You seem to labor under the misconception that facts not written in printed books are somehow less reliable.
They're not.
It doesn't matter if the facts are in print, published online or scrawled in graffiti on a wall - the only important thing is if they're based on reputable evidence supporting them.
Which my Wikipedia quotes are - as you would have seen if you read them.
Look up "References" at the end of each article and read away.
While you referencing the name of a book you claim to have read says absolutely nothing to me.
You have zero credibility with me, so it's not like I trust your claims of what some book says. Either link to a source that contains support for the claim you make in writing or it doesn't exist.
"However, you did not produce any statistic."
No, I didn't - because none are known to historians. The records are simply not there to produce any statistics on this - but that doesn't make our historical knowledge useless.
It's just that you seem to be too ignorant to understand that - among many things.
"That is merely a fact about European beer, nothing to do with pre-colonial beer and its comparison with European beer. Nor does it describe the strength of European beer, which you claim is an undisputed fact by historians. From Wikipedia too. How disappointing."
Like this embarrassing attempt at an attack.
You clearly don't understand the difference between DISTILLATION and fermentation or brewing.
I get the strong suspicion you're a kid with limited knowledge of the world play-acting like the keyboard warriors you've seen online.
Because if you had been old enough to be allowed to drink you should at least know the difference between liquor and beer and not make stupid mistakes like these.
But to educate you then: fermentation or brewing can only produce alcohol content of about 15% maximum - and in most cases it's a weaker content then that.
While distilling can theoretically produce a 100% pure alcohol content - but it's usually drunk in strengths of about 40%.
Beer is cat piss compared to liquor and none of the indigenous people had any knowledge of distilling - and as such no ability to even produce as pure alcohol as the Europeans had been drinking for centuries.
When you get old enough to drink, you'll soon discover how much more potent liquor is then beer or wine - and consequently how much easier it is to fall into abuse of it.
Being more concentrated it's also (once the technology is discovered) less labor intensive to produce, easier to transport and keeps from turning bad better.
One bottle of liquor can get a man completely shit-faced, while it would take a barrel of beer to produce the same result.
On the assumption that the beer is strong enough so the man can drink enough before he pisses it out to become so intoxicated - because alcohol is broken down in the body at a constant rate.
Meaning, once again, that liquor is simply an entirely different thing then the fermented or brewed alcohol some indigenous people had access to.
You don't understand the difference between distillation and fermentation or brewing - but you think it's disappointing I use Wikipedia links?
I'd suggest you read a lot of Wikipedia to just up your general knowledge - you seem to need that, frankly.
Which isn't that strange if you're still just a kid - no one expects you to have acquired as much knowledge as grown-up's - but then don't pretend you're somehow the great intellectual that only reads books and looks down on Wikipedia.
"With all your "sources" that you sent me, not one of them is university worthy material. I suggest actually going to a library, you don't even need to leave your house, you can just download books now."
I bet I've read a lot more books then you have - being above 40 and having gone to university - but you don't see me pretending like facts are somehow superior just because I found them in a printed book.
It seems to me that's one of those things people who want to pretend to be smart says because they think it's a smart thing to say.
But it's not.
"As for European immune systems, the black plague, smallpox, and other viruses cannot be compared to alcoholism. Apples and oranges (again)! One is a virus or germ and another is a social, mental, and/or emotional disorder. You present a theory that alcoholism can be in your genes, but you have yet to present me with any scientific data. Not even from sketchy google websites."
Neither you nor anyone else knows that - because as I've already explained to you - we still haven't understood the full workings of the human gene.
If you want to support your claim that genes absolutely doesn't have anything to do with susceptibility to alcohol abuse, then you're free to present you evidence here.
Or your claim that alcoholism is strictly a "social, mental, and/or emotional disorder".
Then by all means - just fire away with all the air-tight scientific proof you have for those claims.
Otherwise I suggest you refrain from making claims you can't back up.
I, on the other hand has said that this is an area where research is still developing and science still doesn't have all the answers.
There are however long-running theories that alcohol does have a genetic connection - and so far science seems to have at least reached the conclusion that genes aren't entirely irrelevant in susceptibility to alcohol abuse (which would make that first claim of yours pretty stupid).
See for instance the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), part of the US governments Department of Health & Human Services:
There still isn't any definitive genetic explanation for why indigenous peoples are more susceptible to alcohol abuse - but research is continuing.
