ABSTRACT
In several essays, Jeremy Waldron has suggested that changed circumstances may have superseded the rights of Native peoples to their ancestral lands. I contend that his argument is problematic and propose a Kant-inspired framework to assess the property and territorial claims of Native peoples. My conclusion is that, while in many cases they must share their country with the descendants of their colonizers and later arrivals, their prior property and territorial entitlements can leave a strong normative residue that should be addressed. My argument has general implications, but I focus on the Qom people in Argentina.
