Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 23 2003 @ 12:25 AM CDT

Naw, that\'s a story, it\'s too organised to be a rant. And I really liked it.

Though, the comment above mine, trying to find the root of racism isn\'t blaming/scapegoating, it has to be done. Fighting it where it comes up is a fine thing, but it\'s just fighting the symptoms. If we want to strike at the root of racism, we have to strike at capitalism, and the more that connection is made the better.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 22 2003 @ 11:30 PM CDT

I liked this rant (would you call it a rant?). About the blame for racism though, yes the business class does perpetuate it, but so does everyone else, I think. We should stop trying to blame and scapegoat, and just confront it where ever it comes up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 23 2003 @ 12:49 AM CDT

Yes I agree that we have to strike at capitalism. But even in a post-capitalist world, racism will most likely still exist.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 23 2003 @ 02:43 AM CDT

Forgive me reverend for I have sinned...once when I was 13-4 I stole and wore an iron cross and made my old man mad.It has been so long since my last confession I cant remember.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 23 2003 @ 02:46 AM CDT

Well the root to racism can be traced back to the anti-social tendancy in capitalism where we all work against eachother rather than for. When you combine this with a majority of people of one culture over annother then the dominant culture can enforce itself over the other culture. Ironicly this occurs in a social manner fooling people into believing in racism because it appears to be a socialy constructive thing to people who are angery and alienated, or just need a place to belong.

Now, the issue is how to change these things. Well, confrontation is prety much the only way to go here. We have to confront racism and let it be known that we don\'t tolerate it. However at the same time we must be sure not to become too reactionary or it will lead to reverse discrimination, a very counter-productive thing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 23 2003 @ 10:50 AM CDT

Alright!
I like this guy, he has some important stuff to say. I think that the whole scapegoat thing was a product of the seventies movements focussing too much on theory and not enough on reality. But in terms of blaming the south for everything, yes, the South has become a conveniant scapegoat for American racism.

Blaming it all on the South takes attention away from the fact that we\'re all living in a colonial country. In the South, where there were actually plantations, and where the legacy of colonialism lives on more directly, you can\'t get away from that fact about our founding. Up North, well, if you can put all of the blame for slavery on the South, and then ignore Native Americans, and not pay too much attention to Latinos, then you can convince yourself that you live in a country founded for democracy and liberty etc...

The South has some valuable things to teach the rest of the country. In particular Southerners have been resisting capitalism since the end of the Civil War and have put together some very good critiques of capitalist society based on their experiences. These would be the folks known as the Southern Agrarians---called that because they believe that living close to the land and engaging in farming is the best way to ensure a free and decent society....Farming teaches responsability and self-subsistance. Wendell Berry is a good author on this, although Donald Davidson, who wrote a great book on U.S. regionalism and decentralization called \"The Attack on Leviathan\", is another good author.

\"I\'ll Take My Stand!\" by Twelve Southerners is a good anthology, although it was written before the Civil Rights movement and should be read within that context.

Living close to the land, rejecting monolithic city culture, having a closer connection to the world through a sort of religious awareness about life, you can\'t beat it with a stick.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 23 2003 @ 02:42 PM CDT

Groovy.

God Save The South!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 23 2003 @ 05:17 PM CDT

Maybe we can all look to the government to help us
to dispose of those evil corporations.

Hurray for anarchy! May we all join together under
our government masters and watch as they destroy
free trade for us! Then we can all live together
under a new band of brotherhood as long as our
government masters agree with what we\'re doing.
Then we can all live in communes and praise the
day we ended those evil corporations.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 23 2003 @ 06:57 PM CDT

Hurray for assholism! May we all ignore everything that\'s wrong in the world, grab what we can, and make fun of anyone who does otherwise! Then we can live in perpetual fear and greed, teach the same to our children, and praise the day we decided to kneel to our bosses!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 23 2003 @ 08:41 PM CDT

LOL!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 11:44 AM CDT

This is a passionate and well-written piece with excellent intentions. Good ol\' boy agit-prop.

But I have to wonder if it would really have resonance with its target audience-- the pissed-off white Southern boy. Surely, Prolecat is a tiny segment of the demographic who knows who the real enemy is; I assure you that 99.9% of the boys who have waved a Confederate flag in my face were the furthest thing from \"rebels\"-- they were violent hyper-conformists hysterically frightened by difference, ambiguity, and Othenress.

Hell, the Klan and the State House flies the Confederate flag. The Confederate flag painted on the roof of the car on The Dukes of Hazard cannot possibly be interpreted as a \"protest against the mass production of national \'culture\'\".

Do any thoughtful, reflective people REALLY believe that the Stars & Bars is a symbolic resistance against the \"McDonaldized product...smothering and burying authentic local cultures\"?

SHit, I see more Confederate flags in McDonald\'s parking lots than anywhere else here in the Midwest.

