Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Aboriginals Face Ban on Alcohol and Porn

phildwyer said:
The same system operates in the USA, where the unemployed receive "food stamps."
Sure, and in loads of developing countries (the PROGRESA scheme in Mexico for example). It's clearly very paternalistic, but it's not the same thing as an outright ban.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Is there any truth to the claim that certain 'races' of people have a genetically encoded inability to metabolise alcohol properly?

Or is this self-serving neo-racist bollocks?
My cunty aussie brother who is a cop there reckons its true and also jokes about how many 'abbos' he can fit in a policevan
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Is there any truth to the claim that certain 'races' of people have a genetically encoded inability to metabolise alcohol properly?

Or is this self-serving neo-racist bollocks?

I've often wondered this myself. I suspect the latter. The Japanese get drunk very easily, but I reckon it is because they are so formal and self-controlled when sober. And the Koreans can hold their drink very well, yet they must be genetically similar to the Japanese.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Is there any truth to the claim that certain 'races' of people have a genetically encoded inability to metabolise alcohol properly?

Or is this self-serving neo-racist bollocks?

All humans don't metabolise alcahol properly, that's what makes you drunk. :)

Maybe some do it worse than others.
 
phildwyer said:
I've often wondered this myself. I suspect the latter. The Japanese get drunk very easily, but I reckon it is because they are so formal and self-controlled when sober. And the Koreans can hold their drink very well, yet they must be genetically similar to the Japanese.
Hm. They can't be a million miles from each other genetically, but the Korean language is a bit like Basque in Europe - it is not closely related to other East Asian languages at all. And linguistic patterns are often refleced in genetic tendencies, as they show traces of the patterns of interaction between different peoples over time.

I'm rambling here. I'm not actually disagreeing with you.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Is there any truth to the claim that certain 'races' of people have a genetically encoded inability to metabolise alcohol properly?

Or is this self-serving neo-racist bollocks?

It could just come down to the fact that some races are more slightly built so would handle booze worse than a stocky type of person, but that would be pretty minimal.
 
A Chinese friend of mine cant handle alcohol whatsoever - one glass makes her terribly ill, she tells me that its quite a common problem among Chinese people.
 
Yeah there are differences in the ability to metabolize acetaldehyde that result in some quite unpleasant symptoms for people who have this problem. I don't think it's a big issue for aborigines though, it's more of an Asian thing.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Most prefer the term 'American Indian'. It's less patronising and offensive than 'native American'.
I thought 'native American' is the 'politically correct' phrase.
 
Belushi said:
A Chinese friend of mine cant handle alcohol whatsoever - one glass makes her terribly ill, she tells me that its quite a common problem among Chinese people.
Yes, I think it is possible to lack the ability to metabolise alcohol altogether.

However, this will stop you from drinking completely, won't it? So something different must be going on with Aboriginals, Lapps, Ainu etc.

The one thing they have in common is that they have historically been treated appallingly. With their cultural traditions destroyed and not in the least inclined to adopt the culture of their oppressors, is it surprising that many turned to drink.

Many homeless people find solace in alcohol, and why the fuck shouldn't they?
 
TAE said:
I thought 'native American' is the 'politically correct' phrase.
I think you underestimate how completely many of the 'First peoples of North America' (let's call them this for now - it's clumsy I know) reject *our* culture. And political correctness is a product of *our* culture.

'Native' comes from the Latin 'to be born'. Anybody born in America is a 'native American'. It's a deeply stupid and inaccurate term.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
I think you underestimate how completely many of the 'First peoples of North America' (let's call them this for now - it's clumsy I know) reject *our* culture. And political correctness is a product of *our* culture.

'Native' comes from the Latin 'to be born'. Anybody born in America is a 'native American'. It's a deeply stupid and inaccurate term.

Not as stupid or inaccurate as "Indian!"
 
phildwyer said:
Not as stupid or inaccurate as "Indian!"
Maybe. But the virtue of 'Indian' is similar to the virtue of the term 'Third World' - it's a reminder of the injustice of the situation.

To me, native American is like 'developing world' - it obscures the truth. It is the rich world that is 'developing'. Many parts of the world have seen precious little development. Similarly, 'native American' implies a sense of belonging to the concept of 'America' which many of the people to whom the term refers reject.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
let's call them this for now

Let's not, I've only just got my head around Native American.

