@Nisse_Hult
Grafitti huh? That is where you get your facts? That explains why your arguments have been senseless. I have no choice but to go through this word diarrhea.
You seem to labor under the misconception that facts not written in printed books are somehow less reliable.
They're not.
Tell that to any professor worth his/her salt.
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.
Reputable evidence requires proper sourcing material, which wikipedia has failed to do. Very few Wikipedia editors and contributors use their real name or provide any information about who they are. Not to mention, Wikipedia says, “We do not expect you to trust us.” It adds that it is “not a primary source” and that “because some articles may contain errors,” you should “not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.”
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.
But you did not offer the book as the reference. You used Wikipedia, and their version of the book. If you had given me the book, I would have read the book. If you had used Wikipedia to find source material, and not used their information, that is different. But you didn't.
While you referencing the name of a book you claim to have read says absolutely nothing to me.
I gave you the title of the book. Not the Wikipedia version of it. But the title. You can actually read it on your computer right now. Let me make it easier for you. Here is the author's name Arthur Demarest. I already have the book; it is quite good, but you get a good chunk of it on books.google.com
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.
Or. or. or. you could look it up. It will literally take you five seconds.
"However, you did not produce any statistic."
No, I didn't - because non 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.
This sentence is problematic you can't say you have historical knowedge, but not have records. You need both.
I am really going to need to unpack a lot of your bullshit here. Because you see there are layers. So let's get started, shall we?
1. In one of your early arguments, you brought up a theory.
"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 than any other part of the world."
You keep using the words "theory" and "fact" because I don't think you understand the meaning of the two words.
Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly
regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Example: Einstein's theory of relativity.
Fact: something known to exist or to have happened:
Example: Space travel is now a fact.
I then said you pulled that unsubstantiated claim out of your ass, or if you have any evidence.
You did not present me with anything. You merely said that it was an undisputed fact by historians. Here is the quote:
"This is not a fact disputed by historians - but apparently it's unknown to you."
There you go with that word "fact" again. You need evidence with facts. We know Pharaoh Ramses III constructed the Temple of Khonsu, we know Emporer Xi unified China, that England and Spain competed to be the dominating Naval powers, and that European powers colonized societies all throughout the world. How do we know these specific undisputed facts? Because of records, archeological digs, and research. You do not get just get to say Europe had the strongest alcohol and that is an undisputed fact by historians unless you have evidence. Fun fact, ancient Egyptians had alcohol too. That is an undisputed fact too.
It's just that you see to be too ignorant to understand that - among many things.
Oh, really? Coming from a person who doesn't understand how theories and facts work.
"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."
You claimed European alcohol as an undisputed fact by historians. You did not present any historians work. And then as your so-called evidence, you used a Wikipedia source that had nothing to do with the strength of European alcohol. Remember? "
Let me remind you again.
"Europe has - for many centuries - produced stronger alcohol and consumed more of it than any other part of the world. This is not a fact disputed by historians - but apparently it's unknown to you."
Like this embarrassing attempt at an attack.
It wasn't an attack, I was stating the obvious.
You clearly don't understand the difference between DISTILLATION and fermentation or brewing.
Oh, wow. Buddy, buddy, buddy, buddy.........buddy. Are you unable to read? Are you having trouble following the topic? Is that your problem? Because that is the only explanation for the sudden change of topic.
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.
Your wisdom knows no bounds! Because all kids enjoy the light reading of Arthur Demarest.
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.
Let me partake if your wisdom great master!
But to educate you then: fermentation or brewing can only produce an alcohol content of about 15% maximum - and in most cases, it's a weaker content than 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.
And you know this how?
How do you know what the process is to make Indigenous alcohol? How do you know that they didn't ferment or distill? Did you do any research besides using Wikipedia or sketch google websites? Or is this one of your "undisputed facts" again? I hope I don't have to explain it to you again. I literally gave you information that the Mayans had many drinks which led them to act crazy and sometimes commit murder.
How do I know this? Records from the Spanish bishop.
If you are at all interested in Mayan alcoholic drinks, I suggest scholar.google.com. Ph.D. students submit theses there, and professors approve of all of those sources.
