Can the federal government honestly say that the sales of Indian land by the Cayuga Indians in 1789, 1795 and 1807 were not bona fide sales transactions?

Has the definition of “willing seller” been reinvented after 200-plus years?

It is interesting to also note that the early Continental Congress members were appointed, not elected by the people, for the people.

Toss out any and all additional arguments however realistic, ie., adverse possession, statute of limitations, collateral estoppel, laches, etc. Finally, bury the “Treaty of Buffalo Creek, 1838” - too explicit, too damaging, all those Indian signatures.

There is at best, a slim outside chance of the current Congress ratifying all of the National Indian Treaties affected by the Non-intercourse Act of 1790, in a timely fashion.

Sovereignty is another matter entirely, immunizing tribes from legal responsibilities (taxes) and insulating them from state and local laws (zoning/environmental).

Sovereignty fosters American apartheid - segregation as well as discrimination - resulting in an egregious and unnecessary rift to all parties concerned. Can we afford to maintain a “nation within a nation” by ignoring the results of peoples of a variety of cultures, faiths, nationalities, languages and morals, enjoying self-sufficiency, progress, growth, independence and democracy.

Is it unreasonable or unconscionable to insist that the federal government eliminate apartheid as we know it, segregation, as it continues to be practiced, and revoke the impact of unequal justice staining our system of democracy?

Let us proudly and honorably become one nation under God.

Donald M. O'Brien

Aurora