Free Greenland

I like having greenland cuz it makes ud bigger than sweden And in the end isnt that what it's all about

@mesterG Denmark is so Strong, Look at all that Mountains and iceland populated by few.

@mesterG Nobody counts Greenland into how big Denmark is though.

@Keremline why not ) ;

Why don't people give a single damn to Palestine and its abuser??

@cassert Finally someone who gets it!

@cassert Because no Palestinian died recently. Living Palestinians matter about the same as terrorized Israelians: zero. Dead Palestinian and Israelian killing Palestinian, though, those are big news.

(Make a guess. Guess how many times has been bombed Israel since July 10th. I'll give you a hint: it's a number 4 digits long)

@BillBones If you by "not recently" mean "Not today", sure. Otherwise there are palestinian deaths pretty much every week.
The deathtoll this year is 150+ palestinian dead (and over 14000 wounded) vs 6 israeli.

@fiendishrabbit Ooooh be carefull saying that, ive been kicked out of political chat groups and recieved many many insults just for trying to state that fact, it seems some people will never be able to see further than israels side.

@cassert Why does nobody care about Myanmar's state-sponsored massacre of the Rohingya?

@cassert Could not agree more.

@cassert Too complicated. You would have to split up your righteous rage between Hamas, PLO and Israel.

@minando Well as far as I know, that is a common misconception (made by Israel of course). Hamas has insisted to have a separate country (not a total control on that area) and make a peace treaty, but Israel has purposely distorted their voices that Hamas is consistently threatening them and made several conflicts when they NEED. You know, Palestine has almost no military power compared to any normal countries but Israel is literally MAKING and SELLING weapons. Are they humanitarians not to remove Palestine and Hamas with its armed force? I think Israel is just abusing Palestine for their political purpose. The almost same phenomenon had happened right here in South Korea.

@cassert

Hamas has stated that they will never recognize Israel, included that and worse in their charter, and at most they will agree to some sort of interim agreement which puts them on the path to eliminating Israel. They don't want an independent country, they want the whole thing. Note that every supposed treaty they offer is for 10 years, never permanent, and that 10 years has some rather important historical significance. Look at their flags and maps; every last one they have is not of their proposed new state bordering Israel, not 67 borders not the 48 borders, but the entire thing.

The PLO was founded in 1964, 3 years before the 1967 war, meaning they were never originally about trying to go back to the 1967 borders. However, the PLO and Fatah have softened a bit, and are ostensibly willing to recognize Israel in exchange for the 67 borders. However, again, look at their flags; it's the entire territory, not just their proposed state based on the 67 borders.

Israel isn't innocent in all this, but don't pretend that they are the only guilty party. And this doesn't get into Iran, Syria, Egypt, etc all having a hand in the situation.

@cassert I think Israel's right-wing government likes Hamas. After all, it's mainly their actions that keep them in power.

So much antisemitism in here (down voted by antisemites)

@Juhani get used to people hating on them

I for one think that the US should free, aka give independence to Hawaii and Puerto Rico so that they would not have to be in the union anymore.

@Ibisno1 New England, California, Texas, and Maybe... Confederation?

@Ibisno1 Hawaii is a state.

@cyberwolf77 Hawaii was made into a territory (and then a state) illegally. There was no treaty of annexation; our monarchy was overthrown with help from the US military by a group of American businessmen. (What's even worse is that Hawaii and the US were allies at the time. We appealed to Congress; they looked the other way so that they could get Hawaii.)

@Ibisno1 Statehood for Puerto Rico would likely be better for them, provided Republicans are kicked out of power soon (they recently voted in favor of statehood, but the Republican congress hasn't done anything about it).

It's a complex subject, though. Right now, Puerto Rico is having pretty severe problems with an aging population due to large out-migration of young people, combined with limited economic opportunities as a result of strict trade regulations. An independent Puerto Rico would, in principle, open the door for much wider-open trade relations, but would leave the island saddled with either utterly inadequate social programs (they couldn't afford Medicare or Social Security in their current forms), or massively increased taxes.

Full statehood opens the door to more economic opportunities, and more say in national politics in the US (as a state, they would have 6-7 electoral votes). The would also have much more freedom in that the federal government would have less say over their actions, likely including getting out from under the nasty trade regulations that currently restrict their economy.

@kbdick You forgot they're still trying to dig themselves out of a natural disaster.

@kbdick

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6246/all-actions-without-amendments

@kbdick actually a bill is being passed that would give Puerto rico statehood by 2022
so far it has gotten bi-partisan support.
hopefully it works

@Ibisno1 Funnily enough, I share those exact viewpoints.

Well, presuming that the people of Hawai'i and Puerto Rico desire independence.

@Ibisno1 well your Canadian so let me give you the facts.

Puerto rico and Hawaii want to stay with America
Hawaii is a state and it is illegal for states to leave the us.
a bill is being passed that would make Puerto rico a state by 2022

also why? if the want to stay with their country than let them stay.

@Ibisno1 the little territories like samoa and guam are way worse off. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CesHr99ezWE
They are of american nationality, but not citizen. They don't get to vote. They don't get to move to the mainland. Large parts of the constitution doesn't apply to them.