As the Wikipedia article goes on to say:
"Genetic differences that exist between different racial groups affect the risk of developing alcohol dependence. For example, there are differences between African, East Asian and Indo-racial groups in how they metabolize alcohol. These genetic factors partially explain the differing rates of alcohol dependence among racial groups.[84][85] The alcohol dehydrogenase allele ADH1 B*3 causes a more rapid metabolism of alcohol. The allele ADH1 B*3 is only found in those of African descent and certain Native American tribes. African Americans and Native Americans with this allele have a reduced risk of developing alcoholism.[86] Native Americans, however, have a significantly higher rate of alcoholism than average; it is unclear why this is the case.[87] Other risk factors such as cultural environmental effects e.g. trauma have been proposed to explain the higher rates of alcoholism among Native Americans compared to alcoholism levels in caucasians.[88][89]
A genome-wide association study of more than 100,000 human individuals identified variants of the gene KLB, which encodes the transmembrane protein β-Klotho, as highly associated with alcohol consumption. The protein β-Klotho is an essential element in cell surface receptors for hormones involved in modulation of appetites for simple sugars and alcohol.[90] "
And if you have a problem with that - look at the sources. If you prefer reading all of:
Moore S, Montane-Jaime LK, Carr LG, Ehlers CL (2007). "Variations in alcohol-metabolizing enzymes in people of East Indian and African descent from Trinidad and Tobago"
Eng MY, Luczak SE, Wall TL (2007). "ALDH2, ADH1B, and ADH1C genotypes in Asians: a literature review"
Scott DM, Taylor RE (2007). "Health-related effects of genetic variations of alcohol-metabolizing enzymes in African Americans"
Ehlers CL (2007). "Variations in ADH and ALDH in Southwest California Indians"
Szlemko WJ, Wood JW, Thurman PJ (October 2006). "Native Americans and alcohol: past, present, and future".
Spillane NS, Smith GT (May 2007). "A theory of reservation-dwelling American Indian alcohol use risk"
Schumann, G; et al. (2016). "KLB is associated with alcohol drinking, and its gene product. Klotho is necessary for FGF21 regulation of alcohol preference"
you're free to do so.
I guess that's more "university worthy material" for a poser like you - right?
"You presented me with websites about European fermentation, one about the black plague, and one of the native Americans and the genetic effect of European diseases. But nothing about your so-called "theory".
I know a bull-shitter when I see one."
Yes - I imagine you've looked in the mirror often and smiled, imagined how you'd smite your chosen online enemy with your brilliant intellect.
"If your theory had any merit, the descendants of the Mayans, Aztecs, and Aboriginals would not have any alcoholic-related problems plaguing their society, because they have a pre-colonial history of alcohol."
No, because you still haven't grasped the difference between distillation and fermentation.
Both marijuana and heroin are drugs based on plants - but that dosen't make them equally potent or likely to cause addiction.
"One thing that is repeated is European colonialism.
They all were subjected to unspeakable atrocities. Entire civilizations were destroyed both by the sword and by germs. Children were taken from families. Their languages and culture were actively erased by the government. That is just scraping the surface."
That is completely true - and I've never denied that, as I've never even spoken about that subject. In your fantasy that clearly means I don't acknowledge these facts at all - which seems to be why you went all Don Quixote and started charging at the imagined racism only you could see.
But in real life, one doesn't negate the other.
European colonialism can be acknowledged for the historical brutality it was, while at the same time acknowledging that genes does play a role in susceptibility to alcohol.
There are no conflict between those things - other then in your imagination.
"Now which sounds more plausible? Your theory, which you can't present any evidence to support. Or that the societies, more specifically the Greenlander society, who were subjected to horror upon generational horror which led them to drink. May I remind you that my theory actually can be seen in other unrelated, subjugated peoples."
As I said - one doesn't negate the other. I get that the world is often very black or white when you're young and angry - but there are actually a lot a shades.
Things are complex and there is seldom an easy causational connection that proves that B happened ONLY because A proceeded it.
But stating that genes positively doesn't have any influence on this - as you do - is simply not supported by science.
Again - you're welcome to provide whatever proof you believe you have for that claim.
"I did not call you a racist. I called your argument racist. Two different things."
It's clearly not - as only racists make racist statements.
Your pretence is just like saying that accusing a man of beating his wife isn't the same as calling him a wife-beater - which it clearly is.
As I told you before (and as you would have known if you've been here for years), I have no problem calling people racist when they clearly are.
But I don't dilute the word by throwing it against everything I disagree with, and I don't run and hide from it's implications like you did here.
"And if you have a theory, which you currently don't, get actual data. Educate yourself, Trump boy. P.S. He doesn't use facts either."
Such a sad and pointless end to an attempt at playing the great defender of indigenous peoples against the evil "racist" you found online.
"Trump boy". So, going to call me a nazi next then I presume - after a racist and Trump supporter.
And that from a kid that's probably not even half my age.
Want to stop embarrassing yourself now, or are you going to waste more time?
0
@Lippi
You seem to labor under the misconception that facts not written in printed books are somehow less reliable.
They're not.
