Left Voice: Why Hamilton Is the Most Right-Wing Musical on Broadway

[The Pet of the Month]

In the midst of a movement against systemic racism, Disney has released a filmed version of the musical Hamilton. But when one looks past its diverse cast and enjoyable score, it becomes clear that Hamilton glamorizes slave owners.

The day before July 4, Disney+ released a filmed version of the hit Broadway musical Hamilton. Unsurprisingly, the musical once again became a social media phenomenon. The current uprisings against police violence, however, have created something of a backlash against the musical. Hamilton is now being interrogated at a much deeper political level than it was when it first premiered in 2015.

While Hamilton did give opportunities to Black and Brown performers, who are often severely limited in their options, it is important to also engage with Hamilton as a piece of political art. Writer, composer, and star Lin-Manuel Miranda has been very explicit about his attempts to connect the story of Alexander Hamilton with more contemporary themes. Even a cursory investigation of the text of the musical reveals it to be one of the most conservative shows in recent memory. Miranda has written a very effective piece of propaganda for the slave owners who founded this country. He adds insult to injury by having Black and Latinx actors portray the very people who oppressed and murdered their ancestors.

Click to shrink...

You can read the rest of the article at the link: https://www.leftvoice.org/why-hamilton-is-the-most-right-wing-musical-on-broadway

I won't lie, I really enjoyed and still like Hamilton as a Broadway production. It's so very catchy and feel-good, and the performances of the company are marvelous. But that's what I enjoyed and believed to be the best part of the musical—how each song ties from one story beat to the next and tying modern language to a time dated over two centuries ago—but the story itself goes a little too well and I do wish the producers/scriptwriters expanded their focus a bit more beyond the focused look on the life of Alexander Hamilton (even if it's the title of the play, haha.) It just rubs me the wrong way, and I do think a lot of events were "swept under the rug" like nothing happened for the events of the play to go as well as it does.

What do you think?

Challenge me to a duel if old.

 

[PopsMaellard]

Eh. It's a 3 hour production, he crammed what he could into it. As others have expressed in previous Hamilton threads, the show never really lionizes Hamilton himself and George Washington is largely the only founding father that doesn't come out of it looking like a complete shithead.

 

[jaekeem]

Hm. To be honest, I don't really have a response to that argument and I think it's an important one to state. Speaking for myself though, I see the usage of diverse casting and hip hop as a reclamation in a sense of American history, which is so often dominated by white faces and imagery in its retellings.

 

[WillyFive]

2020 and 2015 are very different worlds. I'm glad conservatives finally like it, considering how much they wanted it boycotted just 4 years ago.

 

[donkey]

I think the man himself said it best:

 

[Deleted member 4494]

Hamilton sure is weird, in a way. Like, there's a really broad interpretation of it as being inclusive to minorities historically erased from the creation of the US by placing brown and black people in the roles of the founders as if to say "This is the way America *should* be." Then there's another critical take that says, hey, this glorifies some really shitty people who, whether or not they did good things, are villains by the standards of the day, and considering the climate we're in *right now* it's not particularly helpful to have this. The world we were in before Trumpism, and the world we're in now, demands that we look at the work through different lenses, even if it means that we have to look past the admittedly sublime music.

 

[Fat4all]

 

[The Pet of the Month]

I think the man himself said it best:

Click to shrink...

I certainly agree with this, its something that I'll keep in mind and talk about with the people I watch it with. I still like Hamilton, mind you, but that taste still lingers in my mouth a bit lol

 

[SteveWinwood]

2020 and 2015 are very different worlds. I'm glad conservatives finally like it, considering how much they wanted it boycotted just 4 years ago.

Click to shrink...

yeah that's what im going with

it's a whole new world now

while being exactly the same

 

[Dyle]

It wouldn't be a successful musical if it took slavery and class issues head-on because it would lose most of the core energy that drives its first half and makes the tragic elements of the second half hit as hard as they do. It would be a better portrayal of history but far less people would have seen it, assuming it would have gotten picked up at all, and there's never a perfect, simple way of balancing everything when making something like this for the general populace.

