logo
At 90, Tom Barnwell has left a lasting legacy on Hilton Head Island

At 90, Tom Barnwell has left a lasting legacy on Hilton Head Island

Yahoo01-06-2025
Thomas C. Barnwell Jr. was born on an incoming tide on Hilton Head Island 90 years ago, and he's been riding a flood of change ever since.
When Barnwell was inducted into the Hilton Head Island Hall of Fame in 2013, he was called 'an outspoken community leader, bringing an energetic voice — as well as affordable health care, public water systems and economic and educational opportunities — to the powerless.'
Add affordable housing to the list. Between 1978 and 2000, he and his family have developed 100 units in five different projects on Hilton Head.
And add environmental protection, from the days the Hilton Head Fishing Cooperative he and others founded joined the fight against a petrochemical plant coming to Bluffton.
But as he and I talked ahead of his birthday on Monday, June 2, the dominant theme turned out to be family.
Barnwell lives on Katie Miller Drive, named for his grandmother, his home in a rural setting amid the island's hubbub.
We looked at a snapshot showing generations five through eight of his family on the island. It began when Caesar and Mariah Jones paddled over from Bluffton — seeking freedom during the Civil War, and presumably setting up home in the freedmen village of Mitchelville.
Barnwell — a born entrepreneur who sold candy to his elementary school classmates and could always get the teacher off topic — has hair of gray and white now. He was wearing a starched oxford shirt, blue jeans and suspenders when he mentioned his ongoing second battle with prostate cancer.
He and Susan Carter Barnwell will celebrate 52 years of marriage in September. Two of his children — Thomas 'Curtis' Barnwell III and Paulette Barnwell Ervin – live on the island. A third, Jason S. Barnwell, who has an engineering degree from MIT and a law degree from the University of Southern California — works for Microsoft in Seattle.
He wants them to remember where they came from.
Barnwell was born in the Squire Pope area of an island with no bridge, electricity, paved roads, hospital or telephones.
As a child, he saw trees, sand and more trees.
But his grandfather, Benjamin Walter White, 'used to say to us, 'Hold onto your land because Hilton Head Island one day will be the Garden of Eden place of the South.'
That has remained one of Barnwell's mantras.
'I was just a little boy when I heard that,' he said. 'I said, 'This old man has got to be crazy.' I said that to myself. I wouldn't dare say that to him. I would have been told to go out there and get a switch and he would have whipped me.'
That grandfather was a farmer who purchased a lot of land.
'He'd put us in a wagon when it was time to grind the cane and show us where his property lines used to be,' Barnwell said.
Barnwell said he is saddened to see how much land has left Gullah hands 'for many reasons.'
He said families should treat land as a business.
His family leases the sandy soil on which a large, blue-roofed timeshare project rises on Skull Creek today. The family still owns the place where Paulette recalls as a child getting chased up a tree by a big bull named Jupiter.
Barnwell's parents were bright lights guiding both him and the Gullah community.
Tom Sr. was a farmer, ferryman and doorman — educated at the Penn School on St. Helena Island, as was Tom Jr.
Island Packet co-founder and columnist Jonathan Daniels wrote that Tom Sr. was a 'shrewdly humorous, impeccably polite man' who served both the Gullah and the newcomers as a 'quiet and perceptive counselor.'
But Barnwell said it was his mother, Hannah White Barnwell, who set him onto perhaps his most important life's work.
She was educated at The Mather School in Beaufort, and at a nursing school for Black people in Columbia, and she was a force for both health care and child care on her isolated island.
Barnwell recalled: 'She, as an adult, called me and said, 'There's this doctor in Bluffton named Dr. Donald Gatch. He is a very good friend of (public health nurse) Ann Pitts. You need to meet him. You need to spend some time with him. You need to understand what he has discovered as a problem in our area. And you need to spend some time working with him on that problem.'
That was in 1968. The problem was children infested with intestinal parasites, and the associated poverty.
Barnwell holds up the transcript of testimony about Lowcountry conditions he and others made before the U.S. Senate Select Subcommittee on Nutrition and Human Needs in February 1969.
It became a national story. Gatch was known as 'The Hunger Doctor.'
Among the outcroppings of that public reckoning was the creation of the Beaufort-Jasper-Hampton Comprehensive Health Services Inc., offering medical care to the indigent and organizing public water systems in rural areas. Barnwell was its director for a decade, and its administrative building in Okatie is named for him.
Ninety years of rapid advances in the Lowcountry may have left one important thing behind.
That is family.
Commuting a couple of hours both to and from work on Hilton Head each day, 'disrupts the opportunity for families being able to blend and grow together as a unit,' Barnwell said.
'The jobs are important. They keep people financially afloat. But the family is more and more deteriorating.'
Technology also plays a part, with every child holding a cellphone.
'Those things don't capture the kind of things we used to get from the older people, sitting next to the fireplace.'
And that leaves a society not knowing — or appreciating — the dignity, sacrifice and work that brought today's opportunities.
'You'll find it in these books,' Barnwell said, tapping his stacks of documents.
'I hope maybe one of these days my grandchildren or great-grandchildren or great-great-grandchildren will look at these books and see that I, along with a lot of other people, have been helpful.'
David Lauderdale may be reached at lauderdalecolumn@gmail.com .
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Looking to beat the heat in the Twin Cities? Here's a list of cooling centers around the metro
Looking to beat the heat in the Twin Cities? Here's a list of cooling centers around the metro

