#INM1yr webinar Winona LaDuke "Restoring Stable Indigenous Economies"

1392069_10152034625538223_953135916_n.jpg

Idle No More kicks off the #INM1yr webinar series on November 10th with Anishnaabe activist Winona LaDuke on Restoring Stable Indigenous Economies. Join us at 10am CST on Nov 10th, and stay tuned for more webinars running from Nov 10 – Dec 10.


BIO (from www.honortheearth.org)
Winona LaDuke (Anishinaabe) is an internationally acclaimed author, orator and activist. A graduate of Harvard and Antioch Universities with advanced degrees in rural economic development, LaDuke has devoted her life to protecting the lands and life ways of Native communities. In 1994, Time magazine named her one of America’s fifty most promising leaders under forty years of age, and in 1997 she was named Ms. Magazine Woman of the Year.

Other honors include the Reebok Human Rights Award, the Thomas Merton Award, the Ann Bancroft Award, the Global Green Award, and the prestigious International Slow Food Award for working to protect wild rice and local biodiversity. LaDuke also served as Ralph Nader’s vice-presidential running mate on the Green Party ticket in the 1996 and 2000 presidential elections. In addition to numerous articles, LaDuke is the author of Last Standing Woman (fiction), All Our Relations (non-fiction), In the Sugarbush (children's non-fiction), and The Winona LaDuke Reader. Her most recent book is Recovering the Sacred: the Power of Naming and Claiming (South End Press). An enrolled member of the Mississippi band of Anishinaabe, LaDuke lives with her family on the White Earth Reservation in northern Minnesota.

She is also the Founding Director of the White Earth Land Recovery Project, a reservation based non-profit devoted to restoring the land-base and culture of the White Earth Anishinaabeg. She helped found Honor the Earth in 1993 and has served in a leadership position since the organization’s inception.

WHEN
November 10, 2013 at 10am - 12pm
414 RSVPS

Will you come?


Showing 279 reactions

  • rsvped +6 2013-11-12 13:10:24 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:29:09 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:29:09 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:29:07 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:29:07 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:29:07 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:29:04 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:29:03 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:29:01 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:29:00 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:29:00 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:56 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:56 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:55 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:55 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:54 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:53 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:53 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:52 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:51 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:50 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:49 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:49 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:48 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:48 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:47 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:46 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-11 05:28:46 -0800
  • rsvped 2013-11-10 20:39:20 -0800
  • commented 2013-11-10 14:40:36 -0800
    Ms. LaDuke; “Indigenous Economies” & “MUNICIPAL EMANCIPATION
    In regard to your NM1yr webinar series “Restoring Stable Indigenous Economies” with
    Anishnaabe activist Ms.Winona LaDuke
    www.idlenomore.ca/n10webinar
    is there a reason why, Ms. Winona LaDuke, you did not share your understanding of the more comprehensive criteria that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord* which addresses the needs of the 95% – 99% of community members who are the most vulnerable?

    Similarly, do you, Ms. LaDuke, understand the significance of The WAD Accord in the context of:
    1) the recently announced First Nations’ “municipal emancipation”,
    2) corporate Canada’s arrangements with the executives of the Native & non Native political parties/organizations
    &
    3) the emerging form of the “democracy” of the “new” global economy,
    which will enable the new Native municipal communities to be sued by corporate China, corporate European Union, et al, by way of the C-CI Treaty**, CET Agreement***, et al, & their secret “Star Chamber”/tribunals should corporates China, the European Union, Canada, &/or, their shareholders, et al, feel that Native municipal communities, &/or, individuals are interfering, &/or, encumbering the accessing of the natural resources that might limit, &/or, negatively impact the value of the shares of the aforementioned corporate groups & their shareholders , et al?

    And, besides the value of the natural resources that are continuing to be found on the lands that are claimed by the new First Nations’ municipalities, what else of value can the aforementioned national corporate groups sue the new municipalities for?

    In addition, has anyone, including Ms. LaDuke, shared the information about the procedures & mechanisms whereby, individuals & groups can use corporate Canada’s & its shareholders funds to sue corporate Canada & its shareholders and those of China, the EU, et al, for preexisting challenges to the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, et al, for failing to share the information in The W.A.D. Accord including the basis for the Compensation that is embodied in it, etc.? Would Native Canadians prefer to utilize legal forums (courts) established by Native Canadians, or, utilize established, non Native courts & procedures that are run by Native Canadians, &/or, other adjudicating forums that are international, open to the public, without the fear of recriminations, et al?

    If you, &/or, any of your viewers/readers, &/or, potential readers in Canada, China, the European Union, et al, have any questions regarding the above, &/or:
    1) the Intent of the aforementioned “municipal emancipation” vs. the Intent of The WAD Accord, ie. protecting the rights of individuals, &/or, groups to sue corporate Canada with the assistance of the federal government to access corporate Canada’s funding in order to research, carry out the suits & enforce them, et al, at no cost, &/or, risk to the harmless, non shareholders,
    2) the non corporate Canada group that can/will investigate, adjudicate & enforce the “un ringing of the bell”, ie. ascertain whether corporate Canada, the federal government, et al, has lived up to the spirit & intent of the “municipal emancipation” to; a) protect & share the rights of the individuals & groups without the fear of recriminations, et al, b) compensate the non shareholders & c) render them to the harmless state that exists prior to “the emancipation”
    &
    3) et al,
    I can be contacted at:
    David E.H. Smith,
    2173 Bradford Ave.,
    Sidney, B.C.
    Canada. V8L 2C8

    For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in the C-CITreaty, the CETAgreement, et al, via The WAD Accord for Native & non Native Canadians, et al,
    see; Facebook; David Smith, Sidney, BC
    https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003319183540&fref=ts

    Sincerely,

    David E.H. Smith
    - Researcher
    - "Qui tam…

    China Press shared a link .
    https://www.facebook.com/CPhaokang?ref=stream&hc_location=timeline

    SPIEGEL International shared a link.
    https://www.facebook.com/spiegelinternational

    *The W.A.D. Accord
    …(basically) The W.A.D. Accord (aka; "The Australian Question”) as it pertains to Aboriginal Canadians states that most Canadians, et al, agree that it is a “right”, not a “privilege” for the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members, et al, to obtain from the government of Canada, et al, its (the government of Canada’s) criteria for ascertaining the health and robustness of their Native communities’ economies. That is to say; the criteria would probably include, amongst other things, a list of those environmentally sustainable businesses, industries and/or enterprises that can:
    1) provide the most vulnerable with the direct, cash dividends that amount to over two times (ie. factor of 2+) the
    amounts that the most vulnerable can obtain from all the present sources of social assistance,
    2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
    3) be expanded to provide over 100% employment of the most vulnerable members of an Aboriginal community,
    and
    4) etc.

    And, finally, “The Australian Question” states that because “some” of the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members are being deprived of the aforementioned benefits and the information regarding
    these benefits, the most vulnerable are entitled to be compensated** for their deprivation (ie. their poverty, despair, disenchantment, fear, unconscionably high rates of unemployment & suicides, etc).. “The Question” asks; is $47,400 ($87,000 Australian, circa 1984) per year a reasonable compensation …?"

    The Compensation; similar to the Residential Schools Abuse compensation, except larger.
    *
    C-CI Treaty; Canada – China Investment Treaty
    ****CET Agreement; The Canada – European Union Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement