[muskrat_skull]

Originally Posted by wardancer

Yes it does ! In the wild, a mother animal will care for the baby....until it is determined that the baby is defective and then often times the mother will remove that baby from the nest.
All species do that !

Why care for them at all? Why even reproduce? Why not just eat your young if you are a mother animal. Always. Because we have chemicals in our body that invoke caring instead of agression. Both are necessary. But we don't live in the jungle anymore, so all this agression is just excess testosterone. Down on the farm, when we got a horse like that...

Hey, my chihuahua didn't kick out defective babies, but she kicked out the only male and wouldn't feed it. Hmmm.... maybe that means...

When animals fight and kill, and people sit back and say "oh, that's mother nature, that's survival of the fittest" really that's bunk. That rabbit killed by a coyote might just have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, he might have been the super rabbit, the fittest. The coyote doesn't sit there and say, hmm I am going to ensure the survival of my species by dining on Mr. Rabbit, he says, hmmmm dinner.... its instinct when the eyes glaze over and the attack begins. Its not brain intelligence, its "spinal" or "reptilian" at that point.

It's people who assign these grand labels to these things.

And people don't either, otherwise we'd all be saying to our spouses, "sorry honey, that one over there is mighty fit!"

[wardancer]

"And people don't either, otherwise we'd all be saying to our spouses, "sorry honey, that one over there is mighty fit!"


I did that ! LOL

We will just continue to disagree. I hunt and see animals all the time. I see how they are.....and humans are so similar, just more educated.

[Toolbox]

Survival of the fittest is relative to the environment. Along the same line it is trumped by the food chain.

In your example the rabbit was the fittest of his kind but because of the food chain and the way nature works that rabbit is a decent meal for a larger or more equipped animal such as a coyote or a large snake. So the animal must survive within it's own group in order to survive elsewhere. We have intelligence that other animals don't have so for the most part we are number 1 on the food chain because we have developed the tools to kill everything.

Even we aren't off the menu. Once we enter the ocean we can make a decent meal. There are sharks the size of semi-trailers and whales the size of locomotives. A good quote from a college bio teacher I knew was: "everything is looking for a source of carbon and you're on the menu".

Survival of the fittest and the food chain - NOT BUNK.

[muskrat_skull]

Originally Posted by OLChemist

Social Darwinism and Godwin's law all in one post. You're stealing my material, LOL.

I ain't afraid of Godwin!!!

You ever read this guy?

The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for Social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Today, biologists denounce the Naturalistic Fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave -- as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK).

The moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. It lies behind the bad science in nature-documentary voiceovers: lions are mercy-killers of the weak and sick, mice feel no pain when cats eat them, dung beetles recycle dung to benefit the ecosystem and so on. It also lies behind the romantic belief that humans cannot harbor desires to kill, rape, lie, or steal because that would be too depressing or reactionary.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tbs/media_articles/2002_10_30_upi.html UPI interview with Steven Pinker on Blank Slate

[OLChemist]

Yeow, its been a long while since I tried to read Blank Slate. Being a firm believer in the transcendent, I had some serious problems with Pinker's model. To be honest, it ended up sitting on my nightstand, with the bookmark stalled in the same place, until the library wanted it back, LOL.

Now, I'm feeling like I didn't do my reading for PHIL 380 and got hit with a pop-quiz.

I think this thread has been throughly hijacked :)

[muskrat_skull]

Originally Posted by Toolbox

Survival of the fittest is relative to the environment. Along the same line it is trumped by the food chain.

In your example the rabbit was the fittest of his kind but because of the food chain and the way nature works that rabbit is a decent meal for a larger or more equipped animal such as a coyote or a large snake. So the animal must survive within it's own group in order to survive elsewhere. We have intelligence that other animals don't have so for the most part we are number 1 on the food chain because we have developed the tools to kill everything.

