Dance Articles > Australian Dance Champions ejected from Nationals for wearing Freedom to Dance sash

Discussion in 'Dance Articles' started by Alskling, Dec 11, 2011.

  1. Alskling

    Alskling Member

  2. pygmalion

    pygmalion Well-Known Member

    Huh? There were couples ejected because of a WDF something-or-the-other, and this couple was ejected for showing support?
  3. Alskling

    Alskling Member

    Six of Australia's Latin couples danced either the Freedom to Dance event or London Ball (I forget which competition was the precipitating issue), and were banned by WDSF as a result. Because Australian nationals were being run as a WDSF sanctioned event, the couples were also banned from doing their own Nationals. The couple that won Nationals wore a yellow sash during their victory dance to show support for the 6 banned couples, and were removed from the building by security guards as a result. This is outrageous to me on any front, but especially because this was a silent protest during a victory dance, and the only "objectionable" thing done was to wear yellow. Wandering into very nasty territory here.
  4. sambanada

    sambanada Active Member

    This is just getting ridiculous!
  5. bluebereft

    bluebereft Member

    i've taken lessons from matt and anna, they are fantastic people and dancers.

    this really is ridiculous, especially if it's just a yellow sash that they wore.

    btw the title is incorrect, they are standard dancers.
  6. Alskling

    Alskling Member

    Oops, sorry about that, not enough coffee before posting. I've added a note in the original post, don't seem to be able to edit the title.
  7. ViviDancer

    ViviDancer Member

    The 6 couples were suspended for taking part in the Singapore Open Dance Championships which was supported by Freedom to Dance.
  8. latingal

    latingal Well-Known Member

    It was quite sad to hear that something like this could happen. The political dance wars just seems to keep escalating, and I'm sure this is not what the dancers themselves want. It is disheartening to know that power and greed has such a hold over such a beautiful art form and sport.

    It is a sad commentary on the people who run the banning organizations.... *heavy heart*
  9. pygmalion

    pygmalion Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the clarification, everyone. That is ugly. :-(
  10. sambanada

    sambanada Active Member

    My friend just told me that they tried to suspend a US couple for worlds for no reason, right before the event. Aparently, they said they danced an event that they did not dance. Since they could not suspend them, they made sure they flew out first round. It is really ugly what is happening in this community. Dancers are the ones paying the price for this ridiculous politics. I am sure other countries are seeing the same kind of thing.
  11. madmaximus

    madmaximus Well-Known Member

    Interesting development.

    At a dinner, we were having a spirited discussion with friends about the politics of dictatorships, and how to suppress the unmitigated greed and desire for power.

    So many parallels here.

    I, for one, wonder what would happen if dancers simply decline to dance (i.e., participate) en-masse and initiate change in leadership and its politics--the personal economic hit notwithstanding.

  12. Merrylegs

    Merrylegs Well-Known Member

    Boycotting individual competitions en masse would only hurt the individual competition owners not the governing bodies. Perhaps the competition owners should be the people who try to put a stop to all this. Dunno but it all seems a bit crazy to me, people should be able to attend, compete and spend their money wherever they like without retribution. It's so unfortunate...
  13. DL

    DL Well-Known Member

    The new leaders would face the same climate and circumstances that drove the current leaders into the political morass in the first place. How can you be sure they wouldn't be funneled in exactly the same direction?

    Throwing out a couple from an event for wearing a sash seems over-the-top to me. But the larger issues around boundaries on who can compete where seem to me to have deeper roots than I've seen explored on DF so far. Am I the only one to think this?
  14. madmaximus

    madmaximus Well-Known Member

    Fair point ML.

    Isn't history replete with examples of abusive organizational and political systems that got overthrown, ONLY because the dissatisfaction of the members reached a critical point?

    Only when people went from passive "tsk-tsk-that's-too-bad-why-doesn't-anyone-do-something" to a passionate "THAT-IS-WRONG, and I am going to do something about it" did change occur.

    And it often started with a simple : "I can change this"

    Can that happen in dance? I wonder...

  15. madmaximus

    madmaximus Well-Known Member

    [agreed. and for discussion's sake...]

    Then, it predicates that the environment should also be changed, shouldn't it?

    Tidal-strength change can often ONLY be initiated by economic forces that are strong enough to supplant the current toxic environment.

    And change of that magnitude often starts with the most innocuous of things---i.e., the so-called "butterfly effect".

    Perhaps in this case, it could be a simple individual statement: "Let's change this".

    But then, as I've already pointed out, massive discontent needs to reach a critical point first.

    When the environment demands good governance from their leaders, good leadership can occur.

  16. Larinda McRaven

    Larinda McRaven Site Moderator Staff Member

    The thing is every dancer has a choice. Even a choice to belong to an organization whose rules you do not like and plan to break... or to belong to an organization that will not force you to choose. It is their choice.
  17. DL

    DL Well-Known Member

    It's not enough to say that things should change, because that doesn't guarantee change for the better. The only way to improve matters is to fully understand the problem, advocate for a solution, convince sufficiently many like-minded folk to agree, and collectively choose a leader who will do the legwork to make the solution a reality.

    Merely rebelling against the status quo is just as silly and pointless, IMO, as the status quo itself may seem.

    In other words: If one rejects a leader, fine. If one chooses a new leader at random, one should be prepared to reject that one too, maybe for the same reason one rejected the first leader. It's better for one to set one's self and one's leaders up for success.
  18. madmaximus

    madmaximus Well-Known Member


    and as we're talking about choices, as much as it is a choice to belong to the organization (or not), another can also be the individual's choice to change the organization one belongs to, or to illuminate others of the availability and viability of that choice, or to stand by and see others drive it to ruin.

  19. madmaximus

    madmaximus Well-Known Member

    no argument there...

    I would add though, that often, the best leaders occur organically---not democratically.

  20. DL

    DL Well-Known Member

    Perhaps; but I daresay "democratically" is the only way they can be *recognized* as such.

Share This Page