Recent editorials from North Carolina newspapers:
___
Aug. 22
The News & Observer of Raleigh on GOP-drawn districts:
As he does so often, Bob Phillips, head of Common Cause in North Carolina, had it exactly right with his comments on some pitiful, harshly partisan legislative districts as redrawn by Republican lawmakers, or rather by their hired consultant.
Made necessary by federal court rulings that found some of their 2011 districts to be racially gerrymandered, the new maps - likely in a drawer for some months while the court cases played out - continue to skew districts toward Republicans. That was entirely expected, since the rules for new maps the GOP leaders made for themselves allowed partisan consideration and voting patterns to be used in the new districts. Phillips, long an advocate of nonpartisan redistricting - done after every 10-year census - said GOP lawmakers blew a “golden opportunity to adopt fair, nonpartisan standards” for districts. Instead, he found “partisanship at the core,” and that’s right.
Making things worse is that by calculation, GOP leaders have offered the public a very limited amount of time to comment and offer input on the maps. In reality, of course, Republicans couldn’t care less about what the public thinks, which is the point of not allowing them time to offer their own opinions. If they did, they’d likely state the obvious: Why not form a nonpartisan redistricting commission to draw new maps and avoid what has been a huge public expense as Republicans have tried to defend the indefensible in federal court, to no avail?
Now, of course, Republicans are taking a chance that their maps will again be found to be gerrymandered in the extreme by the courts, at which point the courts would come in and draw the maps.
This story has been like the maps themselves - twists and turns and misdirection and confusion that do no favors for the fair democratic process in which people should vote for their representatives based on geographical good sense and competing ideas, not on ridiculously-drawn districts designed to give Republicans an advantage in keeping control of the General Assembly. If Republicans believe so strongly in their ideas, they should not fear a fair competition. But they do.
Online: https://www.newsobserver.com/
___
Aug. 20
StarNews of Wilmington on celebratory monuments versus objective historic artifacts:
With a movement afoot to remove Confederate statues from public spaces, it’s important to distinguish between monuments and places that are markers of history, and monuments and places that are objects of praise for a person or cause.
We preface this by condemning the vandalism of Confederate monuments in Wilmington, Durham and elsewhere. Vigilantism undermines the very values of justice we hope people are supporting. As the Raleigh News & Observer said in an editorial: “There are sound reasons to seek the removal of Confederate symbols, but violence and vandalism is not the way.”
A common complaint from those opposing the removal of monuments is that history is being erased. That’s why it’s important to make distinctions; and Wilmington provides good examples.
The area’s biggest Confederate presence is the Fort Fisher State Historic Site. In fact, with 830,000 visitors, it was the second-most-visited tourist attraction in the state last year, trailing only the Museum of Natural Sciences in Raleigh.
The site explores in depth the fort’s important role in the Civil War. There are plenty of Confederate artifacts and symbols on display, and the history should be preserved and displayed. We’ve heard no call to close the museum. In fact, it is undergoing a major expansion that will enable it to better carry out that mission. Someone wanting to close Fort Fisher because of its subject matter would indeed be trying to erase history.
Contrast that with the statue of George Davis at Third and Market streets. It is not a Civil War relic. It was erected in 1910 by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, not to mark Civil War history, but to glorify the attorney general of the Confederate States of America.
And that is the important distinction - Fort Fisher exists to preserve and tell an important part of our history. The Davis statue - like many others - was erected in the “Lost Cause” era, not to educate, but to show that the city held Davis and his cause in high esteem.
Writing in Foreign Policy, historian Paul Cooper notes that the Confederate statues erected in the early 20th century - the same time Jim Crow laws were being codified - “were designed with a specific effect in mind: to celebrate the cause of white supremacy in the United States and to shore up support for the relegation of black Americans to the status of second-class citizens.”
That is a dramatically different purpose than Fort Fisher - the site of two major Civil War battles - or any other place or monument with a mission of preserving history. Perhaps one way forward would be to leave the monuments in place, but add to the sites, putting them in context, and transforming them into true historic places.
We are not calling for the George Davis statue - or any other monument - to be removed. We are, however, urging that any debate be honest, civil and informed. And that means understanding the difference between celebratory monuments and objective historic artifacts.
It is an essential distinction.
Online: https://www.starnewsonline.com/
___
Aug. 20
The Fayetteville Observer on more questions arising about the Atlantic Coast Pipeline:
As we draw close to the final approvals for the $5 billion, 600-mile Atlantic Coast Pipeline, there’s a growing chorus of voices saying, “Hey, wait a minute - what about this?” We’re pleased that someone with some clout - someone who can issue necessary permits for the natural-gas pipeline - is listening.
Officials from the state Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources and the Department of Commerce were in Lumberton last week for another “listening session” to gather more feedback on the pipeline. They got some that they need to seriously consider. Federal regulators should pay attention too.
Ryan E. Emanuel, a professor at N.C. State University and an expert on water, carbon and climate issues, noted that the country’s latest National Climate Assessment urges that the country back away from new fossil fuel infrastructure, including pipelines. “This is our only hope to keep climate change in check,” Emanuel said.
The professor also came with numbers that show serious risk for the state and especially for Robeson County. By the end of the century, he said, climate change is expected to cost this country about one percent of its gross domestic product. That’s $4 billion a year for North Carolina. But Robeson, like many other poorer, more rural areas, would be hit harder, Emanuel said - a possible loss of 10 to 15 percent a year to the Robeson economy. That’s in a county that has one of the highest rates of poverty in the state.
Emanuel, who’s a member of the Lumbee tribe, spoke too about the impact that the pipeline would have on the land that the Lumbees have used for centuries, including as sacred burial grounds. Lumbee Jorden Revels, a sophomore at UNC-Pembroke, concurred. “Land is a part of our identity,” he said. “It is a large part of who we are as a people.” It was only last week that state officials met with Lumbee and other tribal governments to gather their views on the project.
The question we hear, over and over, goes beyond the obvious environmental impact of the pipeline and asks whether the pipeline, which will bring fracking gas from West Virginia, is really necessary, or if it’s been oversold as an economic booster for our local economy. We hope state officials will give the pipeline sponsors’ economic assumptions a rigorous review.
The project’s support here is largely based upon promises of economic development springing from an industrial-scale sources of cheap natural gas. But we’ve not seen any convincing proof that the gas supply would overcome other problems that have prevented large industrial development from happening here. If it turns out that the only real beneficiary of the project is Duke Energy, which will get plenty of gas to run present and future power plants, is it still worth all the disruption to lives and the environment? We’re not sure a lot of people would say “yes.”
There’s still time for the state to gather experts to run the numbers used to justify the pipeline and make sure the disruption and potential damage are really worth it.
Online: https://www.fayobserver.com/
Please read our comment policy before commenting.