 

[Deleted member 69501]

Hmmm let me say from the outset that I only read the quoted except.

"one of the most conservative shows in recent memory. Miranda has written a very effective piece of propaganda for the slave owners who founded this country. He adds insult to injury by having Black and Latinx actors portray the very people who oppressed and murdered their ancestors"

I'm not sure I can jive with this statement at all. Perhaps it's because I'm not an American or maybe it's because I read up on the details that weren't fully explored in the play. I do understand the need for more explicit call outs to America's past and current demons but I think the play wasn't trying to explore slavery directly. Instead it attempts to reframe and explain who Hamilton was, what motivated him in hopes that we can then view him through a different lens, as an immigrant who tried to leave a legacy. Flawed as that retelling might be, to suggest that it's propaganda might just be pushing it too far.

 

[Deleted member 64609]

I think the man himself said it best:

Click to shrink...

I havent seen it but if he's fine with people criticizing it then seems all good

 

[bionic77]

That wouldn't work for a broadway show. People want to feel good when they leave the show.

 

[RocketDarkness]

There's some interesting supplementary material that didn't make it into the final performance, like Cabinet Battle #3, which addresses the slave trade in more detail.

 

[OG YOLOwen]

2020 and 2015 are very different worlds. I'm glad conservatives finally like it, considering how much they wanted it boycotted just 4 years ago.

Click to shrink...

yeah that's what im going with

it's a whole new world now

while being exactly the same

Click to shrink...

100% this.

Back in 2014, when Michael Brown was killed, saying BLM in spaces like reddit would often get you a lot of mean comments. This was when tagging on feminazis was the shit. Topics like intersectionality were still feminists boogeymen. This was when "classical liberalism" was at its peak.

The world has changed a lot post-GamerGate, in many ways people seem to be unaware of. Clowns like Ben Shapiro and Stefan Molyneux, once household names, are distant memories. People have definitely become more willing to have these difficult conversations.

This conversation regarding Hamilton is a tough one but an important one. LMM's response in that tweet was a pretty good answer. I'm glad the author is willing to engage

 

[HardTimesFamilyPride]

Eh. It's a 3 hour production, he crammed what he could into it. As others have expressed in previous Hamilton threads, the show never really lionizes Hamilton himself and George Washington is largely the only founding father that doesn't come out of it looking like a complete shithead.

Click to shrink...

That's good to know. I never sought out Hamilton mostly because I was worried it would lionize some of the people it portrays. Couldn't get a read on it from my theater nerd friends cause they cared more about the songs and actors than engaging in critical analysis lol

 

[badatorigami]

Hmmm let me say from the outset that I only read the quoted except.

"one of the most conservative shows in recent memory. Miranda has written a very effective piece of propaganda for the slave owners who founded this country. He adds insult to injury by having Black and Latinx actors portray the very people who oppressed and murdered their ancestors"

I'm not sure I can jive with this statement at all. Perhaps it's because I'm not an American or maybe it's because I read up on the details that weren't fully explored in the play. I do understand the need for more explicit call outs to America's past and current demons but I think the play wasn't trying to explore slavery directly. Instead it attempts to reframe and explain who Hamilton was, what motivated him in hopes that we can then view him through a different lens, as an immigrant who tried to leave a legacy. Flawed as that retelling might be, to suggest that it's propaganda might just be pushing it too far.

Click to shrink...

You cannot accurately and in good faith examine the founding of the United States of America without looking at its legacy of colonization, genocide, and slavery. The founders of the US were not plucky immigrants, they were colonizers that destroyed the lives of the native peoples. The fact that the play completely washes away those aspects and casts POC in the roles of the colonizers is not a "reclamation" of any sort, and is certainly not a repudiation of racism with "look, we cast these melanined people to portray these freedom fighters, so progressive, what slavery?".

 

[Moppeh]

I like Hamilton but it certainly deserves leftist criticism. Hamilton is the 1700s equivalent of a elitist coastal liberal and some of his negative attributes are ignored or downplayed in some sort of Sorkin-esque manner. Same goes for a lot of other figures in the musical. Ideally, people come away from Hamilton having a good time and wanting to learn more but, unfortunately, that won't always be the case. Some folks really love the continued deification of the Founding Fathers.