Even we aren't off the menu. Once we enter the ocean we can make a decent meal. There are sharks the size of semi-trailers and whales the size of locomotives. A good quote from a college bio teacher I knew was: "everything is looking for a source of carbon and you're on the menu".

Survival of the fittest and the food chain - NOT BUNK.

Yeah, intelligence plays a part and so does cooperation, since a gang of humans can kill much larger prey or defeat a single aggressor. The cooperation part undermines the whole idea for me and makes it bunk to me, but there are people who redefine the notion to include cooperation as a requisite for "fitness". It has also been changed to remove the competitive nature of it, to be survival of the fit enough, not just the fittest, since some animals are opportunistic but not necessarily the fittest. Like you say, when we step in the ocean, we are on the menu, so we stay where we thrive.

Originally, it just talked about reproductive fitness, so organisms that could reproduce would survive as species. Now the idea has been used in so many ways, some really bad.

[reocurringdream]

Survival of the fittest, in its essence, will make logical conclusions towards individuality and mutual struggle. Isn’t it interesting though how the fittest eventually falls to those organized in 'mutual aid & cooperation'? I think it is fair to say that there is something to observe in life called 'survival of the fittest', but 'mutual aid & cooperation' seems to be fitter (if that’s a word) than the fittest. To say 'survival of the fittest' is a law is not to recognize the heights of religion, the arts, and progress itself for these reach heights dependent upon mutual aid. Even in war, mutual aid trumps the fittest; therefore, we have come to a time in history where kings have fallen, tyranny overthrown, dictatorships abolished, and empires in ruin. When any civilization condenses its understanding to the worldview of 'survival of the fittest', they quickly fall into decay and become more isolated.


What creates the illusion that 'survial of the fittest' is a law is the destruction that it brings in the short-run, but in the long-run, it always loses to mutual aid. Therefore, 'survival of the fittest' is an explanation of destruction but not of what endures. The limitation of the 'survival of fittest' worldview forces it to accept mutual aid and cooperation, but it is not necessarily the case with the worldview of 'mutual aid and cooperation' except when the survival of the fittest forces itself over that worldview. I mean to say, a society may prosper without the worldview of 'survival of the fittest' and be completely dependent on 'mutual aid and cooperation', but a society of 'survival of the fittest' must adapt its worldview to include mutual aid to prosper; so that the fit-ness of the individual (entity) can be expanded to the many and mutual struggle transformed into cooperation. Otherwise, it will not prosper and fall into decay. So, it can be surmised if 'survival of the fittest' is said to be a law, then 'mutual aid and cooperation' is a greater law.

[Toolbox]

Survival of the fittest, as stated, is dependent on the nature of each species. We as humans are social creatures, in order to survive we must be able to socialize on at least some level. When we socialize and cooperate we are then furthering our individual survival and the survival of the group. Wolves and other pack animals are the same. While there are certainly people who live off the grid and with no contact they still had to have some social interaction prior to going off grid... Also people who become hermits usually go insane from lack of outside contact, they start hearing and seeing things (doesn't apply to everyone). So yes survival of the fittest still applies when people act in cooperation based on the premise that we are social animals.

[docat]

Originally Posted by OLChemist

I think this thread has been throughly hijacked :)

That's an understatement. Why not start a new thread?

[reocurringdream]

Originally Posted by Toolbox

Survival of the fittest, as stated, is dependent on the nature of each species. We as humans are social creatures, in order to survive we must be able to socialize on at least some level. When we socialize and cooperate we are then furthering our individual survival and the survival of the group. Wolves and other pack animals are the same. While there are certainly people who live off the grid and with no contact they still had to have some social interaction prior to going off grid... Also people who become hermits usually go insane from lack of outside contact, they start hearing and seeing things (doesn't apply to everyone). So yes survival of the fittest still applies when people act in cooperation based on the premise that we are social animals.

