I would say, for any flaws it possesses (which Lin-Manuel seems very aware), if its very existence is causing FOX News to try and #CancelHamilton, then it's probably doing more good than harm.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Left Voice: Why Hamilton Is the Most Right-Wing Musical on Broadway
- Thread starter The Pet of the Month
- Start date
I would say, for any flaws it possesses (which Lin-Manuel seems very aware), if its very existence is causing FOX News to try and #CancelHamilton, then it's probably doing more good than harm.
You are 100% correct. Feel foolish for opining on this in such length when I haven't watched the dang thing and when I'm not even that invested in the first place.
Will try to smother my pre-conceived notions, give it a fair shot, and report back if my thoughts change (like people will care by then but 🤷♂️).
I get the criticisms levied against it, but Jefferson comes off really poorly, Hamilton is super flawed, and it calls out slavery repeatedly as a big issue everyone is ignoring.
I looked into it with a deep Wiki dive last week, and Hamilton, Washington, and HERCULES MULLIGAN all got harsher on slavery as time went by (Hamilton and Mulligan joined an abolition society, Washington should have done more), and Lafayette and Laurens were actively against it. So was John Adams, but he's only mentioned. Hamilton wound up with one super abolitionist son and one super racist Indian fighter son. Angelica owned slaves which embarrassed Hamilton. Mulligan's slave was apparently Robin to his Batman.
History is weird and complicated.
I looked into it with a deep Wiki dive last week, and Hamilton, Washington, and HERCULES MULLIGAN all got harsher on slavery as time went by (Hamilton and Mulligan joined an abolition society, Washington should have done more), and Lafayette and Laurens were actively against it. So was John Adams, but he's only mentioned. Hamilton wound up with one super abolitionist son and one super racist Indian fighter son. Angelica owned slaves which embarrassed Hamilton. Mulligan's slave was apparently Robin to his Batman.
History is weird and complicated.
The Renegade Cut video on this that came out yesterday was enlightening on this. It's worse than just "he should've done more."
The Washingtons moved to Pennsylvania once he was president, which had a gradual abolition law. Essentially, slaves were automatically freed after a certain amount of time living in Pennsylvania. Guess who took trips to Mt. Vernon just as the clock was about to expire on their slaves' freedom, just to reset the clock and come back in?
Culture changes very quickly, and Broadway plays take a very very long time to make. In 2015, this play was completely fine and considered very left because of casting all black actors to play historical roles. Now, the way society views the founders has changed. Nothing can be changed in the play to make that better. It'd need to be completely redone. Not like the small tweaks they've made to certain lines in Book of Mormon to feel more modern.
It reminds me of how I was taught about Columbus growing up. In my early years of school, we learned about him in Spanish class, as I got older, we learned he was actually Italian, then by the end of high school, things started to come to light that he was a bastard.
You can't predict the future when you release something like this. I guess these people can write their critiques about it, but if you enjoy Hamilton don't feel guilty. You don't suddenly have to hate it. I vehemently disagree that it's a conservative production, but whatever.
It reminds me of how I was taught about Columbus growing up. In my early years of school, we learned about him in Spanish class, as I got older, we learned he was actually Italian, then by the end of high school, things started to come to light that he was a bastard.
You can't predict the future when you release something like this. I guess these people can write their critiques about it, but if you enjoy Hamilton don't feel guilty. You don't suddenly have to hate it. I vehemently disagree that it's a conservative production, but whatever.
I would certainly welcome any historical fiction, or anything based on a true story, promoting the actuality of the history it's based on in some way. Writers or directors could be more open about the reality of their writing, which is possible today thanks to social media. You also have weird stuff like Netflix doing a post-show addressing misinformation in their own Tiger King documentary. It's certainly possible.
But I also wish people understood that just because they saw it in a movie or a musical doesn't mean it was real. At the very most it should pique one's interest to learn more. It is upsetting to me when people take media like this at face value. I am not ignorant of media's influence on perception — media is the most influential force humanity has. But is hoping people will not walk out of a musical play and think "wow, that was so accurate" too much to ask?
I don't believe art should be beholden to factual recounting of events unless it's explicit mission to do so. That isn't the purpose or function of art. If you have to adhere as exactly as possible to reality when writing a work of fiction you might as well not bother, which maybe some would prefer.
