The Three Sisters […] are the three main agricultural crops of various indigenous people of Central and North America: squash, maize ("corn"), and climbing beans […]. […] In a technique known as companion planting, the maize and beans are often planted together in mounds […]; squash is typically planted between the mounds. The cornstalk serves as a trellis for climbing beans, the beans fix nitrogen in their root nodules and stabilize the maize in high winds, and the wide leaves of the squash plant shade the ground, keeping the soil moist and helping prevent the establishment of weeds.
That is incorrect, like incorrectly referring to the agricultural practices only in the past tense, or incorrectly lumping all peoples who lived in the Americas prior to European colonization into one generic group. The fact that both viewpoints are not equally correct is what makes it a correction.
What the hell are you talking about? The statement "Native Americans used the Three Sisters in the past" is a 100% correct statement. Just because it isn't as precise as you want it to be doesn't mean it's not accurate
I don't get the joke? Aren't the named tribes a subset of native Americans, so it can be true without the original statement being false? Also, I thought the Iroquois used it too
Edit: yes, the Haudenosaunee are the Iroquois. Til
Edit: come on, it's just a word joke from a none native speaker. Culturally appropriate and cultural appropriation is pretty close no? I never realized until now and thought it was funny.
No worries, it was not the most clear joke (it went over people's head I think, seeing the downvotes).
All jokes aside though, coincidentally I just finished reading Robin Wall Kimmerer's "Braiding Sweetgrass", which has reinvigorated my respect for the Haudenosaunee and the Three Sister's. Such a great read! I'm a student of ecology at the moment, and I studied Social Anthropology years ago so it was double interesting.
I read it as criticising reductionist views of the many diverse nations that existed in North America before Europeans showed up and decided that the whole continent was Terra Nullius.
To this day a significant number of US high school American History textbooks only discuss the tribes in terms of their interactions with European invaders, and shy away from anything that might make them look like they were ever legitimate nations. Referring to them as 'Native Americans' instead of by name also has this effect.
I have no knowledge on the topic so I can't answer the first couple questions.
However, I will say its a useful correction to say there are ongoing efforts to maintain historical practices if it makes the correctee happy to hear that (as is the case in the meme). It's also useful to remember that indigenous peoples still exist and aren't just historical (something a lot of US folks aren't taught in school)
Well, “Native Americans” means everything from whoever lived on the tip of today’s Argentina all the way to the Inuit. So saying “native Americans” when it’s actually just two tribes is wrong.
Edit: Wikipedia says the technique was used by ‘various’ people.
So if you say like "people farm beans" that's wrong because not all people farm beans? Presumably not all of the people in those two groups, it even every community within them, use the three sisters method, so is it still wrong?
Or is it just that it's ok to say " does " without meaning "all do "?
We all learned how categories like this work in school - squares are rhombuses but rhombuses aren't necessarily squares. It's weird that some people would argue like against that.
Well I do think there’s a certain tipping point where this categorisation breaks down to just ‘technical’ correctness.
If I live in a village and there’s a dude called Toby who regularly gets drunk and shits in the main square, but he’s the only one to do it, I’d be a little miffed if a newspaper ran the headline ‘people in this village shit in the main square’. If a newspaper somewhere else ran with ‘people in this country shit in the main square’ most would agree that this veers into being wrong, though technically correct.
If Toby had one friend he always did this with, for me the general consensus wouldn’t change. But what if he brought out the whole pub to do it or more people joined in? That may change things.
That line is what people are arguing whether it’s crossed here or not. If most of Native Americans did it, sure the category will apply. But if only two out of dozens do? May be a different context (and closer to what is an ‘essentialization’ of those cultures)
43 Comments
bleistift2@sopuli.xyz · 103 pts · 209d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture)
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 30 pts · 209d
cheesybuddha@lemmy.world · 77 pts · 209d
That's not a correction, that's an added detail.
prex@aussie.zone · 27 pts · 209d
Now that's a correction.
m0darn@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 209d
"was" vs. "is"
TheFogan@programming.dev · 12 pts · 209d
As Mitch Hedberg would say
They used to use it
they still do.
But they used to, too!
cheesybuddha@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 209d
Ok, so it wasn't even an added detail. It was changing the topic to present day instead of the past. That's even further from a correction imo
Legianus@programming.dev · 1 pts · 209d
Being pedantic it is added detail. As native Americans did it, even if they still do it, they could have originally/historically not done so.
And also are there tribes/larger groups of native americans that did stop doing it? Then that statement is even stronger
wieson@feddit.org · 11 pts · 209d
It specifies the cultural application but broadens the temporal.
(To be more direct: not every first nation practiced that technique.)
cheesybuddha@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 208d
And thus is not a correction. It's an added detail at best, or at least a change of topic. It's not a corretion
Jtotheb@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 208d
Changing the past tense to present tense (these people and practices are still very real, they are not just part of “the past”) is a correction.
cheesybuddha@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 208d
No it is not.
One person is talking about the past. The other person is talking about the present
Jtotheb@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 208d
That is incorrect, like incorrectly referring to the agricultural practices only in the past tense, or incorrectly lumping all peoples who lived in the Americas prior to European colonization into one generic group. The fact that both viewpoints are not equally correct is what makes it a correction.
cheesybuddha@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 207d
What the hell are you talking about? The statement "Native Americans used the Three Sisters in the past" is a 100% correct statement. Just because it isn't as precise as you want it to be doesn't mean it's not accurate
TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 209d
I don't get the joke? Aren't the named tribes a subset of native Americans, so it can be true without the original statement being false? Also, I thought the Iroquois used it too
Edit: yes, the Haudenosaunee are the Iroquois. Til
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 49 pts · 209d
Mandarbmax@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 209d
I did not know this before. Thank you!
bryophile@lemmy.zip · -3 pts · 209d
Don't culturally appropriate please
Edit: come on, it's just a word joke from a none native speaker. Culturally appropriate and cultural appropriation is pretty close no? I never realized until now and thought it was funny.
