We pay while Indians live in luxury

[Live From China]

OK, here goes. There is a tremendous amount of naysaying on both sides of this issue. The law can be changed. No, it can't. Yes, it can. Spinning our tires and going nowhere.

Over the last ten years, I have spent a considerable amount of time working with the FN's. Naturally, this issue has come up many times. I think we can all be enlightened by the views of FN's, not at the bargaining table or the protest line, but at the "street level." I think people will be surprised.

Here's a summary:

1. Leave us alone! We are tired of the liberals, native wannabe's and hippies trying to help us.

They only muddy the waters and make us appear helpless. We can solve this issue on our own.

This is how the problem started in the first place. The great white benefactor looked upon us as

children that needed their assistance. That also goes for the warrior societies who think they

represent us. Violence only begets more violence. How is it going to help our children and

grandchildren when they see this as a model for dealing with problems. Many of them have already

experienced too much violence and abuse.

2. Solve the social problems first. Giving us more land and money isn't going to help. It is only

going to keep us helpless and addicted. We would rather see the addictions broken before worrying

about land claims.

3. Let us do the forgiving. We are fed up with self-deprecating whites whining about the past. The

forgiveness must come from us, not them. We don't care if the King of France did this or the King

of England or the Crown. That was a long time ago. If we punish the people and their children for

so-called wrongs they never committed, we are only doing to them what they did to our ancestors.

How do two wrongs make this right?

Out of the mouths of the elders!

[Riverwind]

Take the SSM as an example. Nothing we could say or do would sway the previous government. And look what happened. You gave your votes to a "new" government, and they just washed their hands of it. One of the most contentious Canadian issues in the last 100 years and Canadians had no input, whatsoever.

I would not call it contenious. A clear majority of Canadians supported the idea. The Conservatives recognized this and dropped their opposition.

But I come back once again to the fact that unless there is a "need" to change the constitution, it will never be changed.

The government has done a reasonable job of limiting the scope of aboriginal claims through negotiation. This ensures that the issue never comes to a head. However, all it would take is one absurd ruling by the SCC to make it an issue.

As to natives getting nothing, I would suggest it is just another delusion. The fact is that legitimate claims payout big, and land and the control of land is being turned over on a regular basis.

To groups that are willing to negotiate on terms the government can accept. Many native groups refuse to negotiate and have gotten nothing. They are hoping that a court ruling in the future will force the government to give them what they want. However, that is a risky strategy because the court could rule against them or the government could change the law.

[Live From China]

There is no upper limit to the cost since there has been an unlimited wealth produced from the use of stolen and unceded lands that we all have benefited from. It is only a matter of time.

Speaking of a piteous view...!

[ScottSA]

While I agree that civil war could be the likely outcome, I would also suggest that it would not be strictly a military conflict. More likely it would be waged on the streets and in the bedrooms of the communities that are squatting on native lands, and the infrastructure would be the first to go. Of course I am only speculating, but world conflicts show this as the likely course. Ask them how they fared in Baghdad when the lights when out.

Ask them how they fared in the Northwest Indian War, the Creek War, the Cayuse War, the Rogue River Wars, the Fraser Canyon War and about 25 other wars. Yeah yeah, I know...Little Big Horn too...

[Live From China]

Well said, ScottSA. Posit's statement is just wishful thinking.

There is a difference between the ability of a well-organized, heavily armed machine such as the USAF and its ability to deliver crippling blows to an entire nation's infrastructure and a few armed "warriors." Their impact on an entire nation's industrial complex would be insignificant. But more importantly, there is something called the will to fight. I think very few FN's people want to go this route. Very few!

Now waiting for some response like they actually have magical powers, can walk through walls, can be in 15 places at one time, etc., etc. and, therefore, 10 warriors are the equivalent of the US Army.

[Posit]

The Vietcong borrowed the mole tactic from the Iroquois. It is now in every War Manual but still very difficult to defend against.

Yes you scoff at the thought of some extraordinary military techniques but no doubt celebrated the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus this past Easter weekend.

BTW go back and study and those conflicts. They weren't wars. They were battles and the natives are still here and still able to assert their sovereignty. You highly under estimate them.

[Live From China]

The Vietcong borrowed the mole tactic from the Iroquois. It is now in every War Manual but still very difficult to defend against.

And, of course, we can use this against them.

But in the end, I say, "So what?" It obviously didn't do the Iroquois much good. The question is how many "warriors" are there? Very few! And certainly not the numbers the VC were able to throw into the field, and at an enormous cost in life, I might add. Losses "you" cannot sustain. Furthermore, you can knock the numbers of warriors down because very few actually have the will to fight in any real battle.