Sadly, most Mayan recipes are lost due to pillaging from Spanish conquistadors. But, thanks to compositional analysis archeology, we can study the contents of the inside of a Mayan pot, and know that there was alcohol. Unfortunately, the process, whether distill or fermented, has been lost to the Mayan gods.
So as you can see, your claim that European liquor was the strongest is completely unsubstantiated. You might be correct, but in order to prove this theory you need to:
1: Go to indigenous archeological sites all throughout the world.
2. Manage to find pots that have trace amounts of alcohol in them.
3. Figure out the original ingredients through chemical analysis.
4. And finally, through the chemical analysis make a hythesis on how those ingredients were either fermented, or distilled
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?
Yes, yes I am.
I'd suggest you read a lot of Wikipedia to just up your general knowledge - you seem to need that, frankly.
Listen, use Wikipedia to find the books that give you true information. Don't use an unknown editors version of the book. It is as if someone explained to you the Great Gatsby instead of you reading it. Sure, they might give you the gist of the story, but they will leave out important parts, and only tell you their version of the book.
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.
Why are you defending Wikipedia so hard?
"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.
Why are you over 40 and using Wikipedia as a main source of information?
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.
Says the guy who feels the need to say that he has read more books than me. Another unsubstantiated claim.
"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.
Never said I understood, I just disagree with your theory that Indigeneous societies all over the world have an unknown gene that explains their alcoholism.
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.
I never said that either. I know that there is evidence of alcohol related genes, that both prevent and worsen alcohol-related problems. But to have all the societies that were colonized that have an unknown gene that worsens alcohol related problems is incredibly far fetched.
Or your claim that alcoholism is strictly a "social, mental, and/or emotional disorder".
I never said strictly. Let's review: Remember how I brought up the Japanese and how they are allergic to alcohol, which is caused by a gene. It affects 30-40% of the population. Here is the book. Alcohol and the Nervous System.
But that was not my theory. My theory was that genes are not the reason that every subjugated group in from across the globe have alcoholic problems. The aboriginal people in Australia, the Cherokee people in Oklahoma, the Greenlanders, and the Mayan descendants are in all four corners of the globe. They might genes that are related to alcohol, but some would be connected to alcoholism and some would prevent alcoholism. The only thing that is their European colonial past.
I said that in an earlier conversation:
"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. And the Native Americans and Greenlanders would have problems, due to not being connected with the substance. Yet all these societies have severe alcohol and suicide-related problems."
Remember the Asian Flush? Seriously, the page is 564. It is a gene that prevents alcoholism.
Then by all means - just fire away with all the air-tight scientific proof you have for those claims.
I have the perfect book for you, it is called Mental Disorders in Greenland: Past and Present by Inge Lynge.
The author writes about Greenland's history both before and after Danish colonization. If you can bare to leave your beloved Wikipedia, you can learn about the rise of mental disorders, alcoholism, suicide, and depression, as well as other interesting facts about the country.
Otherwise I suggest you refrain from making claims you can't back up.
Mr. European-Alcohol-undisputed-fact says I am making claims?
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.
The one thing I agree with you there.
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.
Reread that sentence very slowly.
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]
Have you not even read what you copied and pasted? There is a gene in certain African descends and Native American that reduced the risk of alcoholism. Native Americans, however, have a significantly higher rate of alcoholism than average; it is unclear why this is the case. 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.
The science says that Native Americans and Africa descends literally have a gene that helps prevent alcoholism. Yet, it is rampant in their societies!
It is almost like there are outside sources that are causing these people to drink!
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] "
Which 100,000 individuals? Greenlanders, Europeans? or seemingly random people? Lord Almighty, Did you not go to the link? The paper is talking about people of European descendant, genius.
So, with the science that you sent me. Native Americans should not be alcoholics because they have a gene that helps prevent alcoholism. Yet, it is the number one problem in Native American reservations. And European descendants, more than 100,000, have a gene that makes alcohol consumption more likely. However, alcoholic-related problems are not as rampant compared to Greenlander or Native American societies. Hmmmmmm, crazy. It's almost like genes are not the main cause of colonized peoples problems.
