Groveling Apology to the Gods of Wokeness Thread

[mahagonny]

We can start a tally. This one's about a company, the Berlin Ballet, that was performing Swan Lake. The dancers would wear white paint, which would make them look a little bit like swans.
"One of the company's ballet mistresses told the company's one black dancer, Chloé Lopes Gomes, to use the paint as well. Gomes says she told the ballet mistress, "I'll never look white," to which the mistress responded: "well, you will have to put on more than the other girls." And you know what happened next.

Here's the link to the apology... https://www.staatsballett-berlin.de/en/statement

[dismalist]

Kunst.

[aside]

But there are black swans ...

[apl68]

Mahagonny, I know you're annoyed at stories of political correctness run amok.  It is a real problem sometimes.  But do you not see that in trawling the internet for stories that make you mad, and posting them here to let everybody know how mad you are and try to make them mad, you're engaging in the same sort of identity politics and politics of resentment that produces the sorts of stuff you're complaining about?  In other words, you're letting yourself become part of the problem.

It's not healthy.  Either for you, or for the Fora.  Do yourself a favor and stop spending so much of your time stoking your own anger and resentment.  Maybe you can't avoid complaining sometimes, but you're clearly making it a major part of your life.  That's not doing you or anybody else any favors.

[mahagonny]

Mahagonny, I know you're annoyed at stories of political correctness run amok.  It is a real problem sometimes.  But do you not see that in trawling the internet for stories that make you mad, and posting them here to let everybody know how mad you are and try to make them mad, you're engaging in the same sort of identity politics and politics of resentment that produces the sorts of stuff you're complaining about?  In other words, you're letting yourself become part of the problem.

It's not healthy.  Either for you, or for the Fora.  Do yourself a favor and stop spending so much of your time stoking your own anger and resentment.  Maybe you can't avoid complaining sometimes, but you're clearly making it a major part of your life.  That's not doing you or anybody else any favors.

I had to look up 'trawling.' Thanks for the new word.
Part of my routine is a quick look at 'RealClearPolitics' every morning. If I keep looking for the problem (your term), not even very hard, for this kind of story, and finding them, it's because it's common and growing. I think that's news.
I have no idea whether posting on this subject will convince people on the forum or not. I consider certain well regarded faculty in higher education complicit in the wave of 'political correctness gone amok.'

I do resent certain people seeing race and racism everywhere, in almost every human interaction, and then prescribing remedies for everyone based on what they think is their constructive habit of keen attention, or having written some book that sensationalizes and distorts situations. The worst of them are real idiots, and nicest thing you can say is they waste our time. Thank you for understanding perfectly.
The original forum used to have a 'Police Brutality' thread, a "Horse's Ass Thread' and a 'Name Your Favorite Adulterous Politician Thread.' Were these unhealthy dumping grounds for resentment?
Or do people voluntarily in the arena of politics, publishing, acting, public payroll etc. offer their work for comment?

on edit: of course there is always the possibility that people enjoy giving the groveling apologies. In some cases they appear to. I don't think that would prove they aren't getting brainwashed though. What do you forumites think? I am honestly interested.

[Hegemony]

I think that apl68 is right, and that what you enjoy, mahagonny, is getting worked up with righteous anger and a sense of superiority over the perceived stupidities of others in certain subjects. I've known several people of this nature, and they generally greatly enjoy displaying their outrage and feeling superior to those who do not spend their time trawling (excellent addition to your vocabulary) the world for new details to be outraged about. And these people also enjoy the adrenaline rush of starting a fight.  They also often think that conflict is more "real" and authentic and worthy than agreement or even peaceableness. But all of it is certainly tiring to bystanders. The mono-focus is tiring, like being around someone who can't stop talking about bus tickets or Ulysses S. Grant or how their fourth-grade teacher was unfair to them. And being around someone who relishes being angry is tiring. It's not a give-and-take kind of discussion; again it's a mono-focus, of which the intent is always to come back to the same conclusion.

Don't we all have that one relative whose stories always have the same theme? "The [political party of choice] are idiots and here is their latest idiocy." "I tried to help but once again I was undervalued." "My son is better than everyone else's child," or conversely "My son shows he does not appreciate me as I deserve to be appreciated." "I am right yet again but nobody gives me credit for it." The same theme, whatever the context, again and again. The challenge is not to be that relative.

[mamselle]

I agree with both Hegemony and apl68.

