Letters to the Editor

Mixed Heritage
I appreciated Peter St. Cyr’s [cover, Aug. 21] “American Dreamers” very much. As the granddaughter of Italian immigrants, I heard many, many stories of my families’ arrival in this country—from the 1880s to the 1920s, depending on which side of the family was talking and which port of entry they had come through. The stories are funny, and they are heartbreaking. When Ferdinando Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti were killed in August of 1927, most people knew that they were Italian immigrants to the United States, they were political and philosophical anarchists, and they were innocent. There was no saving them, in spite of support and protests from around the world.

Sacco and Vanzetti became a code word in my family for the degrading and unjust treatment of Italian immigrants at all levels of the United States government, its economy and its culture. It’s a disgrace that such treatment of newcomers continues today, and it should not be allowed by anyone, especially those of us from immigrant families.

I am proud to say that [New Mexico DREAMers in Action] has every support I can give them, very small though it is. I believe that the treatment of immigrants of whatever nation, color or language should be a celebrated part of our history. I hope that when DREAMers are in the majority in our state and region, if not in the entire country, they will make pride in our beautifully mixed heritage a reality. Pat D’Andrea

News, Aug. 21:
"What to do with all the pretty horses? The Third Way

I believe USDA Secretary [Tom] Vilsack’s “Third Way” can remedy the unwanted horse dilemma better than slaughter...The vast majority of horses that end up at the borders come from somewhere else. To be successful, the dilemma must be addressed at the source. We’re beginning to overcome our issues in New Mexico. If we only had to deal with those within our state—and other states would deal with theirs—I believe we could make real progress nationwide.

Linda Horn

sfreporter.com Dead Horse Walking
“He agonized over the options—Nick believed Adonis was ‘a genuine liability,’ but he didn’t have the money or land to let him live out his days away from people and other animals. The thought of euthanizing him at a busy barn in town felt too practically and emotionally difficult.”

This is another infuriating statement. Heaven forbid that a human have to deal with “practicality or emotional difficulty” of euthanizing their horse. Yes, MUCH better to load him onto a slaughter truck to head off to be butchered for wild cat food. Ahhh. Out of sight, out of mind. Heartless, irresponsible, lazy, unfeeling—and the ultimate betrayal. What a gift Nick could have given that horse—and the other humans at the stable—by providing Adonis with a kind and humane end to his tortured life. THAT would have been the responsible, empathetic, humane thing to do. One of those “do unto others” kinds of moments...

Instead, I’m sure Nick got at least another 500 bucks out of his “dead horse walking.” Follow the money, folks. That’s what the pro-slaughter people are all about.It is NOT about the welfare of the horse. Horse slaughter is NOT humane. Gail Clifton

Back and Forth We’ve come this far in our back-and-forth over the issues of church-inspired celebrations of violent subjugation, and yet why do I feel as if nothing has been resolved [opinion, Aug. 21: “¡Viva!”]?

In response to Elmer Maestas’ suggestion of a “round table,” I will say what I have been saying for years: When we see New Mexico and West Texas tear down their obscene monuments to a butcher, we may finally come to an understanding. We may embrace and truly say let’s let bygones be bygones. Until then, words are meaningless. Nothing changes; the church will continue to cry for respect, arrogantly and ignorantly unaware of its own disrespect for humanity. C Maurus Chino

Car Lot Station I can say it no better than John Crain in your article [Big Picture, Aug. 14: “Paving Paradise”]:

“Spending untold thousands of taxpayers’ dollars...should be considered criminal.”

I use the South Capitol station and have loved for many years the beautiful tree-shaded park behind the Montoya building. If the cars therein feel threatened by the cottonwoods, they can move; the trees can’t. And pedestrians use that pleasant area to move toward (away from traffic) Cordova Road businesses and shops. I have always felt that to be one of the most beautiful car parks in Santa Fe. The trees are established; there is shade and welcoming coolness.

It breaks my heart [that] the plan is to destroy that. What has happened to the City Different, where our ancient cottonwoods—roots, limbs and all—used to be our pride and joy? The glory of these trees in autumn is breathtaking, and they want to substitute nonindigenous pines and pear trees?

Well then, don’t call it ‘South Capitol station.’ Call it South Car Lot station and be done with it.

Santa Fe Reporter