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.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.
The Renegade Cut video on this that came out yesterday was enlightening on this. It's worse than just "he should've done more."
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.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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
Wait, why do they want to cancel Hamilton lol
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.
I enjoy filmed performances like those from the National Theatre or wherever, so watching this version of Hamilton fits in well among them--though I better enjoy those with sets (Singin' in the Rain is the best ever). Perhaps that taste is derived from never having been able to afford to see live performances, and so the film format is what I'm more accustomed to. I don't think I would have preferred a proper film adaptation of Hamilton to this stage performance though.
The mutual themes of time and ambition are finely juxtaposed between Hamilton and Burr. As representatives of the themes, they are each other's foils--that's a great concept around which the narrative is constructed.
It also means that the first few songs immediately heroicize Hamilton.The first sentence of the first number, "Alexander Hamilton," plainly establishes Hamilton as "a hero and a scholar." As the play's avatar of ambition, bootstrapping, and overcoming odds, the audience is meant to admire that character more than the other who opts for cleverness or passivity, as represented in Burr.
As a historical play, it is difficult to avoid the questions of accuracy and moralization. I mentioned earlier that I find the play very complicated, but it's not because I demand accuracy. I don't approach art valuing one more highly than the other. Generally, if a narrative pursues accuracy, it will often lean away from moralization (unless it is built into the accuracy); if it elects morality, accuracy is less important. But in Hamilton the two are closely intertwined in a way that sabotages its meaning. The "inaccuracies" of the play, from broad, purposeful ones like casting and musical styles to loose characterizations like that of King George, are confronted by its appeals to accuracy elsewhere. Its satire and critique, obviously playful, are obstructed when Miranda/Hamilton pipes in during "A Winter's Ball" to say "That's true!," which implies veracity to the rest of the story even while those other components move away from it. The subtitle of the play, "An American Musical," functions similarly. In "The World Was Wide Enough," Burr states, "They won't teach you this in your classes / But look it up / He was wearing his glasses." Again, its claims to truthfulness are framed pedagogically--that this is a history lesson, and a fun one at that--but with a strange sense of selectivity that is elsewhere set aside. In terms of characterization, the resolute use of satire in its portrayal of King George is split from the attempted satire of Americans, particularly Jefferson and Madison, who are later allowed to speak with sincerity of their admiration for Hamilton. These elements don't fit together very neatly and make for a very shaky relationship between history and story.
The consequence of this relationship is that its ultimate question of legacy is obstructed. Some have suggested that Hamilton remains with that question, allowing it to be left open. But it doesn't; the play answers this question in several ways. While it sometimes enjoys the gray areas of moralization, it is ultimately focused on this question of legacy and provides it with a clear answer. Incorrectly, it suggests that legacies are immovably derived from the truths of history. In "The World Was Wide Enough," Burr, after shooting Hamilton, states that "Now I'm the villain in your history," his legacy cemented. The final number lyrics, "Who lives / Who dies / Who tells your story?" are fulfilled by other characters, with Eliza given the most space to detail the formulation of Hamilton's legacy. And the play does lionize Hamilton because Eliza lionizes him, and she is given the last word: she establishes an orphanage, sees Hamilton in the children's eyes, interviews his soldiers, collects his writings, and campaigns against slavery as if on his behalf. These good and admirable things are presented in a way that casts Hamilton as their inspiration, as if Eliza has the time that Hamilton doesn't and uses her time the way that Hamilton might have. The good actions of Eliza are meant to solidify the goodness of Hamilton.
And because the play ends this way, it ultimately confronts and competes against itself. It overrides the gray areas of historical figures by giving weight to "legacy" as a finality. The existence of Hamilton as a play participates in the construction of legacy--"Who tells your story?" is answered by the play itself. Hamilton is therefore not about interrogating legacy but subscribing to it, even if the play inspires people's interest in history. As a result, the question of accuracy is minimized, not for the sake of innovative casting or musical styles, but because "legacy" is materialized by those who come after, and because the play is telling us how to think of Hamilton and the other characters. By asking it, the play sounds as though it is embracing the question of legacy, but is stating and maintaining an established answer.
As I said before, though, Anthony Ramos is wonderful.
Because they were mean to Pence. And has black people as the founders
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:
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.
fox isn't trying to cancel hamilton. this was a segment about "left wing cancel culture" trying to cancel hamilton.
This is basically how I see the musical as well.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.
These 100%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.
I would actually say it's the most liberal musical.
Some of the songs are catchy though.
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
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.
Now that's damn good
I feel this.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.
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.
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).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.
After taking Ambien given to him by his agent, Lin-Manuel Miranda is visited by historical figures who were seemingly left out of his musical, Hamilton, including enslaved Africans, Native Americans, a white indentured servant, and Harriet Tubman. Each person lectures him about their exclusion from the musical, while Lin-Manuel appears confused. He continuously defers to Ron Chernow's biography Alexander Hamilton to justify the content of the musical. After Lin-Manuel meets the racist ghost of Hamilton, he goes to confront Chernow, who is unapologetic. At the conclusion, Lin-Manuel's agent tells him he has been commissioned to write a play about Christopher Columbus. Throughout, the play critiques Hamilton's high ticket prices and "corny" songs.
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.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.
😐1850: Fillmore signed the Fugitive Slave Act and warned that he would use federal troops to enforce it. "God knows that I detest slavery, but it is an existing evil, for which we are not responsible, and we must endure it, and give it such protection as is guaranteed by the constitution, till we can get rid of it without destroying the last hope of free government in the world."
.Sounds like the exact same people that tell me that Biden is just like Bush, if not worse.
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.
😐
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.
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
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.
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
en.wikipedia.org
It's literally the only conclusion that you can draw, given that the actual war itself ends in the very next line.And it's Washington who says "not yet!" that's... not an accident.