by Eleanor Lindsay
Hamilton is a white narrative for widely white audiences that uses “color-conscious” casting as a pretense for inclusivity.
In case you have somehow managed to steer clear of the theatrical phenomenon, ‘Hamilton: An American Musical’ tells the story of the life and times of the United States first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. You, like me, may remember back in 2016 the first time you scrolled past an article or heard from a friend about the “new rap musical about Alexander Hamilton.” And like me, you may have immediately been filled with skepticism, and then immediately proven wrong. With a record 16 Tony Award nominations and 11 wins, Hamilton quickly became the talk of the town, and then the world. On July 3rd, Hamilton began its resurgence into the public consciousness after the streaming service, Disney+, released the professional recording of the Broadway musical to hundreds of millions of viewers. The day before American Independence Day, everyone's favorite “bastard, orphan, and whoresson” is back, and more controversial than ever.
Before I continue I want to emphasize that I am a white woman and I don’t intend to speak on behalf of the BIPOC folx who have interacted with Hamilton, only to amplify their voices and opinions on this relevant topic and offer what I have learned thus far. While I have done extensive research for this article, I would also not consider myself any sort of historical expert. Most of all, I would encourage you to use this piece only as a resource for your own research in an effort to form your own opinions on Hamilton: An American Musical.
Who Lives? On: Historical Accuracy
In the wise words of historian Annette Gordon-Reed, “Artists have the right to create, but historians have the right to critique.” From Hamilton's infidelity to Burr’s homicide, the characters in this show are not displayed without fault. They are complex retellings of complex historical figures, with multi layered motivations. Jefferson is a petty and indulgent politician, hell-bent on destroying the careers of his rivals with the least amount of work possible. James Madison is the sly and sickly sidekick to the “slaver”, who is also portrayed in a negative light. None of these men are perfect, that much is obvious, but there is one glaring omission: the founding fathers' relationship with the trade and ownership of African slaves.
History, just as much as art, is rarely so black and white. While the characters in the show are indeed characters, it’s essential to remember they are based in reality. There are many truly incredible things these men did for our country and those things shouldn’t be ignored. They created a new government practically from scratch, with all of its own intricacies and shortcomings. They were talented and passionate writers, speakers, soldiers, and lawyers. No one is ignorant of the fact that they owned slaves, nor the great things they’ve done to create a new nation. Both are major factors in our history, but the good does not justify the bad.
That being said, the Hamilton we see on stage is sanitized and simplified to make his story more palatable for the contemporary audience. No sane (or at least socially conscious) audience would root for a racist protagonist, so no sane writer would make his protagonist a racist. If you go into Hamilton with the mindset of “everything in this musical is accurate and no creative liberties were taken to make it any more interesting,” that’s your own ignorance. There were more than three Schuyler sisters, and the Hamiltons had many more children than just Phillip, but because of these choices we love the camaraderie between the sisters even more, and mourn the deeper loss of Hamilton's “only” son. These facts are omitted to improve storytelling. It’s a musical, not a history lesson. But that's not the issue here. The problem lies in the show's portrayal of its characters' relationships with slaves.
In most cases, the founders are dubbed ardent abolitionists who care passionately about the freedom of slaves. Historically, this couldn’t be farther from the truth. Hamilton is displayed as an avid abolitionist as well as pro-immigration. In reality, he bought and sold slaves for his in-laws and was an elitist who fought for lifetime presidential terms. Washington, the most forgivable of all the heinous politicians, was never acknowledged to even own slaves, and was endlessly praised by the character of Hamilton for his grace and leadership skills. Jefferson is the only character demonized for his slave ownership, but it’s likely that’s only because he’s the enemy of our “abolitionist” protagonist and they need to remain “diametrically opposed foes.”
