Why native Americans deserve monetary compensation for the loss of land due to settlement?

Answer 1

Easily one of the most controversial questions regarding the the latest wave of Immigration into North America starting with the Europeans in the late 1400's.

Monetary Compensation, some believe, is deserved because money was promised if aboriginals would stop resisting, violently, the waves of settlers or immigrants from outside North America. Some believe this money is still due, will forever be due and is to be continuously paid in increasing amounts as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow. Others disagree. Sometimes the disagreements results in violence even today.

The controversy or disagreements comes from past decisions by aboriginals and settlers that today are not accepted by either group. Today such race based agreements are seen as offensive by many and since most of the monetary and land agreements were not kept or supported over time some believe payment is still due.

The answer as to Why compensation is due is controversial.

Answer 2:

A legal decision was made in Europe by Francisco de Vitoria (1532 De Indis De Jure Belli), it was well settled and clear that the 3 reasons used by European settlers were unfounded and that the Natives of North American were the legal owners of the land. These legal definitions still stand as a core international law, agreed to by all members of the United Nations (The USA Included). Therefore under this decision the only way to take the lands were by contract (treaty). A problem with this was introduced when America won its independence, as the contracts for sale of the land were held between the natives and governments of Europe. The newly formed American government corrected this through the issue of a "Blanket Treaty" accepting or transferring all obligations of these other governments (See Delaware Treaty of 1778 (AKA: Treaty of Fort Pitt)) to the newly formed government.

Using this treaty power the United States then purchased every square inch of land in North America, however, per the Bureau of Indian Affairs admission the United States has never actually paid the money to the tribes. The United States considers Native Americans, both modern and historically, as incapable of handling their own affairs; and so it places the money into special accounts for them, but refuses to allow them access and makes changes to these funds without the permission of the tribes.

The reason for the monetary compensation are not controversial at all, these moneys were due and remain unpaid. The United States refuses to pay them, or release the funds, and has refused to be accountable for them. Several suits against the government have been dismissed for a myriad of conflicting reasons leaving the claims in a legal limbo. To translate this into terms you should be able to understand: If I bought your house for 100.00, took your house then did not pay you the money wouldn't you want your house back, or the money?

NOTE: the first answer here attempts to invoke "Manifest Destiny" a legal concept discounted in 1532 as unlawful in both public and private law (contracts) See Reflections Theology, De Indis De Jure Belli, part 2 linked below:

Answer 3:

The Natives were unable to militarily control or defend the claimed lands and lost them. Just as every single person reading this has in their past, lands taken from their family, by force and fraud. Maybe the answer really isn't controversial, Might makes Right, always has. The Natives deserve nothing more than any one else and like anyone else will not, maybe should not, get even that.