The January 26th edition of the Argus carried an article titled "Students travel to D.C. to protest Bush inauguration." As a participant I feel the need to correct
some serious mistakes contained in the piece. I would especially like to examine the ways in which the article defines the divisive idea of "violence" at a  protest.

The Argus interviewed several students who had attended the protest, one of them being Kelly Paul, ’03. According to the Argus, Kelly spent some time in front of the National Archives, where she saw members of the Black Bloc "first burn one of their own American flags and then tear down to flag poles and
burn the flags." She is then quoted as saying that while she is a supporter of protesters’ right to express anger, she felt the Black Bloc’s violence detracted from the rest of the protest. These statements perpetuate several myths about the protest movement and violence.

First, as someone who was affiliated with the Black Bloc at the Inauguration, I can say that no flag poles were "torn down." In reality, several individuals climbed a flag pole, took down the American flag, and re-hoisted an upside down flag flanked by red and black banners. They were promptly pepper sprayed
by undercover cops, and pushed from around the flag pole by riot police. Second, the "violence" at the Inauguration was not perpetrated by the Black Bloc. Perhaps the Argus (or Kelly Paul) should have talked to the two Wesleyan students who were injured that morning when police attacked the Black Bloc with batons swinging, without so much as an order to disperse. Or maybe Kelly didn’t realize one reason there were so many protesters along the parade route.
Sixteen different law enforcement agencies and the National Guard established a series of checkpoints and a security perimeter surrounding the parade route. The checkpoints were used to deny or slow access to the parade route so individuals who looked like protesters wouldn’t be seen. In an act of what Kelly
would call "violence," the Black Bloc broke through a checkpoint, allowing less "violent" protesters to have their voices heard.

Of course, this isn’t the real issue uncovered by the Argus coverage of Kelly’s comments. The real issue is the way in which capitalism shapes our understanding of violence. While protesters are "violent" because they burn a flag, the American government is not, even as it supports sanctions in Iraq that kill 5,000 children every month. Anti-globalization protesters are "violent" because they throw tear gas back at the police, but the IMF debt policies that (according to the U.N.) are responsible for the deaths of 19,000 children every day are just good business. Police aren’t violent when they fracture my friend’s skull with a radio because he refuses to move off the street, but I am violent when I try and protect him. Its time we all start to value life over property.

Note: The "Black Bloc" refers to a way of grouping activists, usually dressed in all black in order to protect each other’s identities. In the past year acts of property destruction by individuals within the Black Bloc have initiated debate over what constitutes violence.