Further, your outrage is here based on narrowly filtered reportage on a topic like this, leaving you in the decidedly odd situation of sputtering over things you clearly know nothing about.

Having myself reviewed dance in print, this is not a new problem, and it's been a scourge to all dancers, not to have the best people in the company, and have them treated politely and fairly, because of blinkered prejudicial nonsense.

It's good to see it's being aired and adjudicated with more fairness now.

I wrote about it in the 1990s and observed that although,--in the company I most often covered--highly competent Black, Asian,, and Mediterranean individuals had been hired, until they were made soloists, and not left in the back line of the corps, the message was the same

Even having Black or Asian dancers in US and European companies at all has taken two centuries. Letting them have parts in major ballets in which they were not there simply to perform their race, as in "Othello," say, is very recent.

Why do you think Ailey and HDT came into being? The color line in dance was said to have been broken with Native American Maria Tallchief, in the 40s/50s/60s, at NYCBT, but very few dancers of color were hired there or elsewhere since...unless "something exotic" were wanted, in, say, "Coffee" for the Nutcracker's second act.

Dancers of color have been made to wear pink tights to erase their "blackness, " or "oliveness," for S. American and Mediterranean artists, thus creating the even odder sight of light legs, darker arms and face...just to satisfy a racist aesthetic that all dancers should represent a caucasian population when one look at the streets of any large city gives the lie to that attitude as representational of the human population.

It's actually not common for swans to use excessive amounts of Clown White in their makeup base across the board--but saying it is shows the article's bias further: by creating a false context of expectation, the black dancer is made to look more unreasonable.

I was glad to see that Geoffrey Rhue has continued in the performing arts, that Misty Copeland is doing well, that Stephanie Moy's achievements were finally recognized--but they each went through a lot.

Do your research and stop getting tanked on your own adrenalin.

M.

[marshwiggle]

I do resent certain people seeing race and racism everywhere, in almost every human interaction, and then prescribing remedies for everyone based on what they think is their constructive habit of keen attention, or having written some book that sensationalizes and distorts situations. The worst of them are real idiots, and nicest thing you can say is they waste our time.

Here are three ways you adjunct union arguments are exactly like the woke arguments about racism:

• All or nothing support; like those who claim that one must support BLM to be "anti-racist", you require that someone be both anti-tenure and pro-adjunct union to be an ally of adjuncts. There is no room for nuance or subtlety.
• "Systemic" label; like those who claim racism is foundational to society, you claim that the post-secondary education system is designed around the oppressed class of adjuncts. There is no recognition that many (most?) people are in favour of improvements, but resent being blamed for the current situation.
• Lack of agency; use of phrases like "the crime of driving while Black" make it sound like so many people have run-ins with police which have nothing to do with their personal choices. Your annoyance at people pointing out that institutions which treat adjuncts badly would not have that opportunity if people simply refused to work there reinforces the myth that peoples' own priorities and choices have no influence on their experiences.

It's impossible to counter the wokeness zealots while employing the tactics they use, since that legitimizes the whole approach.

[mahagonny]

So you concede my point, marshy, the trend of publicly shaming someone for some trumped-up charge, offense against the feelings and dignity of a minority, is over the top, not legitimate, by comparing it to something else you believe is not legitimate.  As in your view both rely on treating contested interpretations about our reality as though they were accepted ones.
Others: one is left to wonder  that part of what you convey is your displeasure at having it pointed out that academia is complicit in the political correctness gone amok, and in some instances, in the forefront of its promotion. If one believes that, as I do, and also refers to evidence, this should be a place to express it. I could go to a conservative forum like the old intellectualconservative.com, or similar, but it would be an echo chamber, just like here. Preaching to the choir. However they were not wrong about everything.
People can talk to you in ways you are not especially enjoying, and you can ask them to stop it, but they won't stop talking about you. Wouldn't you rather know what's being said? Wouldn't you rather have a chance to say 'we may not be friends on the forum, but you do make a point. And there's no harm in knowing more, not less about this phenomenon by having a thread that collects these news items.' 
I'm trying to help. Democrats are the ones who keep thinking they're going to get control of the federal government, then don't and can't figure out why voters aren't with them. I did not vote for DJT. IF I were a single issue voter, I would have, because he has the same outrage over political correctness frenzy. I refrained from voting for him for some of the same reasons you couldn't.
Alternatively we could agree to post links to the news and refrain from commenting.

