Europeans drink alcohol in 10-40% concentrations and get the well-known range of effects, with the majority not succumbing to alcoholism and other serious problems. Is there a lower range of concentrations (maybe 3-9% or whatever) that could provide the less resistant populations like American Indians with the same type of effects with the same type of safety? Or is alcohol bad for them in any concentration that will actually produce a meaningful “buzz” that the drinker is trying to get?
could American Indians and Australian Aborigines consume alcohol "normally" in lower concentrations?
It’s not the concentration, it’s the volume. If you drink excessively because your people’s history is one of constantly getting screwed over by the white man, than obviously you are going to pass your time shitfaced more often than not.
The minimum concentration of alcohol in Europe is less than 10%, a 5.5% beer would be considered “strong” yet there are plenty of alcoholics here.
ETA. Have you ever tasted a beer in the 8-10% range? (carlsberg special brew is a good example), most people wouldn’t touch it because it tastes vile.
In fact some of the cheapest beer available here is around 2.2% so I’d say “Europeans drink alcohol in the 2-50% range.” rather than 10-40%
The makers of Dogfish Head IPA would like to have a word with you.
I was often told that Native Americans have a lower tolerance for alcohol than Europeans but I’ve never seen any concrete evidence to back it up. If you look at modern Native Americans in the United States they have a very high level of alcoholism and drug abuse but then many of them are living in poverty as well. (The Makah have nearly a 50% unemployment rate.)
Basically, the crafty Jews and the miserly Scots are getting rich selling firewater to the drunken Indians and the belligerently drunken Irish. Or, in other words, it’s a stereotype – one with a certain amount of validity to it, for reasons mentioned by In Winnipeg and Odesio among others. The causes of alcoholism are many, and an individual’s genetic inheritance and subcultural perceptions and degree of poverty/hope are among them.
There was (at least) one tribe of American Indians that had alcohol before the Europeans came along. I’ve forgotten the name, but they lived in northern South America – Surinam or Fr Guinea or thereabouts. From what I understand, they knew how to make wine.
One of their traditions was that the men would gather in their lodge and drink until they got sick, barf it out, and then go back to drinking. (Stick three Greek letters on the outside of the lodge and you’ll have a US college fraternity.) After the white introduced them to distilled alcohol, they switched to that, but they really can’t handle it.
That’s an ale.
what kind of concrete evidence would you like to see to prove or disprove this factoid which seems to have been unquestioningly accepted for the last 200 years?
E.g. would you like to conduct a study involving giving groups of randomly selected teenagers (young enough not to be experienced drinkers) of the white, black and American Indian backgrounds a standard dose of alcohol based on their body weight and see who has is more heavily impacted according to a preagreed standard of evaluation?
Or is your overall approach not to think about such matters at all in a systematic manner and respond to any counter evidence with “it’s all poverty and racism to blame” mantra?
Many Central and South American Indians made (and still make) mild alcoholic drinks, often called chicha fuerte, from fermented corn or cassava. Chicha was used by the Incas. I’ve had chicha in Embera villages in eastern Panama, and been to chicha celebrations in Kuna villages. It’s rather sour, and about as alcoholic as beer. But they usually only drink during festivals. The Kuna have big chicha celebrations when a girl reaches puberty, and the entire village regards it as essentially a sacred duty to get as drunk as possible. (I’m not being funny; it’s literally regarded that way.)
There’s also, in Cenral America, pulque, which is made from the agave, and was drank prior to European contact.
It’d better be to apologize for their 120 minute IPA! <:mad:>
Did I kick your puppy? Do I have asshole printed on my forehead? Did someone pee in your Cheerios this morning? Or is your post hostile only because I have the temerity to question an accepted factoid? If it is such a universally accepted factoid then please point me out studies showing that Native Americans are biologically ill equipped to handle liquor when compared to those of European decent. It’s been a while since I took a biology class but I suppose studies showing that Native Americans have more difficulty metabolizing alcohol or some other physical difference that makes them more likely to become addicted would be welcome. Surely this can’t be hard to find if this unquestioningly accepted factoid is true.
