malkore: I live in Nebraska so I'm getting a kick...

Seriously though, 1071 is only 3 beers a day, and considering its all Bud/Busch light, its only like 1.3 manly beers a day.

Furthermore, how is selling alcohol near the reservation encouraging 'bootlegging' (FTFA)? Selling malted grain, mash tuns, copper tubes and camp stoves while not having any beer around...is why people would bootleg!

Bootlegging is not manufacturing. It's buying the alcohol and then reselling it illegally.

Carousel Beast: That's some mighty fine mental contorting there, Lou.

"as a direct result of US actions" I didn't throw that phrase in for chuckles.

Carousel Beast: 2wolves: freewill: Uh, it strikes me as profoundly unlikely that pre-industrial North America was able to support a population large enough

I cited my sources.

You cited two works, neither of them research sources for population figures, and both of which include large amounts of conjecture, hearsay, and just plain pulling figures out of assess.

Which is actually kind of sad, because you're presenting information of dubious veracity to make something that's already bad look...bad - and defeating yourself in the process.

I'm interested in your critique of both works.

freewill: 2wolves: freewill: Uh, it strikes me as profoundly unlikely that pre-industrial North America was able to support a population large enough

I cited my sources.

What you cited appears to have been Wiki Answers. It's a bit of a stretch to call their sources your sources if you haven't checked them, and I think you'll find that no credible historian takes that estimate seriously (nor is it clear that the author of your source article interpreted it correctly, since another website says "since the landing of the Pilgrims", while another suggests that there were originally 114 million Native Americans in all of the New World, which sounds much more in line with the facts).

The "official" U.S. estimate is 1 to 4 million. Does that still count?

Vanis: noit: If Europeans had come to this continent and signed trade agreements with the natives instead of colonizing the land, the nation here might be made up of the indigenous people instead of the settlers. If this had happened the problem with alcohol would still be the same, so stop blaming Europeans, except responsibility, and figure it out.

Yes, but then the natives might have had a solid position from which to deal with the situation.

Hmmm...I'll admit my Chinese history is a bit rusty since the scenario you mentioned strikes me as similar to that of China and the Opium trade. Can anyone more knowledgeable comment on how and if China managed to deal with that situation? I know how it got into the predicament, and why the western powers made sure that it did, but I'll admit I know next to nothing about how it ended.

Mass murder. The Chinese killed anyone and everyone involved in the opium trade.

here to help: Nice Klan meeting you folks got goin' here. Look, we understand you whiteys have teeny tiny little peckers but you don't need to be all pissy about it.



Stop insulting my teeny tiny pecker.

Gnarwhal: 2Wolves:

It's not a matter of belief. We're not talking Santa Claus.

You're playing with words. The figure you quoted is junk science or ethnocentrism. You can just intuit that; how could an estimate with margin of error of 94 million (over 900%) be meaningful or be based on sound method?

Because even the best numbers are guesstimates. Which is why i gave the range and not "exactly 4,587, 236"

At the low end of official figures you have 1 million. Is it known to be greater than that? Yes.

Playing with words... how many people have to die so it becomes a holocaust?

On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in the "ethnic cleansing" of Western tribes.

freewill:

/ Not that that excuses the rest of it. It's just that our work was amateurish and unimpressive relative to the other horrors of history.

Murder is easier to stomach when it's retail and not wholesale.

Link

Link Fark threw away http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

freewill: 2wolves: Link Fark threw away http://hnn.us/articles/7302.html

I got halfway down, so far it's exactly what we've been saying to you. Does it take a turn somewhere?

/ Note: Genocide is a legal term, and it requires intent. The article is extremely charitable by merely calling it "debatable" whether or not we should apply the term to the arrival of Western diseases.

The turn is that anyone's numbers can be debated. Bob says "those numbers were pulled out of your ass" and Black Crow says "these numbers are as good as any." The BIA quote I provided, what's the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing?

2wolves: Between 10 million and 114 million First Nations people killed as a direct result of US actions. Manifest Destiny indeed.

Boy, is this a load of horse-shiat. The pre-Columbian population of North America wasn't even half of your largest stated estimate, and by the time of the first permanent English settlements was down to less than 4 million.

"We don't wanna live on this planet. It's a dump. We buy new planet and act like it's sacred. With cash like this, who's going to argue? Nobody, that's who."

Just the friendly little town of Enabling.

WhippingBoy: And personal responsibility is officially dead.



WarszawaScream: Came here to say this. Unbelievable. Man, the lawsuits I could have - THE LIQUOR STORES SELL BOOZE SO IT'S THEIR FAULT I'M A DRUNK! THE 7-ELEVENS SELL CIGARETTES SO IT'S THEIR FAULT I'M A SMOKER! THE BAKERY SELLS SNACKY CAKES SO IT'S THEIR FAULT I'M FAT!

