The Opinion Blog

Disappointment and Hope for Gullah

Thursday’s second editorial:

Bunny and Andrew Rodrigues

Speaking of local history, we were dismayed to learn that the Gullah O’oman shop and museum run by Vermelle “Bunny” Rodrigues’ and her husband Andrew had closed recently, after nearly 15 years of educating locals and visitors alike about the rich Gullah Geechee culture and heritage our area is steeped in.

The Rodrigueses have said they hope to reopen in a different location after losing their lease in Pawleys Island, and we certainly hope they do so. The couple’s stories, artifacts and passion for the Gullah Geechee culture have been a vital part of the effort to keep the area’s past alive, and it would be more than unfortunate to lose those links, especially just as the long-planned Gullah Geechee Heritage Corridor ramps up its efforts to highlight the unique African-American sea island culture.

Decry the Violence, not the Religion

Tuesday’s editorial pleads for a little more restraint when it comes to our anger at the violence against our interests in the Middle East:

In the wake of last week’s violent protests in the Middle East, including one that left four U.S. Embassy workers dead in Libya, many in our area have been understandably incensed. The brutal actions were reprehensible and deserve swift and unerring justice. But while justifiably enraged at these indefensible attacks, some have unfortunately quickly turned the blame on the entire Islamic faith or Arab race.

Reply in Poor Taste, but not Racist

Friday’s first editorial offers a measured defense of Rep. Alan Clemmons and his recent racist email reply flap. No, we don’t think it was acceptable. But it’s out of character for Clemmons and we believe it to be a forgivable hasty mistake:

Yes, Myrtle Beach Rep. Alan Clemmons was wrong to respond “Amen” to a racially charged email from a constituent, but one ill-advised response doesn’t make him a racist.

Straight Answers on Voter ID



Sunday’s editorial tries to inject some clarity into what has become a confusing maze of voter ID insinuations and vagueness:

 

Race discrimination, disenfranchisement, zombie voters, million-dollar lawsuits. The fight over South Carolina’s voter ID law has had its share of heated discussions, lofty rhetoric, twists and turns. With all of the arguments thrown about, it’s worth stepping back for a few minutes and taking a look at exactly what we’re all discussing. So in that vein, a few questions and answers on the voter ID debate:

Two Fights Against Tyranny



Saturday’s editorial takes a look at the pair joining the South Carolina Hall of Fame next week. Parts of it may look familiar to anybody reading the blog earlier this week. But this time, it comes with poetry.

On Monday, the South Carolina Hall of Fame housed at the Myrtle Beach Convention Center will induct two new members, civil rights pioneer Judge Ernest A. Finney Jr. and Declaration of Independence signer Thomas Lynch Sr.

Do they both deserve to be remembered? Certainly. But it says something profound – particularly during Black History Month – about our history as a state and how far we’ve come that one was an aristocratic slave-owning plantation owner and the other a tireless promoter of racial equality.

King's Legacy Lives On



Saturday’s editorial celebrates the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. ahead of the local events planned around Monday’s holiday:

Forty-three years after the tragic assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., it’s nearly impossible to write anything new about the civil rights pioneer, religious leader and national inspiration. Through his fame, his eloquence and his sheer strength of will, King perhaps more than any other pulled our national consciousness toward colorblindness.

Toward a More Refined Society



Thursday’s editorial addresses the state’s controversial new immigration law, which was in court this week, and will be again later this month.

Presented with the task of forging a viable law, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel has fired up his furnace.

Gergel, who plans to rule by Dec. 31 on South Carolina’s illegal immigration law, is now tasked with refining that law, taking out bits here, perhaps polishing something else there, tweaking it so that it not only fulfills its function but fits in with the rest of our state and our nation’s many rules.

16 Nations Agree ...

While it's somewhat humbling to agree with outside powers trying to tell us what to do, I've got to go with the Justice Department and our neighbors down south on this one:

Sixteen Latin American and Caribbean nations on Tuesday asked to join the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against South Carolina’s new illegal immigration law amid fears it would lead to their citizens facing state-sanctioned discrimination.

Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, Ecuador and Chile were among the nations filing papers Tuesday, asking to join the litigation filed by the Justice Department last week in Charleston.

Read more

It's frustrating that the federal government has been dragging its feet when it comes to any large-scale immigration law reform or changes, but creating a patchwork of state laws in the meantime isn't the right answer and will only lead to more confusion, not less.

Run For Change; Don't Sue



Sunday’s editorial weighs in on S.C. Democrats’ attempt to undo the new congressional district lines.

When the Justice Department signed off Oct. 28 on the state’s new congressional lines, we thought that the years-long build-up and debate about where to draw the districts was over, with the Grand Strand anchoring a new congressoinal district. But state Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian apparently has other ideas.

Monday, Harpootlian announced plans to file a lawsuit challenging the lines, complaining of an “antiquated standard” on race. If Harpootlian’s contention is that the state no longer needs to be under the auspices of the Voting Rights Act, with Justice looking over our shoulder, his position is perhaps understandable, though unlikely to succeed. But if, as seems more likely, he is simply acting as a thorn in the state’s side to raise both his own profile and that of the Democratic Party, this threatened suit is not only ill-fated, but ill-conceived and ill-advised.

Molehill Building 101



Friday’s editorial takes to task the state’s outsize reaction to illegal immigration, seen in the bill signed this week by the governor.

Fly buzzing around your picnic this summer? Just pull out the nearest sledgehammer and give it a good whack or two.

That’s the type of measured response shown by the immigration law changes enacted by the legislature this year and signed by the governor on Monday. It’s not that we don’t have illegal immigration or need to address it, but the scope of the problem simply doesn’t justify a new $1.3 million immigration task force with custom uniforms and cars, or some of the other unsettling proposals and poorly thought out ideas in the act.