As a bleeding-heart liberal I choose to believe that there are no important biological differences between the races.
That being said, I have heard of many reputable studies (none of which I can cite) saying American Indians have huge rates of alcoholism and related disorders.
Is this true? If so, why? Nature or Nurture? Is there any proof?
Probably the same reason why alcoholim is rife in the Australian Aboriginie community: Poor economic prospects.
Ahem… alcoholism that is. And the answer is probably a lot more complex than what I said above but in a nutshell that’s what it comes down to.
There is a proven genetic disposition to problems with metabolising alcohol. It’s prevalent in eastern Asian peoples, so it wouldn’t surprise me if American Indian and Australian genetic lines carry the same genes.
http://www.aim-digest.com/gateway/pages/book/articles/special.htm
It’s been awhile since I saw the studies, so I can’t cite them directly, but there is some truth to this.
Native Americans frequently lack an enzyme that aids the detoxification of alcohol in the liver. For that matter, there are a significant number of other people who have this characteristic as well - I believe there’s a noticable number of Japanese with this, for example. It can occur in any ethnic group, just at differing rates. So, yes, there is a physical difference involved for many Native Americans.
This is compounded by two other factors. The first one is cultural - Native North American societies did not know about alcohol before the arrival of the Europeans (Central and South Americans did have various “beers” fermented from things like corn or manioc). So there were no cultural mechanisms or customs that could act to moderate alcohol usage. For example, in “anglo” North America today alcohol is considered unacceptable for minors, before noon, and most drinking is done while eating food, which moderates the effects of alcohol. The Native societies did not have that, so when people got into trouble there was no cultural brake on getting up and having whiskey for breakfast. Combine that with many tribes regarding altered states of conciousness as sacred and something to be sought out, and you have the ingredients for trouble. Now, a lot of this last paragraph involves historical things, and the view of many Natives have changed since the days of first contact with Europeans, but the past does affect the present, and certainly accounts for the stereotype of the drunken indian.
The third factor is economic - while poverty doesn’t cause alcoholism outright, it certainly doesn’t help. The impoverished state of many Native Americans puts them at high risk for a lot of problems, not just alcoholism.
But of course, this belief doesn’t stand up to facts. For instance, black people are the only ones (AFAIK) who get sicle cell anemia, and Taye-Sachs (sp?) is so much more prevalent in Jews. Of course there are biological differences, or else, why would we all be such different colors? The important thing, in my book (but of course, I’m not a liberal 
) is that there are no differences between the races that should engender prejudicial treatment.
Just my two cents.
Warning: anecdote approaching.
Those Native Americans I’ve met have acknowledged the issue within their own community, so I don’t see any issue with others acknowledging it. Years ago, my mom and I went to a big multi-tribe powwow down in Navy Pier in Chicago: lots of cool arts and music events, etc. In contrast to just about every other summer festival here, no alcohol was served, and everywhere I looked I saw posters, leaflets, public service announcements, etc. about the community’s battle against alcoholism. It was a big surprise to me.
In a conversation with a NA friend about this very subject, she pointed out that once you had a generation of mothers abusing alcohol, you have babies born with varying degrees of fetal alcohol syndrome. FAS has many effects, including poor decision- making in regards to future consequences frequently leading to the decision to use/abuse alcohol. Obviously, the cycle can go on and on. No cites, just this conversation.
On what basis do you assume that skin colour will be the marker for biological differences, as opposed to other physical characteristics, such as eye colour or hair colour?
There are clearly differences in the genetic makeup of groups of people. They’re not restricted to only one population group, but are certainly more prevelant in some groups. This however is not support for the concept of “race”, it merely recognizes that some traits can be more prevelant in groups that have had genetic isolation.
The concept of race isn’t supported by the data. That doesn’t mean every population group has the same likelyhood of various genetic traits.
[QUOTE=norinew]
For instance, black people are the only ones (AFAIK) who get sicle cell anemia…QUOTE]
[hijack] Sickle-cell anemia pops up in several other places in the world, like southern India and Southeast Asia, where malaria is also endemic. [/hijack]
This is wrong.
[Quote the CDC:]
(http://www.who.int/genomics/public/geneticdiseases/en/index2.html#SCA)
The truth is that there are regions of “black” Africa where sickle cell anemia is uncommon, just as there are non-black populations where it is relatively prevalent.
As for Tay-Sachs, from the same link:
There are no biological differences between the races because, biologically speaking, the concept of race is irrelevent. There are populations that share certain characteristics but they are not “races”.
Ah, damn you Tsarina but at least, I have cites. So, nyah!
Oh, and I messed up, the quote isn’t from the CDC but from the WHO.
The ability to digest milk as an adult is almost certainly a mutation that has arisen in the 10,000 or so years since domesticated animals have been around. And lactose intolerance varies widely within different populations. So I have no problem with the hypothesis that alcohol tolerence is something that some populations have more prominantly than others. I would want to see some conclusive proof rather than anecdotes though.
This cite supports the idea that Native Americancs are more vunerable to alcoholism due in part to biological factors.
There are definitely links between genetics and alcohol tolerance.
Here’s from a PubMed abstract:
Essentially what this says is that there is a gene that allows the liver to produce aldehyde dehydrogenase, an enzyme that helps your body get rid of blood alcohol. Some East Asian populations have a prevalence of a mutation that causes the liver to produce less of this enzyme. Hence, a portion of the Japanese population “can’t hold their alcohol”. What these authors seem to argue, though, is that acts to curb alcoholism because it forces people to drink less.
It’s certainly not racist to to note that there do exist population clusters where the prevalence of alcohol abuse is higher than average. Nor is it racist to note that in many of these population clusters, metabolic differences which are passed on genetically may contribute significantly to said abuse.
But it is unfortunate that the identification of said population clusters is tied so closely with the spurious notion of “race”.
Well, a lot of excellent, informative posts on the topic at hand.
On the other hand, the thread is obviously running off topic. Let me aid in the process by pointing out that Tay-Sachs Disease is most common among some groups of Jews. Sickle-cell is usually found amongst black people.
But what disease is basically limited to ‘white’ people?
Cystic Fibrosis
My first spoiler box! I am so proud!
Alcohol abuse is a terribly difficult area to evaluate. Routinely certain “national” groups are found to abuse alcohol more frequently than others. For instance people of an Irish background are more than 7 times more likely to abuse alcohol although they have higher rates of abstinence. Jews and Italians are rarely alcohol abusers although Italians have a very high per capita intake. In Portugal ther eis less than 1 AA group per million people in Iceland there are 800 but the Portuguese consume 2 1/2 times as much alcohol per person.
Social attitudes to drunkenness and alcoholism seem to be the strongest influence on the rate of alcoholism. Social groups that use alcohol for purely social purposes and frown on failure of self-control routinely return lower rates of problem drinking in studies.
Jovan, thanks for the info! I never said I was right about everything 
. But my point still remains that equality rests not in denying differences in people in different regions, but in letting those differences dictate our behavior towards people.