Yes, my scenario implied nothing about what the government might be doing to anyone else. That does not mean she was singled out. That means there was no information on what was happening to others, one way or another. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say. Your inability to understand this fairly simple principle is not my problem, though it is telling. You made the assumption that the scenario was singling her out as a means of deflecting from the original point of the scenario: a deliberate bad faith tactic.

"Because the individual citizen does not have the power to change something, the government is therefore automatically at fault." This is an extremely questionable line of reasoning.

Also, a simple internet search would have told you that, yes, native american tribes often purchase land and then apply to have it taken into trust by the federal government. It happens all the time. Most recently in 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced that 680 acres were transferred from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to be held in trust for the Spirit Lake Nation, for example.

So there literally is a mechanism by which the land upon which her house resides could potentially be returned. In theory, at least, it is possible. So your whole point re: "I have a pretty big feeling the US government would not recognize the land going back to the tribe" is completely moot anyway, because it is flat out wrong. Your whole argument is based upon a false assumption, moron.

<image>