...and everyone else saying the same idiotic thing

They have exactly the same problem in Australia. Now I don't know the facts of this case, but here's how it went down over there.

1. Indigenous population (pre-colonisation) have not developed alcohol and have no experience or tolerance of it.

2. Colonisers arrive, introduce alcohol to indigenous population causing huge detriment. It's often used deliberately to break the will / coherence of the local population who are genetically very susceptible to its effects and find it particularly addictive.

3. After many years of being shat on from a great height by the people who colonised them, original population are in a pretty sorry state. On top of all their other problems their society is being horrifically torn apart by alcohol abuse - the stories from aboriginal homelands are just unbelievably bad.

4. Indigenous people realise that there is a problem, begin to get their shiat together and ban alcohol in their communities. They ban their people from drinking and ask that nearby towns support them and help them rebuild their society by removing temptation from the people who will take a drink if it is made easy for them to do so.

5. Local towns, rather than going along with this and doing something to help actively expand and market their products directly to the communities who have begged them to remove temptation.

To me it's like opening up a heroin supermarket next to a school....

The Indians cannot move their reservation away from the town and they cannot physically prevent their people from visiting the town for supplies. They recognise their own weakness and seek support as they try to help themselves overcome something that is ruining their health and their lives.

Beer companies and locals decide that they'd rather make a few bucks.

I don't know whether it should be illegal (although it is in Oz in some places) but it's morally repugnant and everyone should be completely ashamed of themselves.

give me doughnuts: 2wolves: Between 10 million and 114 million First Nations people killed as a direct result of US actions. Manifest Destiny indeed.

Boy, is this a load of horse-shiat. The pre-Columbian population of North America wasn't even half of your largest stated estimate, and by the time of the first permanent English settlements was down to less than 4 million.

Really? Because the 4 million is in the range the U.S. government admits it killed.

All over the place here.

Pert: WhippingBoy: And personal responsibility is officially dead.



WarszawaScream: Came here to say this. Unbelievable. Man, the lawsuits I could have - THE LIQUOR STORES SELL BOOZE SO IT'S THEIR FAULT I'M A DRUNK! THE 7-ELEVENS SELL CIGARETTES SO IT'S THEIR FAULT I'M A SMOKER! THE BAKERY SELLS SNACKY CAKES SO IT'S THEIR FAULT I'M FAT!

...and everyone else saying the same idiotic thing

They have exactly the same problem in Australia. Now I don't know the facts of this case, but here's how it went down over there.

1. Indigenous population (pre-colonisation) have not developed alcohol and have no experience or tolerance of it.

2. Colonisers arrive, introduce alcohol to indigenous population causing huge detriment. It's often used deliberately to break the will / coherence of the local population who are genetically very susceptible to its effects and find it particularly addictive.

3. After many years of being shat on from a great height by the people who colonised them, original population are in a pretty sorry state. On top of all their other problems their society is being horrifically torn apart by alcohol abuse - the stories from aboriginal homelands are just unbelievably bad.

4. Indigenous people realise that there is a problem, begin to get their shiat together and ban alcohol in their communities. They ban their people from drinking and ask that nearby towns support them and help them rebuild their society by removing temptation from the people who will take a drink if it is made easy for them to do so.

5. Local towns, rather than going along with this and doing something to help actively expand and market their products directly to the communities who have begged them to remove temptation.

To me it's like opening up a heroin supermarket next to a school....

The Indians cannot move their reservation away from the town and they cannot physically prevent their people from visiting the town for supplies. They recognise their own weakness and seek support a ...

Problem is, alcohol is legal to buy for anyone of legal age in the US. Even people who are banned by the US justice system on probation can buy alcohol as long as they have an ID showing they are of age. Now, repercussions may happen because of that, but the stores can not be blamed unless they are directed not to sell alcohol to someone. They are capitalizing on it, but the market is there and in a free market, you can not be blamed. My ex was 1/2 American Indian, her dad was full blooded, they both had drinking problems. We split because of it. WIthout becoming a a socialist state where the government can decide what one can and can not do, there is no room for legal action on this. Now, the tribe themselves may want to actually position tribal police at the entrances to their reservation and inspect vehicles, as they have banned alcohol, they can take their own legal action against it. Its not a solution, but its far more reasonable than blaming alcohol manufacturers for the demise of their culture.

freewill: I'm suspicious, because after considerable searching, all I've found are many variations on that same phrase, with no further information. Often, this indicates a self-perpetuating myth. Somebody falsely attributes a claim to an authority (maybe the federal government helps fund somebody's research, and this morphs into "official government statistics"), and people repeat it without questioning it, just like you are now.