Neither, I nor most FN's people want things to go this way. In fact, it is probably not going to happen. Yes, the protests will continue. And a smattering of nutters will appear causing trouble and pretending to speak for everyone.

Posit's arguments seem vaguely familiar. It's almost as s/he were a banned poster returned under a different name.

[Rue]

"Aboriginal title presumes that natives own all of the land..."

No it does not and never has. aboriginals have never believed they "own" the land. That is you projecting your values of land ownership on their culture. You really should try learn about their culture and how they preceive the human relationship to land. Until you do you will continue to make such comments that are not just patently false but continue to reveal either your refusal or lack of willingness to try understand that which you think you are talkinga bout.

"...and that non-natives are obliged to compensate (i.e. pay taxes) them for using it..... I see no difference."

Well of course you can't you have from the get go made up your mind that there is only one way to "see" and it is your way.

You are right the aboriginal antions seek compensation for use of certain land, but what you deliberately or selectively ignore is that the compensation the aboriginals seek is simply what was promsied to them when they agreed in the past to accommodate the British and French settlers and their governments. All aboriginals seek is for the promises placed in treaties be honoured not because they feel they "own" land but because they were displaced and exposed to hardship. It is not based on believing they own the earth, its based on the simple legal concept that they cooperated with the British and French and they simply want back what they gave in a fair exchange. Its not about owning land, its about recognizing aboriginal customs and laws as equal to British and French laws. its that equality that you just can't stand The idea that aboriginal legal traditions are as valid as your beloved British ones is something you will not agree to because when it gets down to it you have made it quite clear you are not interested in recognizing aboriginal rights.

"Collective rights of aboriginals are no different from the 'collective rights' enjoyed by the feudal lords in most of Europe. "

Are ou that oblivious to history that you make such sweeping comments that are patently absurd? The feudal Lords of Europe were part of a syystem of monarchs who used these lords as their lackies to control the peasants and assure they would be good slaves and work the land and pay their taxes. That is not even remotely close to the system of using and sharing land in North America with the aboriginals whose people did not pay taxes or defien the land as owned by their elders.

Again you have no clue what you are talking about and are trying to claim concepts that are not remotely close as being one and the same-that again is your refusal to see aboriginals as distinct from you-you just can't discuss them without imposing and projecting your values on them and saying they are the same as yours. They aren't and never were. Your attempting to pretend oranges are apples is past absurd.

"The feudal lords have been stripped of the privileges in Europe and nobody considers it a problem."

Qwhat areyou babbling about and how is that even remotely related to the treaties aboriginals entered into with the Canadian government?

Can someone please tell you the House of Lords still exists and no one in england has taken any land away from the Lords or Barons or the Queen nor does the feudal system in England or in other European nations that still have monarchies have any comparison to aboriginal rights unless you get your analogy right and find us a country where aboriginal people of a European country are engaged ina legal dispute with their ruling government over broken treaties.

Oh but why make an analogy that makes sense. Lets just continue to spin fiction and pretend Europe is full of aboriginal peoples.

"The Queen recently lost her tax exempt status because the people of Britain decided that no one should be exempt from taxes because of who their ancestors were. I don't think many British people are feeling guilty about that. "

Now you ar ebeing deliberately dishonest. You have switched the topic from aboriginals seeking to have treaties they signed honoured with an entirely seperate issue, their tax status. Then you try suggest their tax status can be equated to them being privileged monarchs who should now pay taxes.

Get a life. Now you would have us believe aboriginals have tax exempt status because for centuries they used people as slaves and amassed their fortune by claiming in the name of Jesus that they had the right to treat people as slaves?

Boy talkk about twisting history around to project ridiculous comparisons.

The taxt status for aboriginals as you are fully aware is as a result of a series of legal developments that had nothing to do with aboriginals being privileged monarchs amassing money unfairly. Nice try.

See it always comes back to you and your resentment of what you think are aboriginals enjoying privileges you can't have. That is all this is about-no fair why do aboriginals get that and I don't..wah wah wah.

See the problem with your petty resentment is you selectively ignore all the shit that comes with being an aboriginal. All you see is something you think they have that you want. The tragedy is you haven't a clue who they are and what comes with being aboriginal.

Man I wish someone would send you to live on a reserve with no fresh water or a job or any future and see how fast you changed your tune after a few days of thinking that is something you want.

