A Shocking Story
To the editor:
As a long-time vacationer on the Cape and, in recent years, as a summer home owner in Wellfleet, I have considered Napi’s one of my very favorite restaurants since it opened. No more.
Your truly shocking and distressing article about the racist and despicable attitude of the new management towards its employees [“They Worked for Napi for Years; Now They’re Being Evicted,” Aug. 19, front page] will keep me from patronizing it until this injustice is reversed. I’m sure that every informed person on the Cape will feel the same.
Until and unless there is a complete change in management there should be protests and boycotts to remove the current bosses permanently. Provincetown — Cape Cod — is too wonderful a place to put up with such abhorrent behavior.
Michael Spielman
Wellfleet and New York City
Opposing the Seashore Land Swap
To the editor:
We found “Seashore Land Swap” in the Aug. 5 Wellfleet Currents [page A13] a bit troubling.
The idea of opening the Herring River originated long ago with National Seashore scientists, and the Seashore is the biggest proponent of the project. Most of the Herring River Estuary is within the National Seashore boundaries.
Why should Wellfleet swap town-owned land for small slivers of Seashore land to build the new bridge over the river and elevate public roads that abut the Seashore? This should be a gift or a purchase from the Seashore for a nominal amount (we suggest $1) to see the project come to fruition.
Wellfleet and its citizens will have to give much to see this project through, but to give unrelated town-owned parcels to the project does not make sense. Who knows what land will be needed or what will be accessible 50, 100, or 200 years from now?
We implore the Wellfleet Select Board to keep this big picture in mind in any negotiations they have with the National Seashore. Unrelated town owned parcels should not be a part of any negotiation in opening the river.
Ashley Fawkes Rogers and Charles Rogers
Wellfleet
A Champion of the Workers
To the editor:
Thank you for your obituary of Carol Green [Aug. 12, page A21]. It was how I heard of her death, and it reignited so many memories of our shared time at Castle Hill in Truro, memories now overshadowed by sadness at her loss to a world to which she gave so bountifully.
In my 12-year tenure as director of Castle Hill, Carol was the finest, kindest, most generous, and most far-seeing president under whom I worked. Her vision to make the organization free of perpetual fundraisers was followed by her financial endowments to that purpose. She put down a firm foundation for the future and gave unstintingly of her time, her energy, and her money.
Always a champion of the workers, she showed us compassion and respect, and we loved her for it. I feel privileged to have worked with her.
Mary Stackhouse
Orleans
Only One Flag
To the editor:
Laura Fitzgerald is correct in looking at the American flag as a symbol of “all that is good in our country” [letter to the editor, Aug. 5, page A2].
Making changes to the flag changes its meaning, and, in turn, misrepresents the values of Americans, whom the flag is supposed to represent.
As a Roman Catholic, I grew up with symbols. They help me to see and remember things that are not always present in daily life. What would the statue of St. Peter mean if, instead of holding the keys to the heavenly kingdom, he held an ax or a can opener? So it is with our flag: another color or another number of stars and stripes would change its meaning.
Because it is a symbol, the flag is far more meaningful when only one is displayed. There is only one flag, one country, that we stand for at the stadium. Only one flag is needed in the public forum to signify the history and values it symbolizes. Using multiple flags as decoration diminishes the value of a single symbol and does not increase anyone’s patriotism.
Jim Chmura
Eastham
