the Kingdom of Denmark, but without leaving behind their cultural identity – even among several different groups. Both traditional practices of hunting and their language remain part of the Inuit people, despite Danish efforts to change their way of life. Over time, they have attained self-government and established a Greenlandic parliament, which governs the citizens while emphasizing the Greenlandic culture. However, the Danish presence is hard to overlook, and the following sections will disclose what implications the Danish occupancy has entailed.

5.2. The societal culture of Greenland and its importance

The sections above strengthen that the Greenlandic society fulfills Kymlicka’s criteria of being a national minority and that they, according to this status, have created their own societal culture, with their political, economic, and social institutions, as well as their shared language. The following section seeks to present the link between Kymlicka’s description of societal culture and the aspirations of the Inuit people and their view on a meaningful life. Furthermore, the importance of having a societal culture for individual members’ sense of

(31)

increasing political focus on the social circumstances in the country. The findings disclose that the Inuit people in Greenland have developed an ongoing and distinct societal culture, expressed in their institutions, social activities, and language, which provide meaningful choices for them.

5.2.1. A dual identity

Kymlicka argues that: “Throughout the world, many minority groups are denied… access [to a societal culture]. They are caught in a contradictory position, unable either to fully participate in the mainstream of society or to sustain their own distinct societal culture” (Kymlicka, 1995:101). Evidently, it is not the case in contemporary Greenland that Denmark has denied the Greenlanders to exercise their own societal culture since they agreed on the SGA, which, according to Kymlicka, grants them a “cultural context of choice that supports individual autonomy” (Kymlicka, 1995:101). However, he states that granting a people self-government rights can produce a form of ‘dual citizenship’ that creates a potential conflict about which societal culture an individual associates with the most (Kymlicka, 1995:182).

The feeling of having a dual citizenship is common in Greenland, which Gad (2014) argues started already during the colonial era, with the ‘hybrids’ created between a mix of Danish settlers and Greenlandic citizens. Furthermore, Lynge (2006) underpins that “Greenlandic identity, in reality, is still influenced by colonialism” (Lynge, 2006:4). One could argue that self-government has provided a more equal relationship between Greenland and Denmark since the Greenlanders can exercise their own societal culture on equal footing with the Danes. However, at the same time, Kymlicka’s theory underpin the experiences of Greenlanders who encounter this dual identity and culture because of the Danish influence.

According to Kymlicka, a societal culture must be emphasized because missing a sense of belonging can impose severe consequences for the individual members (Kymlicka, 1995:76), and since a societal culture is vital to one’s self-identity and well-being (Margalit & Raz, 1990:447-9 in Kymlicka, 1995:89). In Greenland, there is a common understanding that the population has suffered from the colonizing powers trying to assimilate the Inuit people into Danish norms rather than allowing them to outlive their own societal culture. For example, Lynge (2006) argues that it is necessary to look into the colonial influence on identity issues in

(32)

Greenland, as she believes the control exercised by the Danes in the colonial era has affected the self-perception that is present among Greenlanders today (Lynge, 2006:2-3).

Greenlanders still perceive themselves as an inferior group after the Danes tried to bring in ‘Danish cultural Civilization’ (Lynge, 2006:3). Lynge’s argument is supported by the findings of Bollinger and Gulis (2018), who state that the modernization taking place after the colonial era has been a driver for “alcohol abuse, sexual abuse and identity loss, [which causes] intergenerational traumas leading to high youth and young adults suicide rate” (Bollinger & Gulis, 2018:392). It seems the Greenlanders are confused about a dual identity, which is caused by the fact that the Greenlandic people have felt that they should be more like the Danes for a long time. Even when the country tried to break with this mentality and introduced political measures to help, challenges remained, such as difficulties in providing enough qualified Greenlandic teachers according to the new school reforms. This has left an educational system even now influenced by Danish teachers, language, material, and norms (Augustesen & Hansen, 2013:94-95,100-101; Lynge, 2006; Lynge, 2008).

This ‘incomplete’ societal culture has left a generation with serious problems manifested in the various social issues in Greenland. The IA politician, Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, confirms this by her above statement about Tasiilaq and the fact that “the problems are unfortunately not solitary for Tasiilaq. They also exist all over Greenland” (Inuit Ataqatigiit Folketingimi, 2019). In particular, Greenland is known for some of the highest suicide rates in the world. In 2015 Greenland had the highest loss of citizens due to self-harm worldwide, with approximately 2,9 losses pr. 100.000 inhabitants. That is double the amount of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway combined (Bollinger & Gulis, 2018:389).

Bollinger and Gulis (2018) find no clear answer to the many suicides but note that most suicidal attempts are triggered by social issues rather than a mental illness. A possible reason, they suggest, is connected to the colonial past. They connect it on the grounds that alcohol issues among the Greenlandic citizens started during the rapid modernization taking place right after the colonial era, as outlined in the literature review. Alcohol abuse can lead to a loss of restraints, which they then connect to the extensive number of cases concerning sexual abuse. They proclaim that during the modernization, a loss of identity occurred when the Danes took over due to a loss of power and prestige among Greenlandic men. The authors view alcoholism and sexual abuse as the greatest risks for the suicide rates to increase since 82 percent of the

(33)

Additionally, their results revealed that if a friend of a person with suicidal thoughts committed suicide, the risk of the other doing the same would arise – by this, a vicious cycle is created (Bollinger & Gulis, 2018:391-393).

The above problems are evident in the political discourse over the last years, whereas culture and indigenous identity are referred to in almost every political speech, program, or policy. For example, the newly elected parties for the Greenlandic government will base their coalition on “our [the Greenlandic] way of living and culture” (Coalition Agreement, 2021:3) because “the much-needed change of mentality cannot only take place through legislation, and the coalition will... work for a greater prevalence of [their] culture” (Coalition Agreement, 2021:12). In addition to this, they emphasize the living standard of the people and the social sector regarding children and the youth, which they see as crucial areas to better the society (Coalition Agreement, 2021:1-6). Also, before the IA party was elected, they highlighted in their election video that the election also is about the Greenlandic culture: “Who we are. Our values. Our origin. Our language. Our food. How we perceive ourselves…. We are our culture – our life is our culture” (Inuit Ataqatigiit, 2021a). These statements signify the emphasis and the meaning of the cultural heritage in Greenland. Passing on the traditions to the next generation is of great concern while trying to eradicate the social problems connected to this dual – or even missing – identity.

To stamp out the social issues, many Greenlandic people agree that they need to come to terms with their colonial past and dual identity since history cannot be changed, and their culture is highly influenced by the Danish society. Lynge (2006) argues that the people need to end the post-colonial thinking of independence as if it was the same as “becoming as good as the Danes, economically or materially” (Lynge, 2006:6). She wants the Greenlandic people to “understand that there is a link between [their] past and [their] feelings today” (Lynge, 2006:6) but at the same time acknowledge that the Greenlanders soon need to define their own history, feelings, and view of the colonial affects, at least if they want to become ‘mentally independent’ (Lynge, 2006:6).

5.2.2. Summary

The contemporary social challenges and the Inuit people’s uncertainty about their mixed identity confirm Kymlicka’s emphasis on belonging to a societal culture as crucial for individuals' well-being. Even though Denmark is no longer trying to assimilate the Greenlandic

Will Kymlicka’s Liberal Theory of Multiculturalism : A case study of Greenland