Of course, much of that abuse wasn't done by Denmark, but rather by the US.
At the start of the previous century, Denmark wanted to preserve the culture in Greenland. This meant keeping out "modern corruption," such as alcohol, tobacco, etc. Good albeit patronizing intentions.
WW2 rolled in and Denmark was occupied by Germany. Denmark now had no way to supply Greenland.
Denmark asked the US to assist. The US agreed.
The US promptly supplied delicious alcohol and tobacco on top of regular supplies.
WW2 ends. Denmark takes over again. Denmark stops supplies of tobacco and alcohol. Greenland does NOT accept that. Denmark is reluctantly forced to continue supplying tobacco and alcohol.
Fast forward a few decades. Greenland is plagued by rampant alcoholism, suicides, and social problems. Denmark is at a loss of how to fix it.
Denmark tries to take a whole bunch of kids from Greenland to foster them in Denmark. They're supposed to become highly educated, and return to Greenland as leaders and experts of various sorts.
The kids return to Greenland, alienated to both societies. Unwelcome in Greenland, and with no roots in Denmark.
Denmark feels bad. Continues various well-intended projects, such giving the locals public transportation, which also fail with a will.
Fast forward. Greenland is still plagued by various social ills, hates Denmark. Denmark feels bad.

'@Tzenker' Eh, this is kind of weak reasoning. The US is to blame for "much of that abuse" due to temporarily reintroducing alcohol and tobacco in addition to the other wartime supplies, for a few years about 70 years ago? I admit I don't know this history, but as you presented it, it doesn't seem very convincing. Why isn't it the fault of the Danish for introducing those social ills earlier, or for colonizing them in the first place? Why isn't it the fault of the Greenlanders for actually being the ones using the alcohol and tobacco, and continuing to use them after we left decades ago? We Americans seem pretty tangentially involved in this one.

@Trineff I don't know the history either, but I can relate it to other indigenous populations that haven't responded well as a whole to having access to alcohol and tobacco when their culture (not to mention genetics - people in alcohol-drinking cultures have had hundreds if not thousands of subtle evolutionary pressure towards being able to handle alcohol) hasn't adapted for it.

It's probably a combination of issues. The Danes would have been better introducing it, but educating people about the dangers of it as well - it was inevitable that it would arrive eventually, after all. The US probably sent it in as if it was just any other supplies (wouldn't surprise me if it was pretty much the same packages as were going to Britain, Russia, and other beleaguered allies for ease of logistics). Both Denmark and the US had good intentions, but the immediate switch from 'no alcohol' to 'it's mixed in the supply packages along with everything else' was likely a shock to the culture.

The rest seems to be knock-on effects from Denmark trying to deal with the aftereffects.

'@Draxynnic' I replied to Nisse below, but we Americans didn't introduce it. It has been there since at least the 18th century, and realistically probably before that. It was then banned by Denmark in the 1920s, but our supply packages (at least according to OP) had alcohol and tobacco along with everything else. A few years of supplies during the war outweighs the preceding centuries of available alcohol? I don't see how the OP could attribute "much of that abuse" to the US.

@Trineff

Your argument is in large part built on the assumption that the US merely "reintroduced" alcohol and tobacco to Greenland, while the Danes where responsible for "introducing those social ills earlier".

Problem is, there is nothing in what @Tzenker wrote that indicates that at all.

So you've just straight up invented a version that lessens the US's responsibility for the problem.
Are you aware that you did this, so are you deliberately trying to mislead the reader with your post?

Or was this the effect of cognitive dissonance in your mind, where you subconsciously tried to lessen the US's responsibility by inventing an excuse that would lessen the mental conflict within you?

And please note this is not a personal attack - I'm simply asking because I'm truly interested in the answer as to why you did this and if you where aware that you misrepresented what @Tzenker wrote?

And I ask this not knowing anything about the details of the issue of alcohol in Greenland. But I can read, and see that what you wrote is misrepresenting @Tzenker original post.

'@Nisse'_Hult I took OP's words "At the start of the previous century, Denmark wanted to preserve the culture in Greenland. This meant keeping out "modern corruption," such as alcohol, tobacco, etc." to mean that they had been introduced before, then subsequently banned by Denmark. I understand how that could also be taken to mean that alcohol etc had never been introduced and were banned as a preventative measure, although that seems unlikely that no Dane ever brought over a bottle of beer all the way up to world war 2.

One quick Google search later, and we have our answer: "In 1782, 41 years after Danish colonization of Greenland began, the colonial administration prohibited the sale or distribution of alcohol to Greenlanders. But loopholes soon developed, enabling Greenlandic employees of the Royal Greenland Trade Departman and Christian mission to obtain liquor... "
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/condp13&div=34&id=&page=

Greenland has had contact with Europeans since the 10th century per Wikipedia, and most likely has had alcohol ever since then. It has certainly had alcohol since the 18th century, per the above. America became independent in 1776. Unless you are accusing us of time travel, the "blame America first" crowd is going to have to acknowledge that we have quite little to do with this. Certainly not "mostly due to America," which is what OP said.

@Trineff

"although that seems unlikely that no Dane ever brought over a bottle of beer all the way up to world war 2"

It also seems very unlikely that one bottle of beer brought to Greenland would constitute "introducing those social ills" like you talked about.

For that introduction to be made, the ill in question has to be commonly available to a large majority of the population.
Just as tobacco was just a fad of the wealthy elite in Europe before the price dropped to a point where commoners could pick up the habit.

In this case it seems clear that the Danes did deliberately restrict the availability of alcohol to Greenlanders from 1782 - which is a hell of a long time ago.

Now you deliberately cut the quote short, but it ends with the words "although not as much as the Danes".

The text you linked to also goes on to state that rationing was introduced in 1929, and that Danes and Greenlanders working directly for the two specifically named Danish enterprises named in the text you quoted where given preferential treatment.

So, what we have here is a clear policy dating back to 1782 of either completely banning the sale of alcohol (to most Greenlanders) or "only" rationing it (to the few Greenlanders in direct employ of these two Danish enterprises).

