‘Greenland’s White Gold’ shines a light on Denmark’s colonialist past: Commentary

A few months ago, Danish National TV (DR) launched a documentary called “Greenland’s White Gold.” The film, directed by Claus Pilehave and Otto Rosing, shows how Denmark exploited Greenland’s underground assets for decades by extracting a rare mineral known as cryolite from the country and then exporting it.

By coincidence, the premiere of the film took place just as Greenland was gaining worldwide attention in January after Donald Trump reiterated the U.S.’s plan to “buy” Greenland.  As most people will know, this led to countless debates and discussions about Greenland’s history, future and current situation – and the critique against Denmark’s contemporary colonial power was widespread and comprehensive.

“Greenland’s White Gold” digs into one single, albeit central, aspect of Denmark’s far-reaching and extensive exploitation of the country over centuries. Hence, one could add a number of other crucial aspects of political, societal, cultural and even individual circumstances in Greenland that have been controlled and exploited by Danish authorities.

However, this specific documentary focuses on how the extraction and export of cryolite benefitted the Danish economy from the mid 19th century to the late 20th century.

In the film we hear the voices of Greenlanders who remember growing up with the ongoing activity of a constant flow of Danish men who came and stayed for work in the cryolite mines during more or less all of these Greenlanders’ childhoods.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the film led to an outcry in Denmark, and there are specifically two very interesting layers regarding this reaction. One is the overall defensive reaction that can be seen through the scepticism regarding the viewpoint that depicts Denmark as an exploitative nation that has solely had its own interests at heart. Many Danes, notably politicians, have had a hard time facing the way Denmark is presented in the film – and one might add that they have had a hard time facing themselves in the reflection of the past which the film shines a light on.

The other layer regarding the reaction to the documentary has been more prominent in discussions that have taken place in the aftermath of the premiere. This specific aspect is also what led to both the firing of the editor-in-chief at DR, Thomas Falbe, and the removal of the film from DR. By then, the documentary had been downloaded by many people and it’s still available to view via a number of websites and channels.

Underlying the second layer were estimates of how much Denmark had gained financially from their business regarding the export of cryolite (or materials made of cryolite, such as aluminium) presented in the documentary. The defensive reactions to these calculations – first and foremost from a number of Danish economists, but also from Danish politicians and the general public – were, to say the least, astonishing.

In the documentary, a couple of economists express their estimates on how much Denmark might possibly have gained financially from the “white gold” of Greenland. Their estimation, based on an analysis of several relevant aspects, was around 400 billion Danish kroner. The economists also underlined the fact that it is impossible to calculate a precise figure because of the complexity of the cryolite business, and many factors have changed during recent decades.

One of the specialists who appear in the documentary is the renowned Indian Professor of Economy and Colonialism, Arindam Banirjee. He explains the complexity of calculating financial gains of colonial powers since there are so many layers one needs to take into account that don’t normally come into play for  similar calculations that are independent from colonial circumstances.

Among other things, Banirjee points to different aspects such as the fact that all the workers in the cryolite mines were Danish men who, of course, received regular salaries through several decades, while Greenlanders could only observe the activity that was going on in their own country.

What has no doubt been the most interesting aspect of the debate about “Greenland’s White Gold” is the incredible level of defense that first and foremost Danish economists – but also Danish politicians and Danish citizens in general – have expressed in their reactions to the analyses and estimations presented in the documentary.

Ironically, these reactions actually reflect what is criticized in the film, namely the arrogance that always – without exception – follows from being a colonial power. The arrogance was exposed firstly by the reaction to the film upon its release, i.e. before it had  even had a chance to be viewed and understood on its own premises. Secondly, there is an unbelievable arrogance in the disregarding of several experts of economy, most notable Banirjee, since he is Professor of economy and colonialism.

The automatic assumption that one’s own knowledge as an “average” Danish economist must be superior to an economist who specializes in economy and colonialism is a classic example of imperialists´ imagined superiority. Further, it exposes a long outdated worldview, exposing Denmark´s double standards concerning contemporary politics and international relations.

“Greenland’s White Gold” is a highly enlightening and important film which has won recognition among researchers and the public, first and foremost outside of Denmark. The fact that DR decided to remove the film from its channels has only highlighted the problematic issues that are discussed in the film.

First, it has naturally created curiosity about and drawn attention to the film. And second, it has ironically proved some of the film’s main points, revealing Denmark´s refusal to fully accept its historical role as an exploitative colonial power.

Sigri M. Gaїni is a lecturer at the University of the Faroe Islands