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.

At the start of Gale’s lecture, she starts off by stating, “There is no mathematical gene” and that “As infants, we think mathematically before we think linguistically”. She then goes on to talk about how children attended a course and learnt math above their grade level. She then goes on to talk about how many people are able to learn math easily. In Bear’s article, they talk about how in the Western European belief system, there is only “one true answer and one right way”. However, in Poirier’s article, they explain that Inuit communities and peoples believe that there is much more than one right way and one right answer. Another significant way that Inuit mathematics challenges Eurocentric ideas is by who teaches the students. Inuit communities teach children by teachers, but as seen through Bear’s article, children are also taught by Elders and family members. Inuit mathematics education recognizes the importance of intergenerational knowledge transfer and community involvement. Challenging the way Eurocentric ideas have about only being taught by teachers. Furthermore, Inuit teachings in mathematics are taught with “a base-20 numeral system” and “20 and 400 are pivotal numbers”. These numbers challenge Eurocentric ideas. The way Inuit people and communities measure things also challenges Eurocentric ideas. Poirier’s article explains that when Inuit people measure things, they use “measuring tools were parts of the body”; women use “the palm when making atigi (parkas)”. These challenges the norms of Eurocentric ideas because they usually believe the measurements should be by a ruler or a different measuring tool.

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?

The ‘single stories’ I encountered in my own schooling were the residential schools. In elementary school, mainly, I was taught that residential schools are bad and that Indigenous people experience a lot of trauma. However, it was not until university that I learnt about the effects of schools and intergenerational trauma. It was not until high school in my later years that I learnt that residential schools did not happen 100 years ago; they were recent. I also learnt about the extent of trauma students experience. Teachers left out information about these schools, showing a part of the story but not the entire truth of it. I also did not learn about treaty rights and Section 35 of the constitution act in 1982, where it was not until 1983 that all Indigenous people were “Indigenous” until I took Indigenous studies in university. If I did not take that class and did not learn about the extent of the trauma Indigenous people and communities had to go through, my viewpoint would be very different. For a while in high school, I wondered why we had to keep learning about residential schools. However, now I realize that we learnt about them, even if it is the half-truth, so we work toward building an understanding and moving toward truth and reconciliation. We learn and work against biases by teaching students the whole truth and teaching students that some ways of thinking are oppressive and cause a lot of damage. By teaching students this way of thinking and getting rid of biases, we teach students and other generations. For example, the student goes home and educates their parents about