By the way, remember that thing I said about Wikipedia editors. The Wikipedia editor changed two words from the original source. Originally, it was European ancestry and it was changed to human individuals. That completely changes the content. Books are better. Or if that is too hard, go to the sources of Wikipedia, but don't read Wikipedia.
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 think you need to read those sources more than me. You quite literally disproved you own theory, because you didn't read the material and you didn't study the original sources.
I guess that's more "university worthy material" for a poser like you - right?
Right, I'm the poser.
"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.
Says the 40 something who can't even study wikipedia correctly.
"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.
I already talked about this. NEXT!
"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.
There you go with the apple and oranges again. Racism and domestic abuse are completely two different things. You who claim, I look in black and white are really looking in black in white.
If you go out of your way to be vile to a Greenlander, then you are a racist.
If you are a generally good person to the Greenlanders, but said a racist statement, then you are ignorant. You can beat ignorance by learning their culture.
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.
Before you start calling people racist, you need to do a lot of studying. Get out of your Eurocentric bubble.
But I don't dilute the word by throwing it against everything I disagree with, and I don't run and hide from its implications like you did here.
I did not call you a racist, but you are ignorant.
"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.
I will not call you a Nazi, not all Trump supporters are Nazis. But all Trump supports are ignorant. You are argument of genes is something he would love. It is unsubstantiated and your theory, takes the responsibility off of the Danish government.
Want to stop embarrassing yourself now, or are you going to waste more time?
I am embarressing myself? Let's review:
1. You got insulted that I told you that Wikipedia is an unreliable source. You then preceeded to use mostly Wikipedia, but then got fact-checked by not reading your own material.
2.You seem to be confused with words like "theory" and "fact" and "undisputed" and use it too liberally with no evidence to back your claims.
3. You try to prove your theory with completely unrelated topics such as the Black Plague and American Somoan genes, as a way to explain away multiple indigeous races alcoholics issues. Even though genes are more complicated than that.
4. The worst one is that you absolutely refuse to try to understand the Greenlanders plight.
I am fine. I am not sure how you are able to show your face.
0
@Nisse_Hult
Grafitti huh? That is where you get your facts? That explains why your arguments have been senseless. I have no choice but to go through this word diarrhea.
You seem to labor under the misconception that facts not written in printed books are somehow less reliable.
They're not.
Tell that to any professor worth his/her salt.
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.
Reputable evidence requires proper sourcing material, which wikipedia has failed to do. Very few Wikipedia editors and contributors use their real name or provide any information about who they are. Not to mention, Wikipedia says, “We do not expect you to trust us.” It adds that it is “not a primary source” and that “because some articles may contain errors,” you should “not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.”
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.
But you did not offer the book as the reference. You used Wikipedia, and their version of the book. If you had given me the book, I would have read the book. If you had used Wikipedia to find source material, and not used their information, that is different. But you didn't.
While you referencing the name of a book you claim to have read says absolutely nothing to me.
I gave you the title of the book. Not the Wikipedia version of it. But the title. You can actually read it on your computer right now. Let me make it easier for you. Here is the author's name Arthur Demarest. I already have the book; it is quite good, but you get a good chunk of it on books.google.com
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.
Or. or. or. you could look it up. It will literally take you five seconds.
"However, you did not produce any statistic."
No, I didn't - because non 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.
This sentence is problematic you can't say you have historical knowedge, but not have records. You need both.
I am really going to need to unpack a lot of your bullshit here. Because you see there are layers. So let's get started, shall we?
1. In one of your early arguments, you brought up a theory.
"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 than any other part of the world."
You keep using the words "theory" and "fact" because I don't think you understand the meaning of the two words.
Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly
regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:
Example: Einstein's theory of relativity.
Fact: something known to exist or to have happened:
Example: Space travel is now a fact.
I then said you pulled that unsubstantiated claim out of your ass, or if you have any evidence.
You did not present me with anything. You merely said that it was an undisputed fact by historians. Here is the quote:
"This is not a fact disputed by historians - but apparently it's unknown to you."
