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.
That’s not a correction, that’s an added detail.
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.
Now that’s a correction.
“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