nanushka

I mean...it’s Balanchine’s birthday! I can’t begrudge the man a speech before a performance by his own company.

I agree. As for the reference to Danchig-Waring as Gordon's boyfriend, I don't see why that should be considered "juvenile." People in their 20s have "boyfriends." Heck, people in their 40s and 50s (and above) often have "boyfriends" too. I'm sure Kourlas or someone else at the Times would have checked with Gordon to verify which of the various possible terms he prefers to use in reference to his relationship. And the fact that he's in a long-term relationship with another member of the company is certainly relevant in a profile largely focused on his experiences as a member of NYCB.

Completely agree. This is why the argument presented in the Ballet Conrad video responding to Copeland (posted on this thread, p. 18, back in December) seemed like total nonsense to me. He seemed to demonstrate a serious lack of understanding of what racism even is or how it works.

I agree this is quite possible — maybe even likely. The race problem in ballet lies far more in the flaws of institutions and those holding power than in 14 year olds, though, which is part of why I think Copeland’s critique would have been far more appropriately directed at the former than the latter.

Was that true of all of them? I’d read it about Moyna and Zulma but not the full corps. (Hadn’t read anything to the contrary though, so just curious.)

Yes, sorry, just speaking in broad strokes, and thinking most of the more intense/obvious darkening. Seems like there may be a spectrum of what’s deemed “appropriate” for different characters.

That movie never hit my radar @On Pointe, thanks for the link. That makeup is crazy! I’ll definitely check it out. I wonder if one reason the Bayadère leads aren’t typically darkened is because it is in a way so dehumanizing (as done in ballet/stage makeup, especially), as I think you mentioned a few times before — and maybe that feels (to those who advocate the use of darkening makeup) more befitting for an unnamed slave or servant character than for a dramatic lead. (They wouldn’t probably consciously think or agree it was dehumanizing, but the effect is so powerful I imagine they must feel it.)

That’s not at all the same thing as “false equivalence.” It seems everyone who’s posted is pretty much in agreement on the topic of blackface, so perhaps that’s why it hasn’t been addressed at length. Certainly I personally would be eager to hear any fresh insights on the topic. I think we can walk and chew gum both.

Yeah I don't think that analogy quite works because in this case it wouldn't be a recipient responding, nor to stalkers. I agree that even a simple statement like that would be a good move.

She didn't. I'm pretty sure that was the point. Anyone with 1.8M Instagram followers who's been paying any attention over the past decade knows that when a celebrated person with such a mass following of passionate fans singles out an individual (not an institution) on social media for a racially (or politically, or in some other way) offensive act, that individual will be subject to pretty intense harassment. The examples are numerous, if not innumerable. Of course she's not required to be a perfect spokesperson. But as a public figure she is not exempt from criticism, and she has a responsibility to use her very powerful public voice with care — and to acknowledge mistakes such as this one.

Nope. Nor did the person you quoted say that she did. I completely agree.

I don't understand why it has to be an either/or. The photo that Copeland posted is, in my opinion, disgustingly offensive. But I do not think she should have included the girl's IG handle in her post, and I think she should have and could have thought about the reaction it would provoke. (I assume we've all heard stories about what can happen to people who get "picked on" by masses of strangers on social media.) It is very possible to share both those beliefs. Misty Copeland doesn't deserve to be either vilified or defended at all costs, in my opinion.

As far as I can tell: no one is calling Misty Copeland a villain; no one is saying that everything is her fault; no one is suggesting she should be punished; no one is suggesting she is looking for someone to harass (or even that she harassed the young Russian dancer whose picture she reposted). These are all attacks on straw people. ETA these to the list:

Was that after the photo got all the attention it did from Copeland's bringing attention to it? If so, I'm not sure what the implied significance is. Once it blew up, it would obviously show up in the suggested posts for many who follow other accounts with dance-related content.

Personally, that’s not at all what I think, and as I read others’ comments on here, I’m not sure anyone thinks that. I could be wrong. Not every game is zero sum.