I agree we are social beings, but...
If survival of the fittest means to cooperate and there is no distinction made between the two, then it ends up as a=b & b=a, a tautology. Mutual struggle means mutual cooperation, being individualistic means being of community, being selfish means caring for others, etc... The summation of this is that something is said, but nothing understood. It becomes about being a flag-bearer. Just as easily that same person can say "cooperation means survival of the fittest," and wave the flag of mutual aid & cooperation. So why not say that?, it values your thought just the same. Anyway something to think about.

And, yet the fittest falls.

[rezrazed]

Holy Mackerel I didn't think this one was gonna still be a hot topic. It's good to see that it is, and that there is intelligent respectful dialog, unlike a few other posts that have gone on around here. lol

NDN's have a higher alcoholism rate, infact almost 6X's the national average. There are contributors to this: genetic, cultural, environmental, as well as poverty. Where ALL of these play a factor, they are not the cause. the cause is the persons clear choice to take that drink. History has shown that as Natives, we stand a chance of becoming addicted to alcohol, even from the very first drink. History has also shown us that, (and I'm speaking in very general terms here) our Mothers, Fathers, Aunties Uncles Grandparents, friends, cousins, have all been addicted, and that it is indeed a poison to us. But this is far from not being common knowledge anymore. Maybe 50 years ago we still could have blamed our alcoholism on the "white people who brought liquor to our lands", but no more.

As a recovering alcoholic myself I can tell you that watching my mother and father drink EVERY night after work, my uncles and aunties, EVERY night after work, and on the weekends, and seeing them drink more as their problems were harder to deal with, told me that's just how you deal with this stuff. But I also knew that when I picked up that first drink, EVERY bit of CRAP that went on in my house, every fight, every arrest, every assault, every night of nursing a parent so they didn't choke on their own puke, every next morning of walking on eggshells because the hang over was gonna be a B!*CH. And so were they, Nevertheless, I and I alone, still chose to take that first drink.

Now that is NOT to say that everything within my life and circumstance didn't play a factor in my decision, I mean after all I was bullet proof, that wasn't going to happen to me, I wont let it, I refuse to be like my drunken parents, but I STILL MADE THE DECISION to pick up a drink. And I was perfectly fine in my misery, the drunker I was, the more reason I had to drink. "DAMN White people, reservation, poverty, social workers, do gooders, etc, etc. Eventually something happened that gave me the want to live, cause I was killing myself, and I knew it, in fact I have some long term health issues that still may shorten my life because of it, no matter how much I knew I needed to be rid of this stuff, I couldn't, it had a hold of me and would NOT let go. Many times I drink for fear of felling the helplessness I felt from being dependent. Anyway, I wasn't ready to give it up, I wasn't ready for a horrible detox, and it really can only be described as brutal violence. I won't go into details. Eventually I made the choice to suffer through so that I could stop suffering. Again I made a conscious choice.

That being said, I've said it before, I will say it again. It is a Government cash cow, and NOTHING will EVER be done about Whiteclay. Everyone is making too much $$$$ off of it. Farmers, Harvesters, Transportation companies, Distillers, Brewers, Wholesalers, Retailers, Owners, Local, States and Federal Government. NOT GOING AWAY.

Ever notice how the poorer the neighborhoods, the closer the liquor stores are?

[GoggenGH]

Originally Posted by rezrazed

Holy Mackerel I didn't think this one was gonna still be a hot topic. It's good to see that it is, and that there is intelligent respectful dialog, unlike a few other posts that have gone on around here. lol

NDN's have a higher alcoholism rate, infact almost 6X's the national average. There are contributors to this: genetic, cultural, environmental, as well as poverty. Where ALL of these play a factor, they are not the cause. the cause is the persons clear choice to take that drink. History has shown that as Natives, we stand a chance of becoming addicted to alcohol, even from the very first drink. History has also shown us that, (and I'm speaking in very general terms here) our Mothers, Fathers, Aunties Uncles Grandparents, friends, cousins, have all been addicted, and that it is indeed a poison to us. But this is far from not being common knowledge anymore. Maybe 50 years ago we still could have blamed our alcoholism on the "white people who brought liquor to our lands", but no more.