 

[Volimar]

I think the man himself said it best:

Click to shrink...

Should be in the OP really.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

Hamilton is fiction. It is a dramatization and it is not a history lesson. It uses characters inspired by living people but it is fake. No amount of passion from the auteur is going to make what's being presented anything more than a highly romanticized piece of fiction.

And I think that's really the end of it. The story doesn't cover the atrocities these men committed because that wouldn't fit in the story. The actual political legacies of these people are not examined because that's not how the characters are written. It is inspired by real events, it is not a historical account of what actually happened. This has always been the case with historical fiction, including fictitious plays based on real political figures. This is a standard founded in Shakespeare.

It is perfectly valid and reasonable to say it makes you uncomfortable to see grotesque, immoral slavers dramatized as inspiring and complex up-and-comers. People have had this criticism of Hamilton since it came out. Hamilton has always been dragged as the ultimate example of neoliberal revisionism: whitewashed history with a diverse coat of paint. Calling it a rightwing fantasy is just another flavor of the same elementary criticism. It's correct. It's valid. What else is there to say?

But at the same time, people can still enjoy it for what it is. You can fully and comfortably acknowledge that every single founding father was an irredeemable monster who set in motion a deeply exploitative political system and also enjoy Hamilton as a piece of entertaining fiction.

Hamilton is fake. Titanic is fake. Braveheart is fake. Argo is fake. Amadeus is fake. Captain Phillips is fake. The Patriot is fake. All these movies are total fabrications; they're fictitious characters in constructed plots that loosely resemble their original inspiration. Hamilton carries extra baggage because it is a racialized production of highly racist historical figures. But the complaint "hmmm, this isn't how it really happened, these people were really bad actually," only goes so far.

At the end of the day, it's still a work of fiction that can be enjoyed on its own terms. You can, and should, still have conversations about what actually happened. Entertainment does not replace history and should not be mistaken for history.

If anything, it is a positive that Hamilton has spurred so many conversations (both in 2014-2016 and now) about who these people actually were, what they actually did, and why nobody should idolize the actual founding fathers. But you can still enjoy a musical based on the myth.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Hamilton sure is weird, in a way. Like, there's a really broad interpretation of it as being inclusive to minorities historically erased from the creation of the US by placing brown and black people in the roles of the founders as if to say "This is the way America *should* be." Then there's another critical take that says, hey, this glorifies some really shitty people who, whether or not they did good things, are villains by the standards of the day, and considering the climate we're in *right now* it's not particularly helpful to have this. The world we were in before Trumpism, and the world we're in now, demands that we look at the work through different lenses, even if it means that we have to look past the admittedly sublime music.

Click to shrink...

There are a lot of angles to it, and it's kind of fascinating. I also think it should not be brushed over that it's the most successful and popular musical in modern memory and has a 98% PoC cast, and that some the previously lesser-known historical characters—namely Hamilton and Burr—are going to be significantly associated with the PoC actors playing them going forward. Which again I think is fascinating.

 

[Puggles]

Slavery is brought up in the show and I don't think the characters are celebrated. They are all clearly shitty people.

 

[Rad Bandolar]

It's historical fan fiction featuring broad characterizations of long dead people as it's characters.

You could definitely make a broadway musical that goes into excruciatingly Hamiltonian detail about everything wrong with Hamilton and the rest of the founders, but they made a musical about a scrappy immigrant with behaviors and attitudes that initially bring him great success, but ultimately lead to his downfall. Who just happens to be named Alexander Hamilton.

 

[Book One]

this reminded me of this

On Friday November 18, the vice-president elect — who joined Donald Trump's campaign in July and pushed a platform rooted in anti-immigrant sentiment — attended a hit Broadway musical lauded for telling the Founding Fathers' story with a deliberately multi-cultural cast and compassion for immigrants.

As you can imagine, the night turned out to be a memorable one.

