“The show must go on” reaks of white supremacy. Thoughts by Robin De Jesus — Page 3

The Distinctive Baritone said: "Oh, and technically, according to AEA,he should not have been rehearsing without a signed contract and actually broke AEA rules by doing so."

I was wondering about that. As I was listening and he said he was working without a contract, I was thinking - there's no way any union would be cool with this.

I am also a bad liberal, I guess, but there are so many PR disasters where the reality is that one party signed a contract they are not happy with, for one reason or another, and their only recourse is to go public.

Sometimes it works and everyone wins (Hamilton cast!) but other times it gets really, really ugly.

As to the idea that Jewish people can't be racist, I present to you Stephen Miller.

@HogansHero: I see your claim of "deflection" and raise that you look at your own "reflection". We all know you have a reputation on these boards of grandstanding and explaining in a holier than thou manner as if you can never be wrong. But let me explain how your response to my post is the core reason that some people who claim they are "woke" actually accomplish nothing and muddy the waters of what could be a productive conversation.

I am not saying that the Weisslers cannot be white supremacists just because they are Jewish. I am saying, along with several others here that have agreed, that there is no evidence in this particular instance that anything they did had anything to do with race. Attributing this behavior to race or white supremacy is simply making up an issue where there is none. My issue with how this claim was made is that they are adding insult to injury by calling these specific Jewish people white supremacists while they have never behaved as such and have probably faced actual white supremacy throughout their life. Who is not being sensitive now?

I am not against a culture of being sensitive to social injustice. Exactly the opposite - I was asking for people to be careful when using the term white supremacy and to only use it when there is evidence of it actually happening. Attributing it to the Weisslers here is not just fundamentally incorrect, but it is insulting to a minority (which yes, Judaism certainly is) that is faced with actual white supremacy.

If you want to talk about when to call someone ignorant, here is the actual definition of white supremacy:

white su·prem·a·cy
noun
the belief that white people constitute a superior race and should therefore dominate society, typically to the exclusion or detriment of other racial and ethnic groups, in particular black or Jewish people.
Definitions from Oxford Languages

Nowhere did the Weisslers demonstrate any of that. Saying that they did is ignorant because you obviously used the term without knowing what it meant. I stayed on the topic of white supremacy that Robin de Jesus was trying to show evidence of, and stated that it was used incorrectly. That is not deflection, it is a direct response to the point he is trying to make.

You are the one who literally deflected from my point by listing that Jews can be racist/white supremacists. So miss me with your bull****. I know that there are examples of that; I'm familiar with Jared Kushner. My point is, it is an insult to members of religious groups when you claim that they are part of the same group that is attacking them while providing no evidence.

Maybe you should be a little more sensitive to social injustice. Do better.

This is all so sad. I don't think the guy expressed himself very well but the mockery and full-blown rudeness towards his experience here are just not OK. One might think a board about the Broadway theater would be more polite.

Updated On: 4/19/21 at 03:48 PM

HogansHero said: "@ctorres You are confounding multiple things in your first two paragraphs (no one suggested that was happens all the time is making promises and then breaking your trust; on the contrary, just the opposite; what Robin addresses is specific to him and the Weisslers."

Look, you were the one that corrected me on the "no contract" vs "covered by a production contract" distinction, so I'm trying to understand what you mean.

You said working under production contracts, but not personal contracts, was commonplace. But in the story he told, that was one of his complaints. He said, "So that whole period that I rehearsed, I had no contract. And let me tell you what that did to me, because it was a horrible state to work under."

What is specific about that situation, at that point in his story, that is different from everyone else that supposedly works without a contract? You said "that happens all the time". Right? Let me look up your exact quote.

HogansHero said: "He was working without a negotiated contract, but he was covered by the production contract. Happens all the time. Happens based on trust. Happens based on "gentlepersons' agreements."

I am trying to understand how De Jesus's circumstances of being covered by a production contract but not a personal contract are specifically worse than the situation that you claim "happens all the time". Please explain yourself rather than just splitting hairs over technical language.

HogansHero said: "@ctorres You are confounding multiple things in your first two paragraphs (no one suggested that was happens all the time is making promises and then breaking your trust; on the contrary, just the opposite; what Robin addresses is specific to him and the Weisslers). But until you recognize and accept thelink between slavery thenand white supremacy now, there is not much point in discussing this withyou."

"I won't discuss this with anyone that doesn't already fundamentally agree with my premise." Whatever. I do fundamentally agree that slavery (or racism, in general) is the historical cause of a wide-range of systemic inequalities that still exist today, but I disagree that every bad thing that happens to POC has a direct line to slavery. Sometimes bosses are just greedy and shady.

@ctorres the production contract is the minimum terms that apply in the absence of any other agreements, which go in a rider(s). You have to sign a form before you work, which binds the parties to that contract. Anything beyond that has to be negotiated (salary above the minimum, specific days you need off, that you want a slice of junior's cheesecake in your dressing room on a 6" wedgewood plate chilled to 40 degrees F, etc. Anything both parties agree to.) When Robin said his contract wasn't signed, he means the latter one (i.e., the one with the riders). It is not that unusual that the latter is not attached at the time of the first rehearsal because some minor details are still being worked out. (You have to check the dates of that press junket for a film you are obligated to do, you don't know precisely what days off you eed for your sister's wedding, etc etc.) So you reach an understanding and the rider gets finalized and typed up later based on that. People assume fair dealing and that no one is going to screw the other because, after all, you are getting ready to do a show together. What Robin describes is that he was screwed and taken advantage of. I don't want to get back into the substance or reasonableness and what you think about that or the motivations. The difference between Robin and what happens all the time is that most people don't take advantage of the other. And then there are slimeballs.

Yeah I'm trying to follow the plot?

ctorres23 said: "So are painful negotiations inherently racist now? Because of slavery?"



You were going along fine in your disagreement with him and then, bam, the racist pops OUT. Gross gross gross.

ctorres23 said: "Hey, wait a second, he's the one that said POC's experience bad-faith negotiation has existed since the sharecropping days. "

There you go again with the false premises. "He" never said anything about painful negotiations nor would "he." What "he" said had to do with a breach of trust, not fulfilling what was promised. That is not bad faith in the negotiation; it's a lack of -- here's that word again -- integrity.

I took his interpretation of "the show must go on" to mean accepting that things aren't perfect, but moving on for the greater good. In this respect, he's saying that BIPOC have more at stake when they accept this and move on, as they are disadvantaged.

Also importantly, responding to someone else calling it racist... is racist.