Hamilton, the musical, is about an up and coming and ambitious visionary who over-indulges and is undone by hubris and obsession. The content depicted in the play is chosen to support that narrative and support that character arc. This is something Miranda has been open about from the beginning — the story comes first, the history comes second.
This is how most authors approach their stories in most cases and this should be how audiences do too.
Hamilton is just the latest in a long, long line of stories you can easily trace back to the likes of Julius Caesar, Antony & Cleopatra, and King Lear. I guess that since Hamilton has reached an audience outside the typical scope of theater it is being reviewed by an audience with different expectations. That's all fine and fair and I don't think tradition is an excuse for anything. But Hamilton is a stage musical, written like a stage musical, and I dislike the idea of stage plays having to be history lessons.
I mean, yes, it's history through rose-tinted glasses, but also, all cultures are always going to have their overly rosy pop version of history, and Hamilton was constructed as a counterpoint to the right-wing version of history that presents the founding purely as a libertarian tax revolt, instead presenting Hamilton's more statist system (correctly) as necessary to preserve the union. Yeah, it fails to properly condemn the slaveholders who were there, but it does at least acknowledge slavery as a contradiction to the stated ideals of the founding, versus the more libertarian version that says "well I'm not saying slavery was good, but, you know, property rights", and at least plants the seeds for a historical narrative of national redemption by bringing the reality of the nation as it was founded closer to the ideals on which it was founded.
There are tons of things where it looks at the good but not the bad — we ignore Hamilton the monarchist and immigration-restricting francophobe and instead focus on Hamilton builder of the federal government and strain the era's conception of nationality a good bit to present him as an immigrant. We ignore Washington the slaveholder to focus on the Washington who's disinterest in personal power really did set the stage for nearly a century. Those things it leaves out are certainly worthy of historical inquiry and greater public awareness, but also there's always going to be some version of very positive pop history, and this probably is as close to a progressive version of that as you can get. You're not going to win hearts and minds for long on a message that the founding was a tragedy, even though in some senses it very much was. Slavery probably ends earlier under British rule, and Native American genocide and Western settlement are probably significantly curtailed. And if Britain and Canada and Australia are any evidence, probably at little cost to democracy. But that's not really a narrative that gives people much meaning, and something along the lines of the Hamilton version is, and is probably as non-toxic as you can get it.
There are tons of things where it looks at the good but not the bad — we ignore Hamilton the monarchist and immigration-restricting francophobe and instead focus on Hamilton builder of the federal government and strain the era's conception of nationality a good bit to present him as an immigrant. We ignore Washington the slaveholder to focus on the Washington who's disinterest in personal power really did set the stage for nearly a century. Those things it leaves out are certainly worthy of historical inquiry and greater public awareness, but also there's always going to be some version of very positive pop history, and this probably is as close to a progressive version of that as you can get. You're not going to win hearts and minds for long on a message that the founding was a tragedy, even though in some senses it very much was. Slavery probably ends earlier under British rule, and Native American genocide and Western settlement are probably significantly curtailed. And if Britain and Canada and Australia are any evidence, probably at little cost to democracy. But that's not really a narrative that gives people much meaning, and something along the lines of the Hamilton version is, and is probably as non-toxic as you can get it.
The intent makes a lot of sense and I get the desire to reclaim that history in a way, but it feels like instead of diversifying the founding fathers as a way of creating that connection and thus reclamation, maybe a spotlight could've been given to the slaves, natives, etc. that were part of the american revolution and are never acknowledged. Which is funny because that idea of giving attention to someone that is often forgotten especially in comparison to their contemporaries is a huge part of the appeal of Hamilton and something that the musical itself states as its intention.
If I recall, Hamilton married into a slave owning family (the Sschuylers) and there is also some debate as to whether he eventually owned some himself.
Yup! Totally agree with this. I really love the musical aspects of it, but the play almost feels like it's whitewashing american history in its use of diversity which is fascinating to me.
It went from calling out Pence to John Bolton naming his book after a song from it. This play has always been appealing to conservatives.