[marshwiggle]

So you concede my point, marshy, the trend of publicly shaming someone for some trumped-up charge, offense against the feelings and dignity of a minority, is over the top, not legitimate, by comparing it to something else you believe is not legitimate.  As in your view both rely on treating contested interpretations about our reality as though they were accepted ones.
Others: one is left to wonder  that part of what you convey is your displeasure at having it pointed out that academia is complicit in the political correctness gone amok, and in some instances, in the forefront of its promotion. If one believes that, as I do, and also refers to evidence, this should be a place to express it. I could go to a conservative forum like the old intellectualconservative.com, or similar, but it would be an echo chamber, just like here. Preaching to the choir. However they were not wrong about everything.

I'm not actually dictating what topics are ought to be open for discussion; if anything, I'm in favour of people raising whatever topics they like.  And it's good that it isn't an echo chamber where everyone thinks the same (on any topic). What I wanted to note was the way you argue when adjunct issues come up seems pretty similar to the way the woke brigade argue when other issues come up. I think that approach is no more effective for one issue than the other.

[mahagonny]

Kunst.

I agree with both Hegemony and apl68.

Further, your outrage is here based on narrowly filtered reportage on a topic like this, leaving you in the decidedly odd situation of sputtering over things you clearly know nothing about.

Having myself reviewed dance in print, this is not a new problem, and it's been a scourge to all dancers, not to have the best people in the company, and have them treated politely and fairly, because of blinkered prejudicial nonsense.

It's good to see it's being aired and adjudicated with more fairness now.

I wrote about it in the 1990s and observed that although,--in the company I most often covered--highly competent Black, Asian,, and Mediterranean individuals had been hired, until they were made soloists, and not left in the back line of the corps, the message was the same

Even having Black or Asian dancers in US and European companies at all has taken two centuries. Letting them have parts in major ballets in which they were not there simply to perform their race, as in "Othello," say, is very recent.

Why do you think Ailey and HDT came into being? The color line in dance was said to have been broken with Native American Maria Tallchief, in the 40s/50s/60s, at NYCBT, but very few dancers of color were hired there or elsewhere since...unless "something exotic" were wanted, in, say, "Coffee" for the Nutcracker's second act.

Dancers of color have been made to wear pink tights to erase their "blackness, " or "oliveness," for S. American and Mediterranean artists, thus creating the even odder sight of light legs, darker arms and face...just to satisfy a racist aesthetic that all dancers should represent a caucasian population when one look at the streets of any large city gives the lie to that attitude as representational of the human population.

It's actually not common for swans to use excessive amounts of Clown White in their makeup base across the board--but saying it is shows the article's bias further: by creating a false context of expectation, the black dancer is made to look more unreasonable.

I was glad to see that Geoffrey Rhue has continued in the performing arts, that Misty Copeland is doing well, that Stephanie Moy's achievements were finally recognized--but they each went through a lot.

Do your research and stop getting tanked on your own adrenalin.

M.

I've been involved with theatre before. What I recall, each time, was there's a director for the production who's hired to interpret the work with clear specific choices. If he says 'male lead, you'll be wearing a black suit' the male lead doesn't show up the next day with a blue suit and say, 'hey this goes better with my blond hair and anyway I saw someone do it this way in Philadelphia and the critics loved it.'  He takes direction, or finds another gig, or he's not a professional.

Kunst.

Yes.

[mamselle]

I've been involved with theatre before. What I recall, each time, was there's a director for the production who's hired to interpret the work with clear specific choices. If he says 'male lead, you'll be wearing a black suit' the male lead doesn't show up the next day with a blue suit and say, 'hey this goes better with my blond hair and anyway I saw someone do it this way in Philadelphia and the critics loved it.'  He takes direction, or finds another gig, or he's not a professional.

Well, first, those decisions are more often made by the director in concert with the set designer and the costumier--in other words, the design team--and actors of some status usually do have a fair amount of input into what they wear, or they can, if they a) wish; b) insist; c) have it written into their contracts; d) have an agent who has worked it out in advance.

Second, wearing a blue or black suit is one of a range of options for clothing overall. You can take it off or put it on, you know?

Being born with an orange-y pink, or brown, or bronze, or lemony skin is not something you can take off or put on, and it's often the basis for a wide range of discriminatory practices and prejudicial decisions about your person, what happens to you, what your intentions are, and how honest you can be assumed to be.

It's also a product of your heritage--it's your birthright, something to be proud of, or at least grateful for--and it's an intrinsic part of your identity.