CBS News

time11 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Looking to beat the heat in the Twin Cities? Here's a list of cooling centers around the metro

An excessive heat warning is in place across the Twin Cities metro Sunday as feels-like temperatures surpass 100 degrees. WCCO has issued a NEXT Weather Alert for Sunday due to the dangerous heat, as well as the risk for severe storms. For those looking for a place to stay cool, there are options. The following places have cooling centers open across the Twin Cities for free during business hours: For a complete list of cooling centers open in Hennepin County, click here. Minneapolis also has several free pools, beaches and splash pads to help people beat the heat. To see a map of all the cooling centers and beaches in Ramsey County, click here. To stay cool, experts encourage people to limit time in direct sunlight and drink plenty of water. If you're going to be outside in the heat, doctors encourage wearing loose, light clothing and seeking shade when you can. It's recommended that anyone working or exercising in the elements drink at least one cup of water for every 20 minutes. Older adults, young kids and anyone with underlying conditions are at greater risk from extreme heat. In Minnesota, the number of heat-related hospitalizations spikes at a feels-like temperature of only 86 degrees. Cramps, rapid pulse and dizziness are early signs to watch out for when it comes to heat-related illness. Adam Del Rosso and Aki Nace contributed to this report.

Federal Court Strikes Down California's Ammo Background Check Law
Federal Court Strikes Down California's Ammo Background Check Law

Forbes

time11 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Federal Court Strikes Down California's Ammo Background Check Law

In a major victory for the Second Amendment, on Thursday, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck down a first-of-its-kind law that required a background check before every purchase of ammunition in California. 'By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases,' Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the majority in Rhode v. Bonta, 'California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.' PETALUMA, CA - APRIL 02: Rounds of .223 rifle ammuntion sits on the counter at Sportsmans Arms on ... More April 2, 2013 in Petaluma, California. (Photo Illustration by) California's regime dates back to 2016, when California voters approved Proposition 63 by a margin of almost 2:1. Under the proposition, residents would pass an initial background check and then receive a four-year permit to purchase ammunition. However, California lawmakers amended the law to only allow ammunition purchases in-person and after a background check each time. By requiring face-to-face transactions, California also banned both online sales and prohibited Californians from buying ammunition out-of-state. Prior to California's regime taking effect in July 2019, multiple plaintiffs, including Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, sued the state in 2018. To determine if California's law was constitutional under the Second Amendment, the Ninth Circuit relied on a two-step test set by the Supreme Court in its 2022 landmark ruling, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under that decision's framework, 'when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.' If so, the government must then show that 'the regulation is consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.' In the California case, the Ninth Circuit determined that the Second Amendment protects 'operable' arms, and 'because arms are inoperable without ammunition, the right to keep and bear arms necessarily encompasses the right to have ammunition.' As a result, the court concluded that 'California's ammunition background check meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms.' To survive the second step of the Bruen test, California attempted to compare its background check system to a wide range of historical analogues, including loyalty oaths and disarmament provisions from the American Revolution and Reconstruction. But the Ninth Circuit was left unconvinced. 'None of the historical analogues proffered by California is within the relevant time frame, or is relevantly similar to California's ammunition background check regime,' Ikuta found, and so, 'California's ammunition background check regime does not survive scrutiny under the two-step Bruen analysis.' In a sharply worded dissent, Judge Jay Bybee blasted the majority's analysis as 'twice-flawed.' Noting that 'the vast majority of its checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay,' Judge Bybee asserted that California's background check system is 'not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms.' Notably, the California Department of Justice in 2024 received 191 reports of ammunition purchases from 'armed and prohibited individuals' who were denied by background check. In dueling statements, the California Rifle & Pistol Association praised Thursday's ruling against the state's background check law as a 'massive victory for gun owners in California,' while Gov. Gavin Newsom called the decision a 'slap in the face.'

