you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 9 months ago* (33 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

  • source
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [+] [S] 51 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (12 children)
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] [S] 25 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I agree with you, it was just a word joke

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] [S] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 9 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (7 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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 9 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    I have no knowledge on the topic so I can't answer the first couple questions.

    However, I will say its a useful correction to say there are ongoing efforts to maintain historical practices if it makes the correctee happy to hear that (as is the case in the meme). It's also useful to remember that indigenous peoples still exist and aren't just historical (something a lot of US folks aren't taught in school)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (6 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 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 "?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 9 months 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)

  • source
  • parent