Ian Murray wrote:
>
> -
> My sense was that the arguments for the flag were pragmatic because
> it was a polysemous signifier. And those positive aspects were worth
> using for strategic and tactical reasons.
>
That was the argument -- which I think is not correct even in practical terms; everyone will in fact see the flag as "really" meaning support of Bush, and see those who carry it in an anti-war demonstration as manipulative or even as sacrilegious. But as I said in the original post, it isn't that important. I would argue against it and let it go at that, whichever way people decided. In a movement such as any anti-war movement must be there has to be a lot of sloppiness at the edges.
On this list, though, or in any other forum which pretends to be a leftist forum, I think discussion should focus first on truth, and only secondarily, in terms of shared agreement on that, should tactics or style be discussed. Some on the list seem deliberately to speak only of style while pretending to be speaking of substance.
Carrol