"In regards to the rations, you are citing the rationing (or lack thereof) that the American citizen had. That is irrelevant to the point. We are not talking about American citizen, but instead supplies that were being sent to Greenland. I don't know why you even bring up "So Americans never really suffered from a rationing that effected their lives in any consequential way during the war." This thread hasn't been about American citizens, and I suspect you are being disingenuous in trying to conflate those issues."
I'm not and it's not conflating.
America didn't have a rationing system (except for that liberal one on gas) and the Danish homeland was occupied by the Germans so the Danish government in exile in London had no one to develop a rationing system for - except for possibly the few tens of thousand of citizens Greenland could possibly hold at that time.
So it's unlikely they ever developed a wartime rationing system for the few peoples of a far flung possession they couldn't even supply anyway - what would be the point?
We also know (or at least we've both assumed and argued from the assumption that @Tzenker's OP was correct in) that the US allowed the liberal distribution of alcohol on Greenland during the war - right?
And we also know, from a source you posted, that Denmark introduced peacetime rationing of alcohol in 1929.
It's thus completely reasonable to assume, from the available evidence presented in this thread, that the US DID NOT operate any kind of rationing system on Greenland during the war - since in the case of alcohol, they actually ended a peacetime rationing system the Danes had put in place before the war.
Which also seems perfectly reasonable from the American point of view. Rationing was, as I said, anathema to Americans - it still is.
Why - when going through the trouble of doing Denmark the favour of supplying Greenland - would they ever go to the extra trouble for instituting a rationing system?
Especially since they didn't even bother to learn the Danish rationing system for alcohol put in place before the war so they could continue that policy?
"I agree that alcohol is poison, and I don't drink myself, but I will leave assertions about the gene pool of native populations to you. I suspect you are getting into dangerous territory with that one."
It's been assumed for centuries that this is a large part of the explanation why indigenous peoples has so much more problem with all kinds of substance abuse - a fact so universally accepted that the World Health Organisation actually has a special project dealing with it:
It's a known historical fact that Europe has - for many centuries - produced stronger alcohol and consumed more of it then any other part of the world.
The individuals most susceptible to alcohol have as a consequence of this simply died off or not been able to carry their genes on as successfully in Europe, effectively culling more of our gene pool of these individuals of high susceptibility.
Indigenous peoples, who have lived for millennia without being exposed to an endless supply of strong alcohol, simply didn't have a chance when we Europeans unleashed our "firewater" upon them.
Now anything to do with genes is a sensitive subject, since it conjures up connections to racism and opinions on the supposed superiority of different "races".
But viewed as it should be - as a consequence of Europeans killing of many of the carriers of genes susceptible to the drug of alcohol by over centuries drinking themselves to death - it's certainly not a sign of any European "superiority".
Just as Europeans developing increased immunity to syphilis and all kinds of diseases - venereal and other - compared to indigenous peoples it's not either.
Europe has simply been an incubator for all kind of destructive human behaviour for millennia, which lead our ancestors to become such a devastating plague on the rest of the world when we began spreading over it, claiming it in the names of our kings and country.
Again - that's certainly not a sign of any "racial" or genetic superiority.
So that's how I think one should rightly view this question of genetic susceptibility to alcohol. Not as Europeans being somehow "superior" because we've already killed of much of the individuals in our collective gene pool highly susceptible to alcohol, which we've been able to do because we've been drinking more of it and stronger stuff for far longer then any other part of the world.
If anything indigenous people - before we encountered them - probably had a much healthier gene pool with greater diversity in it. Another thing we Europeans killed off with our alcohol and diseases.
Another, similar, example of this, is that most indigenous peoples are also extremely susceptible to obesity - when put on a western diet.
These people have survived as hunter-gatherers for millennia, and their gene pool is tailored for that.
Individuals with the lowest calorie use and most effective energy uptake from the sparse food they ate where highly favoured to survive those conditions - while those with the worst genes for that environment didn't pass on their genes at the same rate.
Which means that today, the overall gene pool of these peoples favours a lifestyle of a very sparse calorie intake.
Then put them on the McDonald's diet and they explode in size.
Americans might be fat in general, but the worst effected by your terrible diet is American Samoan's and other indigenous peoples of the Pacific Ocean.
And researchers now seem to have found at least one (of the probably multiple) gene(s) responsible for this fact:
"Rationing was introduced in 1929, and you invent some idea that it must not have been freely available before that. The most straightforward interpretation of that "rationing was introduced in 1929" is that in 1928 there was no rationing or limitations, but if you have something to cite to disprove that, I am willing to look."