Now I can tell you Sweden employed national rationing of alcohol from 1919 until 1955 - and it worked very well in reducing the consumption of alcohol.
And that was in a society that had been awash in hard spirits for centuries.

So I have no doubt that the Danish partial ban and partial rationing system - in place for over 150 years - worked very well in a society that hadn't been exposed to the same abundance of hard spirits.
Which is also backed by the levels of alcohol abuse exploding in Greenland only after the Second World War - not in the centuries before it.

So if @Tzenker's assertions that the Americans lifted all restrictions on the sale of alcohol to Greenlanders during the Second World War is correct, it also seems likely that "much of" the problems with alcoholism on Greenland actually is attributable to that US action.

Not "mostly due to America" like you now falsely claim @Tzenker wrote. But "much of" as he/she did write.

And @Tzenker is clearly not "blaming America first" like you pretend - he/she clearly lists a number of other thing the Danes did wrong as well, so it's not like he/she is trying to blame all of Greenlands problems on the US.

It seems the case is more that you're one of those American "blame America never" types who refuse to admit that your nation ever did anything wrong.

'@Nisse'_Hult

I don't particularly care to parse "mostly due to America" versus "much of the abuse wasn't done by Denmark, but rather by the US", which is the direct quote. OP was clearly trying to lay alcohol use in Greenland at American feet, and it is ridiculous.

OP posits that American alcohol started in World War II and ended afterwards, so in absence of specific dates, shall we estimate 1939 to 1945? 6 years of alcohol and tobacco with the rest of the supplies, and one suspects probably not even that much as these were wartime rations. In the history of a country that had been around for hundreds of years, those 6 years of American alcohol accounts for all the alcohol use in the future?

Instead, the explosion in alcohol use was in the 1980s, after Denmark had been in control for about 40 years. The link below demonstrates that. Figure 1.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3525923/

Further, the introduction of rationing -- as you noted, in 1929 -- suggests that it was not rationed just prior to that. At some time between 1782 and 1929, we can surmise that alcohol was not rationed. Why does that period not get any blame?

Give it up, man. You just don't have a leg to stand on here. American influence can be blamed for a lot of things around the world, but not this particular one.

@Trineff

"I don't particularly care to parse"

It's abundantly clear that you don't. Instead you prefer to infer meaning in to and falsify quotes from other peoples writing that strengthens your own argument.
Which is not an honest way to debate.
The truth matters - even if your current president doesn't think so.

"OP posits that American alcohol started in World War II and ended afterwards, so in absence of specific dates, shall we estimate 1939 to 1945?"

Actually the time period might be both shorter and longer.
Denmark wasn't invaded until the 9th of April 1940, and the US didn't take Greenland under it's wings until some time after that.
On the other hand they probably continued doing so for quite a while after the war ended, as Danish authorities where probably fully occupied reconstructing order and societal functions in the mother country that had been under full German occupation for years.

"and one suspects probably not even that much as these were wartime rations"

The US never rationed any goods at all, apart from gas, during the Second World War. And those rations where liberal enough that ordinary citizens could still rely on the use of cars in everyday life. Not enough to make cross-country holiday trips perhaps, but enough to travel to work and such.
And those rations where still detested by Americans and dropped within 24 hours of peace in Europe - while the US was still at war with Japan for several months.

So Americans never really suffered from a rationing that effected their lives in any consequential way during the war.

If @Tzenker's assertion is correct, and the US administration of Greenland supplied alcohol in the same way as it supplied other goods, it's therefore entirely reasonable to assume they did so without any rationing what so ever - as rationing was complete anathema to Americans.

"In the history of a country that had been around for hundreds of years, those 6 years of American alcohol accounts for all the alcohol use in the future?"

It's not the numbers of years that is crucial - it's the liberal attitude towards alcohol the Americans brought with them.

As the link you contributed shows, the Danes had been deliberately working to restrict the availability of alcohol to Greenlanders for over 150 years.
As a consequence, it had probably never become an intricate part of their local culture.
It's hard for something to become that, when there isn't a steady supply of it freely available.
The fact that some Greenlanders had been able to get their hands on small amounts of alcohol doesn't change that.

But if Americans brought with them a steady supply of alcohol - and even more crucially a liberal attitude towards it's use - that would explain why Denmark in the early 1950's suddenly reversed a +150 year long policy of restricting the availability of alcohol to Greenlanders.

Other then the attitude of Greenlanders changing and they themselves demanding this liberal excess to alcohol - which @Tzenker claims as the reason for this change - it's hard to see why Danish authorities would make such a drastic reversal of their own policy?

Again - I don't know all the details here, but basic cause and effect would seem to indicate that @Tzenker is right. Otherwise one would have to find another reason to explain why Danish authorities suddenly reversed a policy that had been working so well for almost two centuries.

Alcohol, like any drug, is a poison - and it's well established in scientific literature that it's especially poisonous to indigenous peoples who neither have the gene pool nor the cultural traditions to deal with it's impact.

Once that poison was introduced into Greenland society, it was predictably only a matter of time before it was going to reek havoc in it.

"Instead, the explosion in alcohol use was in the 1980s, after Denmark had been in control for about 40 years. The link below demonstrates that. Figure 1."

Actually, the figure doesn't show that at all.
Instead it shows that from alcohol being freely available to Greenlanders in the early 1950's it from the very beginning was consumed at almost twice the rate of the people of Denmark.
Then there is a sharp drop (presumably an effect of either hastily organised information campaigns against the dangers of alcohol use and/or discouraging tragic examples of Greenlanders drinking themselves to death with this now freely available drug) until the early 1960's, down to almost the levels consumed in Denmark - and then the consumption just explodes.