In short, a great essay, but one that I worry will fall on deaf ears.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 12:08 PM CDT

Yeah, well that\'s your problem ... you\'re trying to transpose this to the midwest. Here in the South, LOTS of people take it as a general symbol of rebellion against mass-media and corporatization.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 01:20 PM CDT

\"Only the black flag will bring them to their senses.\" - Confederate General, \"Stonewall\" Jackson.

(yeah yeah, he didn\'t mean the anarchist black flag, but still, fun quote.)

very good story.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 01:46 PM CDT

In the end, it really is all the same damn problem, isn\'t it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 03:02 PM CDT

You are the most ignorant troll ever. Anarchists *don\'t* like the government, dumbfuck.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 24 2003 @ 09:14 PM CDT

the \"stars and bars\" flag has incredibly
vast and more complex representation
in historical and personal realizations, but unfortunatley has a totality of racist pagentry
in its clinging white supremicists useage
and lack of a collective(and personal)
intelligence of \"our\" culture.first id like to point out that it is a caledonian motif-
the church will tell you this and that-
but it does tell of a pepoles who kept
an empire at bay,the roman empire couldnt
quite conqure these folks so they built
a wall(t.v.?) across the entire length
of the country.Yes the history of scotland,
one of powerful warrior women and commiteded men,
is caledonian-litterally where roads dont go,
this heritage is not one of racism or fascism,
quite contrary,but what plack panther chapter
hasnt been penetrated by the pigs to fuck them
up with copy cat racism,what serious anarchist
gathering hasnt been attended by government screws
trying to defame and return your mind to
their version of the blackest of flags?
it is there flag if we dont continue this discourse,even more significantly with folks
who dont necessarily consider themselves
anrchists.The south is full of kind and loving people but monsters as well(some have 10 kids
like that guy from national alliance in georgia),
if they ever share the same flag,what can this mean? Anarchy for me O.K.!!!!!
the day i was born has a flag attached-
saint patricks cross the same as saint andrews-
my sisters birthday has the same flag and
one of my best friends from childhood
this caledonian \"money\" is now worthless
fouled by hatred,beligerence,pride,
even nationalism,and forever is clensed
by the fire from whence it came before me......


post script-
some early setelers in the region were,
in the true scotish tradition of anti-authoritarianism, jacobites and had been
massacred out of scotland and into penal
colonies,they perhaps never wanted to
forget that there was a death penalty on site
for wearing plaid in their motherland
acted upon them by white folks that brought
you the brittish emprie at the time,and
that dicotomy of sorts was again manifesting
in the secession of the south and its
subordinatin.This along with untold complexities
is the tip of an ice burg that if yall
would like to discuss hit me back at
magicflute4u@yahoo.com
oh yeah Ive seen mr. cambels son in
hawaii,I was glad and he really did impress me........

BURN THAT FLAG MAN
WERE ALL FAMILY!!!!!!!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 25 2003 @ 08:36 AM CDT

Yes, I really liked the story too, its not often these 2 sub-cultures are spoken of in context to each other

BURN YOUR CONFEDERATE FLAG, AND BURN YOUR BLACK FLAG AFTER THE REVOLUTION!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 26 2003 @ 07:04 AM CDT

For the record, and due to some sloppy cut-and-pasting on my part, the story above is missing the first couple of sentences:

\"If you are someone who displays a Confederate flag out of overt racism, this text is not for you. In fact, we will fight you in the streets. If, however, you are someone who insists that he is not racist...\"

So the original target audience is a touch narrower than it might appear, but just a touch. Interesting discusion...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 26 2003 @ 09:27 AM CDT

PS- I plan to hand this out as a flyer (it fits on one page, front and back) at the next Klan counter-demo. Not to the Klansmen or NA scum, but to curious passer-by...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 06 2003 @ 01:38 PM CDT

