Entrance Slip : Sept 24
I think that scientific/ mathematical terminologies are
used for the purpose of common understanding in a certain community of people.
As stated in the article:
“the Potawatomi understanding of what it means to be animate
diverges from the list of attributes of living beings we all learned in Biology
101. In Potawatomi 101, rocks are animate, as are mountains and water and fire
and places. Beings that are imbued with spirit, our sacred medicines, our
songs, drums, and even stories, are all animate....of apple, we must say, “Who is that being?” And reply Mshimin yawe. Apple that being is.”
Due to different understanding of objects, one may have different approaches to terminologies. Westerners learn the terminologies we have for all the “objects” and define them as “inanimate” things. However, the Indigenous people may think otherwise. Terminologies in a way determines the stance we have when dealing with nature.
As stated, "The language is the heart
of our culture; it holds our thoughts, our way of seeing the world." It is
interesting to see how other cultures embrace the world and it is important in
our concept of Indigenizing the classroom and curriculum. Sometimes it may be
best to listen to others’ opinions instead of thinking that we are correct on
all things. For example, if a student tells us that an apple is animate, or
that it is a being, what should we do? Should we hold on to the “fact” that an apple
is an object or a plant instead of a living thing with spirits? That is kind of
hard to decide, because we certainly don’t want to instill too much
spirituality into our “scientific” curriculum. At the same time, we need to
acknowledge the possibility of that opinion being true. I think it is a matter
of wisdom, a matter of respecting other cultures while maintaining the
direction of study and while controlling the degree to which we involve spirituality
in our curriculum....
评论
发表评论