ECS 203 Blog Post #6

Using Gale’s lecture, Poirier’s article, and Bear’s article, identify at least three ways in which Inuit mathematics challenge Eurocentric ideas about the purpose of mathematics and the way we learn it.

Learning Mathematics can go one of two ways; you either get it or do not. The Inuit ways of approaching mathematics differ from the Eurocentric in a way that is less complex. The Eurocentric ways are linear, singular, static, and objective, meaning there is only one right answer or a start and a finish. The Inuit ways challenge this. First, the Inuit begin to teach their students math instead of learning letters, reading, writing, or other basic subjects in their first few years of education. Up until the third grade, everything was taught and learned in their native language and numbers. This is because when learning their native language, they can understand the differences between something that is singular and plural. Whereas in a Eurocentric way, reading and writing got taught first.

The Inuit ways also use nature and spatial awareness to solve mathematical problems and orient themselves. For example, ‘reading’ snowbanks, assessing direction through the wind, or smelling how salty the air is to estimate how far one is from the nearest bay. A Eurocentric view would instead use a compass to determine the direction or a map to locate the closest bay. When measuring length, the Inuit people would use parts of their body such as their fingers, feet, etc, as their measuring units. The Eurocentric view would use tools like rulers or tape measurers to determine the length of something. The Inuit people have their own calendar that neither is lunar nor solar but depends on naturally independent reoccurring events that happen yearly.

The Eurocentric ways focus a lot on educating within the classroom and not as much on external learning. The Inuit ways focus much on learning from parents and relatives, friends, and people in the community. They encourage hands-on learning and one-on-one learning that does not happen within schools. Lastly, the Inuit ways emphasize the importance of storytelling within their education systems. Through stories, customs, values, and knowledge is passed down to be taught and eventually shared. In terms of mathematics, storytelling allows students to make real-life connections within their learning and find traditional ways of solving problems. Eurocentric ways would focus more on formulas and memorized materials as opposed to using what nature provides.

 

Which “single stories” were present in your own schooling? Whose truth mattered? What biases and lenses do you bring to the classroom? How might we unlearn/ work against these biases?

When I was in school, a “single story” usually was related to something racist. A few common ones that I remembered were that Chinese students were all smart, White students were all basic, or all the Black students came from Africa. It was like one thing defined and categorized the entire race or ethnicity of particular groups. Of course, these were only perceptions people made based on assumptions or what other people had told them. These single stories are only true if the people who are being singled out accept it for themselves. In the Ted Talk, Chimamanda talked about how her roommate had created her own single story for her upon her arrival. To her roommate, she was simply just “African.” After getting to know Chimamanda, her room learned that she spoke English growing up and even had a similar taste in music. Before even getting to know who Chimamanda was, her roommate already decided what she saw her as. As a future educator, I believe it is important to limit the creation of similar stories within the classroom. I feel that it is undermining towards who and what a person is. Everyone has their own backgrounds and stories that deserve to be shared to show people who they are. I think moving forward we should adapt this goal of not making assumptions or conclusions about anyone before taking the time to get to know them.