Good article! It reminds me of my own journey, as a kid growing up in a conservative area of Minnesota. My introduction to politics was Bill Clinton\'s rise to power in 1992, when I had just become eligible to vote. I didn\'t know much about politics yet, but, still, I could tell that Clinton was little more than a slick, untrustworthy snake-in-the-grass, and I was pretty indignant that so many Americans were suckered in by this weasel. So, having been raised in a Republican / conservative environment, plus having attended the parochial schools of one of the most conservative Lutheran synods in America, I naturally gravitated to the right as a reaction against Clintonesque bullshit, and I even listened to Rush Limbaugh for while -- that is, until I\'d learned enough and gained enough life experience to figure out that the Republicans and conservatives were full of it, too! I even felt some mild sympathies for the militia movement, although I was never very interested in guns (although I bleieved, and still do, in the right to bear arms) and was never interested in racism (how could I be, since my aunt married a black man, so I grew up with, and loved, a cool black uncle and biracial cousins!), and I thought that some of their conspiracy theories were wacko-jacko, but I now understand that I was primarily attracted to their anti-government attitudes. I agree with Michael Moore and Jello Biafra when they said that we shouldn\'t just write these right-wing people off as unreachable, since they are often upset about many of the same things we are -- they\'ve just been suckered in by the Republican / conservative false claims to be for small government and the right wing\'s traditional scapegoating tactics. I think they\'re especially reachable at this time, considering how many of the more libertarian conservatives are also getting upset about the growth of government power in the \"War on Terrorism\" -- I think this is a good opportunity to reach them and broaden their anti-government instincts to explain to them how our government has put us in danger while obeying the dictates of greedy fat cats. Well, anyway, growing up in a conservative Midwestern environment, I can tell you than many Midwestern conservatives are also disillusioned with TV and consumerism and the \"McDonaldization\" and increasing homogenization of our culture, and, again, I think this is an area in which we anarchists can reach them. In our efforts against closed-minded, bigoted people, we must be careful not to become closed-minded and bigoted ourselves. Conservatives are not necessarily greedy racists -- many are good people with good instincts who are just being used and abused! Well, going back to my own evolution, I became disillusioned with the whole two-party system, and I slowly came to realize my simultaneous libertarian and socialist instincts (cooperation? sharing? I learned about those things from Sesame Street! Damn pinkos!), but I had a hard time reconciling them, given the binary right/left rhetoric I was exposed to in the mainstream! For a short while, I was interested in the Socialist Party USA and their more democratic and libertarian brand of socialism that I thought was much better than strict Marxism, and then I came to the Green Party, which I felt suited my beliefs and attitudes much better. It wasn\'t until I moved to Madison, WI to pursue a library science degree that I was able to get my hands on good anarchist materials and learn what anarchism was all about. (Hooray for Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative, WORT community radio and the Madison Infoshop! I\'m now a volunteer at the first two, and I\'ll volunteer at the third as soon as I can fit it into my schedule! No one person can do everything, after all!!) The more I learned about anarchism, the more I realized that that had pretty much benn my basic, unarticulated belief system all along -- I had just been searching in vain for a philosophy that accurately expressed what I believed. Bottom line? Don\'t just write off conservatives, since many are reachable -- I was! (Hint: Most of these people have strong Christian beliefs, so try using Tolstoy\'s excellent explanation of \'Christian anarchism,\' \"The Kingdom of God is Within You.\" I think he does a wonderful job of explaining that organized religion is usually the enemy, as opposed to spirituality itself, which needs no authority or hierarchy. Indeed, I find that, the more truly spiritual you are, the less governable you are, and that orgainzed religion often hinders, instead of fostering, real spirituality. That\'s why I declared spiritual independence for myself by ordaining myself at www.ulc.org!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 07 2003 @ 04:37 PM CDT

I don\'t think we should be holding up \"Southern agrarianism\" as an ideal to aspire to. Southern agrarianism indeed has produced a powerful critique of industrial capitalism - but many of these critiques were not radical but deeply reactionary. Southern slaveholders like James Henry Hammond and John C. Calhoun sound like radicals until you realize that they attacked Northern capitalism because they were essentially anti-modernist aristocrats. The whole American agrarian tradition is tinged with white supremacy - it\'s not something worth admiring.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 09 2003 @ 02:40 AM CDT

what do you think of ever time you see the \"STAR & BAR\" I see the exploitation of a race of people. And I hate it.
Southern pride is like all other

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 11:49 AM CDT

Well, looking at this discussion reminds me of a frustration I often feel with anarchists, including myself. We\'re very good at analyzing and criticizing things (and I certainly don\'t mean to take away from that, because it\'s imperative that we continue to do so), but I often wish we were better at acknowledging good ideas and points of agreement with other people, even when we have disagreements in other areas. I mean, yes, Southern agrarianism and other similar philosophies are usually reactionary and often tinged with anti-modernism and white supremacy, but there are seeds of good ideas in there. You don\'t have to be a primitivist or anti-modernist to acknowledge that it\'s not a good idea to get so far removed from the land that you start losing respect for what sustains you, which leads to a loss of respect for our ecology. Of course, that doesn\'t mean we all have to smash our computers and go live off the grid! Self-sufficiency through cooperation and sharing with neighbors, instead of looking to government to provide for your community, is also basically a good idea. The point I was trying to make in my last \"comment\" (yes, I admit, it went a bit long) was that, if we\'re going to grow a movement, we have to be willing to talk with people with whom we have some serious disagreements by focusing on points of agreement -- even if, in their case, it originally stemmed from a reactionary attitude -- and building on those things, so that, hopefully, we can guide them to a more systemic and radical analysis of statism and capitalism. If we only attack people over points of disagreement and fail to recognize seeds of good ideas, I think we\'d be not much better than fundamentalists, and we\'d accomplish little besides patting ourselves on our backs and making enemies of our neighbors, who will then be more primed to be suckered in by the likes of Pat Buchanan (or worse -- bop around on a shortwave radio, and it won\'t take long for you to find some REALLY nasty stuff!) who manipulate many of those same sensibilities in people towards their own nefarious ends, and become off-the-chart reactionaries! Prole Cat can speak for himself, but I think he was implying something along these same lines, that many people who believe in \"Southern Heritage\" are not necessarily bad people, and they can be reached. I think Prole Cat is obviously a very intelligent guy with lots of good ideas to offer, and I hope to hear more from him. I had never thought of \"Southern Heritage\" in that way before, but, considering my own experiences in the Midwest, it makes sense to me now.

