"I sang the facts."
Guilty on both counts! First, you were supposed to sing the National Anthem of Canada, not the facts. Second, that was not singing, that was wailing. The main problem however is your evaluation of the facts. You claim that we (Europeans) have made our home on their (Native) land. Let's put aside the fact that the alleged disposition occurred centuries ago and everyone should have gotten over it by now, and let's just look at the possessive pronouns - our and their. In this context only our is indeed a possessive pronoun. In the true sense of ownership, of property, the Natives never possessed the land, the land was never theirs. John Locke figured out property 300 years ago: "he that so imployed his pains about any of the spontaneous products of nature, as any way to alter them from the state which nature put them in, by placing any of his labour on them, did thereby acquire a propriety in them." Property must be gained, whether by the owner's own labor or by free trade with other owners. That's what endows humans with the right to property.
With the possible exception of the Iroquois, no native tribes on Canadian territory have worked the land they inhabited. Virtually all tribes were nomadic, living off whatever the land happened to provide, such as berries and buffalos. Even the Iroquois' agriculture was primitive and limited in time - the land was abandoned after a few years when its yield was no longer sufficient. The Natives viewed land as "... sentient. It encompasses many life forms and spaces. It holds immense energy". In fact, the idea of “owning” land is a foreign concept for Native peoples. This narrative is often employed to show that the Natives were tricked into selling their land, since they had no idea what that really meant. But instead it shows quite the opposite. Selling presupposes ownership, that the land belonged to them, which by their own description is not true. Therefore, the Europeans did not steal the land, they took ownership of land that belonged to no one. And they worked it into skyscrapers, and telescopes, and launch pads for space exploring vessels.
Why is Locke's view on property the correct one, and not the one of the Natives? Because he was white and colonialist? No. It's because of man's nature as a rational being. Property is the means by which man sustains his life through long term planning. In John Galt's words, "Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality—to think, to work and to keep the results—which means: the right of property." The Native view is purely mystical, with no connection to this reality, including land itself. An irrational belief in the supernatural does not endow rights in the natural world.
So, Jully Black, not only what you did was wrong, what you meant was wrong as well. I hope you didn't get paid for this gig. Moreover, I hope you get sued by ESPN and NBA for loss of income, there must have been quite a few viewers who switched the channel after your horrible performance. Next time try to stick to the script and the notes on the sheet. Passionately howling an approximation of the original song is not interpretation, it's butchery. You wanted equal opportunity? You had it. You blew it.