Being told to cover it over with another skin tone, solely for the purpose of rendering you agreeable to others' prejudices, is one of the worst ways to insult a person that there is.

The case of the dancer is not merely about "design choice."

It's embedded in the soul.

You don't get to argue that, so stop trying.

M.

[mahagonny]

I've been involved with theatre before. What I recall, each time, was there's a director for the production who's hired to interpret the work with clear specific choices. If he says 'male lead, you'll be wearing a black suit' the male lead doesn't show up the next day with a blue suit and say, 'hey this goes better with my blond hair and anyway I saw someone do it this way in Philadelphia and the critics loved it.'  He takes direction, or finds another gig, or he's not a professional.

Well, first, those decisions are more often made by the director in concert with the set designer and the costumier--in other words, the design team--and actors of some status usually do have a fair amount of input into what they wear, or they can, if they a) wish; b) insist; c) have it written into their contracts; d) have an agent who has worked it out in advance.

Second, wearing a blue or black suit is one of a range of options for clothing overall. You can take it off or put it on, you know?

Being born with an orange-y pink, or brown, or bronze, or lemony skin is not something you can take off or put on, and it's often the basis for a wide range of discriminatory practices and prejudicial decisions about your person, what happens to you, what your intentions are, and how honest you can be assumed to be.

It's also a product of your heritage--it's your birthright, something to be proud of, or at least grateful for--and it's an intrinsic part of your identity.

Being told to cover it over with another skin tone, solely for the purpose of rendering you agreeable to others' prejudices, is one of the worst ways to insult a person that there is.

The case of the dancer is not merely about "design choice."

It's embedded in the soul.

You don't get to argue that, so stop trying.

M.

I don't get the logic here. There's no implied message that there's something wrong with not looking like a white person. The white dancers had to wear paint. The deal is, you're supposed to look something like a swan. It's a pretty straightforward situation. It's abstract art and it deals with visuals. Nothing to do with race nor with any concept of 'what the right kind of people look like.' That's also why none of the ballerinas are six feet two inches or four feet eleven inches.

[apl68]

The human body is the focus of dance.  In today's environment, human bodies and assorted issues surrounding them have become extremely fraught.  In that sort of climate, I would think that a dance troop would face a complete no-win situation when it came to avoiding controversy.

[mamselle]

I've been involved with theatre before. What I recall, each time, was there's a director for the production who's hired to interpret the work with clear specific choices. If he says 'male lead, you'll be wearing a black suit' the male lead doesn't show up the next day with a blue suit and say, 'hey this goes better with my blond hair and anyway I saw someone do it this way in Philadelphia and the critics loved it.'  He takes direction, or finds another gig, or he's not a professional.

Well, first, those decisions are more often made by the director in concert with the set designer and the costumier--in other words, the design team--and actors of some status usually do have a fair amount of input into what they wear, or they can, if they a) wish; b) insist; c) have it written into their contracts; d) have an agent who has worked it out in advance.

Second, wearing a blue or black suit is one of a range of options for clothing overall. You can take it off or put it on, you know?

Being born with an orange-y pink, or brown, or bronze, or lemony skin is not something you can take off or put on, and it's often the basis for a wide range of discriminatory practices and prejudicial decisions about your person, what happens to you, what your intentions are, and how honest you can be assumed to be.

It's also a product of your heritage--it's your birthright, something to be proud of, or at least grateful for--and it's an intrinsic part of your identity.

Being told to cover it over with another skin tone, solely for the purpose of rendering you agreeable to others' prejudices, is one of the worst ways to insult a person that there is.

The case of the dancer is not merely about "design choice."

It's embedded in the soul.

You don't get to argue that, so stop trying.

M.

I don't get the logic here. There's no implied message that there's something wrong with not looking like a white person. The white dancers had to wear paint. The deal is, you're supposed to look something like a swan. It's a pretty straightforward situation. It's abstract art and it deals with visuals. Nothing to do with race nor with any concept of 'what the right kind of people look like.' That's also why none of the ballerinas are six feet two inches or four feet eleven inches.

Laura Young.

Roseanne Riding.

Susanne Farrell.

Carla Stalling.

Judith Jameson.

Extremes of height may in some cases affect a partnering decision, but that is rarely based on optics; instead it is based on the physical capacity of the male dancer to lift someone of a particular height in relation to their own.

In other words, how big he is.

M.