Imperializing Norden

Abstract

The two pre-Napoleonic Nordic polities are best understood as empires. Drawing on recent analytical and historical scholarship on empires, I argue that 17 th and 18 th-century Denmark, on which the piece concentrates, was very much akin to other European empires that existed at the time. Read in light of this, national identities within the fragments of the empire appear similar. Nationalisms are all shaped directly on the Danish model, having at the same time Denmark as their constitutive cultural other. The introduction notes that, where all European imperial experiences are concerned, overseas territories had the most wounds inflicted upon them. We would not know this if we looked at Faroese, Icelandic and also Norwegian nationalisms in isolations. These polities, and particularly Norway, partook in and benefited from the colonial policies of the empire. This notwithstanding, their national identities insist that these nations were on the receiving, as opposed to the imposing, side of imperialism. This is a historically unwarranted and ethically problematic stance, which is in need of further discussion.

Reimagining cultural memory of the arctic in the graphic narratives of Oqaluttuaq

“…It creates a life-narrative of a legendary Inuit man, Qajuuttaq (Sørensen and Kundsen, 2019), at the backdrop of Denmark’s establishment of political and administrative control over the region. While the thematic and temporal focus is historical, it also has contemporary political resonance due to the critical light it casts on Denmark’s “benign colonialism.” This term used not only as a description of the history of Danish colonial presence in the North Atlantic, but, more importantly, by postcolonial critics interrogating the discursive pillars of the contemporary “grønlandspolitik.” Here the “soft power” practices of cooperation, protection, non-coercion and financial assistance provide avenues for the exercise of control (Jensen, 2016; Naum and Nordin, 2013; Neumann, 2014; Petterson, 2014). Seen from this perspective, The Gift shows that the colonial relations in Greenland are established and perpetuated through elaborate fictional constructs, including those of the otherness of the indigenous populations or the figure of benevolent colonizer, and what Hoydal (2006) calls “the myth of the gift”.…”

Greenland’s Arctic advantage: Articulations, acts and appearances of sovereignty games

“…In the present case, such moves serve to adjust the boundary for what Greenland may do internationally by altering the level of representation, hence contributing to the process towards fulfilling the ideal national self-image of transforming the postcolonial hierarchy into one of sovereign equality (cf. Neumann, 2014). This process is facilitated by Denmark’s dependence on Greenland’s geographic location and continuous membership of the Danish Realm for maintaining its status as an Arctic state.…”

Introduction: Postimperial sovereignty games in the Nordic region

“…Even if they are all explicitly conceived in opposition to Denmark (Gad, 2005), the 'laundry list' of national diacritica -what makes nation states differentiate on exactly the same traits (Löfgren, 1989) -was for each of these polities the result of German romanticism processed through a Danish intellectual milieu, dominated by the Danish theologian NFS Grundtvig. Whether or not Neumann (2014) is warranted in dismissing the colonial wounds claimed by Icelandic and Faroese national discoursewhen compared to the ones inflicted on Greenland -the discourses are strikingly parallel: the ideal-type relation between state, nation, language, culture, religion and economy is for these post-Danish polities one of total correspondence. 13 But where does this leave the EU?…”

“…This variety of relations to the centre forms a starting point for a development in which 'modern empires have nation-state cores and … subordinated peoples, in their turn, are also incorporated into modern systems of political action and belief, coming themselves to aspire to nationhood' (Shaw, 2002: 329). Hence, a postimperial situation is one in which the imperial configuration is transformed beyond the original hierarchy and new identities, groups or even states emerge (see Neumann, 2014).…”

“…By exploring what we call 'postimperial sovereignty games', this special issue challenges established myths about the Nordic region in IR theory and advances an alternative perspective on the imperial legacies and present dynamics of sovereignty. The main aim of this special issue is not to explore the colonial past of the Nordic countries (for this, see Neumann, 2014;Keskinen et al, 2009). Instead, we examine how European integration and postimperialism intersect in the Nordic countries today.…”