Just as I think we can reach many people who currently identify with the right if we\'re willing to talk with them, I also think we can reach \"liberals\" and state socialists, too, by acknowledging the basic value of their social conscience and explaining to them how statism is an inherent hindrance to social progress, as it serves to reinforce privelege and power (not to mention getting us into war!), and that we must take responsibility for ourselves and our own communities instead of looking to \"Big Brother\" to do it for us. (Which, actually, is a point we can use with those on the \"right\" -- that we\'re NOT looking to government for answers, like that \"troll\" earlier in this discussion apparently thought!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 10 2003 @ 08:58 PM CDT

Excerpted from the submissions page of www.prolecat.com:

\"The primary purpose of this site is to explore and promote various efforts at \'anarchist outreach\', that is to say, efforts by anarchists to reach out to groups or demographics not typically thought of as prime recruiting material... The essay Anarchism and Confederate Flag Culture is... (an) example.\"

\"If you would like to submit a pamphlet or essay to be considered for inclusion as a free on-line text, send it... Any thoughtful, well-written text will be considered. Only racist, homophobic or other hate speech will be automatically discarded... We are particularly interested in reading about the experiences of people who advanced from one \'sub-culture of rebellion\' into a broader anarchist perspective. Some examples of this might include the heavy metal scene, or what is anarchist (and what is reactionary) about the modern biker sub-culture. (\'Can you remember back when being a biker meant being an outlaw? ...\')\"

I think that the topic of anarchism has already been broached in punk circles...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 04:55 AM CDT

\"So, burn your Confederate flag- give it a respectful ceremony if you must\" Respect? Fuck no.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 14 2003 @ 12:00 AM CDT

i feel like this guy being a redneck from wetern canada in a hart core redneck cultcher
the line from rightwing to libertarean is not that hard to go

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 21 2003 @ 01:34 PM CDT

dude, try paragraphs.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 10:17 AM CDT

Hey, I want to thank prolecat for putting this out. I grew up w/ family & friends displaying the \"Stars & Bars\" (and myself actually) to assert some idea of \"pride\" in their history & culture, but in reality it was to assert some sort of pride in themselves. It\'s still seen as being \"defiant\" in a national culture that often does define the South as more racist than the rest of the country, and Southerners as more ignorant and backwards that not. These people are not fascists, they are not determined to command authority over others implicitly, its simply a misguided effort at self-respect, like it or not (and many of them still don\'t like to hear it from me). I\'ve considered myself an anarchist for 11 years now, and have been active in the social justice movement for 13, off and on having to take flack from supposed comrades for something as simple as speaking w/ a Southern drawl. Why is it so hard to comprehend how or why folks who might not be anarchists would see \"Confederate pride\" as rebellious? Yeah, its fucked up, but how the hell do you expect to change things by telling everyone you don\'t understand to go fuck themselves? It just doesn\'t work, so maybe we can save the BS, tough anarchist, posturing for when a real fight comes down against the NA or some other actual fascists, and deal with regular people on a realistic, human level.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 25 2003 @ 01:29 PM CDT

Yeah, I should\'ve! I just get in a train of thought sometimes, I guess!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 10 2003 @ 11:40 PM CST

I love the Lord, so I can\'t accept this hate for faith, though I grasp the hate for \"church.\" If you guys were not to anti-faith, I could relate all the way. I do see the anger toward the establishment line... cops, crooks, corporoate cronies... I get that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 13 2003 @ 04:41 AM CST

Though I doubt the underlying convictions behind a lot of the \"South Shall Rise Again\" sentiment, with some degree of historical hindsight, it need not be seen as a racist movement. Consider it politically instead.

Any discussion about \'Confederate\' pride is immediately consigned to one particular positive consequence of the American Civil War, it (though certainly not its underlying aspiration) brought about the end of chattel slavery. And probably much sooner than it would have happened otherwise.