I'm not inventing anything - I'm just working off of the known fact - which where actually provided by a link you yourself posted, which states that:
Danish law outright forbade the sale of alcohol to Greenlanders from 1782.
A few loopholes developed, so a few Greenlanders could get their hands on small amounts of alcohol - but it was not freely available to Greenlanders in general.
Then in 1929 rationing of alcohol was introduced.
That's what your source actually says.
Now YOU invent the idea that it must have been freely available before rationing was introduced in 1929 - but that's not actually what the source you yourself posted say.
Instead, according to it alcohol was COMPLETELY of limits to Greenlanders (while acknowledging these few loopholes developed where some individuals could get hold of small amounts of alcohol) from 1782 right up until 1929 - at which point a general rationing system of alcohol took over.
There is no support in the source for assuming access to alcohol had ever been free on Greenland since 1782 - that's just something you chose to believe.
And as such it's not my job of disproving your belief in something the source doesn't support - it's your job of proving your belief with an actual source.
"What I can't believe is how you are reading that graph -- speculating about some information campaign in the 60s that you don't cite? Or discouraging tragic examples of people dying-- what happened to those examples when the use was still rising in the 70s and 80s? Where are the Americans in that? You are just trying to make everything fit the "Blame America" mold."
It's not important why that first drop in the rate of consumption occurred. It might have been an information campaign, the sight of people drinking themselves to death on this now freely available drug - it might have been that the novelty or drink wore off after everyone in Greenland had a great big drink (twice as big as in Denmark), but new patterns of ever increasing consumptions then took hold - I don't know and a I don't care, because that's not the point.
The point is that the consumption was always higher then in mainland Denmark, and after that dip right after it becoming freely available - starting in the early 60's - the consumption just exploded.
Now this shows what happens when indigenous people come into contact with freely available strong alcohol - A LOT of their number can't control their intake at all and very quickly become dependant on alcohol.
The basic problem here is that once unleashed, the alcohol genie can't be put back in the bottle.
Once the Greenlanders where exposed to the free availability of alcohol and a liberal attitude towards it's consumptions, this process was already in motion.
The actual consumption might have peeked in the 80's like you talked about before, in an attempt to put as many years as possible between it and the US management of Greenland.
But the numbers where already increasing decades before that - almost as soon as alcohol became available under Danish rule on Greenland.
And as I've already said - it's hard to see why the Danes would ever revert from a successful policy that they had been - based on the available sources - pursuing non stop since 1782.
Unless forced to it by a public of Greenlanders who had been given a taste for alcohol by the Americans during the war - as @Tzenker claims.
So I'm not trying to make anything fit your mythical "Blame America" mould - I'm simply looking at the available evidence and drawing the most reasonable assumptions based on it.
As I've said all along - I'm no expert in the field of historical alcohol policy on Greenland - but I can still follow the evidence and draw reasonable assumptions from them.
And since we have an OP here, who claims to know these things, and none of the actual source that have come to light in this discussion disproves anything he/she claimed, I'm simply concluding that version is entirely consistent with the known facts so far.
Now you on the other hand specifically don't want to reach the conclusion that the US was in any way responsible for the shift in alcohol policy on Greenland, so you're going out of your way to make assumptions not supported by the available evidence to reach that predetermined conclusion.
"Because thus far, I have heard nothing from you but vitriol and hate towards Americans, which really makes me think I am on target with my "Blame America first" comment."
You may perceive it as such, but I'm only speaking based on the available evidence in this case.
Three instances when the US did something good and right:
1. The Marshall plan
2. Lend-lease to Britain before entering the Second World War
3. Sanctions and finally the oil embargo against Japan before the Second World War
Although none of these are completely altruistic actions, I don't think it necessary to demand that all actions be completely altruistic to be good or right.
I think people some times goes to far in criticising the motives of nations, because if you do that it's possible to fault any action for being self-interested.
But just because something benefits your nation it doesn't have to be a bad deal for other nations or peoples - so you have to judge each action based on the full range of consequences and make an overall assessment.
Another case I can mention here is the establishment of NATO.
While it clearly serves US national security interest first and foremost (and is not some benevolent gift bestowed by an altruistic US on it's allies), it so far has also been a good alliance for the rest of it's members and it's made the world a safer place - at least for those members.
But we'll have to see what damage Trump does to it now, of course.