The peak might have been in the 1980's - but the trend started decades earlier and consumption has always been higher then in Denmark, until the late 1990's and 2000's.

"Further, the introduction of rationing -- as you noted, in 1929 -- suggests that it was not rationed just prior to that. At some time between 1782 and 1929, we can surmise that alcohol was not rationed. Why does that period not get any blame?"

There is no basis to surmise that at all. Remember that the previously stated Danish law was that alcohol sales was completely prohibited to all Greenlanders and that only a few examples of loopholes existed.
The introduction of a rationing system might have been a relaxation of that previous law, but there is nothing to indicate there was a point in time when alcohol was freely available to Greenlanders before the US entered the story.

"Give it up, man. You just don't have a leg to stand on here."

Based on the actual evidence so far, I'm quite confident I have better standing in my argument then you do.

"American influence can be blamed for a lot of things around the world, but not this particular one."

Instead it seems you're still only out to excuse any US involvement in this story.

But since you claim to support the notion that US influence (rightly, I presume you mean?) can be blamed for a "lot of things around the world", I'll be interested in seeing how far you're willing to actual support that argument in specific cases.

So please list some cases where you believe the US can be rightly blamed for "things around the world" - just to prove you in fact are able to attribute blame to the US at all?

'@Nisse'_Hult

I will leave it to whatever brave reader has followed this thread this far to determine whether "mostly due to America" is a sufficient paraphrase of "much of the abuse wasn't done by Denmark, but rather by the US." OP was clearly blaming America for the alcohol use in Greenland.

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 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. 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.

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.

As for your challenge at the end: a challenge for a challenge. I can recognize when my country has failed, and I will happily list three instances below where Americans were wrong. In turn, can you name three instances where the Americans were right? 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.

1. The treatment of the Native Americans across most of US history
2. Internment of Japanese-Americans during world war 2
3. The Iraq war

@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.

@Nisse_Hult
Your argument is completely racist.
Just a few years before, the US Prohibition had ended after thirteen years. You also proudly brought up that Sweden "employed national rationing of alcohol from 1919 until 1955". Yet no one argues that the American or Swedish white man alcoholic was caused by the end of the Prohibition or rationing. In fact, while you paint the Greenlanders as a society that can't handle their problems because of the emergence of alcohol, it worked "very well" for the Swedish society "in reducing the consumption of alcohol." That is the double standard that people of color, and more specifically Greenlanders are facing. You have simultaneously dehumanized the Greenland people while lifting up the European country for going through the same exact situation.
By blaming the US, you have shifted the focus off the damage that was caused by the Danish government, both before and after WWII.
IF your argument had any merit, then the Native American society would not be dealing with similar issues. Yet they are, both alcoholism and suicide are rampant. It is not because of the Prohibition. They had to deal with the Prohibition just like the rest of the United States. The American government has and still is causing intense problems for the Native Americans. JUST like the Danish Government is doing the Greenlanders. World War II alcohol has nothing to do with it.
If the situation was flipped, and American soldiers presented Swedes with alcohol, a substance that they hypothetically hadn't seen since 1782, would Swedish people currently be characterized as alcoholics? Doubtful.

@Lippi

So, you made a new account only to write that.

But either you can't read or you're deliberately trolling.

In the first case - go back and re-read what I wrote if you didn't get it the first time.

In the second - I'm not going to waste time arguing with a troll.

@Nisse_Hult
I have followed SATW for years, and your argument was so awful, that I had to create an account.
But I have read your argument.
In the first paragraph, you claim that @Trineff creates a version that lessens the US's responsibility "for the problem." The problem being alcoholism and tobacco use.
In the second paragraph, you bring up dates facts when Greenland was denied alcohol by Denmark and compare them to Sweden's time of alcohol rationing. Which, by the way, is not the same thing. A country government having power over another country's alcohol is not the same thing as a government choosing to cut back alcohol.
Your third paragraph you argue the decades' timelines. But it is the final paragraph that is quite chilling. So I will have to go through it point by point.

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.

Really? More than the Mayans? More than the Aboriginal people? More than the Navajos? What are your statistics, or are you pulling this out of your ass?

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.
That is Eugenics talk. You are suggesting that Europeans that got sloshed after one drink have died out generations ago due to genetics is completely ridiculous and not how genes work.

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.
Unless the Greenlanders are like the Japanese and have a gene that makes them allergic to alcohol, which they don't, then your point is moot. You are arguing that the lack of alcohol created a gene or a lack of a gene that makes the Greenlanders unable to handle their alcohol, and you use the American Somoa, a completely DIFFERENT society and an example using McDonald's to try to prove your point. Apples and oranges.
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.
Buddy, Europeans didn't develop immunity to syphilis, it is called modern medicine.
Finally, you claim that I am a troll because you didn't want to deal with my response. However, I stand by it. You and @Tzenker have created an incredibly racist argument by shifting the blame off the Danish government and projecting the Greenlanders problems onto themselves. All of a sudden, the years of colonization and oppression doesn't exist, and the Greenlanders are alcoholics because they don't have the proper genes. It's condescending and wrong.
You call me a troll but your ignorance rivals that of a Trump voter.

@Lippi

"Really? More than the Mayans? More than the Aboriginal people? More than the Navajos? What are your statistics, or are you pulling this out of your ass?"

Ever tried reading a book before you open your mouth?

While most parts of the world has known alcohol in some form, what I wrote was that "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.

