this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
531 points (98.5% liked)

Science Memes

18992 readers
1386 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 75 points 2 days ago (3 children)

That's not a correction, that's an added detail.

[–] wieson@feddit.org 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It specifies the cultural application but broadens the temporal.

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

[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No it is not.

One person is talking about the past. The other person is talking about the present

[–] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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 1 points 8 minutes ago* (last edited 8 minutes 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

[–] prex@aussie.zone 26 points 1 day ago

Now that's a correction.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day ago (3 children)
[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 12 points 1 day ago

As Mitch Hedberg would say

They used to use it

they still do.

But they used to, too!

[–] cheesybuddha@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 106 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 14 points 2 days ago (3 children)

I always wondered why we don't do more polyculture ag

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That makes sense with the technology of the time but I imagine that's probably changing

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 day ago

We still have people out in the fields picking vegetables. It's not a solved problem.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Profit margins and prioritising short term gains. :(

[–] ebolapie@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago

I like it when food is cheap and I don't like it when poor people starve to death, shoot me.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[–] F_State@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago

It's possible that otherwise good combinations don't line up in terms of season and require crop rotation as opposed to polyculture.

[–] TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (7 children)

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

[–] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 2 points 15 hours ago

There is a tense change. The second person is saying the technique is still used by those tribes today.

[–] fossilesque@mander.xyz 51 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (13 children)

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]

[–] Mandarbmax@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

I did not know this before. Thank you!

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] F_State@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago

That's what I was thinking. Native Groups in many parts of North America didn't practice agriculture at all or used rudimentary agriculture.

[–] glilimith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 days ago (10 children)

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

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

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 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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 0 points 1 day 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)

load more comments (3 replies)

I think that's why there's a smile in the last square.

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I thought it was a rock formation in Australia?

[–] psud@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago

I think that's more than three sisters

load more comments
view more: next ›