There were, however, negative repercussions of this war that effect the entire world to this day, and without them I\'m convinced that American Colonialism, military dominance and (mostly) economic Imperialism would be non-issues, save within our own oft-divided and antagonistic Federal borders.
The possibilities surrounding such an alternate history are unfathomable. Possibly quite negative, but a student of US History, fully aware of their record for acting quite selflessly, would draw more favorable conclusions.

So yes, the American Civil War was a very unfortunate event. Granted, it was a war and I haven\'t the sense of pedantry or masochism to find a war that wasn\'t an unfortunate event. But I feel this one has the most far-reaching consequences on the modern world, even moreso than the offset of \'feudal\' forms of colonialism effectively ended by World War II.
The reason I believe this is that, in studying the early American testaments, it appears that the United States was designed to be much more akin to what the United Nations of today is; A true Republic. Kept in balance (somewhat akin to the German \'lander\' design, offering at least some degrees of local autonomy.) as opposed to another ascendant federal Government, parceled into sections that lack true sovereignty and are really just administrative departments of the central State.
Our States differ marginally from other administrative territorial subdivisions, the Russian Oblasts, the autonomous okrugs, France\'s regions which are further subdivided into almost a hundred departments, kind of mirroring the heavily apportioned political structure left by the Guallists. The aforementioned and often antagonistic German \'Lander\' in their relations to the federal government. The elite take on state sovereignty paints it akin to one of those cartoons from the 1980\'s, wherein teams would find that the boundaries of their individual powers or vehicle were insufficient to negate a truly powerful force, and thus joined together into a much more capable whole. In that whole, states are merely bureaucratic pretense. If taken to its logical conclusion it makes one-world government seem rational. A prospect even the mainstream Christian Right are terrified about (as they champion the tightening fist of Western ascendance. As long as it

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 02:59 PM CST

I agree with the sentiment that many libertarians and populists on the nominal right have more in common with their libertarian-leftist counterparts than either does with the corporate center. As David De Leon argued in \"The American as Anarchist,\" we need to appeal to the people who fly the Gadsden Flag as much as those who fly the Red-and-Black.

NPR liberals are a lost cause. Identity politics and \"cultural liberal\" hot button issues are just ways to divide working class whites and blacks against one another. What we need is to stop worrying about cabinets and corporate boards that \"look like America\" racially, and get rid of those organizations entirely.

There is a great deal in the decentralist, petty bourgeois, agrarian tradition that is amenable to anarchist values--and vice versa. Voltairine DeCleyre\'s \"Anarchism and American Traditions\" is a pretty good statement to this effect.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 05:15 PM CST

Here\'s a good article that makes some of the same points:

Chiapas and Montana: Tierra Y Libertad
by James Murray

RACE TRAITOR #8, Winter 1998

http://www.postfun.com/racetraitor/features/chiapas.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19 2003 @ 02:39 PM CST

Anarchist need to bring down corperations with the sames tools they use to infiltrate our homes. An aggressive marketing campaign to make others aware of the atempts to divide and conquer. North south east west, black white are all tools to seperate and confuse. Its all about class. That is the true divider. Organization of Anarchist is needed as well as econmically effecting the corperations that control the world. This can be accomplished by using the same techniques used on the masses. Infiltration of these corperations by anarchist as cells used to demise their intentions of profit at the whatever cost. Confuse them with false information. Remember the consumer is the holder of power. The small things do count. For instance, only purchase things you need not want. Support local small buisneses. Dont tell the truth on surveys. Boycott large corperations. If your in the media use this tool to educate others. The civil war has not ended it has just shifted to be a war on class.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 24 2003 @ 08:36 PM CST

Rock on, the rebel sees clear.

However, you don\'t have to lose Jesus in order to see the truth. I\'m an atheist and I still admire him. (Or at least the man written of in the Bible.) He is one of the greatest peaceful rebels of all time. Relgion is not necessarily a negative force. Unfortunately it\'s been hijacked by the fascists.

I agree on slavery. Though it occurred in the South and the North was so against it, the North still supported factory/tenement situations (economic slaves - the difference?) and they still profited from the southrn use of slaves, and therefore approved. The whole \"North loves black people and South hates them\" thing is bullshit. Blacks can be hated everywhere.

Finally, the first casualty of war is the truth, and capitalism is certainly a war - a war for the meansof production. I hope we will be able to end this war someday.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 27 2003 @ 10:55 AM CST

soon

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 28 2003 @ 10:46 PM CST

I\'m a working class cracker from Plantersville, MS, and I agree for the most part with your rant, Prolecat. I\'ve also written a Master\'s thesis comparing Andrew Lytle agrarian essays (esp. I\'ll Take My Stand\'s \"The Hind Tit\") to Wendell Berry so I can vouch for the natural dovetailing of southern agrarianism with anarchism. I would make the distinction, however, between square battle flags (more legitimate, IMO) and what I call \"Dixiecrat\" flags, meaning the rectangular Confederate naval jack.