As a recovering alcoholic myself I can tell you that watching my mother and father drink EVERY night after work, my uncles and aunties, EVERY night after work, and on the weekends, and seeing them drink more as their problems were harder to deal with, told me that's just how you deal with this stuff. But I also knew that when I picked up that first drink, EVERY bit of CRAP that went on in my house, every fight, every arrest, every assault, every night of nursing a parent so they didn't choke on their own puke, every next morning of walking on eggshells because the hang over was gonna be a B!*CH. And so were they, Nevertheless, I and I alone, still chose to take that first drink.

Now that is NOT to say that everything within my life and circumstance didn't play a factor in my decision, I mean after all I was bullet proof, that wasn't going to happen to me, I wont let it, I refuse to be like my drunken parents, but I STILL MADE THE DECISION to pick up a drink. And I was perfectly fine in my misery, the drunker I was, the more reason I had to drink. "DAMN White people, reservation, poverty, social workers, do gooders, etc, etc. Eventually something happened that gave me the want to live, cause I was killing myself, and I knew it, in fact I have some long term health issues that still may shorten my life because of it, no matter how much I knew I needed to be rid of this stuff, I couldn't, it had a hold of me and would NOT let go. Many times I drink for fear of felling the helplessness I felt from being dependent. Anyway, I wasn't ready to give it up, I wasn't ready for a horrible detox, and it really can only be described as brutal violence. I won't go into details. Eventually I made the choice to suffer through so that I could stop suffering. Again I made a conscious choice.

That being said, I've said it before, I will say it again. It is a Government cash cow, and NOTHING will EVER be done about Whiteclay. Everyone is making too much $$$$ off of it. Farmers, Harvesters, Transportation companies, Distillers, Brewers, Wholesalers, Retailers, Owners, Local, States and Federal Government. NOT GOING AWAY.

Ever notice how the poorer the neighborhoods, the closer the liquor stores are?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH rezrazed for your honesty, bravenest and courage!!!

I WANT to ask you this, "rezrazed", even though I know many of you think this is not my buisness, as I'm white, but my intention is pure and with a sincern hearth, so I prefer to get some "slap in the face" that not asking my question!!!

Growing up a family where everybody is drinking, living in a poor and rough environment, or physical reason, may explain why a person starts to drink, but if so, if we go back in the history, was this also the reason for why the first NDN started to drink?
Is there not another more profound reason for starting drinking?
And is not this reason related to not accepting your root, where you came from, your ancestors, your tradition and culture?
Is drinking not an attempt to forget all still, erase it all, "killing it"?

I hope that I don't get "fired" from this forum for posting these words!!! My post is not against any (with expection of the first white who started to sell alcohol to the NDN).

[AmigoKumeyaay]

Originally Posted by GoggenGH

THANK YOU VERY MUCH rezrazed for your honesty, bravenest and courage!!!

I WANT to ask you this, "rezrazed", even though I know many of you think this is not my buisness, as I'm white, but my intention is pure and with a sincern hearth, so I prefer to get some "slap in the face" that not asking my question!!!


I hope that I don't get "fired" from this forum for posting these words!!! My post is not against any (with expection of the first white who started to sell alcohol to the NDN).

Good to see you again Goggy!

A slap in the face has more honor than a kick in the ***

The U.S. Gov't tried Prohibition in the 1920's, so that was whiteman vs whiteman, and the power of alcohol won that battle.

Drunks will always get their juice, no matter the obstacles.

[rezrazed]

Originally Posted by GoggenGH

THANK YOU VERY MUCH rezrazed for your honesty, bravenest and courage!!!

I WANT to ask you this, "rezrazed", even though I know many of you think this is not my buisness, as I'm white, but my intention is pure and with a sincern hearth, so I prefer to get some "slap in the face" that not asking my question!!!