It started with Pence trying to take his seat amid a wave of boos, (and yes, a few cheers, as per Variety). But the prevailing sentiment throughout the show — starring the openly gay and HIV positive actor Javier Muñoz as Hamilton — was reportedly hostile toward Pence, who has consistently opposed LGBTQ rights.

But even if there hadn't been an audible outrage from his fellow theatergoers, you have to wonder what the man who backed a candidate calling for a Muslim registry and whose transition team efforts have so far yielded such contentious picks as Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General might've thought when he heard Hamilton lines like, "immigrants: we get the job done" or "history has its eyes on you."

The booing would've been noteworthy on its own — but it was only the beginning. The real coup de grace came when the Hamilton cast itself remained onstage well past their curtain call to address Pence directly, even encouraging other audience members to record (and share) the moment:


As Pence was walking out of the theater, Hamilton cast member Brandon Victor Dixon — who's currently playing Aaron Burr — called out to him, asking him to stay and listen what they had to say. He then pulled out a piece of paper and delivered the following remarks, as the cast linked arms in solidarity behind him:

Vice-president elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at Hamilton: An American Musical. We really do.
We, sir, are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents — or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir.
But we truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and work on behalf of all of us. All of us.
We truly thank you for sharing this show — this wonderful American story told by a diverse group of men, women of different colors, creeds, and orientations.

Click to shrink...

Click to shrink...

 

[The Pet of the Month]

Should be in the OP really.

Click to shrink...

I can't really edit on my phone well so I'll threadmark it :)

 

[Hollywood Duo]

Jefferson is mocked the entire time he's in the show.

 

[Trouble]

I feel like Washington got off too easy, but damn if Chris Jackson didn't make me forget all that in the moment.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Slavery is brought up in the show and I don't think the characters are celebrated. They are all clearly shitty people.

Click to shrink...

Eh, as much as I think the historical and cultural criticism of the show should be relatively mild, there's a whoooole lotta glossing over and while many of the founding fathers are seen acting petty or childish, these aren't exactly brutally sober re-examinations. And Hamilton is portrayed as flawed and tragic, but that's not the same as "clearly shitty".

 

[lenovox1]

You cannot accurately and in good faith examine the founding of the United States of America without looking at its legacy of colonization, genocide, and slavery. The founders of the US were not plucky immigrants, they were colonizers that destroyed the lives of the native peoples. The fact that the play completely washes away those aspects and casts POC in the roles of the colonizers is not a "reclamation" of any sort, and is certainly not a repudiation of racism with "look, we cast these melanined people to portray these freedom fighters, so progressive, what slavery?".

Click to shrink...

None of that is the case.

This is ultimately a story about Hamilton, and Hamilton had a rather ambivalent and complex view on slavery, and he didn't ever have the types of jobs or position to keep slaves of his own. So slaves wouldn't be as big of a part of his story as they would be for other people.

And the fact that these men kept and traded slaves is brought up as a dramatic device rather constantly in the second act.

How, in your view, did the play as written do what you feel it did?

(And Hamilton was the only immigrant among the men on stage, and that is directly addressed by the way he's talked about in the show. This is no "plucky immigrant" retelling of the founding of the nation. Burr doesn't constantly refer to Hamilton as a bastard, orphan, immigrant, and son of a whore for funsies. That is how the man was always viewed.)

 

[Deleted member 1476]

I think the man himself said it best:

Click to shrink...

I was about to praise him when I realized that nowadays doing the bare minimum is being seen as good. When you have shitheels like JKR and that OSC guy saying bullshit all the time, seeing someone do what should be the standard is seen as fresh.

It's sad, really.

 

[lenovox1]

I feel like Washington got off too easy, but damn if Chris Jackson didn't make me forget all that in the moment.

Click to shrink...

I look at Washington in the show as more of a dramatic device than an actual political or historical figure, personally. But, yes, his own slaves weren't even brought up until the very, very end.

 

[Aaron]

It wouldn't be a successful musical if it took slavery and class issues head-on because it would lose most of the core energy that drives its first half and makes the tragic elements of the second half hit as hard as they do. It would be a better portrayal of history but far less people would have seen it, assuming it would have gotten picked up at all, and there's never a perfect, simple way of balancing everything when making something like this for the general populace.

