Letters to the editor

I was disappointed to learn that one of the National Forum's readers George E. Uhlig of Mobile, Alabama - chose to cite New York City as one of "the most dangerous cities in our nation." [Letters to the Editor, Winter 2001, Vol. 81, No. 11 Quite to the contrary, according to FBI statistics for 1999, New York City is the safest large city in the United States, ranking safest among cities with a population exceeding one million, and 165th out of 217 - on the list of cities larger than 100,000 residents.

Mr. Uhlig argues a connection between stringent gun-control laws and high crime rates. No such correlation adheres in New York City. In fact, the vast majority of illegal guns confiscated in New York City were originally purchased legally in less restrictive municipalities.

Despite the added pressure of these lax regulations, New York City's law enforcement is able to keep our streets safe and maintain our status as the "Capital of the World."

Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mayor

New York City

FORUM ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

I noticed an error in the Spring 2001 issue of National Forum ["Film & History," Vol. 81, NO.2] that you should take note to correct. In the Science & Technology article by Douglas W Larson, the author makes reference to a fish he calls a "squawfish." The fish in the photo of the x-- rays were probably northern pikeminnow, Ptychocheilus oregonensis. In the September 1998 issue of Fisheries, the official publication of the American Fisheries Society, all of the "squawfish" common name listings were petitioned for changing to "pikeminnow." This proposal was approved and the subsequent change was made because common names of fishes "should not violate the tenets of good taste." Author Larson was probably told by a fisheries expert that these were x-rays of "squawfish" because many people working in the fisheries field still have the old habit of calling the fish by its former name. You should no longer see any of the pikeminnow referred to by their previous names in any scientific publications since the name change was accepted.

Chuck Warren

Jerome, Idaho

CINEMATIC HISTORY: A DEFENSE OF HOLLYWOOD

In National Forum for Spring 2001 ["Film & History," Vol. 81, No. 2], Robert Toplin offers "Cinematic History: A Defense of Hollywood," and as someone who teaches Shakespeare's history plays, I like that defense. Shakespeare adjusted facts to suit his plays, and that's okay; what should concern us is that Shakespeare's English history plays are in part propaganda pieces, and there is a problem when films like U-571 continue in the tradition of stage propaganda.

It's okay that U-571 substitutes American naval personnel for British in telling its fact-based but not factual story. It's not okay that the film fits into a pattern of Cold War propaganda that makes the United States the Hero of World War IIi and reduces the British and Russians to bit parts.

U-571 is a Kinstlerroman of a young American officer's maturing in the art of war by learning he must give orders that will kill subordinates who love him. Young British officers have to learn that lesson as well; to insist on an American officer reinforces the myths of American innocence and "America: The Reluctant Warrior," when we've fought more or less once a generation since colonial times.

U-571 is relatively innocuous, but it's in the tradition that made a hero out of George Armstrong Custer. It's one thing for films to change some facts; it's another thing to participate in lying.

Richard D. Erlich

Oxford, Ohio

Americans have a history of oppression and slavery, are most commonly urban, and tend to have low incomes, unlike European Africans. More African American males are aged 18-25 than in European populations. Poverty, inner city life, and youth are the most common predictors of crime of all sorts. Further, while inner-city low income Americans are more likely to use guns in violent crimes, they are also the LEAST likely to be gun owners in America. Suburban middle-class Americans, the least likely to use a gun in a crime (even counting school shootings) have the highest percent of gun ownership in the Western world.

Our "gun culture" is not at fault. Our history of discrimination, our lack of attention to the issues of inner-city poverty and hopelessness are at fault. Eliminating guns is simply putting a band-aid on a much greater problem.

Michael P. Bobic

Pendleton, South Carolina

WHEN GUN CONTROL COSTS LIVES

Mr. Stanley's letter in the Spring 2001 issue of National Forum ["Letters to the Editor," Vol. 81, No. 2] requires an answer both because of the conclusions he fails to draw and the one he does draw.

The logical conclusion he fails to draw is that the government should freely distribute guns to low-income families. This has to be done because they cannot afford an appropriate weapon to ensure their safety, nor can they afford to move from their crime-plagued, unsafe neighborhoods. (The program could be called SAFE GUNS; television ads would use bananas as props to demonstrate proper use.)