Introduction 3

as schools, churches, and post offices. Survival sounds simple, even obvious, but it is not to be taken for granted.

”Independence” can only be a relative term. Very few communities anywhere in the world are completely self—sufficient today, and few, I think, would want to be. There may still be tribes in the Amazon Basin or the valleys of New Guinea that have no contact with any other humans, but no such communities exist in this country. Even the Inuit and other First Peoples have become quite dependent on the rest of the world.

In my view, one way to define the level of independence is as follows: the community in question owns its principal businesses and institutions; they are not merely branches or franchises whose headquarters are located perhaps a thousand miles away. Another way would be to say many people in this community make their own decisions about some important matters, rather than letting the media or government - at any level - or the trends of the times decide for them. Interdependence would be a better term for what goes on in such communities in their dealings with the outside world. They give as well as take — and not just in the form of taxes. In addition, within their boundaries individuals and groups are interdependent. This amounts to considerably more independence than many communities have today. It could and should lead to some recognized form of equality and partnership with all levels of government. There may exist an ideal balance between what a community takes and what it gives, though that would have to be worked out for each site, and is beyond the scope of this book.

The last of these three attributes is co-operation. I deliberately use the older spelling with the hyphen because it makes the meaning of the word clearer. There