> Proximity in time and space add important context to the issue
So how long do non-native Americans have to wait for it to no longer be stolen land? What's the date? Because in order to believe that your line of thinking is logical, surely you at least have a vague answer to that question.
>The Penobscots, one of the member nations of the Wabanaki Confederacy, have never been displaced from Indian Island (since settling there ~11k years ago), and acquired significant additional land holdings since the 1970s.
How do you know that? If they took land from another tribe 9k years ago do you think we would have a record of it? What if another tribe took the land from them 8k years ago and 7k years ago they took it back? Do you think we can actually determine if that happened?
> It would mean taking the rights to the land away from the Natives and putting it under the purview of the central government.
Not arguing one way or the other here, nor do I know much of the context. But going only from the original comment in this thread, it sounds like this would mean taking the rights to the land away from the current set of tribal elders.
There's an argument to be made that this sort of cultural heritage belongs to the whole tribe; and not only those currently alive, but those who will be part of it in the future; and possibly not only of these particular tribes, but of all Aboriginals in Australia. It may be that those elders have considered that large group in their decision, but it's also quite possible that they have not; or even that they're corrupt and lining their own pockets.
It's also possible that this move is seen as the lesser of two evils to those elders: that they want to keep the sites, but feel they need the money to help support the tribe in other ways. If that's the case, then it's still a case of injustice.
(As an interesting aside: Recognition that "selling your land" might not really be voluntary was recognized so early that in ancient Israel, it was legally impossible to sell your land permanently: Every 50 years, all land went back to the original owners or their heirs, and you could only lease land until the next 50-year "reset".)
While I'm certainly in favor of letting groups decide for themselves what kinds of protection they need or don't need, there are lots of ways in which "tribal elders signed an agreement" could happen while still being "injustice to natives".
> American Indians were right... nobody should own the land.
How is this even possible? Even in communism the state owns all the land. Native American tribes also went to war with each other to control different areas. Legally recognized by many or not, some person who group is going to control the land.
>Wait, you think Native Americans are confined in reservations? Like there's a big fence around the reservation, and they can't go out?
Good one, no.
I think that the lands they lived and had autonomy and their rule of law etc, have been taken from them as their ancestral places, and have been confined to the reservations.
The fact that they can move "freely" to New York or the greater South Dakota are irrelevant. It's like someone coming over, taking your house, handing you over the "right" to live and rule over the backyard, but also giving you the "freedom" to rent/buy/live in a room on their own old house if they want.
And that's with tons of shady behavior from the federal/state level even for them living there and their resources (e.g. when uranium was discovered in those places).
Do those aboriginal people have an army that can reconquer the land? If not, then the shaky grounds aren't that shaky. We still live in an environment where the rule "might makes right" still applies. Don't forget that.
> Americans adore the idea that just because it wasnt written down, it somehow holds no value to the parties involved
This is actually a point of friction between settlers and North American Indigenous communities.
As predominantly oral communities, your word holds as much weight as a written contract. They got burned by written contracts in the past wrt land usage too.
Woe betide a naive bureaucrat who makes empty promises to a First Nations / American Indian community. Speak carefully, because people will remember.
> My own perception is that corruption within the bands is rife, with chiefs and their family/friends benefiting from the rent-seeking and pretty much everyone else in the band losing out.
Look far north. The village doesn't have clean water, but the local chief has two hummers and brand new ATVs on the front lawn. Guess where your tax money went...
Exhibit A of something that wouldn't apply to all tribes the same because they are too different. Some are more sovereign than others in some aspects. There is nothing uniform about the concept of indigenous lands, but the arbitrage comes from everyone treating them as an amorphous group. Even the most progressive and inclusive people do this, but fortunately it just comes down to reading comprehension. If you can read or are willing to read, you'll find some unchallenged and interesting thing you might be willing to pursue. You likely will have to go to the area to find what to read though, "area" because I'm not willing to call them all "tribes".
> You want to honor the Natives? Do something that helps them legislatively, e.g. change the boundary conditions that would allow for houses to be bought and generational wealth be accumulated in Reservations.
at least here in South Dakota, the problems with the reservations are not of the legislative variety
> Clovis-Americans have certain unique rights based on legal theories that their ancestors were the first human occupants of the land
Please point to these rights and legal theories. Do you just mean NAGPRA?
As far as I know, whatever legal rights any native American people have in the Americas at this point in time are based purely on them being here when Europeans arrived near the start of the 16th century.
Whether they had been the occupants for 400 years or 40,000 years wouldn't make any difference to the treaties that were signed (and generally abrogated).
>70% of the land is not the U.S. Government's to give.
"The federal Indian trust responsibility is [...] a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources." [0]
The questions of armies and building bases I'm not sure have been raised, so the legal precedents might not exist. Sufficed to say, however, that the GP's hypothetical sale to Canada would be wholly infeasible in light of the treaties between the sovereign tribes and the US, as well as the legal complexities those entail.
The native would probably disagree with the `unclaimed' bit.
reply