See for instance:

"Consumption of distilled beverages rose dramatically in Europe in and after the mid-14th century, when distilled liquors were commonly used as remedies for the Black Death. Around 1400, methods to distill spirits from wheat, barley, and rye beers, a cheaper option than grapes, were discovered."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor

Europe was historically defined by fierce competition by many small but densely populated states. Innovation was high and the developments spread quickly.
Life was short and brutish for most people and the invention of distilling much stronger liquor then mere fermentation could provide was an instant success.

The people you talked about didn't discover the distillation of that strong alcohol before the Europeans reached them, and the mention of the Navajo is especially erroneous by you as they hadn't even discovered basic fermentation before Europeans reached them:

"Many of the pre-Columbian Indians of North America were also exceptional in lacking alcoholic beverages until they were introduced by Europeans, with explosive and disastrous consequences."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/alcohol-consumption

So yes really - I know what I'm talking about, while you evidently don't.

"That is Eugenics talk. You are suggesting that Europeans that got sloshed after one drink have died out generations ago due to genetics is completely ridiculous and not how genes work."

Certainly not. But the widespread misuse of alcohol in Europe at least a century (or in most cases several centuries) before they came into contact with indigenous people of course had consequences.

People who are the most susceptible to drink succumb to it first of course. They become addicted, spend what money they have on drink, can't hold down a job, can't provide for either themselves or their family if they have any and can't even form one if they don't (who wants to marry and start a family with someone who can't stay sober and be a productive partner?).

This was long before any social welfare programs - people who couldn't stay sober in a European society where strong alcohol was widely available at a price anyone could afford would simply be viewed as useless and left to fend for themselves.
Which they couldn't - so they'd where less likely to carry their genes on.

Especially in the case of alcoholism in women, the fetal alcohol spectrum disorders must have been rampant. No one knew the dangers of alcohol and pregnancy back then and child birth was a dangerous business even if the woman was strong and healthy.

But with the European population back then being plagues by all manner of diseased (including the actual plague!), malnourishment, impure water sources and poor living conditions - adding alcohol abuse on top of that certainly must have ended millions of pregnancies, and probably killed hundreds of thousands of mothers in child birth throughout the centuries.

We can't know any of this for sure, as the genetic material is no longer available (just as the complicated interconnections of genes are not at all fully known yet) - but it's a quite plausible theory to explain part of the difference between European descendants and indigenous peoples later on in history.

Every single individual, highly susceptible to alcoholism, that dies off without producing offspring in 15th century Europe, would have been the ancestral forefathers to thousands if not tens of thousands of later descendants.

Just as in the case of the plague or other illnesses - the people who did manage to survive, where obviously more likely to be the bearers of beneficial genes in the environment they lived - when they had been subjected to the disease.

At least that's a perfectly plausible theory, worth studying further, as you can see here:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/black-death-survivors-and-their-descendants-went-on-to-live-longer/

And while some claim alcoholism should be viewed as a disease, we can all at least agree it's a poison. And all humans simply aren't equally susceptible to it.

Sure - of course we still have alcoholic's in Europe today, so it's not like it's all controlled by one simple gene, and all the carriers of it died.. But it stands to reason that the most susceptible individuals where not able to carry on their genes as successfully as less susceptible individuals where.

"Unless the Greenlanders are like the Japanese and have a gene that makes them allergic to alcohol, which they don't, then your point is moot. You are arguing that the lack of alcohol created a gene or a lack of a gene that makes the Greenlanders unable to handle their alcohol, and you use the American Somoa, a completely DIFFERENT society and an example using McDonald's to try to prove your point. Apples and oranges."

We simply don't know all there is to know about the human gene yet, so neither you nor anyone else can say you KNOW anything about this.
I included the example with the so called "thrift gene" found in almost half of Samoans - an article from only two years ago - to show that this is still being researched.

Scientist are working along different hypothesis to see if they can prove or disprove old theories - but we're still far from a point where we can claim we KNOW everything about how genes work. That was my point.

If you had used your brain - instead of trying to find things to screech about - you might have understood that.

"Buddy, Europeans didn't develop immunity to syphilis, it is called modern medicine."

You got me there - shouldn't have used syphilis as an example as that is actually one of the few diseases Europeans didn't develop "increased immunity to" - which is what I wrote.

But other then that, Europeans did - as we all know, right? - develop "increased immunity to" a range of diseases - which is one of the main reasons why they where so deadly when they came into contact with indigenous peoples.

"The short answer is that Europeans simply had more robust immune systems. Several factors contributed to this: first, Europeans had been the caretakers of domestic animals for thousands of years, and had over time grown (somewhat) immune to the common diseases that accompanied the domestication of such food sources. Native Americans, on the other hand, were largely hunters and gatherers, and even in some domestication cases, it’s thought exposure was limited."

"Second, Europeans lived in more densely populated areas than Native Americans. When so many humans live together in relatively close quarters (particularly with lack of good, or any, sewage systems and the like), disease spreads quickly with the general population continually getting exposed to numerous pathogens. The Europeans’ bodies had to adapt to dealing with many of those diseases, and for those who survived, their immune systems thrived as a result.

The third factor is travel and exchange. Groups of people and animals moved around a lot in Europe and had interactions particularly through war and trade, resulting in the spread of disease across continents and, eventually, some level of immunity for the survivors."

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/03/native-americans-didnt-wipe-europeans-diseases/

Here is an interesting article about current research on how European diseases changed the genetic makeup of indigenous North Americans living today, BTW.
I know you don't believe in that kind of "eugenics" but try reading a little and you might learn something:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/11/european-diseases-left-genetic-mark-native-americans

"Finally, you claim that I am a troll because you didn't want to deal with my response."

Yes - I didn't want to waste time explaining to you how ill-informed you where and how you misconstrued what I wrote to fit your own narrative - that's completely right.