Until you are willing to suffer the same shit they did and do, your resentment is absurd. Its easy for you to resent them you take your status as a white dude in a Christian world as a given.

[Riverwind]

No it does not and never has. aboriginals have never believed they "own" the land. That is you projecting your values of land ownership on their culture. You really should try learn about their culture and how they perceive the human relationship to land.

Many of the native posters on this board disagree with you. Many have stated quite clearly that aboriginal title means aboriginals "own" the land and everyone else is a squatter who has no rights.

Now you could argue that these posters simply do not understand the limitations of aboriginal title as interpreted by the courts to date. I don't think that makes a difference - it is clear that many aboriginals believe that aboriginal title makes them the equivalent of feudal lords and apologists like you are more than willing to encourage them.

The feudal Lords of Europe were part of a system of monarchs who used these lords as their lackies to control the peasants and assure they would be good slaves and work the land and pay their taxes.

The feudal lords created an exclusive club identified by ancestry. People with the right parents could be part of the club and enjoy all of the privileges. People without the right ancestry were denied. Native rights are handed out in the same arbitrary way. No one - absolutely NO ONE - deserves special rights because of who their ancestors are. Any society that is stupid enough to treat some of it citizens differently because of their ancestors will have numerous social problems in the long run.

Then you try suggest their tax status can be equated to them being privileged monarchs who should now pay taxes.

No one should be entitled to tax exemptions - period - no exceptions. Giving a group tax exemptions (especially one that is an easily identified race) is a recipe for social unrest. The current tax exemptions for natives have never been an issue because natives don't make that much money and their reserves are small. However, it will become a huge issue if natives start to join the mainstream economic life in this country and are allowed to expand their reserves.

Man I wish someone would send you to live on a reserve with no fresh water or a job or any future and see how fast you changed your tune after a few days of thinking that is something you want.

I would move the city - take advantage of the free education and other social services and get a job. Natives have choices - they choose to stay on the reserve.

Until you are willing to suffer the same shit they did and do, your resentment is absurd. Its easy for you to resent them you take your status as a white dude in a Christian world as a given.

Give me a break. Every citizen of this country is born equal and should have equal rights and equal opportunities. The government has a role when it comes to addressing systematic barriers that prevent some people from accessing those opportunities. However, the government should never grant permanent privileges to certain groups of people simply because they are doing poorly today.

[Catchme]

"Aboriginal title presumes that natives own all of the land..."

No it does not and never has. aboriginals have never believed they "own" the land. That is you projecting your values of land ownership on their culture. You really should try learn about their culture and how they preceive the human relationship to land. Until you do you will continue to make such comments that are not just patently false but continue to reveal either your refusal or lack of willingness to try understand that which you think you are talkinga bout.

"...and that non-natives are obliged to compensate (i.e. pay taxes) them for using it..... I see no difference."

Well of course you can't you have from the get go made up your mind that there is only one way to "see" and it is your way.

You are right the aboriginal nations seek compensation for use of certain land, but what you deliberately or selectively ignore is that the compensation the aboriginals seek is simply what was promsied to them when they agreed in the past to accommodate the British and French settlers and their governments. All aboriginals seek is for the promises placed in treaties be honoured not because they feel they "own" land but because they were displaced and exposed to hardship. It is not based on believing they own the earth, its based on the simple legal concept that they cooperated with the British and French and they simply want back what they gave in a fair exchange. Its not about owning land, its about recognizing aboriginal customs and laws as equal to British and French laws. its that equality that you just can't stand The idea that aboriginal legal traditions are as valid as your beloved British ones is something you will not agree to because when it gets down to it you have made it quite clear you are not interested in recognizing aboriginal rights.

"Collective rights of aboriginals are no different from the 'collective rights' enjoyed by the feudal lords in most of Europe. "

Are ou that oblivious to history that you make such sweeping comments that are patently absurd? The feudal Lords of Europe were part of a syystem of monarchs who used these lords as their lackies to control the peasants and assure they would be good slaves and work the land and pay their taxes. That is not even remotely close to the system of using and sharing land in North America with the aboriginals whose people did not pay taxes or defien the land as owned by their elders.

Again you have no clue what you are talking about and are trying to claim concepts that are not remotely close as being one and the same-that again is your refusal to see aboriginals as distinct from you-you just can't discuss them without imposing and projecting your values on them and saying they are the same as yours. They aren't and never were. Your attempting to pretend oranges are apples is past absurd.

