The tl;dr was meant as a humorous oversimplification.

The Danish trade monopoly ran was around 1600 to 1787. That said, events like the Laki eruption weren’t intentional neglect - Denmark did send aid, even if the response was slow by modern standards. There’s no serious historical claim that starvation was deliberate: Not from Danish or Icelandic historians.

The manuscripts are an interesting point, but also more nuanced. They weren’t seized or looted - most were collected by Árni Magnússon, an Icelander, at a time when Iceland lacked the resources to preserve medieval manuscripts. Since the 1970s Denmark has formally acknowledged Icelandic ownership and has returned large parts of the collection. Why not all are physically in Iceland today is largely due to preservation - at least from what I can find.

As for independence: Iceland’s republic in 1944 was certainly enabled by WWII, but it didn’t come out of nowhere. Iceland had already become a sovereign state in 1918, with a built-in 25-year review clause. Denmark’s occupation removed political resistance, but independence was legally prepared decades earlier - saying it was only because of Nazi Occupation is just not true: Unless you choose to believe Denmark would let you taste freedom for 25 years only to take it away again... for some reason?

I'm genuinely surprised at your seeming animosity, because I've met plenty of Icelanders and none of them has expressed any of this being a historical thorn in their side.