Following the vitriolic letter from Les Gaines last Friday condemning me for the use of the term, “anti TCP” activists, my e-mail inbox was bristling with letters. I had used the words in describing a number of people who had turned up at Rep. Harry Teague's public meeting to push their agenda in opposition to the Traditional Cultural Property designation of parts of Mount Taylor.
|
|
One of the most poignant messages came from Betsy Begay of Ramah Navajo Chapter. She wrote, “As an American who practices traditional Navajo spiritual beliefs, I am saddened, offended and amazed that Mr. Gaines would state that the TCP is an accommodation to “a particular religious group.” The TCP application was made by the Acoma, Laguna, Hopi and Zuni tribes and the Navajo Nation, which all have distinctive and separate religious and cultural traditions.
“To bunch these Native Americans together as a “particular religious group” makes about as much sense as saying that Christian, Muslims and Jews are “a particular religious group” because they all profess belief in a single deity.
“I find it astounding that a person could live close to Pueblo and Navajo populations and be ignorant of these facts.
“Since Gaines takes offense to being described as “anti TCP,” perhaps he should follow Governor Richardson's advice (Beacon, April 24) and set up a dialog between the tribes and his so-called 'concerned citizens.'
“Of course everyone in this debate should be made aware that it is the Cultural Properties Review Committee and not the tribes, which will make decisions about development on the mountain, after other state agencies have weighed in with their opinions.”
A letter from retired English teacher Pat Moore shed light on the semantics involved in the Gaines letter.
“Mr. Gaines seemed very agitated by being described as “anti TCP,” but he didn't clarify his position. Vague statements about wanting the mountain to be available to everyone aren't sufficient,” Moore wrote.
“English 101 teaches us that a person or group opposed to an idea or event can be described as “anti” (e.g. anti-war), while a person or group who support an idea or event can be described as “pro” (e.g. pro-choice). Ms. Fowler's use of the term 'anti-TCP' is a perfectly legitimate use of the English language.
“If he is not, in fact “anti-TCP,” perhaps Mr. Gaines should write another letter to the Beacon stating that he is “pro-TCP” or neutral on the issue. There are really only three choices here…anti, pro or neutral.”
Pablo Chavez of Prewitt saw the whole issue in terms of uranium interests attempting to inflame passions and promote disinformation about what the TCP actually means to the people of Cibola County.
“There is a lot of false information going around about the TCP designation,” he wrote. “It will not prevent the traditional recreational uses of the mountain, such as hunting, pinon picking, bicycling and the Quad. Nor will it effect grazing.
“I lived near San Mateo during the last uranium boom and worked my way through college by working in the mines. I saw my co-workers die from lung ailments and other uranium linked diseases. There are still mine tailings that blow off the mountain and taint the air and water. If the uranium industry couldn't clean up after itself last time, why should we risk it again?
“There have been lobbyists like Marita Noon trying to sway the local population since talk of re-opening the mines began. Before the big county meeting about the TCP, nobody around here had even heard of her and now this energy industry hack from Albuquerque is trying to determine the fate of our beloved mountain.
“There is certainly room for honest, well informed adults to disagree about the TCP. That is what a democracy is all about, but partisans like Les Gaines should be more tempered in their attacks.”
Thanks to all my readers who contacted me about this issue.




Comments