More fuel for the fire at: http://dm.olemiss.edu/archives/96/9604/960424/960424ED2borden.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 01:42 PM CST

Interesting article, by a man with valid points and good intentions. As they say though, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Unfortunately I feel that the path of thinking chosen by the author will land our society in just such a place. Frankly, I would say it already has. What I find most damaging about this article is the often repeated fallacy that oppression/slavery is somehow the sole responsibilty of an Anglo/white conspiracy and not the result of implict cooperation between a diverse spectrum of individuals and governments. From the slave raider to the governments of the third world who have and continue to practice slavery the guilt for human bondage carries a rainbow of colors. True the power structures of recent history(the last few hundred years)in the western hemisphere that have practiced slavery tend to be white males. But what int he hell are we as internationalists just looking at the western hemisphere for. Wake up! This \"multiculturalist\" outlook is just another way of saying that people are products of nature and not nurture. Here and not in charges of reverse discrimination lies the re4al reactionary philosophy.

SMASH RACISM,OF ALL HUES.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 30 2003 @ 01:56 PM CST

Please excuse my spelling mistakes in the last article, as I am in quite a hurry at the moment. I also just wanted to let PROLECAT know that I truly did enjoy his article and found in it a wonderful desire to reach out to the poor agrarian element of white southern society. After all, any real revolution will need to be expressed by the hopes and ideas of the working class and peasant sections of a society. Time that we stop letting the removed intellectual speak for those who know the real score.

RISE ABOVE.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 02 2003 @ 08:43 PM CST

this definately applies to me..i do not live in the south but i have a good friend who is a true confederate and anti-racist. he even recognizes anarchy as a worth ideology. I remember one time the NAACP took his flag and harrassed him one time...i def need to show him this artical. Thanks for posting it!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 12 2003 @ 05:19 PM CST

great article. identity politcs, when used correctly, are great too. prolocat could use a good dose of them. we in the mid-west need to create something regional and similar.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 17 2003 @ 02:35 PM CST

I\'ve lived my whole life in GA. Now I go to a fairly leftist college in New York. I have two flags on the wall in my dorm room: a Jolly Roger and the Stars and Bars. To me, they symbolize a lot of the same ideas (rebellion against the system). As with anything you do, it\'s all about the intent. If I wore a sheet on my head and flew the flag while burning crosses in yards, that\'s one thing. But when you see old black men with the Stars and Bars on their pickups (which for those of you not from the South, does actually happen), you have to assume it\'s out of Southern pride. As it is for me. I am proud of where I\'m from. And where I\'m from is represented by the Confederate battle flag.

The Southern states actually embody a lot of what anarchy is. They couldn\'t stand the system that was imposing on them, wanted autonomy, and rebelled. They chose to leave the system, as opposed to changing it. And the U.S. government attacked, in much the same way as it continues to attack revolutionaries and folks who choose to succeed (see: Huey P., Waco, Fred Hampton, Ruby Ridge, etc.). It is called the \"rebel\" flag, isn\'t it?

Anyway, great article. Great discussion following it. I\'ve not been convinced to burn my flag yet.

Yours in the struggle,
Joshua

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 08:43 AM CST

to the dumbass Bill that wrote on sept 23, 2003.....wtf were you smoking and what rock do you live under. if you say hurray for anarchism and then mush in all the rest of that bullshit, you clearly are misguided and maybe are trying to act like you know what you\'re talking about to fit in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 14 2004 @ 06:41 PM CST

I doubt if anyone checks this article very much anymore.

However, I\'ve been meaning to comment on it for some time, and show some of my frustration with the text.

On \"rebel\" flag culture.

I think it\'s important to differentiate between two ideas presented by flags: 1) The ideas and ideals of those that currently use them and 2) The ideals that the flag puts out as historically used.

The problem we face with the Confederate flag, whether the \"Bonnie Blue Flag\", the \"Stars and Bars\" the host of battle flags, or any of the other Confederate National Flags, is that, just like the American Flag, the \"rebel\" flag was designed to not just represent ideals (confederacy, agrarian society, state\'s rights.. etc..), but also it was designed to represent the \"government\" or governing body of the CSA.

The truth is, that JUST like any other flag, the Confederate flag stands for an idea of nationalism, and in this case, of aristocracy and upper class southern land ownership. The conditions in the south before the civil war were starting to resemble fuedalist Europe with the southern plantation owners, not just enslaving blacks, natives, and other non-whites, but also \"indenturing\" white workers and farmers.

Although many Confederates fought for their homes and land, it must be looked at that the flag did not represent these things. To say that the Confederate flag shows ideals of fighting a larger aggressor, is the same as arguing that the American Flag really embodies the struggle for freedom of everyday Americans against colonialism.
An Anarchist would hardly argue this however, as it is very apparent to most (hopefully all) anarchists that the \"Stars and Stripes\" is indeed indicative of nothing more than statist, nationalisic, even imperialist intentions.

