Comment by sublupo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sublupo | Hacker News Reader

The question of how to repay generational theft is a difficult one. So many people have been wronged historically, and almost no nation / aristocrat has got their land "ethically".

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?

In this case the argument is that Congress never actually explicitly legislated the original Muscogee Creek reservation out of existence.

The examples you listed don't appear to be similar.

> Today, we still lose land every time an acre is sold to a non-Indian, inherited by someone less than half blood quantum, or even when an owner lifts restrictions to qualify for a mortgage

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.

Do I infer correctly from your change in topic that you understand how your earlier comparisons were not applicable?

You infer incorrectly. Regardless to what Congress will decide in this case, land that was sold will not go back to the previous owners.

You meant "Supreme Court" there, not "Congress".

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.

The slums are in cities, India has plenty of land.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com