Reading my classmates blogs made me really think about the term "indigenous economies" because in the days of old the "food trade" was kind of like the economy. Profit would be how much food was harvested. However from the reading it is understood that in this time "the indigenous income" is "CASH received from the sale of...". A farmer in this time is not successful in the economy unless he is gaining cash from his harvest. The interesting thing about this is that we have conflicting values; "we" as in indigenous vs. capitalist system. What I mean is that to me land is way more valuable than money. You cannot eat green paper. However it is obvious that in the capitalist system money is more important than land. In a way money is the source of all of our development issues. At the same time me writing all of this just shows how one of the reasons why we may not be as successful in this cash economy is because of our frustration with this cash system. Not to get back on the victimization trip, but of course our people are not going to be doing well in this is system, if they have functioned through a different system for so many years. To eat, they needed land to grow food. Now, there is no land to grow food. Now we need green paper to get food. Hope I didn't go too off track but the reading made me think about how the economy effects indigenous people in this time. Big decisions are determined by the money. We couldn't stop H3, can we stop the rail?

This also made me think of the term "indigenous people". When we hear this word we visualize native people however are all humans ultimately indigenous to a certain place? Are white people indigenous people in Europe then? If a Indian lived in a European City system then he wouldn't be a indigenous person?