We must understand that all flags that have ever been used in warfare between nations or a confederation of authoritarian states do not represent freedom or rebellion, or anything close.

The (2nd) American Civil War was much like the American Revolution (or the first American Civil War), in that it was not fought as a revolution or even a rebellion, but as a fight between two sets of ruling classes fighting for their form of domination over workers, indigenous peoples and land, and people of color and slaves.

Some say that comparing the American flag and the Confederate flag can\'t be done. \"The American flag has come to represent imperialism and domination, while the Confederate flag was a rebellion against that\".

This argument ignores history, and ignores the formation in the documents and writings of the Confederacy of the descriptions of the \"Tropical Empire\", that was a goal of many of the Confederacy\'s leaders like Jefferson Davis. The Tropical Empire was to encompass parts of Mexico, Cuba, and even parts of South America, colonized by the CSA, and brought into the CSA\'s fold. Manifest Destiny wasn\'t just a policy of Washington, D.C.

It can be understood that the flag probably now has different meanings to those that fly it. However, would anarchists excuse someone flying a Nazi flag if they claimed that it meant something different? That it meant trying to dispel the ideas of communism and capitalism? If we would not excuse the Nazi flag, why would we excuse the Confederate?

Let\'s not even take into account the slavery issue, or the holocaust with the above example. Let\'s instead focus on the clear ideas of what these flags stood for in the governing bodies\' eyes and the eyes of those being governed.

We will see, that like all flags, these were designed to instill a pride in those carrying them. Flags are used as symbols of supposed ideals, but only to blind the person waving them. How many Nazi\'s thought they were truly fighting for their homes by invading Europe? How many American\'s thought they were protecting their homes by fighting in Vietnam? How many Confederates thought they were fighting for their homes by fighting the Civil War?

But were any of these conceptions of why the wars were fought true? Or were these wars, like all others between statists, fought for the advance of a governing body and their ideals?

The ideals of most soldiers are mostly always different than the ideals of those leading them into combat. Why would this not be true of this one war, of this one instance?

In short, if we are to continue to use such rheatoric, that is actually forgiving of not just racism, but of sheer fuedalism and aristocracy, then how can we ever hope to actually formulate any type of liberation ideology?

We cannot forget what the flag of the Confederacy actually stood for, and we cannot make excuses for it. All Nationalist or Statist flags must be abolished, as the tendencies that fuel them must also be.

In love and solidarity.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 15 2004 @ 03:24 AM CST

Your comments are interesting and intelligent. Not especially relevant to the article in question, but interesting and intelligent nevertheless. If you will read the text (while ignoring the discussion that it prompted) you will see that it doesn

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 12:17 AM CDT

It might be more useful to hear what people say and to watch what they do, instead of slagging them along with their symbols, for the meanings you (not they) attach to their symbols.

Watch Disney and McDonalds. Their entire colonial strategy is to erase other people\'s symbols and to substitute Mickey standing under the golden arches.

The black and red, when imposed by force or deception, is no less an instrument of oppression than the stars and stripes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 20 2004 @ 03:30 PM CDT

You make a good point about McDonalds in how you see the Confederate Flag pretty much all around there. I have not yet been to a corporation such as McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc. that there has not been atleast 5 to 10 vehicles either flying the Confederate Flag or have it painted on their window. I for one am a proud southerner born and raised in Texas -now living in Florida- and I fly my Confederate Flag high. I\'m not a racist; I just like standing up to the government and telling them to go fuck themselves. Let\'s unite in brother and sister-hood and bring down these big corporations once and for all. I fuckin\' hate WAL-MART (since they fired me over a guy hitting me - on the job fight) go screw yourself WAL-MART. You fucked with the wrong person.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 23 2004 @ 01:36 PM CDT

Black Cat, man you made some really GREAT points. I found what you said to be very close to the way i see things. I see that you seem to be a well balanced person, we should chat some time!

\"Conservatives are to far to the right
Liberals are to far to the left.
Im somewhere in the middle.\"

NICO

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 01:45 AM CDT

I am an up and coming anarchist in a little hick town in tennessee, I displayed the \"stars and bars\" flag for a long time. Then i got turned on to anarchy and realized one thing ,i am a dumb fuck. I told myself that im not a racist im just proud to be southern. HA! what a crock of shit. im not proud to be anything now accept an anarchist. Other than the black flag they suck. The only purpose is to separate. Feel free to critisize.


SEE U AT THE REVOLUTION!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 11 2004 @ 11:30 PM CDT

Flags don\'t separate people.

