Was Pythagoras Chinese? - Reflection

As math teachers, we have the privilege of teaching knowledge which was discovered and proven, independently, by several ancient civilizations. This means that for many of the concepts we teach, there are multiple unique histories that can be used to provide meaningful context. With this in mind, how should we choose what to share? To answer this, I want to lean on what I believe is the purpose of including history in the first place:

Integrating the history of math into our math classes serves to inspire students by providing context which explains why the concepts were originally of interest.

 With this in mind, teachers trying to decide which histories to share should firstly consider the ethnicity of the students being taught. For example, a class of 2^nd and 3^rd generation Chinese immigrants (not uncommon in Vancouver) would likely find the Chinese history associated with Right Angle Theory much more relevant (and perhaps even understandable?) than the Greek equivalent. Similarly, if one is teaching to a class with primarily European Ancestry, the associated Greek history would make more sense to teach for the same reason.

Regardless of which history one focuses on, it is important to communicate to the students that other ancient civilizations also developed this knowledge in their own, unique ways. It would be extremely colonial to present exclusively one culture’s history, particularly in a subject (such as Math) where the knowledge being taught was discovered, independently, by many cultures around the world.

Lastly, in Math, Science, Humanities, and any other subject, I think naming concepts, constants, or ideas after the original inventor/discoverer is a bad idea. I have two reasons for this:

1. Often, the assumption is that the person who invents/discovers something is the FIRST invent/discover the relevant idea. As is the case with Pythagoras, this is not always true.

2. It is a missed opportunity to make ideas more accessible. I generally believe that it would be better to have self-describing names, particularly for ideas which have been shown to be fundamental to the universe. Instead of Boltzmann Constant, why not Gas Temperature Constant? Instead of Planck Length, why not simply Smallest Theoretical Length (STL)? I suggest these names with a healthy does of sarcasm (I don’t know how accurate the are) but I believe their advantage is clear. In particular, they would remove some mystery and gatekeeping from the academic world.