There you go with that word "fact" again. You need evidence with facts. We know Pharaoh Ramses III constructed the Temple of Khonsu, we know Emporer Xi unified China, that England and Spain competed to be the dominating Naval powers, and that European powers colonized societies all throughout the world. How do we know these specific undisputed facts? Because of records, archeological digs, and research. You do not get just get to say Europe had the strongest alcohol and that is an undisputed fact by historians unless you have evidence. Fun fact, ancient Egyptians had alcohol too. That is an undisputed fact too.
It's just that you see to be too ignorant to understand that - among many things.
Oh, really? Coming from a person who doesn't understand how theories and facts work.
"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."
You claimed European alcohol as an undisputed fact by historians. You did not present any historians work. And then as your so-called evidence, you used a Wikipedia source that had nothing to do with the strength of European alcohol. Remember? "
Let me remind you again.
"Europe has - for many centuries - produced stronger alcohol and consumed more of it than any other part of the world. This is not a fact disputed by historians - but apparently it's unknown to you."
Like this embarrassing attempt at an attack.
It wasn't an attack, I was stating the obvious.
You clearly don't understand the difference between DISTILLATION and fermentation or brewing.
Oh, wow. Buddy, buddy, buddy, buddy.........buddy. Are you unable to read? Are you having trouble following the topic? Is that your problem? Because that is the only explanation for the sudden change of topic.
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.
Your wisdom knows no bounds! Because all kids enjoy the light reading of Arthur Demarest.
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.
Let me partake if your wisdom great master!
But to educate you then: fermentation or brewing can only produce an alcohol content of about 15% maximum - and in most cases, it's a weaker content than 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.
And you know this how?
How do you know what the process is to make Indigenous alcohol? How do you know that they didn't ferment or distill? Did you do any research besides using Wikipedia or sketch google websites? Or is this one of your "undisputed facts" again? I hope I don't have to explain it to you again. I literally gave you information that the Mayans had many drinks which led them to act crazy and sometimes commit murder.
How do I know this? Records from the Spanish bishop.
If you are at all interested in Mayan alcoholic drinks, I suggest scholar.google.com. Ph.D. students submit theses there, and professors approve of all of those sources.
Sadly, most Mayan recipes are lost due to pillaging from Spanish conquistadors. But, thanks to compositional analysis archeology, we can study the contents of the inside of a Mayan pot, and know that there was alcohol. Unfortunately, the process, whether distill or fermented, has been lost to the Mayan gods.
So as you can see, your claim that European liquor was the strongest is completely unsubstantiated. You might be correct, but in order to prove this theory you need to:
1: Go to indigenous archeological sites all throughout the world.
2. Manage to find pots that have trace amounts of alcohol in them.
3. Figure out the original ingredients through chemical analysis.
4. And finally, through the chemical analysis make a hythesis on how those ingredients were either fermented, or distilled
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?
Yes, yes I am.
I'd suggest you read a lot of Wikipedia to just up your general knowledge - you seem to need that, frankly.
Listen, use Wikipedia to find the books that give you true information. Don't use an unknown editors version of the book. It is as if someone explained to you the Great Gatsby instead of you reading it. Sure, they might give you the gist of the story, but they will leave out important parts, and only tell you their version of the book.
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.
Why are you defending Wikipedia so hard?
"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.
Why are you over 40 and using Wikipedia as a main source of information?
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.
Says the guy who feels the need to say that he has read more books than me. Another unsubstantiated claim.
"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.
Never said I understood, I just disagree with your theory that Indigeneous societies all over the world have an unknown gene that explains their alcoholism.
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.
I never said that either. I know that there is evidence of alcohol related genes, that both prevent and worsen alcohol-related problems. But to have all the societies that were colonized that have an unknown gene that worsens alcohol related problems is incredibly far fetched.
Or your claim that alcoholism is strictly a "social, mental, and/or emotional disorder".
I never said strictly. Let's review: Remember how I brought up the Japanese and how they are allergic to alcohol, which is caused by a gene. It affects 30-40% of the population. Here is the book. Alcohol and the Nervous System.
But that was not my theory. My theory was that genes are not the reason that every subjugated group in from across the globe have alcoholic problems. The aboriginal people in Australia, the Cherokee people in Oklahoma, the Greenlanders, and the Mayan descendants are in all four corners of the globe. They might genes that are related to alcohol, but some would be connected to alcoholism and some would prevent alcoholism. The only thing that is their European colonial past.
