We share common DNA, immemorially
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
2 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
I am not sure that any lawyer or court truly understands the full meaning of “time immemorial” — beyond reported or recorded history — as it may have any legal significance other than to provide a nebulous “firewall” to any other legal discussion of pertinent facts. Or “notwithstanding.”
As all “things” are “updated” – like the so-called “living Constitution,” growing and expanding regulations from the likes of the EPA which will certainly be “immemorialized” into any legal structure (tribal or not), and immigration reform that presently has no form – should we not “update” time immemorial?
Beyond Reported or Recorded History –
What is recorded or reported? Is there not sufficient archaeological recordation to find the origin of man (and woman) in sub Saharan Africa? Also, sufficient evidence that the “native” in native American distinctly leads back to Euro-Asian DNA of the largest land mass, which in turn traces back to sub Saharan Africa? (This was recently highlighted by experts in the Missoulian.)
There is also statistical DNA evidence that all mankind was restrictively funneled, in times past, through a survival (against extinction) choke hold that immemorial circumstances had placed upon much of the earth. As such, we are all children of the earth, sharing a large common set of DNA, immemorially.
All this, such that, like “notwithstanding” having no proper discernible legal meaning, neither it seems, in a living and breathing way, should “time immemorial.” Both these terms are prejudicial, supercilious, and should be updated to meaninglessness. If you have a date in mind, use it. Immemorial, like Jello in a bowl, only jiggles when you shake it, yet has no true form of its own. Nor should it.
Immemorial time would seem to be beyond mankind, its existence, and its ability to discern its origins, all of which, in this modern world, is recorded and reported. Should lawyers or courts apply “art” to such a term, is not their thinking timed out of existence? Just another “living” and seemingly immemorial oxymoron?
Christopher Chavasse
Ronan