Click to shrink...

Worth pointing out that LMM's previous show (In The Heights) was much more "real" in its social commentary and while it did well, was not nearly the same phenomenon as Hamilton. I think that serves as decent metacommentary in its own right.

You cannot accurately and in good faith examine the founding of the United States of America without looking at its legacy of colonization, genocide, and slavery. The founders of the US were not plucky immigrants, they were colonizers that destroyed the lives of the native peoples. The fact that the play completely washes away those aspects and casts POC in the roles of the colonizers is not a "reclamation" of any sort, and is certainly not a repudiation of racism with "look, we cast these melanined people to portray these freedom fighters, so progressive, what slavery?".

Click to shrink...

a) Hamilton was an immigrant, though. As was Lafayette. These are the only two characters who are portrayed as "plucky immigrants." And Lafayette leaves the story after the first act, after which Hamilton's identity as an immigrant doesn't really come up again. The whole "immigrants - we get the job done" is literally one line in one song.

b) Jefferson, Madison, Burr and Hamilton all come off as total dickheads, and Jefferson being a slave-owner is regularly commented on (while Hamilton and Laurens' desire to integrate the army and end slavery is exalted). The only person who's really let off the hook is Washington.

The point about Hamilton erasing the plight of Native Americans is well-taken, but I really don't know if I'd agree with the rest of this (besides the whitewashing of Washington, who I imagine would be written differently had LMM written the show today). I also might encourage you to check out Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, a show that predated Hamilton but takes a similar approach centered on Andrew Jackson - it generated a ton of controversy and did not shy away at all from Jackson's monstrous history regarding Native Americans.

I look at Washington in the show as more of a dramatic device than an actual political or historical figure, personally. But, yes, his own slaves weren't even brought up until the very, very end.

Click to shrink...

I do appreciate the subtle detail with Eliza singing "I speak out against slavery" and seeing Washington clearly upset by this statement in the background.

I would love if there was some kind of spoken acknowledgment in the show that Washington was a slave-owner, with some added introspection as to why history more or less "forgave" Washington for this but Jefferson's slave ownership has always been part of the historical narrative.

 

[jph139]

These takes sort of wash over me because - like, that's not the point, you know? This isn't the story of Alexander Hamilton, some dude that was born in the 18th century and lived and died. It's a fictional story that reimagines and reinvents actual people who lived and died, through the lens of the author and performers. It's not tackling slavery or focused on the Haitian Revolution or whatever because that's not the story that Lin-Manuel Miranda wanted to write. He read a book about a historical figure, parts of it resonated, and he created his own story inspired by that historical figure.

Thomas Jefferson, the person, was a writer and inventor and statesman who owned and raped other human beings. Thomas Jefferson, the character, exists only to sing and dance and have rap battles and look suspiciously similar to the Marquis de Lafayette. Having knowledge of one helps inform the other. The person is the root to the character, and just as important, the myth is the root of the character. But you're not engaging with it as a work without accepting that they exist independently.

Ultimately, Hamilton isn't obligated to talk about the historical facts of slavery and genocide any more than, like, Robin Hood is obligated to examine the interfaith prejudices of the Third Crusade. An accurate retelling of history just isn't the mission statement.

 

[Viewt]

As much as I enjoy it, I can't deny that there are some problematic aspects to it, some of which are built into the core of the concept. It's the story of America (both in terms of origin and its thesis - that the immigrant spirit is what pushes America forward), but when it comes to the nation's original sins, the musical either pays lip service (maybe 5-6 lines over the course of the story that reference slavery, almost always in passing) or doesn't mention it at all (the theft of land and ruthless persecution against Native Americans).

It's weird to say that something from 2015 feels like a product of its time, but it's true. Obama's America, flawed and naive as it was, felt aspirational enough to make something like Hamilton work. Earlier that year, gay marriage had finally been nationally legalized. It felt like, even though there was so much left to do, we'd at least turned a page. Again, naive, I know, but 2016 was a reset. In the current context, something like this... it feels like too important a time to disregard these sorts of issues. It wasn't OK then, either, I suppose, but I was probably more blind to it all than I'd like to admit.

