Final answer:
The Tadoaho and Peterman's perspectives on land claims reflect the tension between traditional Native American beliefs of communal land use and the imposition of European legal land ownership concepts, leading to conflict and loss of control for Native peoples.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Tadoaho and Peterman differ significantly on the subject of land claims. The clash is deeply rooted in the historical and cultural understanding of land ownership among Native American tribes and the subsequent legal codifications imposed by European colonizers.
Native American tribes traditionally did not have a concept of legal land ownership as Europeans understood it; land was communal and used collectively. However, the encroachment of white settlers and the European concept of land as a source of wealth forced tribes to adapt and defend territories guaranteed by treaties. Senator Teller during the debate over the Dawes Act highlighted the failure of policies that replaced communal reservations with individual plots. He foresaw the loss of land control within two generations, which indeed happened as predicted.
Ultimately, treaties like the Medicine Lodge and Fort Laramie were often ignored, leading to further native displacement. The government would at times support land claims not necessarily based on truthful ownership but rather political or social pressures of the time.