People separate people.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 21 2004 @ 12:14 PM CDT

Bill, ole comrade, I agree with you up to a point, but only to a point. They are ONLY symbols, true enough. If i attach a significance to a symbol, and attribute that meaning to you because you display the symbol, even though your life obviously isn\'t about that... then I am indeed a dumb fuck. BUT, symbols have uses. They are a form of communication. What are words, but symbols, abstractions that represent the concrete? Please don\'t suggest that we abandon language! (and yes, I know it has been suggested by Zerzan already). It really doesn\'t make sense to speak of being oppressed under the black and red at this point in history. Could it happen? Of course, so many times symbols of freedom and equlity have been the banners under which people were enslaved. And yet, at this time the black and red is indeed a relatively untainted symbol of freedom and equality...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 24 2004 @ 08:31 PM CDT

good, good article. my entire family (on my mother\'s side is from the south, so i can see your points of view.

very well written

i liked it alot

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 14 2004 @ 02:55 AM CST

A) For the love of Christ and his transgendered brother Josephine, use your spellcheckers!

B) This article is pretty much addressed to the person I used to be, and I came to pretty much the same conclusions as were stated in the article. However, as annoyingly nationalist as the stars\'n\'bars may be, there is something worse: People who proudly display the CSA and the USA flags AT THE SAME TIME. *shudder*

C) To the people who think racism is a product of capitalism (a slippery word nowadays if ever there was one): isn\'t racism pre-capitalist? Or are you extending your definition of \"capitalism\" to include ancient Assyrians?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 14 2004 @ 03:01 AM CST

A) For the love of Christ and his transgendered brother Josephine, use your spellcheckers!

B) This article is pretty much addressed to the person I used to be, and I came to pretty much the same conclusions as were stated in the article. However, as annoyingly nationalist as the stars\'n\'bars may be, there is something worse: People who proudly display the CSA and the USA flags AT THE SAME TIME. *shudder*

C) To the people who think racism is a product of capitalism (a slippery word nowadays if ever there was one): isn\'t racism pre-capitalist? Or are you extending your definition of \"capitalism\" to include ancient Assyrians?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 26 2004 @ 03:54 PM CST

What choice do people have as to whether they shop at Wal-Mart or McDonalds? These places, besides being part of their culture, are some of the least expensive places to eat and shop in America. It\'s wonderful for urbanites and more politically aware individuals to boycott these institutions, but wouldn\'t it be arrogant of us to criticize poorer people for shopping at places they can afford, places they feel comfotable in?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 26 2004 @ 04:08 PM CST

I don\'t think anyone is arguing that racism is exclusively capitalist in nature and origin. However, much of the world\'s worst current racism\'s are a result of the deeply harmful colonialism from Western Europe to the rest of the world. It is hard to overstate the damage colonialism has done to the world.

This colonialism, which leaves deep gashes in the freedoms and cultural histories of peoples all around the world, was for the most part a capitalist construct, perhaps not in the same way we think of neoliberalism today.

From the economic or classist incentive for elites in America to create racial divisions among the poor and oppressed in early America, all the way to befuddled economic and political dealings of cappitalist countries with the middle east, capitalism has been a behemoth in the creation of modern racism.

With the rise of Breton Woods institutions like the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund, a new legacy of racism is being forged in much the same capitalistic manner. I think in that respect neoliberalism could be called neo-colonialism, both of which will prove to give way to racism and hatred, both from developing countries to the United States and vice versa.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 26 2004 @ 04:09 PM CST

I don\'t think anyone is arguing that racism is exclusively capitalist in nature and origin. However, much of the world\'s worst current racism\'s are a result of the deeply harmful colonialism from Western Europe to the rest of the world. It is hard to overstate the damage colonialism has done to the world.

This colonialism, which leaves deep gashes in the freedoms and cultural histories of peoples all around the world, was for the most part a capitalist construct, perhaps not in the same way we think of neoliberalism today.

From the economic or classist incentive for elites in America to create racial divisions among the poor and oppressed in early America, all the way to befuddled economic and political dealings of cappitalist countries with the middle east, capitalism has been a behemoth in the creation of modern racism.

With the rise of Breton Woods institutions like the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund, a new legacy of racism is being forged in much the same capitalistic manner. I think in that respect neoliberalism could be called neo-colonialism, both of which will prove to give way to racism and hatred, both from developing countries to the United States and vice versa.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 31 2004 @ 05:40 AM CST

\"I don\'t think anyone is arguing that racism is exclusively capitalist in nature and origin....\"

\"Exclusively\", perhaps not. But I think we can say that American white supremacy, rooted in the slave trade, is economic in origin.

\"It is common to paint the problem of slavery as an extreme form of racial discrimination. This puts the discussion safely on the terrain of bad people doing bad things, and avoids an indictment of American society, politically, economically or otherwise.

\"To put the generic term \'racism\' into a more specific context, there is a belief among some, \'the racists\', that Negroes are innately inferior. The assumption by those who don

[ Reply to This | # ]