 

[donkey]

a) Hamilton was an immigrant, though. As was Lafayette. These are the only two characters who are portrayed as "plucky immigrants." And Lafayette leaves the story after the first act, after which Hamilton's identity as an immigrant doesn't really come up again. The whole "immigrants - we get the job done" is literally one line in one song.

Click to shrink...

It's there in act 2. I think Burr mentions it a few times and it's definitely brought up during The Adams Administration, Washington On Your Side and Hurricane.

 

[Desi]

These takes sort of wash over me because - like, that's not the point, you know? This isn't the story of Alexander Hamilton, some dude that was born in the 18th century and lived and died. It's a fictional story that reimagines and reinvents actual people who lived and died, through the lens of the author and performers. It's not tackling slavery or focused on the Haitian Revolution or whatever because that's not the story that Lin-Manuel Miranda wanted to write. He read a book about a historical figure, parts of it resonated, and he created his own story inspired by that historical figure.

Thomas Jefferson, the person, was a writer and inventor and statesman who owned and raped other human beings. Thomas Jefferson, the character, exists only to sing and dance and have rap battles and look suspiciously similar to the Marquis de Lafayette. Having knowledge of one helps inform the other. The person is the root to the character, and just as important, the myth is the root of the character. But you're not engaging with it as a work without accepting that they exist independently.

Ultimately, Hamilton isn't obligated to talk about the historical facts of slavery and genocide any more than, like, Robin Hood is obligated to examine the interfaith prejudices of the Third Crusade. An accurate retelling of history just isn't the mission statement.

Click to shrink...

You summed up how I view Hamilton the play as well. I know it isn't a Documentary, Biopic, biography, etc. That is fine. It tells a stylized retelling of a few years of Hamilton's life jumping from parts and places.

People can always argue about how much "more" it could do but it didn't have to.

 

[MrHedin]

Worth pointing out that LMM's previous show (In The Heights) was much more "real" in its social commentary and while it did well, was not nearly the same phenomenon as Hamilton. I think that serves as decent metacommentary in its own right.


a) Hamilton was an immigrant, though. As was Lafayette. These are the only two characters who are portrayed as "plucky immigrants." And Lafayette leaves the story after the first act, after which Hamilton's identity as an immigrant doesn't really come up again. The whole "immigrants - we get the job done" is literally one line in one song.

b) Jefferson, Madison, Burr and Hamilton all come off as total dickheads, and Jefferson being a slave-owner is regularly commented on (while Hamilton and Laurens' desire to integrate the army and end slavery is exalted). The only person who's really let off the hook is Washington.

The point about Hamilton erasing the plight of Native Americans is well-taken, but I really don't know if I'd agree with the rest of this (besides the whitewashing of Washington, who I imagine would be written differently had LMM written the show today). I also might encourage you to check out Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, a show that predated Hamilton but takes a similar approach centered on Andrew Jackson - it generated a ton of controversy and did not shy away at all from Jackson's monstrous history regarding Native Americans.


I do appreciate the subtle detail with Eliza singing "I speak out against slavery" and seeing Washington clearly upset by this statement in the background.

I would love if there was some kind of spoken acknowledgment in the show that Washington was a slave-owner, with some added introspection as to why history more or less "forgave" Washington for this but Jefferson's slave ownership has always been part of the historical narrative.

Click to shrink...

There kind of was even if it wasn't called out directly. Cabinet Battle #1 is where Hamilton has his main slavery lines. Right after that sequence Washington pulls Hamilton aside.

Hamilton: "Sorry these Virginians are birds of a feather."
Washington: "Young man, I'm from Virginia so watch your mouth."

That sequence directly links Washington to the discussion Hamilton was having with Jefferson. Yes it's not directly stated that Washington owned slaves but they did make references.

 

[mbpm]

this reminds me i have to listen to the quinton reviews video on hamilton still

 

[badatorigami]

None of that is the case.

