Maybe you mean "all non-Native American land-owners in America". I'm not sure why you single out white.

Because African Americans didn't get the chance to get in on the thievery angle, and most other races didn't come in significant volume early enough to have the chance to in numbers significant enough to be worth mentioning?

And those natives would need to return it to other natives, who would need to return it to other natives, and so on for a thousand or so generations.

> You don't see a difference between inheriting ill-gotten gains from several generations back and actively looting the country yourself?

What's the difference? Why don't they return the stolen property?

> If there is no difference, I'm afraid all white land-owners in America are going to need to return their land to the natives.

Why shouldn't they? Have you heard of native title?