"The feudal lords have been stripped of the privileges in Europe and nobody considers it a problem."

Qwhat areyou babbling about and how is that even remotely related to the treaties aboriginals entered into with the Canadian government?

Can someone please tell you the House of Lords still exists and no one in england has taken any land away from the Lords or Barons or the Queen nor does the feudal system in England or in other European nations that still have monarchies have any comparison to aboriginal rights unless you get your analogy right and find us a country where aboriginal people of a European country are engaged ina legal dispute with their ruling government over broken treaties.

Oh but why make an analogy that makes sense. Lets just continue to spin fiction and pretend Europe is full of aboriginal peoples.

"The Queen recently lost her tax exempt status because the people of Britain decided that no one should be exempt from taxes because of who their ancestors were. I don't think many British people are feeling guilty about that. "

Now you are being deliberately dishonest. You have switched the topic from aboriginals seeking to have treaties they signed honoured with an entirely seperate issue, their tax status. Then you try suggest their tax status can be equated to them being privileged monarchs who should now pay taxes.

Get a life. Now you would have us believe aboriginals have tax exempt status because for centuries they used people as slaves and amassed their fortune by claiming in the name of Jesus that they had the right to treat people as slaves?

Boy talk about twisting history around to project ridiculous comparisons.

The taxt status for aboriginals as you are fully aware is as a result of a series of legal developments that had nothing to do with aboriginals being privileged monarchs amassing money unfairly. Nice try.

See it always comes back to you and your resentment of what you think are aboriginals enjoying privileges you can't have. That is all this is about-no fair why do aboriginals get that and I don't..wah wah wah.

See the problem with your petty resentment is you selectively ignore all the shit that comes with being an aboriginal. All you see is something you think they have that you want. The tragedy is you haven't a clue who they are and what comes with being aboriginal.

Man I wish someone would send you to live on a reserve with no fresh water or a job or any future and see how fast you changed your tune after a few days of thinking that is something you want.

Until you are willing to suffer the same shit they did and do, your resentment is absurd. Its easy for you to resent them you take your status as a white dude in a Christian world as a given.

Excellent post, I have bolded the parts I felt really need thinking about by some.

The is an very good book I am currently reading called "American Facscists: The Christian Right and The War on America" by Chris Hedges. It addresses those who say they are doing things in the name of Jesus quite clearly and the xenophobia that is inherent with them.

Perhaps it is worth a thread of its own though. But it is well worth the read if people are interested in counteracting the "Christian" fascists of today.

[Riverwind]

Excellent post, I have bolded the parts I felt really need thinking about by some.

Yet another bleeding heart who seems to think the ends justifies the means. You cannot have just society if citizens are treated differently depending on who their ancestors were. That fact that natives are economically disadvantaged today is does NOT justify permanent entitlements which will virtually guarantee a future social full of racial conflict.

[guyser]

Yet another bleeding heart who seems to think the ends justifies the means. You cannot have just society if citizens are treated differently depending on who their ancestors were. That fact that natives are economically disadvantaged today is does NOT justify permanent entitlements which will virtually guarantee a future social full of racial conflict.

Why not look at it the same as when the money that was stolen from the Jews during the war got traced and was found to be sitting in banks in Austria and Switzerland.

Did they deserve to get it back? Of course they do and did get it back.

The FN's were granted something a long time ago. Lets work it out and move on. I too have frustrations when these things occur, and yes on the face of it I have been known to say why why why....but the fact remians we need to get this done and done forever.

[Riverwind]

Why not look at it the same as when the money that was stolen from the Jews during the war got traced and was found to be sitting in banks in Austria and Switzerland.

Did they deserve to get it back? Of course they do and did get it back.

Bad example. WW2 was relatively recent. Should the decendents of black slaves be compensated by the US government? Should the descendents of Marie Antoinete be compensated for the loss of property during the French Revolution? Should the Angles be compensated for the crimes of the Saxons? At some point we have to say too much time has past. It makes no sense to talk abiout compensating people for wrongs that occurred more than 100 years ago.

but the fact remains we need to get this done and done forever.

You are missing my point. We will never get it 'done' if we give into the more extreme demands of native activists. These people want to set up a feudal system where the natives have exclusive control over the land and non-natives living on the land will have no rights. They also expect non-natives to pay taxes to provide them with the services that they feel that they are "owed". Such a settlement would ensure that our society will be divided among racial lines for generations to come.

I would like to see a fair resolution but that fair resolution will require that natives accept that they will not get anything close to what the more radical elements are demanding.