This is ultimately a story about Hamilton, and Hamilton had a rather ambivalent and complex view on slavery, and he didn't ever have the types of jobs or position to keep slaves of his own. So slaves wouldn't be as big of a part of his story as they would be for other people.

And the fact that these men kept and traded slaves is brought up as a dramatic device rather constantly in the second act.

How, in your view, did the play as written do what you feel it did?

(And Hamilton was the only immigrant among the men on stage, and that is directly addressed by the way he's talked about in the show. This is no "plucky immigrant" retelling of the founding of the nation. Burr doesn't constantly refer to Hamilton as a bastard, orphan, immigrant, and son of a whore for funsies. That is how the man was always viewed.)

Click to shrink...

Was just going off the article and haven't actually seen Hamilton (due to criticisms of the work from years ago that mirror the more widespread criticisms of today), so my critique is definitely lacking in nuance and fact-based analysis, which I should have mentioned in my original post, and I will understand if anyone discounts my viewpoint because of this. However,

I would argue that buying and selling slaves is not an ambivalent position towards slavery, but it's good to hear that the musical does not erase that fact as I had assumed from the article. The fact that they chose people of color to portray these roles however erases some of the monstrosity of the white people who were actually perpetrated those acts. Viewers may intellectually understand that the character was in history a white man, but they're seeing the characters as POC on stage, and it can be difficult to separate

The fact that Burr denigrates Hamilton on his social status as you mentioned is intented to reinforce the sympathy that the viewer feels towards the protagonist of the story, Hamilton the immigrant (a white man in history, but he's black here, so we're making a pro-immigration stance, not a pro-colonization one!)

At the end of the day, I do understand others' view that it's a piece of historical fan-fiction, but fan-fiction about events that actually took place in history can lead to white-washing of that history when the fan-fiction becomes popular.

 

[Veliladon]

(besides the whitewashing of Washington, who I imagine would be written differently had LMM written the show today)

Click to shrink...

Washington: You wanna pull yourself together?

Hamilton: I'm sorry, these Virginians are birds of a feather
Washington: Young man, I'm from Virginia, so watch your mouth
Hamilton: Yeah you've got hundreds of slaves in the South​

 

[Konradleijon]

I dislike how it's "bringing minorities into the history of the American revolution"

Their where plenty of minorities in American history, most of them have tragic endings,

 

[sprsk]

I look at Washington in the show as more of a dramatic device than an actual political or historical figure, personally. But, yes, his own slaves weren't even brought up until the very, very end.

Click to shrink...

 

[¡Hip Hop!]

Was just going off the article and haven't actually seen Hamilton (due to criticisms of the work from years ago that mirror the more widespread criticisms of today), so my critique is definitely lacking in nuance and fact-based analysis, which I should have mentioned in my original post, and I will understand if anyone discounts my viewpoint because of this. However,

I would argue that buying and selling slaves is not an ambivalent position towards slavery, but it's good to hear that the musical does not erase that fact as I had assumed from the article. The fact that they chose people of color to portray these roles however erases some of the monstrosity of the white people who were actually perpetrated those acts. Viewers may intellectually understand that the character was in history a white man, but they're seeing the characters as POC on stage, and it can be difficult to separate

The fact that Burr denigrates Hamilton on his social status as you mentioned is intented to reinforce the sympathy that the viewer feels towards the protagonist of the story, Hamilton the immigrant (a white man in history, but he's black here, so we're making a pro-immigration stance, not a pro-colonization one!)

At the end of the day, I do understand others' view that it's a piece of historical fan-fiction, but fan-fiction about events that actually took place in history can lead to white-washing of that history when the fan-fiction becomes popular.

Click to shrink...

At this point, you might as well just watch the damn play. You're boxing with one arm behind your back because you don't fully understand the thing you're criticizing.

 

[Speevy]

I think Lin-Manuel Miranda is to be applauded for making an absolutely brilliant and successful musical in a climate where most of them wither and die. That he subverted so many expectations was a minor miracle in and of itself. He has kept the conversation open and I applaud him for that too.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've only ever been to see one musical. it was my experience that you go to these things and you experience feelings that you can't find outside the theater. It's like you become a character in the story, speaking their language. This kind of community creates in innate empathy for human beings in peril that you cannot find in other mediums. Naive though it may seem, it's not something I would sacrifice.