But now I did it anyway - without any real hope of you accepting the facts I present, because you clearly don't seem interested in understanding anything, but only seeking confrontation against someone you views as your enemy.

"However, I stand by it. You and @Tzenker have created an incredibly racist argument by shifting the blame off the Danish government and projecting the Greenlanders problems onto themselves. All of a sudden, the years of colonization and oppression doesn't exist, and the Greenlanders are alcoholics because they don't have the proper genes. It's condescending and wrong."

Of course you do - you're on a crusade against the evil racist enemy.
Unfortunately I've written none of the things you attack me for, so you're just tilting at windmills and looking stupid here.

I was quite clear in what I wrote that this is not about "race" (the biological concept of which doesn't even exist) or "good" or "bad" genes.
This is only about the fact that we know that the genetic makeup of populations do change as they encounter new threats - as diseases or poisons.

It's therefore an entirely reasonable theory that individuals who are most susceptible to new threats are the first to succumb to them and that the gene pool of a people thus over time develops from contact with this threat.

There is nothing racist or condescending about that theory. If the theory is correct the exact same thing happened in Europe, before it came into contact with indigenous peoples - which would explain why peoples of Europeans ancestry centuries later where less susceptible to the threat of alcohol.

Not immune to it, and not everything can be explained by genes of course - centuries of exposure to alcohol will also allow societies to develop strategies to combat it's ill effects of course - but still less susceptible then a society with no prior exposure to the threat.

But in an indigenous population that has no historic exposure to strong alcohol (and I don't think the people of Greenland - like the North American peoples - had even discovered the weaker form of fermentation before Europeans arrived, actually) - unleashing that freely was predicable to lead to a disaster.

That's not in any way a condescension against the Greenlanders, any more then it is to say that smallpox and other European diseases decimated the peoples of the Americas.

Their immune systems (and behind that their genetic pool) simply weren't equipped to handle the virulent strains of diseases Europeans had developed over centuries.

That doesn't make the Europeans or their genes better in any way - it's just the way it was.

Now go find some actual racist and attack instead - I'm all for that (which you would know if you had followed SATW for years - I'm quite famous for doing so myself on this site), and leave this discussion here, because you're not getting whatever you sought coming after me on this.

"You call me a troll but your ignorance rivals that of a Trump voter. "

Said the guy who can't read what's actually written without interpreting things that aren't there.

@Nisse_Hult: Although I sorta didn't want to get into the whole debate again, but thank you for making essentially the statement that I was trying to convey. In a far more eloquent fashion.
I don't find it racist to point out that a given society had insufficient cultural defenses against a potentially destructive substance due to lack of exposure.
Neither do I find it racist to point out a given genotype has specific traits, as long as it has basis in real science and you have the understanding that it does not imply any kind of inferiority.
Example: Lactose intolerance runs as high as 90% in Asia, but is around 5% in Scandinavia. Does that mean that either is inferior? Hell no. It might mean that you should ask before offering an Asian person your quattro formaggio. It might mean that both groups would be good for related medical and historical studies.

I am not aware of any genotype that is inherently more intelligent, physically superior, or morally superior.
Some population groups have traits that may serve as situational advantages or disadvantages. The genes that may result in sickle cell anemia is one such trait, although for the population group in general it's a huge advantage. Because malaria is terrible.
Melanoma is by far the most common in Northern Europe, but being Whitey McWhite in an area with little sun is still an advantage for the group as a whole, because vitamin deficiency is terrible.
No inherent inferiority of either group. Just gradual adaptation to their environments. I don't think our species is lessened by recognizing such adaptation. Neither do I think we're lessened by accepting that a given group might be vulnerable to a given environmental hazard/substance/pathogen/technology with which they have little or no experience.

@Nisse_Hult
First of all, I do read, but I read actual books. (psst, your wikipedia is showing). May I suggest Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. Maybe you will learn something that is not Eurocentric.
Their most known drink was balche, a fermented mixture that contained honey and bark from a balche tree. This was one of many alcoholic delicacies. The Spanish bishop Diego de Landa, who studied the Mayas, wrote: “The Indians consumed alcohol and drugs in immense quantities, which gave rise to many evils, including murders. They made wine from honey, water and the root of a certain tree which they grew just for that purpose. The wine had a very strong flavor and a putrid odor.”
Australian anthropologists are aware that Australian and Tasmanian Aboriginals could brew a cider and ferment nectars. As for the Navajo, my bad. I knew the Mayans and Aztec had alcohol, so I took an educated guess with the Navajo.

However, you did not produce any statistic.
You write:
"While most parts of the world has known alcohol in some form, what I wrote was that "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.
See for instance:
"Consumption of distilled beverages rose dramatically in Europe in and after the mid-14th century, when distilled liquors were commonly used as remedies for the Black Death. Around 1400, methods to distill spirits from wheat, barley, and rye beers, a cheaper option than grapes, were discovered.""

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.
I did not call you a racist. I called your argument racist. Two different things. I am sure you have good intentions, but you need to get out of your white, European bubble. Get a book on the pre-Danish Greenland society and get some empathy.
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.

@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?

@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.

@Lippi

I skimmed through the first half of that and saw you're just bullshitting past your glaring misconceptions, refusing to admit what you got wrong.

So I'm not going to waste my time skimming through the rest - and I'm definitely not going to waste even more time replying.

That would be pointless, since you're clearly not open to a reasoned debate.
You apparently read one book, and is now basing your entire view of the world on that in attack against your perceived "racist" enemy.

Read some more and broaden your education. You'll also mellow with age.
Maybe then you'll turn out right after all.