That said, bear in mind that a total killed would be across time, over generations. It would be technically possible to kill 4 million people out of a seed population of 4 million across several centuries, and the diseases had already done their worst by 1776, so those two numbers would not necessarily contradict each other.

I agree. I've been looking for a good source for the 4 million number also.

As for being challenged? Cool. That would mean some people are putting in some time and effort and educating themselves. If they don't end up repulsed and sickened by the actions of their government then they are beyond help. The USA USA chanters don't count as their views usually begin and end with John Wayne.

CruJones: RobSeace: Reverend J: CruJones: imdani2u: What is not understood by most people is that Native Americans' bodies are not designed to metabolize alcohol like the rest of us. This is a segment of our "society" that has been left out, forgotten about, and whenever there are racial issues going on, the Native Americans "should suck it up and stop whining"...in reference to the Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians, among other things. African Americans complain about Aunt Jemima, the Uncle Ben's logo, why is this ok? Why is there a double standard against the people our ancestors stole this country from and damned near exterminated on a level way worse than the Holocaust? Yes I'm heated and proud Cherokee/Italian American.

Citation please.

/also, there has been plenty of "outrage" against Indian mascots. Most NCAA schools have already changed those mascots, though FSU actually has the backing of the Seminole tribe.

THE GENETICS OF ALCOHOL METABOLISM: ROLE OF ALCOHOL DEHYDROGENASE AND ALDEHYDE DEHYDROGENASE VARIANTS

Two seconds of google-fu. I figured this was common knowledge but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

/Cut and Paste caps for the win
//Not really

Wait, did you actually read that?

"The findings suggest that it is unlikely that Native Americans carry a genetic variant that predisposes them to alcoholism. Certain variants of ADH and ADLH do have a protective affect against alcoholism in some Native American people; however, these findings do not explain the high incidence of alcoholism in the tribes that were studied."

Yeah, THIS. The link says they are NOT pre-disposed.

This.

In fact, I'll drive the bus just a bit further:

a) The people who rant "INJUNS GENETICALLY CAN'T HANDLE THEIR LIQUOR" seem to forget that indigenous peoples in the Americas actually have a history of producing alcohol pre-dating the Europeans. Pulque has a history dating back to at least the Aztecs, chibcha (a corn beer) actually dates pretty far back to pre-Inca civilisations and the Mayans (whom actually took the art of getting drunk to extremes--when they couldn't drink the chibcha anymore, they had it poured in rectally to get even MORE bombed) and even the Cherokee are documented to have produced a passionfruit metheglin or kvass ("old field apricot drink", mildly fermented passionfruit juice and about at the same ABV as kvass sold in Russia now).

b) Something tells me that the same reason that Pine Ridge has a bit of a liquor problem is rather similar to why most of Appalachia has a "every intoxicating substance including alcohol, weed, methamphetamines, oxycontin, paint, and pretty much anything else short of jenkem they can get their hands on to get utterly blotto" issue.

And last I checked, there weren't geneticists touring all of Appalachia from Pittsburgh all the way down to the "hollers" in Hardin County, KY where the Blue People live, testing folk, and claiming Appalachians "can't handle their addictive substances".

For that matter, I've never heard any geneticist or scientist suggest in all seriousness that indigenous Australians "can't handle their petrol" despite a rather pronounced issue with folks sniffing gas (and "pronounced" here is as in "Most places in the outback near indigenous Australian communities are prohibited from selling regular gas by law and only sell diesel and what amounts to avgas specially treated to have most of the aeromatics removed" levels of huffing issues).

Of course, it couldn't have ANYTHING to do with all three areas being among the poorest areas in developed nations with a long history of Getting The Screw from the dominant culture, soul-crushing poverty, no realistic prospects of improving their lot in life, and a lot of systemic discrimination against the people and their cultures that would make people want to do nothing more with the few dollars in their pocket than get completely farking blotto for a few hours and forget that they live in an utter shiathole with no real way to get out. Couldn't be that at all.

(And lest one doubts systemic discrimination against folks of Appalachian origin--let's just say there IS the "hillbilly stereotype" which has transmogrified into the "hillbilly meth-head" stereotype not unlike the "Drunk-Ass Indian" stereotype that exists in much of the western US and Canada...and apparently there WAS enough discrimination against folks from Appalachia that the city of Cincinnati actually includes Appalachian origin as a protected class along with race, sex, religion, veteran status and so forth.)

The citation appears to resolve to David Stannard. I will have to research more.