OpenAI: ChatGPT Wants Legal Rights. You Need The Right To Be Forgotten.
OpenAI: ChatGPT Wants Legal Rights. You Need The Right To Be Forgotten.

Forbes

time26 minutes ago

  • Forbes

OpenAI: ChatGPT Wants Legal Rights. You Need The Right To Be Forgotten.

As systems like ChatGPT move toward achieving legal privilege, the boundaries between identity, ... More memory, and control are being redefined, often without consent. When OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently stated that conversations with ChatGPT should one day enjoy legal privilege, similar to those between a patient and a doctor or a client and a lawyer, he wasn't just referring to privacy. He was pointing toward a redefinition of the relationship between people and machines. Legal privilege protects the confidentiality of certain relationships. What's said between a patient and physician, or a client and attorney, is shielded from subpoenas, court disclosures, and adversarial scrutiny. Extending that same protection to AI interactions means treating the machine not as a tool, but as a participant in a privileged exchange. This is more than a policy suggestion. It's a legal and philosophical shift with consequences no one has fully reckoned with. It also comes at a time when the legal system is already being tested. In The New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI, the paper has asked courts to compel the company to preserve all user prompts, including those the company says are deleted after 30 days. That request is under appeal. Meanwhile, Altman's suggestion that AI chats deserve legal shielding raises the question: if they're protected like therapy sessions, what does that make the system listening on the other side? People are already treating AI like a confidant. According to Common Sense Media, three in four teens have used an AI chatbot, and over half say they trust the advice they receive at least somewhat. Many describe a growing reliance on these systems to process everything from school to relationships. Altman himself has called this emotional over-reliance 'really bad and dangerous.' But it's not just teens. AI is being integrated into therapeutic apps, career coaching tools, HR systems, and even spiritual guidance platforms. In some healthcare environments, AI is being used to draft communications and interpret lab data before a doctor even sees it. These systems are present in decision-making loops, and their presence is being normalized. This is how it begins. First, protect the conversation. Then, protect the system. What starts as a conversation about privacy quickly evolves into a framework centered on rights, autonomy, and standing. We've seen this play out before. In U.S. law, corporations were gradually granted legal personhood, not because they were considered people, but because they acted as consistent legal entities that required protection and responsibility under the law. Over time, personhood became a useful legal fiction. Something similar may now be unfolding with AI—not because it is sentient, but because it interacts with humans in ways that mimic protected relationships. The law adapts to behavior, not just biology. The Legal System Isn't Ready For What ChatGPT Is Proposing There is no global consensus on how to regulate AI memory, consent, or interaction logs. The EU's AI Act introduces transparency mandates, but memory rights are still undefined. In the U.S., state-level data laws conflict, and no federal policy yet addresses what it means to interact with a memory‑enabled AI. (See my recent Forbes piece on why AI regulation is effectively dead—and what businesses need to do instead.) The physical location of a server is not just a technical detail. It's a legal trigger. A conversation stored on a server in California is subject to U.S. law. If it's routed through Frankfurt, it becomes subject to GDPR. When AI systems retain memory, context, and inferred consent, the server location effectively defines sovereignty over the interaction. That has implications for litigation, subpoenas, discovery, and privacy. 'I almost wish they'd go ahead and grant these AI systems legal personhood, as if they were therapists or clergy,' says technology attorney John Kheit. 'Because if they are, then all this passive data collection starts to look a lot like an illegal wiretap, which would thereby give humans privacy rights/protections when interacting with AI. It would also, then, require AI providers to disclose 'other parties to the conversation', i.e., that the provider is a mining party reading the data, and if advertisers are getting at the private conversations.' Infrastructure choices are now geopolitical. They determine how AI systems behave under pressure and what recourse a user has when something goes wrong. And yet, underneath all of this is a deeper motive: monetization. But they won't be the only ones asking questions. Every conversation becomes a four-party exchange: the user, the model, the platform's internal optimization engine, and the advertiser paying for access. It's entirely plausible for a prompt about the Pittsburgh Steelers to return a response that subtly inserts 'Buy Coke' mid-paragraph. Not because it's relevant—but because it's profitable. Recent research shows users are significantly worse at detecting unlabeled advertising when it's embedded inside AI-generated content. Worse, these ads are initially rated as more trustworthy until users discover they are, in fact, ads. At that point, they're also rated as more manipulative. 