What about all the land belonging to first nations that were completely wiped out? Thinking about the east cost specifically. Do you just give it to the nearest tribe that still has extant members able and willing to form a government? The indigenous political landscape of today bears little resemblence to its historical antecedents. Mostly on account of the genociding. Many cultures have been rolled together into new collective indigenous identities, and they cannot be meaningfully separated back into their pre-colonial constituent parts. Why would anyone besides indegenous people themselves support what you've proposed over the abolition of nation-states entirely, with all land collectively belonging to everyone? Seems like correcting one historical injustice while not meaningfully addressing the failures of the current system, while also introducing a whole new set of problems.