It doesn't matter if the facts are in print, published online or scrawled in graffiti on a wall - the only important thing is if they're based on reputable evidence supporting them.
Which my Wikipedia quotes are - as you would have seen if you read them.
Look up "References" at the end of each article and read away.
While you referencing the name of a book you claim to have read says absolutely nothing to me.
You have zero credibility with me, so it's not like I trust your claims of what some book says. Either link to a source that contains support for the claim you make in writing or it doesn't exist.
"However, you did not produce any statistic."
No, I didn't - because none are known to historians. The records are simply not there to produce any statistics on this - but that doesn't make our historical knowledge useless.
It's just that you seem to be too ignorant to understand that - among many things.
"That is merely a fact about European beer, nothing to do with pre-colonial beer and its comparison with European beer. Nor does it describe the strength of European beer, which you claim is an undisputed fact by historians. From Wikipedia too. How disappointing."
Like this embarrassing attempt at an attack.
You clearly don't understand the difference between DISTILLATION and fermentation or brewing.
I get the strong suspicion you're a kid with limited knowledge of the world play-acting like the keyboard warriors you've seen online.
Because if you had been old enough to be allowed to drink you should at least know the difference between liquor and beer and not make stupid mistakes like these.
But to educate you then: fermentation or brewing can only produce alcohol content of about 15% maximum - and in most cases it's a weaker content then that.
While distilling can theoretically produce a 100% pure alcohol content - but it's usually drunk in strengths of about 40%.
Beer is cat piss compared to liquor and none of the indigenous people had any knowledge of distilling - and as such no ability to even produce as pure alcohol as the Europeans had been drinking for centuries.
When you get old enough to drink, you'll soon discover how much more potent liquor is then beer or wine - and consequently how much easier it is to fall into abuse of it.
Being more concentrated it's also (once the technology is discovered) less labor intensive to produce, easier to transport and keeps from turning bad better.
One bottle of liquor can get a man completely shit-faced, while it would take a barrel of beer to produce the same result.
On the assumption that the beer is strong enough so the man can drink enough before he pisses it out to become so intoxicated - because alcohol is broken down in the body at a constant rate.
Meaning, once again, that liquor is simply an entirely different thing then the fermented or brewed alcohol some indigenous people had access to.
You don't understand the difference between distillation and fermentation or brewing - but you think it's disappointing I use Wikipedia links?
I'd suggest you read a lot of Wikipedia to just up your general knowledge - you seem to need that, frankly.
Which isn't that strange if you're still just a kid - no one expects you to have acquired as much knowledge as grown-up's - but then don't pretend you're somehow the great intellectual that only reads books and looks down on Wikipedia.
"With all your "sources" that you sent me, not one of them is university worthy material. I suggest actually going to a library, you don't even need to leave your house, you can just download books now."
I bet I've read a lot more books then you have - being above 40 and having gone to university - but you don't see me pretending like facts are somehow superior just because I found them in a printed book.
It seems to me that's one of those things people who want to pretend to be smart says because they think it's a smart thing to say.
But it's not.
"As for European immune systems, the black plague, smallpox, and other viruses cannot be compared to alcoholism. Apples and oranges (again)! One is a virus or germ and another is a social, mental, and/or emotional disorder. You present a theory that alcoholism can be in your genes, but you have yet to present me with any scientific data. Not even from sketchy google websites."
Neither you nor anyone else knows that - because as I've already explained to you - we still haven't understood the full workings of the human gene.
If you want to support your claim that genes absolutely doesn't have anything to do with susceptibility to alcohol abuse, then you're free to present you evidence here.
Or your claim that alcoholism is strictly a "social, mental, and/or emotional disorder".
Then by all means - just fire away with all the air-tight scientific proof you have for those claims.
Otherwise I suggest you refrain from making claims you can't back up.
I, on the other hand has said that this is an area where research is still developing and science still doesn't have all the answers.
There are however long-running theories that alcohol does have a genetic connection - and so far science seems to have at least reached the conclusion that genes aren't entirely irrelevant in susceptibility to alcohol abuse (which would make that first claim of yours pretty stupid).
See for instance the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), part of the US governments Department of Health & Human Services:
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-use-disorders/genetics-alcohol-use-disorders
Or your favorite - Wikipedia:
"Environmental factors and genetics are two components that are associated with alcoholism, with about half the risk attributed to each.[3]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism
There still isn't any definitive genetic explanation for why indigenous peoples are more susceptible to alcohol abuse - but research is continuing.
