When you say the Indians owned the land, in what sense? the Indians had no legal framework of individual land ownership. Various tribes occupied the land at various time. Conservatives in general reject the idea of collective land ownership - why make an exception in this case?
In this part of the Great Plains, there were no Indians until Europeans introduced horses; and by that time, we had coureurs du bois roaming around here from Canada. And even when they had horses, the Pawnee and Sioux fought bloody battles over Southern Nebraska. So who had title?
Yeah, the Indian wars were a mess. It wasn't all the white man's fault; just north of here, the Santee Sioux massacred 750, mostly Scandinavian, mostly women and children, on land they themselves had ceded in a treaty. By and large, they escaped retribution for it; Abraham Lincoln pardoned all but 39 of them.
My point is this; I have little time for racial entitlements. The fact that someone who now calls himself a Native American is descended from someone who was screwed just makes him equal to the rest of us. There is long standing title to reservation lands, and there are titles spelling out specific obligations of the federal goverment. These should be settled with the present tribal members, as individuals. What they collectively do with the land and the money is their own business. But I want no part of a country where you and I are subject to different laws or obligations, because of our different ancestry.
Well, if the constitution means nothing to you, get out. Pretty simple.