https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture)
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’s not a correction, that’s an added detail.
Now that’s a correction.
It specifies the cultural application but broadens the temporal.
(To be more direct: not every first nation practiced that technique.)
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
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.
No it is not.
One person is talking about the past. The other person is talking about the present
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
“was” vs. “is”
As Mitch Hedberg would say
They used to use it
they still do.
But they used to, too!
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
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
I always wondered why we don’t do more polyculture ag
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.
That makes sense with the technology of the time but I imagine that’s probably changing
We still have people out in the fields picking vegetables. It’s not a solved problem.
Profit margins and prioritising short term gains. :(
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.
I like it when food is cheap and I don’t like it when poor people starve to death, shoot me.
It’s possible that otherwise good combinations don’t line up in terms of season and require crop rotation as opposed to polyculture.
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
The Iroquois are the Haudenosaunee. The latter is the more respectful and culturally appropriate term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois
Haudenosaunee (“People of the Longhouse”) is the autonym by which the Six Nations refer to themselves.[23] While its exact etymology is debated, the term Iroquois is of colonial origin. Some scholars of Native American history consider “Iroquois” a derogatory name adopted from the traditional enemies of the Haudenosaunee.[24] A less common, older autonym for the confederation is Ongweh’onweh, meaning “original people”.[25][26][27]
I did not know this before. Thank you!
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.
Having worked directly with these communities and their material culture, this is what I was taught, but I am happy to be corrected if there is another better perspective.
EDIT: I checked, since I am old and sometimes out of date. The Smithsonian and Library of Congress have switched terms since about 2022 to Haudenosaunee. https://americanindian.si.edu/sites/1/files/pdf/education/haudenosauneeguide.pdf
Edit, Edit: I get the joke now, but you’re all trapped in here with me now, so here’s an info-dump: I used “Iroquois” interchangeably until about 2022, which is right around when the American Anthropological Association and the Smithsonian made the formal switch. While “Iroquoian” is still used as a technical linguistic category, “Iroquois” is being phased out as a name for the people because of its colonial origins and its potential interpretation as a slur. I remember hmming and hawing about it back then, but ultimately, as I’ve learned more about Indigenous sovereignty, “Iroquois” just feels increasingly dated now in any context.
I agree with you, it was just a word joke
aaaaa lmfao sorry autistic moment
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 prefer her book on Moss. Check it out if you have not!!!
It’s a joke based on the different definitions/pronunciations of the word
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/appropriate
culturally appropriate term
don’t culturally appropriate
deleted by creator
There is a tense change. The second person is saying the technique is still used by those tribes today.
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.
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 “<plural> does <x>” without meaning “all <plural> do <x>”?
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.
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)
It is true that Native Americans used the 3 Sisters. Which ones? Those specific tribes, apparently.
First nations?
I believe that term is reserved for (some of) the indigenous peoples of modern-day Canada.
Indigenous peoples in Canada comprise the First Nations, Inuit and Métis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples#North_America
I think that’s why there’s a smile in the last square.
I thought it was a rock formation in Australia?
I think that’s more than three sisters