As the Wikipedia article goes on to say:
"Genetic differences that exist between different racial groups affect the risk of developing alcohol dependence. For example, there are differences between African, East Asian and Indo-racial groups in how they metabolize alcohol. These genetic factors partially explain the differing rates of alcohol dependence among racial groups.[84][85] The alcohol dehydrogenase allele ADH1 B*3 causes a more rapid metabolism of alcohol. The allele ADH1 B*3 is only found in those of African descent and certain Native American tribes. African Americans and Native Americans with this allele have a reduced risk of developing alcoholism.[86] Native Americans, however, have a significantly higher rate of alcoholism than average; it is unclear why this is the case.[87] Other risk factors such as cultural environmental effects e.g. trauma have been proposed to explain the higher rates of alcoholism among Native Americans compared to alcoholism levels in caucasians.[88][89]
A genome-wide association study of more than 100,000 human individuals identified variants of the gene KLB, which encodes the transmembrane protein β-Klotho, as highly associated with alcohol consumption. The protein β-Klotho is an essential element in cell surface receptors for hormones involved in modulation of appetites for simple sugars and alcohol.[90] "
And if you have a problem with that - look at the sources. If you prefer reading all of:
Moore S, Montane-Jaime LK, Carr LG, Ehlers CL (2007). "Variations in alcohol-metabolizing enzymes in people of East Indian and African descent from Trinidad and Tobago"
Eng MY, Luczak SE, Wall TL (2007). "ALDH2, ADH1B, and ADH1C genotypes in Asians: a literature review"
Scott DM, Taylor RE (2007). "Health-related effects of genetic variations of alcohol-metabolizing enzymes in African Americans"
Ehlers CL (2007). "Variations in ADH and ALDH in Southwest California Indians"
Szlemko WJ, Wood JW, Thurman PJ (October 2006). "Native Americans and alcohol: past, present, and future".
Spillane NS, Smith GT (May 2007). "A theory of reservation-dwelling American Indian alcohol use risk"
Schumann, G; et al. (2016). "KLB is associated with alcohol drinking, and its gene product. Klotho is necessary for FGF21 regulation of alcohol preference"
you're free to do so.
I guess that's more "university worthy material" for a poser like you - right?
"You presented me with websites about European fermentation, one about the black plague, and one of the native Americans and the genetic effect of European diseases. But nothing about your so-called "theory".
I know a bull-shitter when I see one."
Yes - I imagine you've looked in the mirror often and smiled, imagined how you'd smite your chosen online enemy with your brilliant intellect.
"If your theory had any merit, the descendants of the Mayans, Aztecs, and Aboriginals would not have any alcoholic-related problems plaguing their society, because they have a pre-colonial history of alcohol."
No, because you still haven't grasped the difference between distillation and fermentation.
Both marijuana and heroin are drugs based on plants - but that dosen't make them equally potent or likely to cause addiction.
"One thing that is repeated is European colonialism.
They all were subjected to unspeakable atrocities. Entire civilizations were destroyed both by the sword and by germs. Children were taken from families. Their languages and culture were actively erased by the government. That is just scraping the surface."
That is completely true - and I've never denied that, as I've never even spoken about that subject. In your fantasy that clearly means I don't acknowledge these facts at all - which seems to be why you went all Don Quixote and started charging at the imagined racism only you could see.
But in real life, one doesn't negate the other.
European colonialism can be acknowledged for the historical brutality it was, while at the same time acknowledging that genes does play a role in susceptibility to alcohol.
There are no conflict between those things - other then in your imagination.
"Now which sounds more plausible? Your theory, which you can't present any evidence to support. Or that the societies, more specifically the Greenlander society, who were subjected to horror upon generational horror which led them to drink. May I remind you that my theory actually can be seen in other unrelated, subjugated peoples."
As I said - one doesn't negate the other. I get that the world is often very black or white when you're young and angry - but there are actually a lot a shades.
Things are complex and there is seldom an easy causational connection that proves that B happened ONLY because A proceeded it.
But stating that genes positively doesn't have any influence on this - as you do - is simply not supported by science.
Again - you're welcome to provide whatever proof you believe you have for that claim.
"I did not call you a racist. I called your argument racist. Two different things."
It's clearly not - as only racists make racist statements.
Your pretence is just like saying that accusing a man of beating his wife isn't the same as calling him a wife-beater - which it clearly is.
As I told you before (and as you would have known if you've been here for years), I have no problem calling people racist when they clearly are.
But I don't dilute the word by throwing it against everything I disagree with, and I don't run and hide from it's implications like you did here.
"And if you have a theory, which you currently don't, get actual data. Educate yourself, Trump boy. P.S. He doesn't use facts either."
Such a sad and pointless end to an attempt at playing the great defender of indigenous peoples against the evil "racist" you found online.
"Trump boy". So, going to call me a nazi next then I presume - after a racist and Trump supporter.
And that from a kid that's probably not even half my age.
Want to stop embarrassing yourself now, or are you going to waste more time?