P & C's Adam Parker Confuses Charleston with Newark!

Adam Parker's Sunday story about Charleston's developing visual arts community was interesting and informative--until I reached the last paragraphs. Then I wondered if any facts in the article were actually true.

What changed my opinion? This phrase near the end, "And as [Charleston] has recovered from the social turmoil of the 1960s and related urban decay, . . .

Yes, I know it's hard to believe, but Parker apparently believes that poverty on the peninsula was a result of upheavals of the 1960s, you know, much like the results of rioting and burning in Newark, New Jersey. Hey, for all I know, Parker is intimately familiar with Newark.

What is clear is that Parker, despite more than a decade of writing for the paper, is not intimately familiar with Charleston! Do you suppose he knows what started at Fort Sumter? Or even when the peninsula began to turn around? Painful, isn't it?