I am not advocating the American indian system. It seems to me, though, that your statement is the same as mine. You say the indian way put them at "serious disadvantage." I agree. But that disadvantage was the barrel of a gun.
In principle, the concept of property rights could have applied to the indians too, but they preferred to live in their tribal societies.
See, maybe I am naive, or mistaken, or both, but I thought that the right to property was one of Locke's natural rights. I thought it was self-evident. I am unable to determine how it is that such a right can be denied to a whole race, simply because there system is different. I understand it practically. They took the land from the indians, who were not sophisticated enough, legally or militarily, to hold on to it. Heck, the indians out in California in the early 19th century could hardly feed themselves. I understand practically how it happened. I am just thinking out loud about the philospohical rationale. Something that comes to mind is a bit I read by Jaffa, where he talks about how a certain "adult consciousness" is required to recognize natural rights. I don't know if that is the best term, but perhaps it points towards the answer to my musings.
I don't know.... My children learned the word word, "MINE!" at a very early age. They understood the concept, and they wanted it enforced with a vengance! (except of course when they wanted something that happened to belong to one of their siblings.
Cordially,