@Nisse_Hult
Your first response to me was that I had not read your original argument and now you are doing what you accused me of doing.
I read you Wikipedia and your Wikipedia sources. It is clear you did not read mine. It is even clearer that you didn't even read your own Wikipedia information.
I called your statement racist, I doubt you are purposefully being vile to people of color. But if you actually read my response, I already talked about that. So I won't go over that again.
You say I need to broaden my education, but you only used Wikipedia, you didn't even read the source material from Wikipedia. I suggest you crack open a beer and get one of the books that I suggested at your nearby library.

@Tzenker I have trouble believing that policy did much in the first place. Banning alcohol in the US didn't stop any kind of social ill- it largely backfired. And there's evidence that alcohol prohibition doesn't affect much when other societal problems are unaddressed. https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/article/study-banning-alcohol-alaska-villages-doesnt-reduce-suicide-more-jobs-might-0/2014/05/07/

@Cactus

There is a big difference between trying to completely ban an addictive substance like alcohol in a society where it has been freely available for centuries and not introducing it in a society at all.

US prohibition failed because it tried to do the first thing, while severely rationing the amount of alcohol citizens where allowed to buy worked very well in Sweden.
We did so between 1919 and 1955 - long enough for several generations of Swedes to come of age knowing no other system then that the state only allowed you to buy an amount sufficient for normal consumption.

That way the majority of Swedes accepted the rationing to combat the over-use by a minority.
Because ordinary, law abiding citizens could still buy the alcohol they wanted for special celebrations and such.
While in the US, with it's complete ban, the majority of people didn't support the draconian policy and as such it was impossible to enforce effectively.

Finland is an example of a mix of the two. Like the US they tried a complete ban for a while, but ended it before the Second World War. On the other hand they - like Sweden - did nationalize all sales of alcohol into a state-run monopoly that meant they still have better control over the sales.

@Tzenker Pretty sure we - the Danes - were the ones to introduce alchol in Greenland xD I am unable to see a scenario where vikings wouldn't have brought in a shitload of alchol to Greenland. The 'ban' or whatever happend was probably something sparked by the idea of the 'noble native' that was emerging at the time and made the Danish government want to try and help the 'poor little natives' instead of just not giving a shit about them. But alchol was a thing in Greenland before the US came along, that's for sure.

@Tzenker "Denmark tries to take a whole bunch of kids from Greenland"

How the hell do you gloss over 'Denmark took children away from their families' in half a sentence? They weren't even teenagers yet, there was no indication of familial abuse (as far as I know), and reports indicate that the 'consent' the families gave was questionable at best. And as a result they ruind people's lives. That is *horrifying*.

As for the alchohol thing... Denmark may indeed have had good intentions. But so did a lot of the colonial powers. The fact is, when one nation rules another, 'good intentions' don't excuse wrecking the place. Leaving aside how effective the ban actually was, if six years of access to alcohol and tobacco was enough to devastate the country, it is probably as @Draxynnic implies, because there had been almost no exposure to it before that point. Which is absolutely Denmark's fault.

Remember, Denmark didn't ban alcohol and tobacco for it's *own* people. And introducing things slowly is one thing, but a ban lasting more than a century? They just decided to treat the people of Greenland like children - like every other fecking overlord used to. Did the USA make a mistake suddenly introducing those things to a country where they were otherwise unavailable? Absolutely. But it was a pretty understandable one to make during wartime. And they probably had good intentions too.

It was Denmark who set up a situation where such a thing could happen. It was Denmark which was responsible for governing the country at the time. It was Denmark which failed to educate the people of Greenland about the dangers of drugs and tobacco, and Denmark which decided not to give them the same freedoms their own people enjoyed. In short, it was *overwhellmingly* Denmark's fault.

*meanwhile, Åland is laughing*

I don't see a free Greenland anytime soon. the population is low, the country is too big, and low gdp

@TeXaSBoI I've always thought that they should switch to uranium for their energy needs and start exporting coal or steel, but Greenland voted no on that.

When the Free Tibet movement was big I found it more annoying that there wasn't more concern being shown for maintaining Taiwan's independence. Tibet has been part of China for some 50 years now, while Taiwan has not been part of China for most of the last 125 years. While the plight of Tibet is pretty hopeless, Taiwan's independence is on pretty decent footing and the support of the international community actually makes a difference there to preserve that independence.
Recently China starting pressuring airlines and hotels to list Taiwan as part of China in their online software for making reservations. Quite a few airlines and hotel chains caved to China's pressure. It would have been nice to see some of those "Free Tibet" sister Americans out protesting and boycotting the cavers.

@LoveIsGood Taiwan is honestly the better china, more freedom n shit

@TeXaSBoI But it isn't a China, except in the sense that America, Australia, Canada, Cuba, and Argentina are all Europes.

That Cold War propaganda about Taiwan being "Free China" was crap. It wasn't free and it wasn't China. They did become free in the 1990s, but they didn't become China.

@LoveIsGood yeah, I just hope that Taiwan becomes independent

@TeXaSBoI Well it is independent. It's just isn't formally recognized as being so. It's a bit like the old riddle:
Q How many legs has a dog if you call a tail a "leg".
A 4, because calling a tail a "leg" doesn't make it a leg.

@LoveIsGood yeah its a complicated matter, poor old Taiwan

@LoveIsGood well, technically, and legally, at least inside Taiwan, Taiwan is China. Republic of. Taiwan claims both the island of Taiwan and surrounding ones, as well as "continental China", Mongolia (ALL of it), part of Russia, Aksai Chin, Tibet, Sikkim and NE Indian states, etc etc etc. It just admits to only be in control of the island for now and someone else (the PRC) excericising control over the other areas. But both governments agree that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of it - they only disagree as to who is the legal representative of it.

