• optional@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    4 days ago

    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.

  • bleistift2@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    3·
    14 days 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.

    • wieson@feddit.orgEnglish
      1·
      13 days ago

      It specifies the cultural application but broadens the temporal.

      (To be more direct: not every first nation practiced that technique.)

      • cheesybuddha@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        13 days ago

        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.worldEnglish
          0·
          13 days ago

          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.

            • Jtotheb@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              12 days ago

              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.worldEnglish
                11·
                11 days ago

                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.worksEnglish
    0·
    14 days 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

    • bleistift2@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      0·
      14 days 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.socialEnglish
        0·
        14 days 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.worldEnglish
          0·
          14 days 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.

          • hoppolito@mander.xyzEnglish
            1·
            13 days ago

            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)