Growing up a family where everybody is drinking, living in a poor and rough environment, or physical reason, may explain why a person starts to drink, but if so, if we go back in the history, was this also the reason for why the first NDN started to drink?
Is there not another more profound reason for starting drinking?
And is not this reason related to not accepting your root, where you came from, your ancestors, your tradition and culture?
Is drinking not an attempt to forget all still, erase it all, "killing it"?

I hope that I don't get "fired" from this forum for posting these words!!! My post is not against any (with expection of the first white who started to sell alcohol to the NDN).

Goggen, I think at first alcohol was introduced to take advantage. Unfortunately natives seem to become addicted faster than other races/nationalities. Plus it was new and apparently good. lol. Then I think it became, we as a concurred people did to drown our sorrows. Now it's just more of a way of life. Drinking and its acceptance is because it's seen daily, its just become something you do.
I don't know if that has answered your question or not.

[muskrat_skull]

I was watching a documentary on alcohol in the US, and I didn't realize that going way back before prohibition and earlier, that people drank ALOT, all people, kids and old folks and mother. Because there weren't any scientific studies around about alcohol, people kind of thought that, like sugar, if it made you feel good, it was nutritious and supplying you with vitamins. In many European countries, water was unclean so wine and beer were the water replacements.

On the farm, it was common to be drinking in the fields, not lemonade but beer, even the smallest children. Since there were no child labor laws nor any ban against children drinking, no thought it was harmful for them other than the possibility of them getting drunk, kids drank. People drank alot! Everybody. Daily.

In the cities, men viewed drinking every night in the bar after work as their right and just reward for working all day. Women complained that their men spent there whole paychecks drinking in bars. And I think there it started for the white community.

In Indian communities, I think drunkenness might have been viewed as uncommonly bad by some individuals, whereas in the white community, it was just seen as a common thing, and not abnormal until women's temperance, some clergy may have objected to drunkeness somewhat, but it was commonplace in European society even within the church. So in some ways, Indian communities of the past might have been at the forefront in warning about the dangers of alcohol and limiting its use. The page below is pretty interesting about the scope of drinking among colonists and Indians.

http://www.answers.com/topic/indians-and-alcohol

[comadre]

Originally Posted by rezrazed

NDN's have a higher alcoholism rate, infact almost 6X's the national average. There are contributors to this: genetic, cultural, environmental, as well as poverty. Where ALL of these play a factor, they are not the cause. the cause is the persons clear choice to take that drink. History has shown that as Natives, we stand a chance of becoming addicted to alcohol, even from the very first drink. History has also shown us that, (and I'm speaking in very general terms here) our Mothers, Fathers, Aunties Uncles Grandparents, friends, cousins, have all been addicted, and that it is indeed a poison to us. But this is far from not being common knowledge anymore. Maybe 50 years ago we still could have blamed our alcoholism on the "white people who brought liquor to our lands", but no more.

As a recovering alcoholic myself I can tell you that watching my mother and father drink EVERY night after work, my uncles and aunties, EVERY night after work, and on the weekends, and seeing them drink more as their problems were harder to deal with, told me that's just how you deal with this stuff. But I also knew that when I picked up that first drink, EVERY bit of CRAP that went on in my house, every fight, every arrest, every assault, every night of nursing a parent so they didn't choke on their own puke, every next morning of walking on eggshells because the hang over was gonna be a B!*CH. And so were they, Nevertheless, I and I alone, still chose to take that first drink.

