
Half the land in Oklahoma could be returned to Native Americans. It should be - smacktoward
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/28/half-land-oklahoma-could-be-returned-native-americans-it-should-be/
======
sublupo
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?

~~~
eesmith
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.

~~~
sublupo
> 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.

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

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

~~~
eesmith
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.

------
erikpukinskis
I don’t see why all of the Native American treaties shouldn’t be reopened.

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.

~~~
sublupo
My issue with that is who should it be returned to? The people who it was
taken from and who took it are long dead. Is one person more deserving of the
land simply because they can trace their ancestry to someone who used to own
that land? See my comment here
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18558224](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18558224)
to see the issue with it.

~~~
erikpukinskis
In absence of a will, descendants and their descendants share the deed as a
partnership.

------
viburnum
Formerly known as Permanant Indian Territory becuase it was the worst land in
America.

------
bradknowles
Pay walled. Got a non-paywall link?

~~~
stevenwoo
The Atlantic covered this last week, it appears they changed the title from
something close to the WP to what they have now.
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/murphy-
cas...](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/11/murphy-case-supreme-
court-rules-muscogee-land/576238/)

