Reading Response 9

Thinking back on my own experience with mathematics, I have a hard time remembering whether or not there were aspects of it that were oppressive (mostly because I never enjoyed math, so I try to forget my experiences with it). I can remember a few instances of students in the class finding different ways of doing a problem than that of the teacher, and getting a failing mark on that assignment because of the different way (even though they got the same answer). I do believe that these instances were, in fact, very oppressive. It’s not like they got a different answer, is I’m not sure what the problem was with what they were doing.
Three ways in which Inuit mathematics challenge Eurocentric ideas about the purposes of mathematics and the way we learn it include: the fact that Inuit math and counting is very contextual (for example, there are different names for the number three depending on the context – so, ‘pingasulalik’ means “three inside” whereas ‘pingasut’ means “three objects), their use of animal activity or nature to name months and determine their length (for example, September is ‘when the caribou’s antlers lose their velvet’ and the length of the month changes each year depending on when the caribou lose the velvet on their antlers), and how they use body parts to measure length depending on what they’re making (for example, the Inuit use palms when making parkas).

1 thought on “Reading Response 9”