To me, Hamilton creates an inclusive metaphor of how people can bring about change without losing sight of who they are, and how to tear something down while building something better in its place. I see the point of saying that the marginalized groups are playing the characters in the OP, but I also say that these actors bring about the urgency and energy that makes it their musical. It's truly an idealized American spirit that doesn't and shouldn't belong to white people.

 

[demosthenes]

Eh. It's a 3 hour production, he crammed what he could into it. As others have expressed in previous Hamilton threads, the show never really lionizes Hamilton himself and George Washington is largely the only founding father that doesn't come out of it looking like a complete shithead.

Click to shrink...

This.

And while Burr isn't a founding father the musical actually paints him in a better picture than the person he was as well.

 

[WedgeX]

I think Lin-Manuel Miranda is to be applauded for making an absolutely brilliant and successful musical in a climate where most of them wither and die. That he subverted so many expectations was a minor miracle in and of itself. He has kept the conversation open and I applaud him for that too.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've only ever been to see one musical. it was my experience that you go to these things and you experience feelings that you can't find outside the theater. It's like you become a character in the story, speaking their language. This kind of community creates in innate empathy for human beings in peril that you cannot find in other mediums. Naive though it may seem, it's not something I would sacrifice.

To me, Hamilton creates an inclusive metaphor of how people can bring about change without losing sight of who they are, and how to tear something down while building something better in its place. I see the point of saying that the marginalized groups are playing the characters in the OP, but I also say that these actors bring about the urgency and energy that makes it their musical. It's truly an idealized American spirit that doesn't and shouldn't belong to white people.

Click to shrink...

That's what I took away from listening and seeing live - many countries have their own mythologies. The mythology of the US firmly lionized primarily white people for so very long, and this seemed to try and wrest some of the country's myth and promise away from just white people.

 

[ThereAreFourNaan]

Hamilton is fiction. It is a dramatization and it is not a history lesson. It uses characters inspired by living people but it is fake. No amount of passion from the auteur is going to make what's being presented anything more than a highly romanticized piece of fiction.

And I think that's really the end of it.

Click to shrink...

What you're saying is true - it is a fictionalization with a historical basis. I don't think the conversation does end there, though. This is not a unique issue with Hamilton but is a broader issue with historical fiction and dramatizations in general, but basically for a lot of people their education on a given topic begins and ends with something like this. They might know it's not 100% totally the whole truth, but if they don't follow that up with a deep dive into it then they will ultimately be left with that as their only impression, and when something is a cultural touchstone then that can strongly influence public perception of something.

As such I think authors of historical fiction have a general responsibility to be as accurate and holistic as they plausibly can. I make no comments about Hamilton's contents, but I have been quite bothered by more than a few biopics and historical dramatizations, to the point that I almost never watch them anymore.

 

[StopMakingSense]

This.

And while Burr isn't a founding father the musical actually paints him in a better picture than the person he was as well.

Click to shrink...

Yeah you could do a whole other musical on Burr being a shithead and trying to annex Louisiana territory to start a competing country.

 

[NookSports]

So Hamilton went from calling Pence out during a performance to being the most right wing musical in record time huh. I get the criticism, and even LMM seems to agree there were some blind spots, but the hyperbole isn't helpful.

 

[Witness]

Eh. It's a 3 hour production, he crammed what he could into it. As others have expressed in previous Hamilton threads, the show never really lionizes Hamilton himself and George Washington is largely the only founding father that doesn't come out of it looking like a complete shithead.

Click to shrink...

Agreed. They do call some stuff out with Washington as well but yes he is celebrated more than others really because he essentially walked away from power.

Calling it right wing propaganda seems extreme to me when its inclusive and calls out the slavery hypocrisy throughout the play. Of course it could have done more, but it would be a different play then. There was the whole thing with Pence too a few years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...amilton-performance-then-hears-diversity-plea