Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. I'm not talking about punks, ARA, anti-fascists, anarchists, or whatever. I'm talking specifically about skinheads, so the links that Chris G. provided aren't really relevant. Sure, skinheads can be anti-racist, anarchist, or anti-fascist; what I'm asserting is that regardless of their other associations, their fundamental identity <i>as skinheads</i> carries some very negative connotations of violence and aggressive, macho behavior. <br><br>

Look up "skinhead" on Wikipedia, and you will find this passage:<br><br>

<i>Around 1965, a schism developed between the peacock mods, who were less violent and always wore the latest expensive clothes, and the hard mods (also known as gang mods), who were identified by their shorter hair and more working-class image.[7] Also known as lemonheads and peanuts, <b>these hard mods became commonly known as skinheads by about 1968.</b>[8] Their shorter hair may have come about for practical reasons, since long hair can be a liability in industrial jobs and a disadvantage in streetfights. Skinheads may also have cut their hair short in defiance of the more bourgeois hippie culture popular at the time.</i><br><br>

Notice how the terms "violent" and "streetfights" are used to define the original skinheads. Now, this same article points out that skinhead culture has branched out quite a bit since then, but I see no suggestion there that it has become any less prone to violence and confrontation.<br><br>

Go back to the Chicago Skinhead web site I mentioned earlier; read the blog entry closest to the top of the page; remeber, these are the progressive, anti-racist skins.