I agree with Joana when she said that "We all live in the modern age and I presume that very few indigenous people would choose to live like their forefathers". Also said: "the question is not how to turm the clock backwards or preserve some mystic "traditional" culture, but how we enable indigenous people nowerdays to gain more control of their fate".
In many cases this corruption comes from this global institutions, this powerfull economic institutions, like in the colonialism age come from the Catholic Church and conquerors
To presume that someone prefers your way of life to his needs tangible experience to become a premise of action.
The definition of indigenous ranges from the Inuit villages in the Northern States, the Xavantes in Brasil, Lo in Tibet, the Yanomamis in Venezuela or the Nagas in India. The Brasil government has opted for a "no intervention policy", meaning the tribe in the Amazons discovered a few months ago will remain unmapped. Lo for example is restricted to visitors under a very strict "ecological" code. In other countries like Mexico the concept of poverty equals indigenous. In such criteria a monk from Tibet is a poor man; an eskimo, the chaman and the ascetic from Mahabalipuram deserve to have a TV.
I can only say, show me a poor whale and we can discuss poverty. Poverty is an impossed perceived value of our society. Our social system should not have to be impossed on anybody. I think that each person already has control of their fate, until someone comes to "save" him. Poverty becomes automatic as soon as someone who was out of the loop comes into the loop, and we become the new catholic church, the new conqueror, this time instead of selling Christ we are selling cokes. I prefer the catholics...
Juan José Díaz Infante
Curador de Altamira
"Es mucho mas importante la imaginación que el conocimiento"