Dear Michael Niman: Greetings. I'm a long-time reader, first time writer. I remember the first time I asked someone, "who the heck is this Niman guy, anyways?" I had just read something or other that you wrote, about what was really going on in the world. I remember thinking, yeah, whatever, unless someone were to have actually gone over to this god-forsaken lump of dirt being described in this'a here Artvoice, and seen it with their own eyes, could such things be believable. Then I was told that famous Buffalo tale, The Legend Of How Mike Niman Drank Stagnant Water For A Week In Venezuela Or Something, thus setting me straight, and implying that anything Michael I. Niman said in print is important, well-researched, and true. Having read your articles semi-regularly for the past several years, I've come to the conclusion that, despite a slightly-edgy overzealousness (or possibly because of it), you're usually on top of what's going on in the world. I have often gotten to the end of "Getting A Grip", and though, "Heck yeah!" You seem to know what you're talking about, and thanks to The Legend Of Stagnant Water, I can rest assured you'll at least go to commensurate lengths to check your sources. Plus, you're a good enough writer to know where this is leading, so I'll quit farting around and just say it... What the heck's going on, man? Hoodies? Jay Bennish? This is the best you can come up with??? First of all, the hoodies. Let me ask you something: which of the following is a more racist comment: "The good ol' boys at Regal entertainment can't quite bar black youth from their theatres, so they do the next best thing and ban attire common to black youth", or "The rich, paranoid owners of Regal entertainment can't quite bar criminals from their theatres, so they do the next best thing and ban attire common to criminals." Now, a knee jerk may suggest the second, but look closely: there is no mention of race in it. The problem, you see, is that hoodies are not strictly an African-American thing. Rather, the African-American race is being blamed unfairly for fashion trends that appeal to criminals. The racism is NOT in the clothing, Michael, and it's not even in the dress code policy. it's in the mind of the theatre manager, security person, or journalist who accepts the mental association that "hoodies" equals "black culture". They are banning SWEATERS WITH HOODS ON THEM, not PEOPLE WITH BROWN SKIN. And shame on you for perpetuating this mental connection. Hoodies are popularized by entertainers such as gangsta rappers who, regardless of their race, glorify the omniracial concept of CRIME. Fans of these entertainers will, as history demonstrates, dress and act to emulate them. And why has this genre chosen the humble hoodie as its patron garment, you ask? Well, as it turns out, they are incredibly convenient crime-wear, because not only do they conceal your identity during the caper, but since everybody seems to be wearing them nowadays, you can easily blend in with a crowd during the getaway. Combine this with Buffalo's already under-nourished police force, and you may come to understand why banning hoodies could be considered a good, solid, logical idea to property owners with an interest in at least identifying a suspect accurately. Heck, I can think of dozens of corner stores and gas stations that also ban hoodies. Are they racists too? Not everyone is scared of terrorists, you know. Sometimes they're scared of stick-up men, street crazies, shoplifters, ne'er-do-wells and vandals. You, know... THOSE people... They're called CRIMINALS. "Oh, but it's so very cold in Buffalo", I hear you whine. Cowboy up, would you please? Didn't you, Michael I. Niman, once drink stagnant water for a week in Venezuela or something? Are you new to the Buffalo experience? Do you not own a hat? You, of all people, should not be knocking a perfectly sensible and justifiably reasonable security practice, just because it might make someone physically less comfortable for a few seconds. We aren't talking about a lengthy, embarrasing genital frisking at a crowded airport; this is showing your face, in good faith, and as a social agreement that you aren't there to rob, mess up, or destroy the place. THAT is what's meant by "we must work together to ensure our safety", and it's just as much common sense in a War On Terror, as it is in a War On Street Crime. At some point, We The People must become part of the processes which defend us from They The Bad People, whomever They turn out to be. Now, my next bone of contention is your Jay Bennish article. Look, he did NOT get in trouble for "teaching geopolitics in geopolitics class", let's get that straight right away. He got in trouble for shouting "Hitler" in a crowded classroom. We have already established, as a society, that there are certain things you can't say in school, because the implications exceed the scope of the public education setting - the lengths to which God can be discussed in school, for example. Furthermore, I am by no means a right-winger, and yet I'll gladly tell you why I agree with their take on this matter before you even ask me to: Comparing someone to Hitler is far easier than one would suspect. Hitler's strategic skills derived from reading Sun Tzu's "The Art Of War". Hitler was a charismatic leader of a large group of people. Hitler used propaganda to control these people. Hitler grabbed as much power as he could while in office. Hitler had a bad haircut and was kind of a jerk in person. The vast majority of world leaders, CEOs and successful businessmen have many of these in common with Hitler. On the other hand, none of these people killed six million Jews. Only Hitler did that. And it's arguably the first and foremost thing on people's minds whenever this connection is made. Comparing people to Hitler is itself a vile form of propaganda, because the person drawing this connection is subconciously associating someone with The World's Biggest Slaughtering Racist Hatemonger Of All Time. This is, at best, an abuse of language, and at worse, severely misleading. I mean, doesn't George W. Bush share a leadership style with some other noteworthy leader? He must, because so many noteworthy leaders have been compared to Hitler! You said it yourself; "most global political leaders in a time of war employ similar propaganda tactics". This means it is possible to have this discussion, factually and objectively, without telling impressionable youth that propaganda, nationalism, and flag-waving are Hitler-like behaviors. Besides, Dubya is already the buckstop for so many other terrible deeds, that Mr. Bennish could have still made his point, by simply talking about those instead. Either that, or if he still got harangued over it, this letter would have ended with the hoodies. Facts may be facts, but a Hitler comparison is an irresponsible, subjective, and venomous attack, every time it is used. Now, I suppose freedom of speech could be argued in Jay Bennish's defense. However, the same freedom of speech that keeps "the F word", Intelligent Design, and Hustler Magazine taboo in our public schools, is also capable of censoring a teacher who insists on comparing our nation's current President to history's most well-known syphilitic mass-murderer, on the public's dime, in front of people not yet old enough to vote, drink, enlist in the military, smoke cigarettes, stand trial for murder, or be trusted not to record you while you're trying to have an open, honest discussion about modern geopolitics. In retrospect, I kind of wish I would have written you a letter back when I agreed with everything you said, if only as assurance that you would consider these opinions with a but more validity. Let me just end by saying I do normally enjoy your articles, there's no malice intended in this letter, that all allusions to such are simply added for humor or irony, and that if you don't print my letter, then you're totally a pussy... Sincerely, |