Part 1 (Numeracy): 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.

Growing up, I was constantly told in school that you are either an English person or a math person – never both. As someone who did not particularly excel in math, I just thought that my brain was more tailored to English and lacked some essential math wiring. There were many times that I was able to solve a math problem and find the correct answer using my own agglomeration of made-up steps that made more sense to me. However, because I was not following the teacher’s specific steps, I would get marks docked off. Because I was being punished for using my own strategies, this led me to believe that there was only one right way to do math; therefore, since I did not understand it that way, I was bad at math. Gale’s lecture was eye-opening for me. She states, “We are all mathematical beings, but we all do mathematics in our own way.” She also explains, “We’ve been trained to think that very few of us are [mathematical beings].” Hearing her explain this concept was shocking to me. It made me realize that Eurocentric and colonial ideals of education are still very much embedded in our schooling. Children are taught that there is only one way to do things, just as the colonizers forced First Nations children in residential schools to abandon their cultural forms of knowledge to implement the sole use of Eurocentric knowledge.

Watching Gale’s lecture and reading Poirier and Bear’s articles, I learned some ways in which Inuit mathematics differs from Eurocentric ideas of mathematics and the preconception that math is universal:

1. In Inuit mathematics, what children are taught applies to their daily lives. Relationships are drawn from math to life. For instance, Poirier lists different ways Inuit people measure time and length. He explains their calendar changes constantly to reflect “natural, independently reoccurring yearly events” (p. 61). The months are also named after corresponding events that occur in nature during that time (i.e., “coldest of all months”). These relationships make Inuit math purposeful. On the contrary, Eurocentric mathematics is taught from a disconnected approach. Students are encouraged to simply memorize numerical content such as multiplication tables or formulas. Few real-life connections are drawn. Thus, students are often left wondering, “Why do we even need to know this?” Eurocentric math fails to draw relationships and instill a sense of purpose.

2. Inuit mathematics views time as cyclical rather than linear. Bear explains that all things have energy and a spirit that puts them in constant motion (p. 77). Furthermore, because things are constantly moving, “one has to look at the whole to begin to see patterns” (p. 78). Thus, time is thought of as a cyclical whole where there is no beginning or end. It simply exists. Due to the cyclical nature of time, Inuit mathematics takes on a more subjective approach, as nothing is absolute or definite. Math cannot be viewed as “black/white” (p. 78). Eurocentric mathematics takes on an entirely opposite approach. It considers time as linear, in which there is a beginning, an end, and a progression of events in between. Math then becomes objective and hierarchal structures are supported. Bear states, “Terms of bigger, higher, newer, or faster [are] being preferred over smaller, lower, older, or slower” (p. 82). It is believed that there is only one correct answer and one way to get there.

3. Eurocentric ideologies focus on the externalization of knowledge. Thus, mathematics is demanded to be learned by students purely for the sake of them learning it. Regardless of the fact that the content lacks substance, learners are supposed to want to learn it. They are expected to memorize and regurgitate soulless information willingly and proficiently. Alternatively, Inuit ideologies focus on the internalization of knowledge. Therefore, students should learn to value mathematics and see the importance of learning it through the connections it has to their culture and community. Students will realize that if “all do their parts, then social order will be the result” (Poirier, p. 84). They learn their role in the community and, consequently, the role of math.

Part 2 (Literacy): 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? 

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the Indigenous education I was exposed to in my elementary and secondary school years was quite limited. A single story that I experienced pertains to Canadian/American colonial history. When I was in elementary school, I remember reading class books such as Little House on the Prairies and Anne of Green Gables. These books told stories about White settler families in the late 1800s. Thinking back, although the books were playful and kindhearted, they portrayed exclusively White colonial narratives that ignored Indigenous perspectives and stories. Because my teachers did not really expose us to any other Indigenous materials, I grew up ignorantly thinking that the history of White settlers in Canada and America was completely innocent. I did not understand why First Nations people were upset because all I was exposed to were pleasant, warm, and naïve narratives. I viewed the history of Canada and the US from a White/colonial lens, ignorant of the struggles that Indigenous people faced during that time. It was the White truth that mattered rather than the Indigenous truth. As Adichie explained in her video, “Start the story with the arrows of the Native Americans, and not with the arrival of the British, and you have an entirely different story.” My teachers should have explained the history from an Indigenous lens. Throughout my university experience, I have been exposed to a plethora of Indigenous content, which has helped to break down my learned biases. As a future educator, I plan to incorporate a variety of Indigenous materials into my lessons and ask my students questions that guide them to recognize their biases and understand different lenses. As Kumashiro states, “[learning about social difference] involves reflecting on how we as readers use different lenses to read and how those lenses make possible only certain understandings, emotions, and changes” (p. 76). It is also crucial to note that “as White teachers, the work of interrupting one’s own privilege is never done” (Kumashiro, p. 77). While I work to help break down the biases of my students, I will simultaneously be working on myself. This process is a lifelong journey.

The above paragraphs draw from the following readings and videos:

Bear, L. L. (2000). Jagged worldviews colliding. In M. Batiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision (pp. 77-85). UBC Press.

Curriculum as Numeracy: Gale Russell’s Guest Lecture for ECS210 – YouTube

Chapter 7 (Examples from English Literature) from Kumashiro’s Against Common Sense. p. 71-79. 

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie: The danger of a single story | TED Talk

Poirier, L. (2007). Teaching mathematics and the Inuit community, Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 7(1), p. 53-67.