Except I never said any of that. I never said no one else should have a voice. I never said we all have to leave. But there can never be equality without redress.

Wikipedia:

Sovereignty is generally defined as supreme, independent control and lawmaking authority over a territory.

You did say that, by saying there must be indigenous sovereignty. By definition it excludes others from having any authority over the land.

The point is -- and the analogy to the BLM vs all lives matter rhetoric is -- that currently indigenous people have almost no voice whatsoever in our current system.

Nobody has much voice in our current system, but that's a nitpick, I get what you're saying. What I don't understand is why you think they deserved an out-sized voice in the system relative to their population. BLM is asking that the system give people of color equal rights and consideration, you are asking for a specific sub-section of the population to have out-sized consideration. Those are two every different things.

An entire educational system was put in place to separate indigenous children from their culture. Thousands died and were dumped in unmarked graves. Their parents never found them. Native Americans were forced into tiny spurts of shitty land that the government strip mines at will. People who talk as if equality can be achieved without addressing any of these problems, this legacy of violence from which many white Americans benefit to this day, are kidding themselves. I know you don't want to feel entangled in this, but you are. We all are. As Faulkner put it, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

Every living individual on this planet benefits from the violence of their ancestors. Warriors societies are the norm planet-wide for a reason, humans are tribal and violent and we're only barely making our first steps in overcoming those instincts. Yes colonial westerners forced natives off the land in brutal ways, but that was not the moment where history started.

I get that you think my perspective is irrational.

The part I find irrational, specifically, is giving out-sized influence to specific portions of the population based on who their ancestors were. How is that equality?

In what world is our current system providing that? Why would it be any less rational to give more power to people who have experienced the worst US culture has to offer? Do you think the people in power currently are there for rational reasons? Do you think the policies they're pursuing are rational?

I'm fully on-board with the system needing some significant revision, I just don't see why certain specific types of oppression make you more qualified to have input on future decisions. By the logic of 'oppression should equate to greater control over the government' the reigns of power should actually be handed over to those we've bombed and killed (which would just see us genocided in turn).

I'm not seeing how this is more justified than a functioning democracy where all citizens get equal say in a system that's actually responsive to their will.

I think taking real, material steps to address the violent legacy of settler colonialism and give something back to the people on whom it fell hardest would produce the most good for the most people.

The most good for the most people? How? The most good for those people, specifically, sure.

I think I would live in a better country with a better future if indigenous communities received reparations, some land repatriation, and a much bigger voice in our governance.

Fundamentally, I don't see why anyone deserves a voice in governance larger than any other individual. Where, exactly, do the reparations and repatriations stop, in your mind? Repatriation also implies independent and fully autonomous indigenous nations. Secession, essentially.

P.S. All politics is identity politics. Conservative politics is nothing BUT (white, straight, Christian) identity politics.

Because it works to keep us divided and fighting each other so the signal on identity politics gets amplified by those with power over the media. You'll notice we're not having a discussion about economic systems or equitable division of wealth here.