Along with the Chernow book it is based off, the show rehabilitated Hamilton for the masses. He has always been beloved by Wall Street. IMO the show doesn't glorify these figures.
I felt like the casting did a good job of highlighting and implicitly criticizing the characters' racism and especially slave-holding without the musical needing to center it in a way that would detract from the story and music. It struck me as less "this is everyone's story and it's just a quirky choice to use a bunch of actors of color" and more "you're constantly aware that this is not what these characters looked like and why". Washington is really the only character you could accuse it of inappropriately lionizing, but clearly there is a lot to celebrate there even if there's also a lot to criticize.
Maybe it's vain to quote myself, but I posted in a different thread about how the play feels complicated for the ways it incorporates history.
Now I shall return to my mirror.
Now I shall return to my mirror.
Because they were mean to Pence. And has black people as the founders
Also:
Oh I knew they were mean to Pence and that line - but is that really the reason they hate it? Is it a recent pic or from when the Pence thing happened?Because they were mean to Pence. And has black people as the founders
Also:
Please. It's a hip-hop musical with a majority black cast about the downfall of a founding father. "Most right-wing musical"...
Give.
Me.
A.
Fucking.
Break.
Give.
Me.
A.
Fucking.
Break.
fox isn't trying to cancel hamilton. this was a segment about "left wing cancel culture" trying to cancel hamilton.
Last edited:
would be interested in hearing from those much more versed in the topic than me which other recent shows on broadway are more right-wing than Hamilton
Once those who criticise Hamilton learn about how it's fictional and wouldn't be as popular if it more strongly attacked America's founding mythology they will be ashamed of their words and deeds.
Musicals aren't necessarily liberal or conservative. They distill very simple and relatable themes of human experience - loss, hope, love along with very simplified reenactments of (usually) class struggles if they're not straight comedies.
If you're going to make a musical that gets an A for its "views", I would not make a musical. I would make something else.
So much discourse about the politics of Hamilton when its ultimately a character study and doesn't really say anything interesting about politics at all. The revolution is framed like the elementary school history class 'great man of history' we've heard a million times before. The second half doesn't have anything political to say at all. It's an interesting relic of Obama-era liberalism and I guess that means something to people post-2016 but I can't imagine it'll be as enduring as it's upfront success.
Seems like Pence's role at the time was to reveal the "intolerant left" between this and the walking out when players kneel.
I really think it's a great musical taken aside from anything it has to say. I think you're underestimating it.
This is a minor thing, if we're discussing the real historical record, but Lafayette was not an immigrant. He was a foreign volunteer attracted to the republican cause, but he never intended to make America his home.
Indeed, the musical even somewhat contradictorily acknowledges this when he remarks that when they win he'll go back to France to help "[his] people".
The Schuylers indeed owned slaves. Hamilton definitely served as an agent in various commercial transactions for slaves; there's some debate as to whether he may have owned one at some point, though he definitely did not in the final years of his life, as there are letters (from Angelica, who complained that Eliza's not having any slaves was inconvenient for party planning) and probate documents indicating as much. So he was certainly not completely disconnected from the institution (to the extent that anyone could be in America).
The early American abolitionist movement had a lot of cases like this, indeed, one of the first tasks Hamilton had as one of the founders of the state abolition society was developing a proposed timetable for members to free their own slaves (a contentious prospect). At times it was rather like that episode of Mad Men where Don goes to the American Cancer Society to work on an anti-smoking campaign and is told that a majority of the board members of the ACS smoke.
In terms of personal involvement, the major founding father most spotless of any association with slavery is John Adams, who never owned nor hired slaves despite being a very successful attorney who could certainly have afforded them in the pre-Revolutionary period (indeed, he at one point estimated that not hiring slaves had cost him thousands of dollars in labour over the years). Conversely, Adams did less politically to advance the anti-slavery cause than did several founders who did own or otherwise involve themselves in slavery transactions at some point in their lives, including Hamilton but most notably John Jay and Benjamin Franklin.
All sorts of interesting nuances to history. A lot of this obviously would never have fit into the musical, but I do think it would have made sense to more expressly discuss Washington's involvement in slavery (the Washington we get in the musical reflects mainly those aspects of him pertaining to his relationship to Hamilton, as well as his general steady hand as a statesman).