I get sucked into these discussions with the more radical types that post on this board because I object to the claim that we have no choice but to honour these treaties as written because it is the 'law'. I don't buy that argument because the law can be changed and unfair laws get changed all of the time. I also object to the claim that we are morally obligated to honour these treaties no matter what the cost since the treaties are inherently immoral because the grant special rights to citizens based on their ancestry.

[Live From China]

I would move the city - take advantage of the free education and other social services and get a job. Natives have choices - they choose to stay on the reserve.

Assuming you mean move to the city. Exactly what some of the young people who lived on the reserves near here have done. I congratulate them! They are setting a positive example for others.

for wrongs that occurred more than 100 years ago.

Or considerably more. It is an exercise in futility to judge past events by today's standards. Especially when the world was such a tremendously different place. Also, what is going to happen when one FN's group says to another FN's group, "Hey, wait a minute, that's was originally our land!"? "Yeah, but that was 600 years ago." "Well, since we went back 500 years, why can't we go back 600?" And we will have opened the door.

[guyser]

Bad example. WW2 was relatively recent. Should the decendents of black slaves be compensated by the US government? Should the descendents of Marie Antoinete be compensated for the loss of property during the French Revolution? Should the Angles be compensated for the crimes of the Saxons? At some point we have to say too much time has past. It makes no sense to talk abiout compensating people for wrongs that occurred more than 100 years ago.

Actually I feel it is apt. A wrong is a wrong, and the gov entered into a treaty--honour it is all I want.Apologies are being offered all the time to US black, NC just did days ago. If property was removed then yes they should get compensation.

The natives were given a treaty, we should honour it.Simple.

I know you dont like the radical element.Neither do I, but they are not the ones who are doing the negotiating and for the most part they are disallusioned young individuals who will not be involved, they just like the violence aspect.

I get sucked into these discussions with the more radical types that post on this board because I object to the claim that we have no choice but to honour these treaties as written because it is the 'law'. I don't buy that argument because the law can be changed and unfair laws get changed all of the time. I also object to the claim that we are morally obligated to honour these treaties no matter what the cost since the treaties are inherently immoral because the grant special rights to citizens based on their ancestry.

The law does get changed, but generally the change is going forward , not retroactive as you want. For instance, drug laws , people are in jail right now for the same thing that a beat cop would never charge one with.

Change the law all they want, the past treaty is not affected.

[Riverwind]

Actually I feel it is apt. A wrong is a wrong, and the gov entered into a treaty--honour it is all I want.Apologies are being offered all the time to US black, NC just did days ago. If property was removed then yes they should get compensation.

No one is talking about compensating blacks their losses. Apologies are important but we cannot and should not attempt to compensate people for all wrongs committed in history. It is ridiculous to even suggest we should. No compensation if the victim and their immediate children are dead.

The law does get changed, but generally the change is going forward , not retroactive as you want.

Retroactive laws are passed all of the time. Many people lost their Canadian citizenship because of an unfair law. Are you saying these people should not be allowed to recover their citizenship because laws in the past can't be changed?

Are you saying that blacks who were slaves should not have been freed because they were 'legally' purchased? Many provisions of the treaties are immoral and have no place in our society today. People only talk about honouring them because many people feel sorry for the natives. People would be demanding that these privileges be stripped away immediately if natives were relatively well off. Granting permanent race based rights to natives today because we feel sorry for them is a mistake and will create more problems in the long run.

[Live From China]

A wrong is a wrong

This is simplistic and untrue. By today's standards what happened was wrong, but 300 years ago it wasn't. Now I don't like what occurred but that doesn't mean a thing. As indicated by Riverwind, simply too much time has passed. And there is one question posed that NOT one pro-FN's poster has ever answered, NOT one: if compensation is required, where do we draw the line? Two hundred years? Three hundred? Or, even 452.5? In fact, I have seen these question posed again and again in similar discussions and never answered.

We hear about moral obligations but how is it moral to reward one group against which no wrongs (remember none of the people you are rewarding were alive over a century ago) were committed and penalizing people who never committed the so-called wrongs?

It is just as idiotic to say there is no upper limit to compensation or that people have gained unlimited wealth from FN's land. A quick foray into the world of mathematics will tell anyone that this is an impossibility. Both are impossible to give or get. Not even a civil war will change this fact. Wealth in Canada is a finite commodity. Again, these are buzzwords that are truly meaningless. Rhetoric used by propagandists.

