Ok. Time for me to enter this thread. Jub, you are in fact a racist shitheel with no grasp of history. So here, let me give you the historical rundown, because you obviously have no fucking clue
1. Amerind Tribes (hereafter referred to as Amerinds) live as they had for 10k years. They have natural resources, distinct and interesting cultures, regional governments. Everything one might expect from a conglomeration of different cultural groups with a wide array of levels of development. Some were neolithic pastoralists or hunter/gatherers. Some were up there in Iron Age territory.
2. The White Man shows up, and for a few years, everything is cool. Amerind people's are a bit wary, but in many cases start to help out these new and interesting people.
3. Until it turns out that The White Man wants something from them other than teaching them that corn exists. It might be gold, or furs, or agricultural land, or timber. Hell, it might even be slaves, because that was a thing. Oh yes, so much slavery. So, The White Man Takes. Unburdened by any sort of moral stricture, because The White Man is christian, and does not accept the humanity of non-christians.
4. The White Man uses guns germs and steel to ethnically cleans the native people's from the east coast. This creates infighting as refugees go west, only to run into tribes that have enough issues just supporting themselves. The White Man signs treaties with these western tribes, using them to fight their wars (say, between the english and french) by proxy, and using them to help them ethnically cleanse the tribes who wont sign the treaties.
5. After that is done, and The White Man then discovers that their former allies have stuff they want. Abrogates the treaties.
6. Repeat steps 3-5.
7. There are still some Amerinds left. The Cherokee for example in Georgia. Andrew Jackson death-marches them from Georgia to Oklahoma in what is called the Trail of Tears. This sort of thing occurs for every remaining Amerind Tribe that is not living in the high arctic. The White Man even hunts the buffallo out from under the subsistence hunters of the western plains region--even from their own land prior to the (wait for it) abrogation of the treaties that guaranteed the territorial integrity of people like the Lakota.
8. Eventually, the only land remaining for the Amerind Peoples are the types of land no White Man wants. Land with no natural resources, that is difficult to farm, with few (if any) easy trade routes like navigable rivers.
9. When the Amerind People fight back, they are slaughtered and/or demonized by The White Man. Amerind children raised or educated in White society are taught that they are racially or culturally inferior to The White Man (this bit continues well into the 1900s). Even white children are indoctrinated with the belief that Amerind people are to be despised by way of classic childhood games like cowboys and indians and various media sources. Like the entire film genre called "Westerns". Major politicians chastise those in their ranks who might meet with Amerind leaders because "They killed General Custer and it is an insult to that Great American Hero to talk to them", ignoring the fact that the people who killed General Custer were defending themselves from genocide. Education and employment policy is only just recently such that Amerind peoples have a shot at making their lives better--but only if they leave their people and what ancient traditions they still have behind.
10. The White Man wonders why the remaining Amerind Peoples are so poor and economically undeveloped, and are bitter about how they dont pay taxes and get government subsidy. Said White Man proposes that we abrogate our treaties again and take the last thing we want from the Amerind people. Their cultural identity and autonomy. We have taken everything else. It is just that one last thing. Then everything will be solved.
Fuck You Jub. Fuck you and the caravel you sailed in on.
All bile and derision aside, you are committing the fundamental attribution error. You claim:
It's no shock that the nations of BC, who weren't depending on the federal dime, are doing better and are now negotiating equitable deals with the province and crown. This because they've had to fend for themselves up to this point and can now use that federal money to do even more for their people. Is it wrong to say that these people have done a better job of things than the people of nations who lack even the basics of modern life?
BC still has a coast line, Forests, and a climate that is not completely inhospitable. The tribes of BC are some of the only Amerind tribes who have this going for them. It is not about who the people are or what their attributes are. Historical contingency has permitted them to be better off than the vast majority of others.
You also missed the point of my question. The real question is, how much money can we put towards a problem when the people that we're giving the money too aren't willing to take the steps to deal with the issues they're causing for themselves?
You are mistaking cause for effect. Amerind peoples are not poor because they have drug addiction problems and are poorly educated. They are poorly educated and have drug addition problems because they are poor.
Here is how this works.
Cities and a high degree of wealth do not spring up ex nihlo. In order to not be poor, you have to have something someone else wants. As it turns out, Amerind people had those things. The difference is that instead of trading for them, the White Man simply stole them. The great cities of the world are where they are because one way or another they are hubs for some sort of economic activity. They are on a river, in the middle of an agricultural region, at a major trade junction. Something like that. In the US and Canada, those areas have become large cities with high levels of economic activity. They have become wealthy. The Amerind people could be the beneficiaries of this had The White Man not genocided and ethnically cleansed them. They are now (with a very few exceptions) relegated to the geographic dregs. The hinterlands with no trade routes, no resources. How the fuck are they supposed to develop economically under those conditions? Are they supposed to build a city to equal even a decent sized suburb on the unbridled economic power of traditional arts and crafts?
"Traditional Lakota Basket Weaving shall be our future!"
So, these people are poor. You want to know what the best predictor of drug use and alcoholism happens to be? Pre-extant multigenerational poverty. We imposed poverty on Amerind peoples at the point of a gun. Then we gave them booze, and drugs. They did not create the problems they have now. We did. Us. The White Man. Not only did we create these problems, we benefited from doing so because we did it by way of taking rich economically productive land from its rightful owners. I can say "us" so as to include you, because even though your ancestors did not do any of these things, you owe your prosperity and relative wealth to the suffering of people who died from small pox, death marches, gun fire, and the bayonet in the history of our countries.
Both of our nations have a fucking debt to pay. So stop bitching, you shitheel.