>Obesity certainly is a factor increasing the risk of Type II
>(non-insulin-dependent diabetes). Obesity in turn is a function of lifestyle
>and diet but it is hardly true to say that the diet was forced upon
>aboriginals. It is not as if non-traditional diets that would not produce
>obesity were not available.
Nutritious non-traditional diets are available but often less affordable than unhealthy alternatives for Indians, who like Blacks are on the average much poorer than other groups in the States. Focus groups conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that "[a]lthough participants want to follow a diet regimen that will help control their diabetes, they said that foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables and leaner cuts of meat are not affordable. Government commodities -- often high in fat and sugars -- constitute a significant portion of their diet" (at <http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/focus/lessons.htm>).
>Aboriginal women are more likely to get type ii
>diabetes than men generally. However, age is an even more significant
>factor. Type ii diabetes in all populations is a disease of older persons.
>By the way Inuit have lower rates of diabetes even than the general
>population and much lower than other northern aboriginal peoples. Genetic
>factors also seem to play a role. The picture is quite complex. Although
>generally the less 'isolated" aboriginal populations have higher rates,
>several Canadian studies show higher rates on reserves than in aboriginals
>living in cities. Studies also show that aboriginal groups living close to
>one another and in similar conditions may have quite different rates of
>diabetes.
>For detailed studies see::
>http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/bceio/DR_paper.html
Thanks for the link. I agree that the picture is quite complex. My brief post certainly doesn't explain the differences found among Indians. Other things being equal, though, poverty tends to lead to poor diets.
>P.S. But what if people consider having higher risks of kidney failure, eye
>problems, and all the complications associated with type II diabetes
>as normal? Arent you using fitness and lower risks as normal and more
>desireable. This is to privilege the lower risks associated with the fit
>non-diabetic and hence to negatively evaluate the diabetic against the
>non-diabetic life. Your type of argumentation seems to have a family
>resemblance to what some disability activists would call ableist. Is there
>any significant difference? Believing that disabilities should be "cured" or
>that the disabled should be aided to do that which the able can do as much
>as possible and that one should feel sorry for those with disabilities, and
>so on are all part of the ableist ideology that sees disabled lives
>negatively, that we should feel sorry for the disabled, and although not all
>disabilities are curable we should try to ensure that the disabled can
>become as much like the able as possible--through technology etc.
One of these days, we need to get back to our debates with Marta.
Yoshie