Other characters in the musical whose slaveholding passes without mention would include Angelica (if you want to talk somebody who was really whitewashed on this point, real!Angelica did not give a fuck, unlike Eliza, who was anti-slavery in adulthood) and Burr (who as an old man actually attempted to dissuade William Lloyd Garrison from dedicating his career to fighting for abolition -- Garrison told him to shove it).
Last edited:
This play always seemed more interesting to me:
en.wikipedia.org
I kinda feel like I have to watch Hamilton to know what that thing is, but I kinda dread doing it. The politics of it seem really bad.
The defenses of it I'm reading here too isn't helping at all. Being left of pence is a very low bar and there doesn't appear to be much more depth to the fact that black actors are playing white historical figures than generic representation, which is fine but does very little to satisfy the right wing nature of the content.
The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda - Wikipedia
I kinda feel like I have to watch Hamilton to know what that thing is, but I kinda dread doing it. The politics of it seem really bad.
The defenses of it I'm reading here too isn't helping at all. Being left of pence is a very low bar and there doesn't appear to be much more depth to the fact that black actors are playing white historical figures than generic representation, which is fine but does very little to satisfy the right wing nature of the content.
Last edited:
The perpetration of a harmful myth shouldn't be entertaining if you believe the myth is harmful. The fact that it's fiction doesn't get you out of examining why indulging in this type of fantasy is so desirable.
While not claiming to be a historian, and not knowing alot of John Adams' history, He and his son John Quincy were the only 2 Presidents in the first Dozen to never own slaves. Both spoke out against Slavery (JQA much more so).
Meanwhile, Hamilton doesn't cast anyone as John Adams, talks poorly about him, and the only claimed lines of dialogue from Adams is the "Creole Bastard" slur, while Hamilton's father in law was a slave owner.
Which U.S. Presidents Owned Slaves? Was an interesting read, with various quotes and facts from the first 18 presidents in relation to what they did or said in regards about Slavery, with a list of sources under the bibliography section. Warning, that there are alot of quotes that are horrible (Fuck Zachary Taylor). That the first president after the 1st 12 (Millard Filmore) that never owned slaves personally, did sign into law the Fugitive Slave act.
Meanwhile, Hamilton doesn't cast anyone as John Adams, talks poorly about him, and the only claimed lines of dialogue from Adams is the "Creole Bastard" slur, while Hamilton's father in law was a slave owner.
Which U.S. Presidents Owned Slaves? Was an interesting read, with various quotes and facts from the first 18 presidents in relation to what they did or said in regards about Slavery, with a list of sources under the bibliography section. Warning, that there are alot of quotes that are horrible (Fuck Zachary Taylor). That the first president after the 1st 12 (Millard Filmore) that never owned slaves personally, did sign into law the Fugitive Slave act.
😐
I went to Broadway in late February, seeing Dear Evan Hansen and Jagged Little Pill. Frankly, I left both feeling significant disgust at the absolute ease with which these narratives hand-waved away any and all consequences for two abusive, horrific white teenage characters who gaslit, mentally abused, and in one case, simply watched and allowed a friend of his to rape a woman.
They both basically decide to take a "year off before going to college" as collective punishment.
Broadway isn't nearly as progressive as it thinks it is, and while Hamilton certainly portrays the founding fathers with perhaps more respect than they deserve, it's pretty clearly exaggerated and treats them far more like human beings than any history lesson taught to children in schools. I'll take it.
They both basically decide to take a "year off before going to college" as collective punishment.
Broadway isn't nearly as progressive as it thinks it is, and while Hamilton certainly portrays the founding fathers with perhaps more respect than they deserve, it's pretty clearly exaggerated and treats them far more like human beings than any history lesson taught to children in schools. I'll take it.
Last edited:
The conversation about Hamilton's approach to slavery are absolutely worth having. However, I don't think the hyperbole here is helpful or justified. I think the show is more nuanced with regards to the founding fathers and Hamilton himself than many of its critics (and fans) let on. Even beyond the affair storyline, we see time and again that Hamilton, as a man, is self-serving and interested in revolution primarily as a tool for social climbing. Just as an example, there's a short but important scene where he's called out for not living up to his supposed ideals when he turns his back on Lafayette and refuses to join him in the French Revolution.