I said that in an earlier conversation:
"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. And the Native Americans and Greenlanders would have problems, due to not being connected with the substance. Yet all these societies have severe alcohol and suicide-related problems."
Remember the Asian Flush? Seriously, the page is 564. It is a gene that prevents alcoholism.
Then by all means - just fire away with all the air-tight scientific proof you have for those claims.
I have the perfect book for you, it is called Mental Disorders in Greenland: Past and Present by Inge Lynge.
The author writes about Greenland's history both before and after Danish colonization. If you can bare to leave your beloved Wikipedia, you can learn about the rise of mental disorders, alcoholism, suicide, and depression, as well as other interesting facts about the country.
Otherwise I suggest you refrain from making claims you can't back up.
Mr. European-Alcohol-undisputed-fact says I am making claims?
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.
The one thing I agree with you there.
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
Do your research and actually read. First, this article talks about alcoholism in families. Which is completely different 500,000+ societies.
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.
Reread that sentence very slowly.
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]
Have you not even read what you copied and pasted? There is a gene in certain African descends and Native American that reduced the risk of alcoholism. Native Americans, however, have a significantly higher rate of alcoholism than average; it is unclear why this is the case. 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.
The science says that Native Americans and Africa descends literally have a gene that helps prevent alcoholism. Yet, it is rampant in their societies!
It is almost like there are outside sources that are causing these people to drink!
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] "
Which 100,000 individuals? Greenlanders, Europeans? or seemingly random people? Lord Almighty, Did you not go to the link? The paper is talking about people of European descendant, genius.
So, with the science that you sent me. Native Americans should not be alcoholics because they have a gene that helps prevent alcoholism. Yet, it is the number one problem in Native American reservations. And European descendants, more than 100,000, have a gene that makes alcohol consumption more likely. However, alcoholic-related problems are not as rampant compared to Greenlander or Native American societies. Hmmmmmm, crazy. It's almost like genes are not the main cause of colonized peoples problems.
By the way, remember that thing I said about Wikipedia editors. The Wikipedia editor changed two words from the original source. Originally, it was European ancestry and it was changed to human individuals. That completely changes the content. Books are better. Or if that is too hard, go to the sources of Wikipedia, but don't read Wikipedia.
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 think you need to read those sources more than me. You quite literally disproved you own theory, because you didn't read the material and you didn't study the original sources.
I guess that's more "university worthy material" for a poser like you - right?
Right, I'm the poser.
"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.
Says the 40 something who can't even study wikipedia correctly.
"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.
I already talked about this. NEXT!
"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.
There you go with the apple and oranges again. Racism and domestic abuse are completely two different things. You who claim, I look in black and white are really looking in black in white.
If you go out of your way to be vile to a Greenlander, then you are a racist.
If you are a generally good person to the Greenlanders, but said a racist statement, then you are ignorant. You can beat ignorance by learning their culture.
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.
Before you start calling people racist, you need to do a lot of studying. Get out of your Eurocentric bubble.
But I don't dilute the word by throwing it against everything I disagree with, and I don't run and hide from its implications like you did here.
I did not call you a racist, but you are ignorant.
"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.
I will not call you a Nazi, not all Trump supporters are Nazis. But all Trump supports are ignorant. You are argument of genes is something he would love. It is unsubstantiated and your theory, takes the responsibility off of the Danish government.
Want to stop embarrassing yourself now, or are you going to waste more time?
I am embarressing myself? Let's review:
1. You got insulted that I told you that Wikipedia is an unreliable source. You then preceeded to use mostly Wikipedia, but then got fact-checked by not reading your own material.
2.You seem to be confused with words like "theory" and "fact" and "undisputed" and use it too liberally with no evidence to back your claims.
3. You try to prove your theory with completely unrelated topics such as the Black Plague and American Somoan genes, as a way to explain away multiple indigeous races alcoholics issues. Even though genes are more complicated than that.
4. The worst one is that you absolutely refuse to try to understand the Greenlanders plight.
I am fine. I am not sure how you are able to show your face.