Now that is NOT to say that everything within my life and circumstance didn't play a factor in my decision, I mean after all I was bullet proof, that wasn't going to happen to me, I wont let it, I refuse to be like my drunken parents, but I STILL MADE THE DECISION to pick up a drink. And I was perfectly fine in my misery, the drunker I was, the more reason I had to drink. "DAMN White people, reservation, poverty, social workers, do gooders, etc, etc. Eventually something happened that gave me the want to live, cause I was killing myself, and I knew it, in fact I have some long term health issues that still may shorten my life because of it, no matter how much I knew I needed to be rid of this stuff, I couldn't, it had a hold of me and would NOT let go. Many times I drink for fear of felling the helplessness I felt from being dependent. Anyway, I wasn't ready to give it up, I wasn't ready for a horrible detox, and it really can only be described as brutal violence. I won't go into details. Eventually I made the choice to suffer through so that I could stop suffering. Again I made a conscious choice.

That being said, I've said it before, I will say it again. It is a Government cash cow, and NOTHING will EVER be done about Whiteclay. Everyone is making too much $$$$ off of it. Farmers, Harvesters, Transportation companies, Distillers, Brewers, Wholesalers, Retailers, Owners, Local, States and Federal Government. NOT GOING AWAY.

Ever notice how the poorer the neighborhoods, the closer the liquor stores are?

Wow.
I am saddened about the upbringing you describe and I congratulate you on your sobriety as it does show an inner strength you possess.But I have to say that I have experienced something completely different in native community than what you describe.And there are some things in your post that I feel compelled to counter. I will try to respectfully counter.lol

First I want to ask where you pulled your stats from? You did not identify the means in which you obtained this info.Working in the field of substance abuse I can tell you that the numbers will vary depending on the research reported.
Concerning the genetic connection (It has been a while since I have worked in this field) it seems the last I knew of there still had not been a genetic marker found in anyone that could identify, much less predispose one to alcoholism.Perhaps that has changed since I last studied the subject.
What I have found however is a definite pattern of generalization about alcoholism concerning the native community. Usually coming from the non native community and not from a native.It always saddens me to hear of such generalizing as it always fuels stereotyping which then of coarse breeds prejudice.

I personally know more native people who DO NOT DRINK than those who do.I have even heard of one community in Canada that is fully recovered and the entire town was alcohol free. NOT DRY. Alcohol free. (I hope someone on here knows what that community is and will post it. I heard of it 15 yrs ago.)And I have also heard it said that it is a very shameful thing in some communities to become drunken. More shameful than it is for the dominant culture.So I always cringe when someone states that drinking is culturally related somehow.
On the issue of being poor or living in poverty.
Many of my native friends have told me that if one has an adequate amount of family and friends then you are rich.And of coarse, because wealth as we all know is spread differently in native community than it is elsewhere. My point? simply that we should be careful how we define what poor is before we use it as a contributing factor to anything at all.

This thread is concerning the socio issue in Whiteclay, South Dakota. The only comment I have to this is that my hat goes off to the social workers and therapists seeking to bring healing to that community and thank God Almighty you rezrazed are not in community activism as your faith in community change seems lagging.

Originally Posted by GoggenGH

THANK YOU VERY MUCH rezrazed for your honesty, bravenest and courage!!!

I WANT to ask you this, "rezrazed", even though I know many of you think this is not my buisness, as I'm white, but my intention is pure and with a sincern hearth, so I prefer to get some "slap in the face" that not asking my question!!!

Goggen. How are you? Nice to see you again.Not sure why you say this is none of your business because you're white. You should knock that kind of thinking off yourself. Perhaps we "white" people should be more concerned about native issues and make it our business to vote and advocate for our native brothers and sisters as this would be to stand with them in the solutions instead of willfully turn our heads and sit in the problem another day.Make it your business.
I have one comment regarding this post. Be careful who you glean your info from. Just because someone is native does not make them an expert on every subject that touches the native world.
I respectfully disagree with how rezrazed communicated the alcohol problem as it pertains to native country.

[wyo_rose]

There have been studies showing that Native Americans lack an enzyme that helps metabolize alcohol.
http://hamsnetwork.org/metabolism/
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh301/14-17.htm
And I've seen this in person, where some NDN folks take forever to return to a 0.00 BAC after consuming alcohol.

