• cheesybuddha@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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

  • bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

  • TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    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

    • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Aren’t the named tribes a subset of native Americans, so it can be true without the original statement being false?

      The original statement implies the technique was widespread across Native American groups. It’s almost certainly false for the ones here in South America; there’s a lot on terrace farming and slash-and-burn, but AFAIK nothing that resembles the companion system of the three sisters. (I wonder if it’s due to the prominence of subterranean crops. Taters, yucca, sweet potatoes.)

      The Haudenosaunee/Iroquois and the Cherokee/Tsalagi being related hints me it was something they developed.

    • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      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]

      • bryophile@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        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.xyzOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          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.

          • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 hours ago

            While “Iroquoian” is still used as a technical linguistic category

            I’m guessing this won’t last for long, given some people already call the language family “Ogwehoweh” instead of “Iroquoian”. Example here.

              • bryophile@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                6 hours ago

                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.

    • glilimith@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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

    • bleistift2@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        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>”?

        • cheesybuddha@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          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.