I can't speak one way or the other on the motives because I've never heard anyone point blank say. As for 15 minutes of fame, I could think of 1000's of less painless ways to achieve that so I'm not sure this to be at least the primary motive. Here's my guess and it's purely a guess so take it as that.
This initial action may have been about showing the larger public the nature in which our gov't has changed over the last decade or so. I say that because of the presense of video cameras in both the original incident and the later dance parties or in otherwords, they expected some measure of reaction. Regardless, something as harmless as public dancing and the gov't forbids it in public places? It's point is to get people to ask themselves, if I live in a society where something as silly as dancing in a public place at midnight is tolerated, can I use that as a measure to which I have an overall larger degree of freedom in my own life? If dancing in public is so silly and out of place, why did Hollywood make it seem so commonplace in film after film after film? Just sayin'!
But the opposite can also be true, if something as silly as a person dancing in public is not tolerated, then just how free am I? Just how far are freedom of expression and speech really tolerated? It's a public action to get people to see an example, silly as it is, and then consider the deeper philosophical questions and implications of it. And the fact all this took place at the Jefferson Memorial (I concede Jefferson's many warts too) bangs this home even further in it's symbology. In some measure, there is as much a public statement being made here as the one Rosa Parks made or the Greensboro 4 who in 1960' challenge the segregation laws pertaining to lunch counters. Rosa Parks and the Greensboro 4 did more to show the lack of freedom and over reach of the state and in time they were found to be absolutely correct and the law, the state policy and the majority proven absolutely wrong. If the state can by law and public policy tell a private concern who they can recognize as customers, what else can they tell that private business or concern? And on the flipside, when a group of private concern can use the state and public policy to dictate to others who they can and can not serve in any economic transaction, is that truly free market?
Rosa and the Greensboro 4 at the time were breaking the law and one could question if they could achieve the same ends by different means. History now seems to support them in their choices. What about MLK and the Selma to Montgomery marchers? Do you think they understood their actions would draw conflict with the holders and enforcers of law? We now celebrate that march in the action of liberty and freedom practically as an equal to Lexington Green and rightly so in many respects. No disrespect to African Americans intended if they think I'm trying to equate the dancing situation with their own rights struggle as by no means I'm not. Theirs was a far greater struggle by light years but on a level of principle and question of state control, the dancing does follow in the pathways of that struggle and the fact the dancers followed a non-violent approach shows the importance and legacy of not only MLK but Ghandi as well. IMO, I think both men would have proudly approved and it proves a non-violent but non-compliant public can grind an over reaching state to a halt.
In the case of the dancing on June 4, they in effect shut gov't down (closed the Jefferson Memorial) because the gov't was left with no answers. A similar response to the 2 previous dances backfired and any arrests see all charges dropped because in the end the charges themselves are groundless and baseless so shutting down the area and ordering people out was their only solution. And let it be noted all the dancers complied and left the area as ordered. I wonder if the decision was left solely up to the officers on hand if they would sit back, allow the dancing but just make sure no one is hurt, harm or otherwise their visits effected? I'm not a betting man but I'd bet good money most officers would in fact take that approach but sadly we live in a top down not bottom up world so there you go!
Again, the TJ Dancers re-enacting American Bandstand may seem silly and one could question choices made but consider this. You said:
You have seen the situation and actions taken by the state and among the questions you are asking, you are questioning the actions of the state itself and in that lay the intended purpose of the dancing in the first place. I'm projecting my own opinion on this so "grain of salt" warning. Getting people to begin to question and maybe the next step is, "What the hell are they (the state) doing and what is really going on here?" is asked in a much larger and broader context. If the state can tell you when and when not to dance, does that same foundation of authority give them the power to tell you when and what insurance to buy? Should we be considering this point from this perspective or is this too outlandish and far reaching? And those too should be questions we should ask.
If you are not free to dance unless the gov't sez so and prescribes when, where and how, what else are you not free to do unless the gov't sez so? Or if gov't can tell you when where and how in one place and you accept this as right and valid, how long before someone else comes along with other self interests, uses the precedence of law to now mandate dancing as it relates to when, where and how in other areas? BTW: When did dancing become an action requiring one to go to gov't, to ask permission and then get a permission slip to do so, especially in a public space? Now think about that one.
There's my shot at the answers for whatever it's worth! Be good and remember, only dance if given permission!
Wolakota!