Ultimately though, I think this comes down to a larger discussion about the role of art, especially historical art. I don't think a work of art needs to, or even should be, a replacement for actually studying history. If you're an adult watching Hamilton, and you needed the show to explain to you that George Washington owned slaves... Then that's a far more damning critique of our approach to teaching history than of anything in the show.
There's an entire thematic throughline in the piece about how historical narratives are constructed. The work even refers to itself, in a metatextual way, as a narrative many times. It's almost directly challenging the audience to do further work and research themselves. Which, is what great historical should be doing: starting the conversation, not finishing it.
I think the premise that some of these chats about Hamilton take, where we argue if the merits of it's representation are valid in spite of the historical omissions it makes, tend to flatten the complexity and strengths of the thing as a work. There's a lot more going on in Hamilton than the fact that it's a Broadway musical starring poc. It's a complex and rich reframing of a mythic take on history that has a lot of thematic depth about the nature of violent revolution, of fathers and sons, of pragmatism vs idealism. The point isn't to just give you the facts of the history in 2 and a half hours.
I really like this piece, which makes some of these same arguments in a stronger way than I can. I'd recommend reading:
t.co
Ultimately though, I think this comes down to a larger discussion about the role of art, especially historical art. I don't think a work of art needs to, or even should be, a replacement for actually studying history. If you're an adult watching Hamilton, and you needed the show to explain to you that George Washington owned slaves... Then that's a far more damning critique of our approach to teaching history than of anything in the show.
There's an entire thematic throughline in the piece about how historical narratives are constructed. The work even refers to itself, in a metatextual way, as a narrative many times. It's almost directly challenging the audience to do further work and research themselves. Which, is what great historical should be doing: starting the conversation, not finishing it.
I think the premise that some of these chats about Hamilton take, where we argue if the merits of it's representation are valid in spite of the historical omissions it makes, tend to flatten the complexity and strengths of the thing as a work. There's a lot more going on in Hamilton than the fact that it's a Broadway musical starring poc. It's a complex and rich reframing of a mythic take on history that has a lot of thematic depth about the nature of violent revolution, of fathers and sons, of pragmatism vs idealism. The point isn't to just give you the facts of the history in 2 and a half hours.
I really like this piece, which makes some of these same arguments in a stronger way than I can. I'd recommend reading:
Hamilton is fanfic, and its historical critics are totally missing the point
Fans know exactly what Hamilton is about. Why don't historians?
t.co
Despite not owning slaves, they are absolutely right to shit on Adams in this. The alien and sedition acts he put into law is the origin of anti-immigrant legislation in this country. It made it much harder for an immigrant to become a citizen and gave the country power to deport anyone who was deemed "dangerous" or even just published writing critical of America. These bills were designed to suppress votes at the time, but continued to cause pain into the 20th century, parts of them were used to justify deporting German, Italian, and Japanese-Americans during World War II. He can fuck off.
Yeah, I always seem to remember the sedition part, in relation to attacks on dissent/media, forgot the alien part, that yes, continues thru internment in WW2 and to today. So many things these "enlightened" people did 200+ years ago, continue to drag us down.
So you know nothing about the play but you're comfortable criticizing its politics anyway?This play always seemed more interesting to me:
The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda - Wikipedia
I kinda feel like I have to watch Hamilton to know what that thing is, but I kinda dread doing it. The politics of it seem really bad.
The defenses of it I'm reading here too isn't helping at all. Being left of pence is a very low bar and there doesn't appear to be much more depth to the fact that black actors are playing white historical figures than generic representation, which is fine but does very little to satisfy the right wing nature of the content.
Hamilton is terrible history.
It is also sublime art.
Boy, it's fun criticising plays I haven't seen!
It is also sublime art.
Sounds cheap and juvenile to me, refusing to engage Hamilton on its own merits in favour of throwing mud.This play always seemed more interesting to me:
The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda - Wikipedia
Boy, it's fun criticising plays I haven't seen!
And it's Washington who says "not yet!" that's... not an accident.
It's literally the only conclusion that you can draw, given that the actual war itself ends in the very next line.