'In experiential marketing, trust is everything,' says Jeff Boedges, Founder of Soho Experiential. 'You can't fake a relationship, and you can't exploit it without consequence. If AI systems are going to remember us, recommend things to us, or even influence us, we'd better know exactly what they remember and why. Otherwise, it's not personalization. It's manipulation.' Now consider what happens when advertisers gain access to psychographic modeling: 'Which users are most emotionally vulnerable to this type of message?' becomes a viable, queryable prompt. And AI systems don't need to hand over spreadsheets to be valuable. With retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), the model can shape language in real time based on prior sentiment, clickstream data, and fine-tuned advertiser objectives. This isn't hypothetical—it's how modern adtech already works. At that point, the chatbot isn't a chatbot. It's a simulation environment for influence. It is trained to build trust, then designed to monetize it. Your behavioral patterns become the product. Your emotional response becomes the target for optimization. The business model is clear: black-boxed behavioral insight at scale, delivered through helpful design, hidden from oversight, and nearly impossible to detect. We are entering a phase where machines will be granted protections without personhood, and influence without responsibility. If a user confesses to a crime during a legally privileged AI session, is the platform compelled to report it or remain silent? And who makes that decision? These are not edge cases. They are coming quickly. And they are coming at scale. Why ChatGPT Must Remain A Model—and Why Humans Must Regain Consent As generative AI systems evolve into persistent, adaptive participants in daily life, it becomes more important than ever to reassert a boundary: models must remain models. They cannot assume the legal, ethical, or sovereign status of a person quietly. And the humans generating the data that train these systems must retain explicit rights over their contributions. What we need is a standardized, enforceable system of data contracting, one that allows individuals to knowingly, transparently, and voluntarily contribute data for a limited, mutually agreed-upon window of use. This contract must be clear on scope, duration, value exchange, and termination. And it must treat data ownership as immutable, even during active use. That means: When a contract ends, or if a company violates its terms, the individual's data must, by law, be erased from the model, its training set, and any derivative products. 'Right to be forgotten' must mean what it says. But to be credible, this system must work both ways: This isn't just about ethics. It's about enforceable, mutual accountability. The user experience must be seamless and scalable. The legal backend must be secure. And the result should be a new economic compact—where humans know when they're participating in AI development, and models are kept in their place. ChatGPT Is Changing the Risk Surface. Here's How to Respond. The shift toward AI systems as quasi-participants—not just tools—will reshape legal exposure, data governance, product liability, and customer trust. Whether you're building AI, integrating it into your workflows, or using it to interface with customers, here are five things you should be doing immediately: ChatGPT May Get Privilege. You Should Get the Right to Be Forgotten. This moment isn't just about what AI can do. It's about what your business is letting it do, what it remembers, and who gets access to that memory. Ignore that, and you're not just risking privacy violations, you're risking long-term brand trust and regulatory blowback. At the very least, we need a legal framework that defines how AI memory is governed. Not as a priest, not as a doctor, and not as a partner, but perhaps as a witness. Something that stores information and can be examined when context demands it, with clear boundaries on access, deletion, and use. The public conversation remains focused on privacy. But the fundamental shift is about control. And unless the legal and regulatory frameworks evolve rapidly, the terms of engagement will be set, not by policy or users, but by whoever owns the box. Which is why, in the age of AI, the right to be forgotten may become the most valuable human right we have. Not just because your data could be used against you—but because your identity itself can now be captured, modeled, and monetized in ways that persist beyond your control. Your patterns, preferences, emotional triggers, and psychological fingerprints don't disappear when the session ends. They live on inside a system that never forgets, never sleeps, and never stops optimizing. Without the ability to revoke access to your data, you don't just lose privacy. You lose leverage. You lose the ability to opt out of prediction. You lose control over how you're remembered, represented, and replicated. The right to be forgotten isn't about hiding. It's about sovereignty. And in a world where AI systems like ChatGPT will increasingly shape our choices, our identities, and our outcomes, the ability to walk away may be the last form of freedom that still belongs to you.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store