The LandBack Movement: A fight to return stolen land back into Indigenous hands

Brown University is located in Providence, Rhode Island, on lands belonging to and stolen from the Narragansett Indian Tribe. I also recognize that only an acknowledgement of this history is insufficient and commit myself to continuing to be an ally of the Narragansett Indian Tribe. 

The version of United States history that has been and continues to be taught in schools nationwide romanticizes the “discovery” of the “New World.”  Centered around settler-colonial idealisations of Manifest Destiny (the idea that U.S. territorial and cultural domination across North America was destined by God) and the Doctrine of Discovery (which established that, upon “discovering” it, explorers immediately gain the rights to “vacant” land), European colonizers justified the theft of indigenous lands. Over the past 500 years, U.S. citizens have bought into this false narrative and contributed to the displacement of indigenous people across North America.  

In 2018, Aaron Tailfeathers wanted to change that. A member of the Kainai Tribe of the Blackfeet Confederacy of Canada, tailfeathers started the international LandBack Movement in 2018. The Landback Movement began as a fight to return Indigenous Lands stolen by European colonizers back to Indigenous people. However, the call for “Landback'' is much more than just a call for the cessation of colonial ownership of the physical land. It is a call to give Indigenous people unlimited sovereignty and jurisdiction of these lands. Additionally, it demands the destruction of settler-colonial, white supremecist systems designed for the mass erasure of indigenous people and culture.  

While LandBack is certainly an international social justice movement, each indigenous nation’s fight for LandBack is unique. In addition to asserting national political pressure through demonstrations, protests, and advocacy, LandBack also litigates against local, state, and federal governments to regain sovereignty over ancestral lands.

Despite the fact that the contemporary LandBack movement did not begin until 2018, the legal battle for the return of indigenous sovereignty over their ancestral lands dates back to 1823, when the United State Supreme Court heard the case of Johnson v. M’Intosh. In a unanimous decision, the case established the precedent that Indigenous people in the United States did not have the right to sell their ancestral land to individuals. Instead, only the federal government had the right of land sale negotiation with Native American nations. The decision therefore established that Indigenous nations did not have complete sovereignty and jurisdiction over their ancestral lands.

More recently, in 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation. After the selling and subsequent buy back of segments of their reservation in the 1990s, the Oneida Nation of New York sued the City of Sherrill, claiming that they were exempt from state and municipal taxesbecause their land was part of a reservation. In an eight-to-one decision in favor of Sherrill, the court determined that the Onedia nation is not exempt from taxes because by selling their land in the 19th century, the Oneidas “relinquished governmental reins and could not regain them through open-market purchases from current titleholders.” The court also justified their decision by inadvertently calling attention to the erasure of indigenous people, pointing to the “longstanding, distinctly non-Indian character of central New York and its inhabitants.”

As stated, the Landback campaign is an international movement—but each indigenous nation is involved in a unique battle for the rights to their ancestral lands. Ongoing legal battles are taking place across North America, including in Charlestown, Rhode Island—only a 45-minute drive from Brown University—where the Narragansett Indian Tribe is fighting for their rights to their ancestral lands. In 1975, the Narragansett Indian people filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Providence with the goal of reclaiming 3,500 acres of their land. The basis of the claim was that the town had violated the Indian Nonintercourse Act of 1790, which required Congress to approve the sale of all Native American lands. Three years later, in February of 1978, an out-of-court settlement was reached with the passage of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act. Under the Settlement Act, 2,000 acres of land in Charlestown were returned to the Narragansett people. 

The terms, negotiated by the Charlestown town council, the State of Rhode Island, private landowners, and the Narragansett Indian Tribe, made 200 acres of land available for development (i.e. housing, schools, community center, etc).  The act specified that the remaining 1,800 acres had to be “kept in its natural condition.” 900 acres of land were available for purchase by the Narragansett Tribe for private ownership (the federal government would provide $3.5 million for the purchase). Another 900 acres were donated to a tribe-controlled corporation by the state. While the land rights were formally returned to the Narragansett Indian Tribe, the terms of the agreement limited the tribe’s jurisdiction over the land and its use. Thus, the Settlement Act inadequately addresses the need for landback and still perpetuates systems of settler-colonial power. 

Most recently, the Narragansett Indian Tribe has been engaged in a fight to regain access to the Block Island Sound, a sacred ceremonial sight for the tribe for thousands of years. Tribal member Bella Noka describes the Sound as the tribe’s “church” and “place of worship.” Each year, town officials section off a new segment of the shore, which prevents Narragansett people from accessing their ancestral lands without paying a fee to the town. The tribe has most recently fought for access at meetings of Narragansett’s Coastal Access Improvement Committee. While no legal action has been taken as of yet, Noka has expressed the tribe’s determination to regain their rights to the shore without fees: “At what cost do you sell your church? At what cost do you sell your mosque? At what cost do you sell yourself? We will get access.”

Margaret Nesi is a junior at Brown University, concentrating in International and Public Affairs and Hispanic Studies. She is a staff writer for the Brown University Undergraduate Law Review and can be contacted at margaret_nesi@brown.edu