[Charles Anthony]

expropriated from the

Leader defies court order -- More Native turmoil thread

Civilized people do not resolve disputes by force.

I'm confused. Who are you referring to here? The Natives or the people who would civilize them through force?

If tey want to forgo government benefits, and other benefits of "whitey" civilization, more power to them. But only if they surrender any arms and go back to the bow and arrow for fighting.

I think that is a backward way of attributing a connection between "government benefits" and civilization.

Should they give back their hoola-hoops and VHS and hockey or lacrosse gear too????

[FNandPROUD]

A few different comments

As soon as you title someone as "INDIAN" when you know full well across Canada we call ourselves FIRST NATIONS is just ignorance. That is were the racism starts. If there is more than one nationality involved, include them. Just because your hatred is towards FN people is why you are pointing them out.

I'm sure if you stuck a community of East Indians or African Americans or Non Natives into a reserve of just their race, put them on a sand lot, a place where they can't even grow grass, give them nothing, no parks, no halls, nothing for the youth to do...I'm sure you too would see their drinking/drugging levels rise.

I am first nations, I am a drug & alcohol counsellor in a First Nations Community. I see just as many non natives drink and drug as I do First Nations.

Why don't people choose to educate themselves a bit before spouting off?

[geoffrey]

As soon as you title someone as "INDIAN" when you know full well across Canada we call ourselves FIRST NATIONS is just ignorance. That is were the racism starts. If there is more than one nationality involved, include them. Just because your hatred is towards FN people is why you are pointing them out.

Indian is what your legal status is. What does it say on your card... Indian Status. Great. Now that we have that out of the way, I can explain that when I use the word Indian, it's in reference the legal group which should have no relation to race (unfortunate though, in Canada race gives you different, privledged, rights).

I'm sure if you stuck a community of East Indians or African Americans or Non Natives into a reserve of just their race, put them on a sand lot, a place where they can't even grow grass, give them nothing, no parks, no halls, nothing for the youth to do...I'm sure you too would see their drinking/drugging levels rise.

I am first nations, I am a drug & alcohol counsellor in a First Nations Community. I see just as many non natives drink and drug as I do First Nations.

Why don't people choose to educate themselves a bit before spouting off?

Maybe you should read the thread before spouting off. None of us are saying all the Indians do is drink.

I am (and some others) are suggesting that no one should have a different set of standards or rights based on their DNA profile. That's not a racist viewpoint.

[FNandPROUD]

Again, if we chose to be called FN, that is our choice, regardless of what the government put on our cards. AGAIN...that was not our choice.

So what you're saying is that if your family owns hundreds of acres, homes here and there, that you should not have the privilege of having it when they pass on, just because of your DNA connection? Correct? So anyone should be able to have it, up for grabs.

As for my remark about reserves, I was not only talking to you.

[FNandPROUD]

I would move the city - take advantage of the free education and other social services and get a job. Natives have choices - they choose to stay on the reserve.

LMAO WHAT free education??????? I mean...did I miss some freaking announcement? Are you serious?

GET A LIFE. There is no free education, there are no free homes. GO TO A RESERVE.....ask questions, look around you. If you move to the city, you get no help from your band what so ever. People choose to stay on the reserve to stay near family, harvest traditional foods, learn our culture, this is always a thought because if you move to the city you miss all this. Traditional foods help the grocery bills. Oh yes and let me add that I have a huge student loan that I've been paying for 7 years to prove that we DO NOT get free education.

[Riverwind]

LMAO WHAT free education??????? I mean...did I miss some freaking announcement?

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ps/edu/ense_e.html

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) provides Post-Secondary Education (PSE) support to eligible Indian and Inuit students through the Post-Secondary Student Support Program (PSSSP) and the University College Entrance Preparation Program ( UCEP) to assist First Nation students with the cost of tuition fees, books and travel, and living allowances, when applicable.

It may not be 100% free but it is more funding than any non-aboriginal gets.

[FNandPROUD]

There may be monies available, it certainly doesn't mean that everyone gets funded. I think at one time, way b4 my time....everyone did get funded. But I can also tell you that if you flunk out or get kicked out, you pay that $$ back to your band. At least that how it is in my Nation and the nation that I work for.

[ScottSA]

There may be monies available, it certainly doesn't mean that everyone gets funded. I think at one time, way b4 my time....everyone did get funded. But I can also tell you that if you flunk out or get kicked out, you pay that $$ back to your band. At least that how it is in my Nation and the nation that I work for.

So there is money available then? There seems to be some confusion...either there is or there ain't, right?