SMUGNESS

Dr. Niman’s recent article on how the average American has caught up to his way of thinking regarding the Bush Administration, the occupation of Iraq, and other crimes committed by our government is interesting (“Getting a Grip,” Artvoice v6n45). While I usually agree with Niman, his writing smacks of smugness and condescension that sometimes exists in academia.

I would remind Niman that he and his family are not the only “enlightened” ones. In 2000, the majority of Americans favored Al Gore over Bush. It was the Supreme Court that denied Gore the presidency. Even though Gore was hurt by all of the bad press surrounding Bill Clinton, he still won! The majority of Americans knew in 2000 that electing Bush was a bad idea.

In 2004, despite having a less than ideal Democratic candidate, the Democrats won again. It was the Republican-owned electronic voting machines and intimidation tactics in Ohio that handed the election to Bush. The media, of which Niman is a member, can also be blamed for its lack of courage and conviction in not going after the Bush administration.

It has been said that “Those who can’t, teach” or something to that effect. If I’m not mistaken, Dr. Niman is a professor of media studies at Buffalo State. He is in a position to influence future members of the media. I hope he does so in a positive fashion. The very nature of his profession allows him a great deal more time to do research on the topics he writes about. My advice is: Do your research and write your articles but lose the attitude. Many of us know what is going on. The last I checked, not many of us have quit our jobs and taken to the streets in protest, including Dr Niman. We are all to blame.

Francis Gallagher

Lockport

CLARITY

Buck Quigley’s recent piece on the electric chair’s local history was incredibly well researched and explicit (“The Shocking Truth,” Artvoice v6n43). However, it would have been nice if Buck had stated his own personal convictions on whether the death penalty is right or wrong.

Several years ago Buck wrote a piece in the Buffalo News about the death penalty. He ended it by saying, “If we could stop wasting money on programs for the poor and AIDS research, we could find new ways to execute the guilty, thereby reducing the terrible violence in society.” I suspect that Buck wrote that in “tongue in cheek” style—but who knows? As a death penalty opponet myself, I complimented him on the piece. But conversely, the most rabid, bloodthirsty, would-e executioner could have walked up and given him a pat on the back.

My guess is that any wrongly convicted man sitting on Death Row would not want to hear any ambiguity on this issue.

Michael Taylor

North Tonawanda

Buck Quigley responds: Thanks for reading these many years. The piece you refer to in the Buffalo News was a letter to the editor responding to another letter writer who wanted to institute the use of the guillotine in New York State. Taking it one step further, he wrote that the condemned should be made to lie on their backs and be forced to watch the blade fall toward their necks. I found his unsolicited opinion revolting and wrote a sarcastic reply saying he didn’t go far enough, and went on to advocate governmental research that would be devoted to exploring even more brutal ways to deliver a torturous death. Even if we had to divert money away from health and social services, this twisted path would make us a more civilized society, I facetiously argued.

I never imagined anyone could take my “pro-torturous death” stance literally, but hey, they walk among us.

I appreciate your earnestness and I’ll do you one better by saying it’s my guess that even rightly convicted men (and women) sitting on Death Row would not want to hear any ambiguity on this issue.

For what little it’s worth, I remain an opponent of capital punishment. Everything about the practice is shameful, and that is why the history of the electric chair is a repressed collective memory for the city of Buffalo. Unfortunately, like all executions, the story is now and forever a part of our past that can’t be undone.

OIL

In the documentary “The Rape of Europa,” Nazis invaded nations based solely upon art treasures. Today’s invasions are based on oil…

1945: U.S. State Department described the Middle East’s oil reserves as “a stupendous source of strategic power” and “one of the greatest material prizes in history.”

1998: Many Bush Administration officials were Project for the New American Century members who want the lone superpower to control the world’s energy resources. They urged the White House to attack Iraq and prayed for a “catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor” to bring this about.

2001: Oil company executives secretly met with Vice President Cheney.

2003: While looters were allowed in Iraq hospitals and museums, 50 US tanks successfully guarded the oil ministry building.

2007: The recently passed war supplemental bill included passage of the “Hydrocarbon Act,” which forces the Iraqis to privatize their oil to American investors.

Senators Clinton and Schumer and Representative Higgins avoid discussing the palatial US “embassy” and permanent military bases in detail because they don’t ever intend to fully withdraw all troops. Apparently, the Nazis aren’t the only ones who believe that some nations should accept occupation and theft of treasures and resources.

Terry Todoroff

Cheektowaga

GENOCIDE

We received two letters from the same writer in regard to “Armenian Genocide Denial: An American Problem” by Dimitri Anastasopoulos (Artvoice v6n44).

Received November 1:

There is a legitimate historical controversy concerning the interpretation of the events in question and most of the scholars who have propounded a contra genocide viewpoint are of the highest calibre and repute, including Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw, David Fromkin, Justin McCarthy, Guenther Lewy, Norman Stone, Kamuran Gürün, Michael Gunter, Gilles Veinstein, Andrew Mango, Roderic Davidson, J.C. Hurwitz, William Batkay, Edward J. Erickson and Steven Katz.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. A good number of well-respected scholars recognize the deportation decision in 1915, taken under World War I conditions, as a security measure to stop the Armenians from co-operating with the foreign forces invading Anatolia.

On the legal aspect, the elements of the genocide crime are strictly defined and codified by the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948. However, Armenians, claiming that “the evidence is so overwhelming,” so far have failed to submit even one credible evidence of genocide.

Received November 5:

This was war. We Jews know what ethnic cleansing is. Probably more so than many other ethnic groups do. What happened to the Armenians was a horrific massacre and loss of life. Was every massacre throughout history motivated by ethnic cleansing? Certainly not. What Hitler tried to accomplish is a far cry from any Armenian so-called genocide. You cannot deny that many Armenians lost their lives as they were looking for a land of their own, however, what is not recognized is that the Armenians themselves inflicted as much damage as others in the hostilities of that time for their own selfish objectives. The Turks’ only policy was the removal of Armenians from the front line with Russia, where they were collaborating with the Ottoman Empire’s enemies. They were a threat to security. This is called war.

Regarding persecution, the Ottomans had one of the most tolerant policies toward non-Turks of any empire of its day. The three communities of Jews, Greeks and Armenians were virtually autonomous within the empire. It cannot be denied that throughout history the Ottoman Empire unlike any other empire of its time allowed Jews to practice their own religion as well as many freedoms of their time. When the Ottoman Empire had taken over Jerusalem, had they tried to annihilate the strong presence of the Armenians who had their own quarter? Never. Could you say that the Russians committed genocide against the Circassians and Adyghes? If you could, then the Armenians slaughtered 200,000 people including Turks and Kurds and Jews in Eastern Anatolia during Turkey’s Independence War while the Turks were fighting against the imperial powers of Europe on five fronts. Armenians took advantage of the Turks’ weak position and waged a war against them by opening a new front. But, this was war.

Matthew-Ismet Takim

Los Angeles