Is this really something that NA's feel strongly about? Or is it some social worker type PC shenanigans by some middle class white person trying to tell people how they should define themselves? I've never ever heard of it before and it would appear no-one else has...
 
scumbalina said:
Or is it some social worker type PC shenanigans by some middle class white person trying to tell people how they should define themselves?

Although equally that could be the way the term Native American came about.....
 
littlebabyjesus said:
Maybe. But the virtue of 'Indian' is similar to the virtue of the term 'Third World' - it's a reminder of the injustice of the situation.

To me, native American is like 'developing world' - it obscures the truth. It is the rich world that is 'developing'. Many parts of the world have seen precious little development. Similarly, 'native American' implies a sense of belonging to the concept of 'America' which many of the people to whom the term refers reject.

funny that because many native americans would resent being seen as part of the third world, as some sort of frozen injustice to wring our hands overm that is little more than an issue, rather than as actual subjects in the modern world.
 
scumbalina said:
Let's not, I've only just got my head around Native American.

Is this really something that NA's feel strongly about? Or is it some social worker type PC shenanigans by some middle class white person trying to tell people how they should define themselves? I've never ever heard of it before and it would appear no-one else has...
The whole point is that 'Native American' is the product of 'some social worker type PC shenanigans'. And if you're publishing books in the US, believe me it matters.
 
revol68 said:
funny that because many native americans would resent being seen as part of the third world, as some sort of frozen injustice to wring our hands overm that is little more than an issue, rather than as actual subjects in the modern world.
You misunderstand my point. I would favour 'Third World' to 'developing world' because the former reveals the truth about power relations, while the latter is little more than a sick joke given the reality of what is happening there.

As for American Indian, this is simply the term that the majority of the people so-labelled prefer.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
You misunderstand my point. I would favour 'Third World' to 'developing world' because the former reveals the truth about power relations, while the latter is little more than a sick joke given the reality of what is happening there.

As for American Indian, this is simply the term that the majority of the people so-labelled prefer.


yes and i'm saying thrid world itself hides power relations and removes the internal dynamic of 'the third world', turning them into little more than passive victims of the first world, denied any agency or responsibility, our guity gaze claims a monopoly on even injustice itself, bringing the white mans burden full circle.
 
Different peoples in N America prefer different titles:

e.g. in Alaska you'd use "eskimo" across the border in Canada you'd use Inuit.

Personally rather than lumping a load of different cultures in togeteher as one exotic "other" I'd use the specific name for each people - Dine, Hopi, Squamish etc.

AS for alocohol bans on reservations - the rules tend to vary. In Alaska for example they have wet, damp and dry communities.
 
revol68 said:
yes and i'm saying thrid world itself hides power relations and removes the internal dynamic of 'the third world', turning them into little more than passive victims of the first world, denied any agency or responsibility, our guity gaze claims a monopoly on even injustice itself, bringing the white mans burden full circle.
Yes, you have a point.

I normally just say 'poor countries'.
 
chilango said:
Different peoples in N America prefer different titles:

e.g. in Alaska you'd use "eskimo" across the border in Canada you'd use Inuit.

Personally rather than lumping a load of different cultures in togeteher as one exotic "other" I'd use the specific name for each people - Dine, Hopi, Squamish etc.


I'm just gonna call everyone foreigns and be done with it
 
What was the 'second' world? All the communist countries? That just leaves North Korea and Cuba nowadays. Not enough to constitute a world, surely.
 
slaar said:
Sure, and in loads of developing countries (the PROGRESA scheme in Mexico for example). It's clearly very paternalistic, but it's not the same thing as an outright ban.

Everybody in Mexico receives food tokens as part of their wage. I recieve about 70 quid a month of my pay in food stamps.

Yes, originally, it was designed to ensure that some of the wage didn`t end up in the cantina, but now we just use em to buy booze and DVDs in the supermarket!
 
goldenecitrone said:
What was the 'second' world? All the communist countries? That just leaves North Korea and Cuba nowadays. Not enough to constitute a world, surely.

yeah the fact that they were regarded as 2nd world should tell us about the assumptions such a model rests on.
 
Back
Top Bottom