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 24 pts · 209d
lvxferre@mander.xyz · 9 pts · 209d
bryophile@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 209d
I agree with you, it was just a word joke
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 209d
bryophile@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 209d
No worries, it was not the most clear joke (it went over people's head I think, seeing the downvotes).
All jokes aside though, coincidentally I just finished reading Robin Wall Kimmerer's "Braiding Sweetgrass", which has reinvigorated my respect for the Haudenosaunee and the Three Sister's. Such a great read! I'm a student of ecology at the moment, and I studied Social Anthropology years ago so it was double interesting.
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 209d
DrWorm@piefed.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 209d
It’s a joke based on the different definitions/pronunciations of the word
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appropriate
Stamau123@lemmy.world · -6 pts · 209d
lvxferre@mander.xyz · 4 pts · 209d
lvxferre@mander.xyz · 9 pts · 209d
F_State@midwest.social · 2 pts · 209d
That's what I was thinking. Native Groups in many parts of North America didn't practice agriculture at all or used rudimentary agriculture.
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 209d
I read it as criticising reductionist views of the many diverse nations that existed in North America before Europeans showed up and decided that the whole continent was Terra Nullius.
To this day a significant number of US high school American History textbooks only discuss the tribes in terms of their interactions with European invaders, and shy away from anything that might make them look like they were ever legitimate nations. Referring to them as 'Native Americans' instead of by name also has this effect.
glilimith@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 6 pts · 209d
I believe it's the verb tenses. Instead of it being a historical fact, it's an ongoing practice of an ongoing group of people
Horsecook@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 209d
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 5 pts · 209d
glilimith@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 209d
I have no knowledge on the topic so I can't answer the first couple questions.
However, I will say its a useful correction to say there are ongoing efforts to maintain historical practices if it makes the correctee happy to hear that (as is the case in the meme). It's also useful to remember that indigenous peoples still exist and aren't just historical (something a lot of US folks aren't taught in school)
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 209d
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 209d
Horsecook@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 209d
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 209d
Horsecook@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 209d
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 209d
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 209d
bleistift2@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 209d
Well, “Native Americans” means everything from whoever lived on the tip of today’s Argentina all the way to the Inuit. So saying “native Americans” when it’s actually just two tribes is wrong.
Edit: Wikipedia says the technique was used by ‘various’ people.
FishFace@piefed.social · 3 pts · 209d
So if you say like "people farm beans" that's wrong because not all people farm beans? Presumably not all of the people in those two groups, it even every community within them, use the three sisters method, so is it still wrong?
Or is it just that it's ok to say " does " without meaning "all do "?
cheesybuddha@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 209d
It's not wrong.
We all learned how categories like this work in school - squares are rhombuses but rhombuses aren't necessarily squares. It's weird that some people would argue like against that.
hoppolito@mander.xyz · 1 pts · 208d
Well I do think there’s a certain tipping point where this categorisation breaks down to just ‘technical’ correctness.
If I live in a village and there’s a dude called Toby who regularly gets drunk and shits in the main square, but he’s the only one to do it, I’d be a little miffed if a newspaper ran the headline ‘people in this village shit in the main square’. If a newspaper somewhere else ran with ‘people in this country shit in the main square’ most would agree that this veers into being wrong, though technically correct.
If Toby had one friend he always did this with, for me the general consensus wouldn’t change. But what if he brought out the whole pub to do it or more people joined in? That may change things.
That line is what people are arguing whether it’s crossed here or not. If most of Native Americans did it, sure the category will apply. But if only two out of dozens do? May be a different context (and closer to what is an ‘essentialization’ of those cultures)
TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 209d
First nations?
bleistift2@sopuli.xyz · 1 pts · 209d
I believe that term is reserved for (some of) the indigenous peoples of modern-day Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples#North_America
cheesybuddha@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 209d
It is true that Native Americans used the 3 Sisters. Which ones? Those specific tribes, apparently.
WolfLink@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 208d
There is a tense change. The second person is saying the technique is still used by those tribes today.
Squirrelsdrivemenuts@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 209d
I think that's why there's a smile in the last square.
fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net · 13 pts · 209d
I always wondered why we don't do more polyculture ag
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 209d
It's more labor intensive, especially for corn. You can't just run a big harvester over the field, someone has to go out and pick it.
fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 209d
That makes sense with the technology of the time but I imagine that's probably changing
queermunist@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 209d
We still have people out in the fields picking vegetables. It's not a solved problem.
fossilesque@mander.xyz · 10 pts · 209d
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 209d
It's more the fact that you can really only do handwork on a polyculture field, so it's completely unsuited for anything but subsistence farming.
ebolapie@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 208d
I like it when food is cheap and I don't like it when poor people starve to death, shoot me.
F_State@midwest.social · 1 pts · 209d
It's possible that otherwise good combinations don't line up in terms of season and require crop rotation as opposed to polyculture.
Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 209d
I thought it was a rock formation in Australia?
psud@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 209d
I think that's more than three sisters
brotundspiele@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 200d
Correction: The three sisters is an agricultural technique that is used by me in my garden. And I'm neither a Cherokee nor a Haudenosaunee.