Obviously this can’t be done as it would likely violate ethical guidelines when it came to studies involving live people.
You got me. I don’t really like having questions answered I just like hearing answers so I can hide in my little hole and deny everything.
Yeah but that example of “can’t handle it” is cultural. 20 years ago, your average Spanish teenager would drink as part of a meal or of a celebration; getting shitfaced was viewed with scorn (“doesn’t know when to stop drinking”). Current botellón culture views getting shitfaced as the night’s goal. Does that mean that today’s Spanish teens have weaker livers than we did? Not at all; the change is cultural, not biological.
I’d put it even lower than 2%. There are plenty of very mildly alcoholic drinks (between 0 and 2%) which are extremely popular in many parts of Europe. Kvass is one that springs to mind; it’s ubiquitous in much of Eastern Europe. Some British soft drinks are also brewed—Fentiman’s cola, dandelion and burdock, and lemonade all claim very low alcohol (less than 0.5%) on their labels.
Surely. This publication by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (one of the National Institutes of Health) took me about 30 seconds to find:
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa72/aa72.htm
It says that there do not appear to be any genetic differences in alcohol metabolism between Native Americans and Europeans. (This is in contrast to East Asians, who metabolize alcohol to acetaldehyde very efficiently, which makes drinking unpleasant.)
This issue of American Indians and alcohol is a complex one, in no small part because there’s too much folklore and personal feeling mixed up in it. In distinction to cjepson’s post (which ultimately cites a New England Journal of Medicine article from 1976), this one states:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3919/is_199810/ai_n8810819/
There is a history of land deals associated with alcohol consumption, which I’ve researched somewhat and published in an article in a history magazine. An Iroquois chief told me that he considered susceptibility to alcohol a problem. Certainly there’s anecdotal evidence about it. The journal evidence looks not very full and ambiguous.
I’ve long suspected that a strong susceptibility to alcohol prevented wine from being part of North American Indian culture. certainly Northeastern tribes had the means to acquire wine-making skills – the native labrusca grapes can be used for wine-making, and are so used commercially today. Yeasts that will produce wine live right on the grape skins. You can say “well, they just never discovered wine”, but that defies belief – if you make juice from grapes, or even simply store the fruit, some is eventually going to ferment. People everywhere else on earth have discovered fermented beverages where the potential existed, and have used it. The making of wine from labrusca grapes is a lot easier, more straightforward, and less labor-intensive than the making of pulque. I suspect that Northeast Indians have, in fact, discovered fermentation many times over the centuries, but have not followed it and have perhaps effectively prejudiced against it because of its harmful results.
I can’t prove this, but it seems more reasonable than to think they simp;ly never stumbled across fermentation in all the many man-centuries of agriculture they had.
I have lived in towns located near reservations and the above is true. However, they do get government aid and therefore don’t need to work and a lot don’t because they choose not to. While alcoholism is rampant in Taos (for example), my observation is that boredom had a lot to do with it.
One factoid I’ve often heard is that Native Americans have a poorer ability to metabolize sugars and this includes alcohol. Of course, this may be more applicable to the hunter cultures of northern North America than the more southerly tribes which relied on agriculter more than hunting and consumed more carbohydrates.
One side effect is an much higher rate of Type II diabetes. The other is that they get drunk faster and stay drunk longer and may even wake up drunk rather than hung over.
It’s not the concentration, though. The drink of choice in one area I once lived was the cheap sherrys, which were only 18% alcohol but provided the most bang for the buck, so to speak; and came in a conveniently shatterproof plastic bottle.
However, I’ll agree that social class and economic issues are the biggest drivers. When you have not much to stay sober for and a lot to want to forget, staying on the wagon may not be a great goal.