@Nmrd "Taiwan claims...", "But both governments agree..." Understand that when it a country is threatened with extinction by a larger more powerful neighbor, that country may resort to lying for self-preservation.

At the end of WWII, when Vietnam was returned to France, Hong Kong was returned to the UK, the Phillippines were returned to America, etc., Taiwan was put under the administrative control of China so until such time as a final settlement could be made. China, rather respecting the terms of the occupation, immediately declared that Taiwan was part of China, and thus the Republic of China was in control of both China and Taiwan, and calling both of them "China". Had this situation remained it would be fair to call Taiwan part of China today, just as Tibet is part of China.

However the Republic of China promptly lost control of Taiwan and became a government-in-exile in Taiwan. Of course in their pride that Chinese government continued to claim to be the government of China - which of course was fantasy. However it was a government enforced fantasy that Taiwanese people would find themselves executed for opposing. For about 40 years the Chinese occupiers and their dictator continued to affirm this fiction while brutally suppressing the Taiwanese people.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Taiwan evolved into a democracy. The Chinese party remained the richest political party in the world (due to looting the country for decades) and they were heavily entrenched in the bureaucracy so it took a few years for opposition parties to gain power. By that time China had developed a powerful military.

So now Taiwan has to lie. They have claim they are "China". But at the same time they take every step possible to make it clear they aren't China without explicitly saying so. They, like other small countries with powerful hostile neighbors, needs foreign support. Those supporters tell Taiwan to keep making that ridiculous claim because they don't want China to get angry. So basically Taiwan doesn't really claim to own China, they just have to say they do for appearances sake to keep their friends and enemies happy.

China goes pretty crazy about this stuff. A few years ago when it was announced the Olympics would be held in China, a Taiwanese singer made the Chinese angry by congratulating them for winning the bid. "We are so happy for you". The Chinese were angered by the implication "we" and "you" are separate.

The Taiwanese clearly believe they are independent and separate - but their government has to maintain diplomatic lies.

No clue where to post this, but this was just a thought.

Scandinavian winter 2018: giant snowpile of the century
Scandinavian summer 2018: fire, literallly fire. Not a drop of rain in sight.

Ps: Thanks to all the EU nations who have sent us support, it is highly appreciated, trust me!

@Shitzadorina and for Iceland:

Icelandic winter 2018: Snow. Just snow everywhere. Blizzards and more snow.
Icelandic summer 2018: Rain. Floods of rain. No sun in sight. Just rain.

@KatrinLilja Can we trade, I'll gladly take rain? My bloody country is burning up. Worst fires we've had for hundreds of years.

Seriously, I live in Gothenburg, aka, little London because it rains so much. There has barely been any rain at all since May, just dry leaves and yellow grass. It's bloody insane!

@Shitzadorina yes we can trade. I know for a fact (simply by reading the news and talking to people) that the citizens of Iceland (mostly Reykjavik and the south side) are getting fed up with this no-sun, cold, rainy summer. One guy even said; "I remember the summer of 2018. It happened on a Wednesday." Worst summer in over a 100 years they say.

Guess mother nature is treating both our countries quite unfairly I would say.

@Shitzadorina It could have been much worse and much hotter. We got away easy compared to how some others have it right now. And it may get much worse for everyone in the near future if we are unlucky. I also appreciate the help from our European friends.

@Shitzadorina it's basically been the same in Saskatchewan @_@ although it's like that almost every year. Just that this year, it went from winter to summer in the matter of less than a week.

...strange...
...the country with the most people in prison wants to free somebody...???

@Packless1
The only country ever to dump a nuclear weapon on someone else's citizens wants nobody else to have nukes.
The country with one of the worst designed democratic systems has its mouth full of exporting democracy to the world.
The country with the highest number of gun deaths in the Western world yabbers on about dangerous foreigners.

It's no longer surprising, really.

@rlb

You do realize that
1) virtually every country wants no one else to have nukes
2) the US's governmental dysfunction was INTENTIONAL by its creators
3) What, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, etc are not Western countries? While the gun violence in the US is obscene and inexcusable, that's not the same as being the "highest number".

@CorruptUser
The United States is a very diverse country, part of it is nice and just as safe as Norway, part of it is comparable to brazilian favelas. So eh, you can't really compare US and other western countries crime stats, since for now there's something very different about them.

@Ladoga
I've lived next to the equivalent of the favelas in the US. For reasons that didn't make sense at first, the crime didn't spill over. Just 2 blocks away. But that's capitol cities for you; the police take care of the streets the state senators hang out at, and every homeless guy and criminal very quickly figures out which streets are a no-go for them.

But likewise, you'll have parts of Brazil that are just as safe as Norway, and parts of Norway that'd scare a Brazilian. Almost all countries are like that, just that the ratio of safe to unsafe areas vary.

@Packless1 A long while back Humon mentioned that while America (the character) is based on the more conservative (if good-intentioned) stereotypes of the country, Sister America is based on the valley-girl, empty-headed progressive stereotypes. For reference: https://satwcomic.com/wiki/sister-america I guess "Paris Hilton" was the image Humon was going for, to use her words.

And while I'm disappointed that both of the representatives of America are rather dumb, for lack of a better word, since the comic is kinda based on stereotypes, one can't really expect too much positive depiction.

@LiTMac It is really unfortunate that the US is overflowing with ignorant, arrogant, obnoxious, overly emotional, historically blind... individuals. I've just decided to laugh at them with the rest of the world, understanding that they are not a representation of the best among us.