As I understand it, most north American indiginous groups had very little concept of realty.
Moreover, in this context, it's a specious argument.
Here ya go: https://www.google.com
As I understand it, most north American indiginous groups had very little concept of realty.
But they did understand war, and the taking of land/territory from one another. The idea that the indians were all kind of peace-loving pacifist hippies is a historical revision.
It will come as news to some people who don't read anything published earlier than the 1960's, but many indian tribes were proud warriors, and routinely fought and conquered other tribes.
There were also indian tribes that were shunned (for example, the Karankowa (sp?) in Texas who were known for being cannibals), and those who were considered backwater misfits (for example, Moapa Paiute).
The indian tribes were much more interesting and varied than modern history teaches.
Of course they were violent and murderous: they are human beings. They did not, however, commit genocide in the pursuit of property.
Please keep this sort of rude trick off HN.
I think the legitimacy of US sovereignty over its land (or Canadian or Australian etc) is also strengthened by the fact that it is a representative democracy, so to some degree its management of the land is carried out on behalf of all of its citizens, including the descendants of natives. If the US were governed by an aristocracy of descendants of settlers, as in Apartheid South Africa, then that would be clearly unjust to me.
edit: to be clear, I think that native populations in all these countries have legitimate grievances today, I just wouldn't go so far as to say that all their original land is still rightfully theirs.