The U.N. resolution says that “[i]ndigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.” You can read the report at CNSNEWS.
Of course, in his support of this U.seless N.ations resolution, Obama apologized once again, like he has to so many people, for “the sad and painful chapters in our shared history--a history too often marred by broken promises and grave injustices against the First Americans.”
Of course, it is not just the “colonialists” that “took” land from the indigenous tribes. What about indigenous tribes that took land from other indigenous tribes? Which one of the tribes will eventually have the “true” rights to the land.
Here are some thoughts:
How far back does this reversal of land ownership go? 100 years? 200 Years? 2000 years? All the way back to Adam? Will the land be returned to the “original” owners in the condition that they “lost” it, or in the new improved and advanced condition? If the land is given back to people as far back as n years, maybe they must only be allowed to use the land as they would have used it n years ago. And, maybe they should not be allowed to live on that land as moderns, but as they would have n years ago. Isn’t this what land-ownership-reversal is all about? Should the time and living conditions also be reversed, or in this reversal, should the “original” new owners benefit from all the advances made on the land? Should they really benefit from the advances? Is there any guarantee that they would have advanced the land to its current condition, had they kept and lived on the land without the Europeans’ technology and advancements?
Sometimes, there are more consequences than expected when clever ideas are thought of, such as this one. Will someone end up losing their land, because someone else makes a decision that will affect him?
Anyhow, these were just some thoughts on the subject.