0
@Trineff
"In regards to the rations, you are citing the rationing (or lack thereof) that the American citizen had. That is irrelevant to the point. We are not talking about American citizen, but instead supplies that were being sent to Greenland. I don't know why you even bring up "So Americans never really suffered from a rationing that effected their lives in any consequential way during the war." This thread hasn't been about American citizens, and I suspect you are being disingenuous in trying to conflate those issues."
I'm not and it's not conflating.
America didn't have a rationing system (except for that liberal one on gas) and the Danish homeland was occupied by the Germans so the Danish government in exile in London had no one to develop a rationing system for - except for possibly the few tens of thousand of citizens Greenland could possibly hold at that time.
So it's unlikely they ever developed a wartime rationing system for the few peoples of a far flung possession they couldn't even supply anyway - what would be the point?
We also know (or at least we've both assumed and argued from the assumption that @Tzenker's OP was correct in) that the US allowed the liberal distribution of alcohol on Greenland during the war - right?
And we also know, from a source you posted, that Denmark introduced peacetime rationing of alcohol in 1929.
It's thus completely reasonable to assume, from the available evidence presented in this thread, that the US DID NOT operate any kind of rationing system on Greenland during the war - since in the case of alcohol, they actually ended a peacetime rationing system the Danes had put in place before the war.
Which also seems perfectly reasonable from the American point of view. Rationing was, as I said, anathema to Americans - it still is.
Why - when going through the trouble of doing Denmark the favour of supplying Greenland - would they ever go to the extra trouble for instituting a rationing system?
Especially since they didn't even bother to learn the Danish rationing system for alcohol put in place before the war so they could continue that policy?
"I agree that alcohol is poison, and I don't drink myself, but I will leave assertions about the gene pool of native populations to you. I suspect you are getting into dangerous territory with that one."
It's been assumed for centuries that this is a large part of the explanation why indigenous peoples has so much more problem with all kinds of substance abuse - a fact so universally accepted that the World Health Organisation actually has a special project dealing with it:
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/activities/indigenous/en/
The theory is simple enough:
It's a known historical fact that Europe has - for many centuries - produced stronger alcohol and consumed more of it then any other part of the world.
The individuals most susceptible to alcohol have as a consequence of this simply died off or not been able to carry their genes on as successfully in Europe, effectively culling more of our gene pool of these individuals of high susceptibility.
Indigenous peoples, who have lived for millennia without being exposed to an endless supply of strong alcohol, simply didn't have a chance when we Europeans unleashed our "firewater" upon them.
Now anything to do with genes is a sensitive subject, since it conjures up connections to racism and opinions on the supposed superiority of different "races".
But viewed as it should be - as a consequence of Europeans killing of many of the carriers of genes susceptible to the drug of alcohol by over centuries drinking themselves to death - it's certainly not a sign of any European "superiority".
Just as Europeans developing increased immunity to syphilis and all kinds of diseases - venereal and other - compared to indigenous peoples it's not either.
Europe has simply been an incubator for all kind of destructive human behaviour for millennia, which lead our ancestors to become such a devastating plague on the rest of the world when we began spreading over it, claiming it in the names of our kings and country.
Again - that's certainly not a sign of any "racial" or genetic superiority.
So that's how I think one should rightly view this question of genetic susceptibility to alcohol. Not as Europeans being somehow "superior" because we've already killed of much of the individuals in our collective gene pool highly susceptible to alcohol, which we've been able to do because we've been drinking more of it and stronger stuff for far longer then any other part of the world.
If anything indigenous people - before we encountered them - probably had a much healthier gene pool with greater diversity in it. Another thing we Europeans killed off with our alcohol and diseases.
Another, similar, example of this, is that most indigenous peoples are also extremely susceptible to obesity - when put on a western diet.
These people have survived as hunter-gatherers for millennia, and their gene pool is tailored for that.
Individuals with the lowest calorie use and most effective energy uptake from the sparse food they ate where highly favoured to survive those conditions - while those with the worst genes for that environment didn't pass on their genes at the same rate.
Which means that today, the overall gene pool of these peoples favours a lifestyle of a very sparse calorie intake.
Then put them on the McDonald's diet and they explode in size.
Americans might be fat in general, but the worst effected by your terrible diet is American Samoan's and other indigenous peoples of the Pacific Ocean.
And researchers now seem to have found at least one (of the probably multiple) gene(s) responsible for this fact:
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/866987
"Rationing was introduced in 1929, and you invent some idea that it must not have been freely available before that. The most straightforward interpretation of that "rationing was introduced in 1929" is that in 1928 there was no rationing or limitations, but if you have something to cite to disprove that, I am willing to look."
