Reservations in South Dakota are very poor with lots of alcohol and drugs abuse problems. These problems to back to the abuse indian children suffered in boarding schools they were forced to attend between 1879 and 1970. The children were beaten for speaking their native toung or celebrating their culture and made to learn about white culture and try to assimilate into it. Many suffered emotional, physical and sexual abusethat traumatized them. Some of these people begun drinking and using drugs to escape their emotional pain. This caused them to beat their kids and those Beaten kids would drink and beat their kids as a result of their parents beating them and it goes on.
Indisn reservations are often very poor. The pine ridge indian res in South Dakota (home of the Oglala Sioux I think) is the poorest place in America. People there have no electricity, basic kitchen assacities, basic plumbing or running water and live in crowded small houses with 10+ people.
With he recourses in the black hills plains Indians could make money to improve their reservations witch are currently very poor. The pine ridge Sioux res is just one of the many poor indian reservations.
Just because the government gives the Sioux their rightfully deserved land back, does not mean that the people living in the Black Hills area would be thrown out. The Sioux, obviously sympathetic people due to their segregation would most likely accept the land, but keep it as a part of the United States and it's corresponding States. Just because the Sioux have their land back, does not ensue that people will suffer.
We have already gave them land. They do not need any more. Canada could give them some land. We deserve this land because we earned it over years of war. If they want it, they should fight for it. If we give them land their probably going to ask for more and we can mot give them more.
Too much time has passed, the government is no longer responsible for returning the lands illegally taken. To many people already live there, what are we supposed to do tell them that they have to leave what they've worked their lives for, send them away with no place to go?
If we gave the Sioux back the Black Hills, we would be giving back far more than was ever taken. We have added value to the land by extracting resources from it that the Sioux would have never learned how to do. According to John Locke's theory of property rights, you own as much land as you yourself can cultivate. When the Indians sold Manhattan Island to the Dutch, the island was bare. Now we have built a glorious city on it. If we were to give that back, they'd receive far more than was ever "taken". The same concept applies to the Black Hills.
While the Souix were, along with many other tribes, cheated out of there land, giving it back to them would open the floodgates, and every tribe would demand it's land be returned. We can not just give back land that is currently owned by private companies, and we cannot, for example, give back all the land tribes once owned or we would find ourselves without any land to live on! We couldn't, for example, give back Long Island, which was taken by the Dutch, nor could we give back all the other land the U.S. has taken in the west without serious issues arising