IMHO this leads to the "partying for days" syndrome, which could lead to alcoholism.

Our local town has a "detox" center where they take drunks that are arrested, since there is no jail in town...both drunken natives and whites. They cannot leave until they have a 0.0 BAC. All whites are out by the next morning, or sooner. LOTS of natives are still in there the next day..sober..and just sitting it out before they can blow zeros.

But yeah, each individual has their own reasons for drinking. They can stop when they really want to. Most treatment situations are ineffective, unless the internal motivation to quit is already present.

Nowadays I get drunk about once every couple years, but still have to have an occasional margarita or two. I was a bad "partyholic" back in the day, and quit alcohol completely for about 12 years, when I was ready.

Waking up drunk, "half-shot" already, was great motivation for continuing the party. And it was so much darn FUN!!!
Of course, there are those that end up so hungover, that they use that as the excuse to keep drinking.

But yeah, there's a lot of natives that don't drink, a lot that can "handle" their liquor, and then the alcoholics - both sober and still drinking.

And nobody is better than anybody else. "There, but for the grace of God, go I."

[muskrat_skull]

Originally Posted by wyo_rose

There have been studies showing that Native Americans lack an enzyme that helps metabolize alcohol.
http://hamsnetwork.org/metabolism/
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh301/14-17.htm
And I've seen this in person, where some NDN folks take forever to return to a 0.00 BAC after consuming alcohol.

IMHO this leads to the "partying for days" syndrome, which could lead to alcoholism.

Yes, I think that is true. and also autoimmune diseases, diabetes, and liver disease that can be triggered by drinking, and probably other diseases as well. There is usually a genetic predisposition in diseases like lupus and diabetes, but something triggers it, either an infection, drinking or drugs, anything that might weaken the body.

[docat]

Originally Posted by wyo_rose

Nowadays I get drunk about once every couple years, but still have to have an occasional margarita or two. I was a bad "partyholic" back in the day, and quit alcohol completely for about 12 years, when I was ready.

Waking up drunk, "half-shot" already, was great motivation for continuing the party. And it was so much darn FUN!!!

I look back to my college days and think I was having fun, but I really wasn't enjoying it as much as I thought.

I realized I can't drink like you, Rose. I can't just have an occasional one or two. I can't have any.

When you are a teacher, the community looks up to you. When you are a parent, your little ones look up to you. When you realize all the people who count on you to be an adult, with full faculties, you realize, no matter how much fun it seems, it isn't worth risking their trust and their safety and their dependence on you.

I think a lot of us have bad childhood memories of adults drinking and not acting like adults. I decided back in college that this would stop with me, and I quit altogether.

Some are like Rose and can drink and stop at will. This is not so with many others...including me.

[GoggenGH]

Originally Posted by comadre

Wow.
... Goggen. How are you? Nice to see you again.Not sure why you say this is none of your business because you're white. You should knock that kind of thinking off yourself. Perhaps we "white" people should be more concerned about native issues and make it our business to vote and advocate for our native brothers and sisters as this would be to stand with them in the solutions instead of willfully turn our heads and sit in the problem another day.Make it your business. ...

No, you are right comadre! This IS the white-man's problem!!!! We are the ones giving the NDN this problem, so we should consider ourself responsable, and try to help, if our help is accepted.

Originally Posted by wyo_rose

There have been studies showing that Native Americans lack an enzyme that helps metabolize alcohol.
http://hamsnetwork.org/metabolism/
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh301/14-17.htm
And I've seen this in person, where some NDN folks take forever to return to a 0.00 BAC after consuming alcohol.

Thanks wyo_rose for this interesting and scientific information provided by these 2 links! The creator seems to have given the NDN an additional problem!
I have myself few experience with alcohol, it has never been a problem for me, but I need a drink from time to time, to escape from the daily worries and getting "a pause", knowing this is not the solution. As a person are surrounded by worries and problem, it's getting more and more easy to consider alcohol as a "friend".