Half the land in Oklahoma could be returned to Native Americans. It should be
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
If Oklahoma were to be "returned" to the Cherokee leaders, would they have to return it to who ever the Cherokee battled to get the land in the first place? But America is relatively easy to determine. What about land that has been "stollen" throughout history. Should Israel be "returned" to the British, Ottoman (Turkey), Momluk (Egypt), Mongols, Crusaders (British), Islamic Caliphate (Iraq), Byzantine (Greek?), Romans (Italians, I guess), Jews, Babylonians (Iraq), Jews again, or to the nations that lived there over 4000 years ago and no longer exists?
There has to be some form of statute of limitations, no matter how unfair life is. I mean, why should that author get millions of acres of land in America, when there are dense slums in India, who have a much greater need for it?
The examples you listed don't appear to be similar.
I don't see how that would be effected by the Congress. If Congress allocated land to the natives, but then the natives sold it (I assume not of fair grounds, but still...) then the Congress cannot return the land to the natives.
The question is, does allotment of tribal land dissolve a reservation without a clear statement by Congress, when the Supreme Court has already ruled that a "clear statement" is required. That has nothing to do with the examples you mentioned earlier.
Do you believe that means that non-Native American ownership of plots on (re-recognized) reservation land will be reverted?
Because I didn't get that from the article at all. In fact, it says:
> An entire body of law already governs states’ relationships to tribes and those tribes’ relationship to non-Indian residents. Half the states in the union have reservations, and the majority of those have reservations that — thanks to allotment — have non-Native owned “fee land” where tribal jurisdiction is already limited. Reservations comprise 27 percent of the land in Arizona, and it functions just fine.
It also points out that this happened two years ago in favor of the Omaha Tribe, which also non-Native residents.
It appears, therefore, that the question isn't one of ownership but jurisdiction.
We have an order of magnitude better a view on the facts of history than we did 100 years ago.
Just as DNA evidence gives cause to reopen the cases of living incarcerated, we should pull all of the current land claims in the U.S. which include any claims granted under treaty and if there is any new evidence of criminal wrongdoing, adjudicate those crimes and bring forward any civil litigation that may fall from those decisions.
Heck, exempt any existing structures, with an easement, to appease existing residents. But any empty space, undeveloped land, farmland, etc can be returned.
Offer any residents of the space a share too, as needed. Not corporations but individuals up to a certain acreage if they can show they continuously kept that land in production.
Murder is not an excuse for ignoring a signed legal document, and hasn’t been in this country for hundreds of years.
We only have time. Maybe it takes 1000 years but I believe the First Nations will be made whole, to whatever degree the Constitution indicates in its highest interpretation.