Ted- Ed is one of the goats for this, they represent so many cultures pretty well

I so appreciate it as someone not exposed to these stories. Stories connect us all, and keep us connected through the generations sharing them. Much love to you. 💜

I do have native American ancestry (Blackfoot), but I've never even been in touch with any of it. I'm also glad to hear these stories

YEAH!

@@vitisvinifera1590Also Native Descended! Hey!

Great to know

Neat!

Oh I thought the 3rd sister is some sort of pumpkin variety!

Malaysian here too

What do papaya and pumpkin do for each other?

What kind of knowledge do you think this is specifically, is it called indigenous farming/agriculture. Im just curious, i want to dive in these parts of youtube. As an indinesian who have seen so many problems around these topics I want to learn before its too late

@@milhamalfarisi4112 It makes sense! I think this would be considered Indigenous agriculture, although it's very closely tied to Indigenous medicine as well. In some cases where Indigenous crop cultivation has not historically required the clearing of forests, the term agroforestry might be more accurate than agriculture. There are Indigenous communities in all parts of the world and with them the earnest desire to protect these sorts of knowledge. I'm not sure that there's a consolidated resources base with free access, but there are some great videos on KZfaq and the reputable ones should have their sources listed for further research.

HUH 🤔ofc it´s valuable, wtf????

@@NanaKawaiis2 they're saying that this kind of knowledge is priceless...? like you can't put a physical price tag on it?

Couldn't agree more, giirl

Right

I did. It's called watching the video.

That was the reason I clicked it 😂

Fully agree. Its beautiful 😍

​@@ghostderazgrizyou can also check out the graphic artist credited in the video description 👍

Thank you for the recs!

Thank you for the book titles.

Screenshotted this

Thank you for the book titles!❤

Me too

@@yellowstarproductions6743 uhmm.. narrator seems like an ai voice. maybe it is!

@@Edits_via1707 there is a real narrator name

This isn’t the story of how the three sisters originated, this is just about how they survived the genocides carried out by settler colonists. Haudenosaunee nations all have their own stories about how the three sisters (often translated as “Our Life Sustainers” across the Haudenosaunee languages) came to be. also, they’re referred to as the perfect meal because together they form a complete protein, no meat necessary.

@@user-nv5sn3tb4e Also they taste great together

​@@user-nv5sn3tb4ethanks for that. Came here to say about the same. A lot of people are so used to mass industrial farming that they have no idea that meat is unnecessary, and meat eating has always been far less common than it is now. To me, and many tribes, the animals on this earth are our brothers and sisters. To kill them to add to a meal of the three sisters, thinking it incomplete otherwise, seems so wasteful and senseless. It makes me sad that people think of our fellow creatures as objects to lux up a completely healthy meal. The traditional Cherokee belief is that animals created diseases in retaliation to humans being to kill them. When someone kills an animal when it is not needed, my great grand mother said the spirit can track them down and make them sick with rheumatism and a host of other ailments.

I disagree. Meat is delicious not just because of its flavor and necessary not just because of its nutritional value, but because it helps satisfy a primal predatory instinct deeply engraved in our genome from the times of our hunter ancestors. Killing and eating prey is partially what turned our ape ancestors to the path towards becoming humans, intelligent and creative beings, before we were evolved enough to learn how to grow plants and manipulate, as first they learned how to use fire to cook meat. Even though the role played by the consumption of cooked meat in the brain growth of our ape ancestors is debated, I think its effect in our evolution from beings at the mercy of nature to wielders of our destiny is undeniable. I agree that mass production of meat is bad and we should reevaluate or way of consuming it, but no reason is sufficient to convince me (and many others) to stop consuming it completely. Maybe we should hunt more our meat for ourselves and our families instead of buying it in a supermarket, I think that would make us more conscious and responsible of our meat consumption