I'm not inventing anything - I'm just working off of the known fact - which where actually provided by a link you yourself posted, which states that:
Danish law outright forbade the sale of alcohol to Greenlanders from 1782.
A few loopholes developed, so a few Greenlanders could get their hands on small amounts of alcohol - but it was not freely available to Greenlanders in general.
Then in 1929 rationing of alcohol was introduced.
That's what your source actually says.
Now YOU invent the idea that it must have been freely available before rationing was introduced in 1929 - but that's not actually what the source you yourself posted say.
Instead, according to it alcohol was COMPLETELY of limits to Greenlanders (while acknowledging these few loopholes developed where some individuals could get hold of small amounts of alcohol) from 1782 right up until 1929 - at which point a general rationing system of alcohol took over.
There is no support in the source for assuming access to alcohol had ever been free on Greenland since 1782 - that's just something you chose to believe.
And as such it's not my job of disproving your belief in something the source doesn't support - it's your job of proving your belief with an actual source.
"What I can't believe is how you are reading that graph -- speculating about some information campaign in the 60s that you don't cite? Or discouraging tragic examples of people dying-- what happened to those examples when the use was still rising in the 70s and 80s? Where are the Americans in that? You are just trying to make everything fit the "Blame America" mold."
It's not important why that first drop in the rate of consumption occurred. It might have been an information campaign, the sight of people drinking themselves to death on this now freely available drug - it might have been that the novelty or drink wore off after everyone in Greenland had a great big drink (twice as big as in Denmark), but new patterns of ever increasing consumptions then took hold - I don't know and a I don't care, because that's not the point.
The point is that the consumption was always higher then in mainland Denmark, and after that dip right after it becoming freely available - starting in the early 60's - the consumption just exploded.
Now this shows what happens when indigenous people come into contact with freely available strong alcohol - A LOT of their number can't control their intake at all and very quickly become dependant on alcohol.
The basic problem here is that once unleashed, the alcohol genie can't be put back in the bottle.
Once the Greenlanders where exposed to the free availability of alcohol and a liberal attitude towards it's consumptions, this process was already in motion.
The actual consumption might have peeked in the 80's like you talked about before, in an attempt to put as many years as possible between it and the US management of Greenland.
But the numbers where already increasing decades before that - almost as soon as alcohol became available under Danish rule on Greenland.
And as I've already said - it's hard to see why the Danes would ever revert from a successful policy that they had been - based on the available sources - pursuing non stop since 1782.
Unless forced to it by a public of Greenlanders who had been given a taste for alcohol by the Americans during the war - as @Tzenker claims.
So I'm not trying to make anything fit your mythical "Blame America" mould - I'm simply looking at the available evidence and drawing the most reasonable assumptions based on it.
As I've said all along - I'm no expert in the field of historical alcohol policy on Greenland - but I can still follow the evidence and draw reasonable assumptions from them.
And since we have an OP here, who claims to know these things, and none of the actual source that have come to light in this discussion disproves anything he/she claimed, I'm simply concluding that version is entirely consistent with the known facts so far.
Now you on the other hand specifically don't want to reach the conclusion that the US was in any way responsible for the shift in alcohol policy on Greenland, so you're going out of your way to make assumptions not supported by the available evidence to reach that predetermined conclusion.
"Because thus far, I have heard nothing from you but vitriol and hate towards Americans, which really makes me think I am on target with my "Blame America first" comment."
You may perceive it as such, but I'm only speaking based on the available evidence in this case.
Three instances when the US did something good and right:
1. The Marshall plan
2. Lend-lease to Britain before entering the Second World War
3. Sanctions and finally the oil embargo against Japan before the Second World War
Although none of these are completely altruistic actions, I don't think it necessary to demand that all actions be completely altruistic to be good or right.
I think people some times goes to far in criticising the motives of nations, because if you do that it's possible to fault any action for being self-interested.
But just because something benefits your nation it doesn't have to be a bad deal for other nations or peoples - so you have to judge each action based on the full range of consequences and make an overall assessment.
Another case I can mention here is the establishment of NATO.
While it clearly serves US national security interest first and foremost (and is not some benevolent gift bestowed by an altruistic US on it's allies), it so far has also been a good alliance for the rest of it's members and it's made the world a safer place - at least for those members.
But we'll have to see what damage Trump does to it now, of course.