Agreed with the caveat that owning something that is managed by another party without your informed consent given freely is not really owning. I won't argue that informed consent was not given freely by the tribes. Such an argument would take mountains of research of the situations surrounding the treaties which is in many cases probably not available or not reliable.
I will only argue if the tribes didn't give informed consent freely, the tribes don't really own the land anymore than a child owns "their" playhouse in their parents back yard. If they gave free consent I guess they are the parent who fooled their ten year old son into thinking mowing the grass was great fun or the neighbor who convinced another to mow their grass because their zero-turn riding mower is so nice and big it will only take a few minutes to mow a second city yard.