@@cochlea2719 Surely someone that cares as much about evolution as you seem to would know of vestigiality. When it comes to how I live my life, I have to prioritize what I can do with what I have now, not what was once useful to us in distant times and circumstances. Us vs them and predatory mindsets were useful when other hominids also occupied the planet and were direct competitors and threats to our survival, but now the same instinct cause people to want, and sadly achieve, the genocides of millions, never ending war, hyper-individualism, and all sorts of behaviors that are horrible for everyone involved, including the planet. The special thing about humans is that we often have the means to change our environments. We could do so to make a kinder world for ourselves and others, yet tend to choose not to and live in constant conflict and suffering, in exchange for little fleeting enjoyments and petty luxuries we never really needed. It's hard to argue against the idea that our desire to use and abuse those, who we see as different to us, is no longer working in favour of the survival and prosperity of our species. In my opinion, calling these instincts vestigial is putting it lightly, I think they're far worse than useless remnants. At our current rate, we are our own biggest threat to our species. Even from a completely amoral and solely tangible perspective, animal agriculture causes more pollution than all travel combined, planes, trains, boats, cars, all of it, greatly increases rates of desertification, uses massive amounts of water while greatly polluting it and the communitues it runs off to. Mathematically, practically, we simply cannot sustain our planet eating anywhere near the amount of meat that humans are. From what we currently know, most populations of humans have eaten very modest amounts of meat for the vast majority of our species existence. Now we're sacrificing our ancient rainforests for a few more measly decades of all-you-can-eat hamburgers and chicken nuggets. Evolving away from a predatory mindset might be the only thing that saves our species from destroying itself and the planet along with it. A predator requires endless victims in order to survive, but we only have one planet in the here and now. There is no killing this one and moving on to rob life from another planet. Just like a new type of virus will go extinct if it's so deadly that it kills its host before infecting another. These are all things that follow the theory of evolution. There are just too many questions I keep running into when trying to understand your reasoning. Or at least my interpretation of your reasoning, feel free to tell me I've misunderstood something or offer how you got through these questions yourself if I got the jist of it. Genuinely, How does a species begin to evolve something new if it just continues to mimic the old adaptations to old pressures? How can we ever evolve to fit our present circumstances if we prioritize using the past to inform our current actions? Evolution is driven by changes in the environment, and oh boy, has our entire human environment changed drastically from the stone age. Making a pretty drastic adaptation to our diets only makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. Why would changes so large as industrialization, globalization, and anthropomorphic climate change NOT cause our species to make some pretty drastic changes from humans 10,000+ years ago? How do you hold the belief that evolution is important to how you choose your diet, and at the same time that, choose to base your diet on your ancestors', rather than trying to change to adapt to the selective pressures of our current environment (which is essentially the active process of evolution.)

Truly! Tribes respected the earth and thrived before colonization simply through innovative ways like these

Affirmative my human brothers and sisters.

One of the main reasons for the fall of the "classical period" Mayans in the 10th century was the massive burning of land for cultivation. Stop generalizing and seeing the Native Americans as a people, there are hundreds of people, most of them never contacted the majority

Every group of people was indigenous to some location. if you read the book Collapse you will find evidence for native American tribes collapsing because of environmental destruction. The Anasazi in New Mexico ate every plant and cut down every tree for hundreds of miles to an extent they had to build roads to get food to the capital.

@@Nuaheal Exactly, the Anasazi destroyed the local environment to such an extent they had to build roads for hundreds of miles to transport enough food to the capital. Indigenous peoples are not magically wiser than any other peoples.

I agree! I wish this video had been around when I was teaching! I once taught in elementary school cooking class, and are used the story of the three sisters to explain these important crops, and in the end, we made a sort of succotash with each of the ingredients. This would have made a great addition as well!

We learned a bit about the three-sister farming method in history class but this video expanded on it so much more ❤

I bet a stew would be great! I’ve also made an amazing succotash with these ingredients

Me too

Same here

Me too

Crops being more expensive to harvest would raise the price of food, too. I love hearing about methods like these and plan to implement them into my garden. But I understand why it can't be done on a large enough scale to feed the whole population at an affordable price.

Then make it a political issue that is important to your vote. Ultimately, the US Government directs the nations farming because it is the one subsidizing most agricultural production ("free market", huh). That's why the Farmers have such a powerful voting block in politics; a mutually beneficial relationship. So if you want to see change, put your vote behind it. That's the only way to materialize change.

Technology tends to adapt to our needs. There was a time when electric cars were considered impractical on a large scale due to their many limitations. Today, Tesla is one of the most profitable companies on the S&P500.

@MoneyGist EV is heavily subsidised and most companies are losing money on it now. The technology isn't there yet. So I don't think that is a good analogy. But i get what you're saying.

@@magic_honey I mean it's an issue of there is a lot of laws and legislation that's moreso forcing the switch to them. Truthfully their not that practical and emit the same amount of emissions as a fossil fuel burning car, and can be worse in some cases. It's just instead of the car emitting the emissions, it comes in the form of the electricity it uses being sourced from fossil fuels, and the batteries needed required earth metals that require a lot of mining. So a good analogy for them is Germany, in that Germany lowered their carbon emissions by a significant amount, but it was done so through carbon bartering in that another country was producing the emissions for them instead..

Me too

Especially when the elder generation dies, along with the knowledge. We also have little to no local literature with such information (even if there were, it's hard to access such books)

- our hearts!

WOW

👌excellent

Where are you studying mate ?

oh god is it in ncert? i mean the story?

@@Abhi_dominates GMC NAGPUR (cause I'm a localite so prefered it over KEM Mumbai)

Agreed

Aztecs (Tenochcas, Tlaxcaltecas and many more): XD

‼️‼️

Make sure you EFF IT UP KING

That’s the thing many plants in nature rely on connects wether with fungi or bacteria and other plants to thrive with the downside of less resources for it specifically.

The problem is that the Anglo-Saxons separate folklore and religion from Native American science, if you want to understand them, you should not separate those concepts, they are very related.