The only historically accurate champion of abolition was Hamilton's close friend, John Laurens. He dreams of “those in bondage having the same rights as you and me,” and leading “the first Black battalion.” When he dies, it’s a massive tragedy because his dream of freeing Black troops died with him. In the show, it was Laurens’ death that caused Hamilton to kick start his political career. Even then, with the benefit of the doubt given to both characters, the prevailing idea of anti-slavery in that time was how “unchristian” it was to keep other people as property. While it was agreed upon that ownership and mistreatment is cruel, Black people were still widely viewed as inferior. Many “abolitionists” aided the founding of Liberia to ship their slaves back to ‘the savagery they came from,’ and use them to colonize the rest of Africa.
If the show itself really was racist, it would have left out the complex aspects of Hamilton’s childhood, completely taken out all mentions of slavery, written Laurens out of the story, or denied that the founding fathers owned slaves within the show itself. The show has never been in support of slavery. In fact, Hamilton calls out Jefferson on his debts being paid because “you don’t pay for labor,” and letting him know, “we know who’s really doing the planting." It acknowledges slave labor for the cruel and inhumane practice it was. Maybe not as much as it should have given its platform, but granted, the show is not about slavery. It’s about Hamilton’s life, and it’s already two and a half hours long. This does not excuse its problematic writing, or justify the glorification of the Founding Fathers, but calling the musical racist is untrue.
Who Dies? On: Casting
What makes Hamilton great in the eyes of many is the way that it subverts its audiences expectations. Daveed Diggs (Lafayette/Jefferson) has conceded multiple times that the show on its own is a bad pitch, but somehow when you see it, it all makes sense. Hamilton is a show that thrives on deliberate cognitive dissonance. Rap and showtunes are synonymous, history is emotional and engaging, right down to casting Black actors as slave owners to emphasize the cruel absurdity of human beings owning each other. All of these features have their own complex implications. It has often been said that art is culture and culture is influence. Acknowledging that Hamilton isn't perfect doesn’t undo the negative influence it’s had on some audiences, but just like the lives of the founding fathers, the good the show has done should not be ignored.
As far as it’s music, Hamilton was quite literally revolutionary. In its recording debut back in 2015, it ranked 12 in Billboard’s top 100 and in the wake of its re-release on Disney+, the Original Broadway Cast Recording soared to the second space on Billboard’s rankings. There is no denying that right out of the gate, this music was popular. Incredibly so. With this popularity, traditionally Black music styles like R&B and Hip-hop were not only repopularized, but also recognized as Black culture. However, many BIPOC have voiced their dissatisfaction with this praise. From their point of view, many of the Black music styles employed in the show have been classed up to be brought to ‘a real art form.’ One more tolerable for predominantly white audiences.
Here’s the thing: Hamilton has given thousands of actors of color a career and a platform in an industry where racism is still prevalent in casting. While it seems to use its platform for racial representation and social advocacy, it does not do everything right. For example, many BIPOC have expressed not their appreciation, but their disdain for the casting. The idea of taking historical figures and changing their ethnicity with the intent to seem more relatable to minorities is condescending. Cosmetic reform cannot undo an entire racist system. To many minorities this conveys the message that their own historical figures are unworthy of promotion, so the predominantly white media will continue to tell their stories, but make them look like the minority to seem politically correct.
But we can't cancel Hamilton either. Doing so would not only put, again, thousands of BIPOC out of work, but would also give racist traditionalists an excuse to blame it’s cancellation on Black people on Broadway stages, or R&B/Hip-hop in theatre. Sure, Hamilton is problematic in and of itself, but the show’s worldwide success was a catalyst to an essential conversation about racism and representation in the world of theatre. It expertly describes the paradox of the American Revolution in the language of our age. How can our forefathers oppress an entire race while fighting so fiercely for the country's freedom and liberation from its oppressors?
Who Tells Your Story? On: Perception
In the beginning, I really loved Hamilton. I had my obsessive theatre kid phase with it, watching bootleg recordings of the show and memorizing the lyrics on the bus to school. I still believe it’s a masterful piece of art in many ways, but I also recognize that it’s a deeply flawed show. As an abstract piece of art, I have very few problems with it. Think about it, if this was just a talented cast of BIPOC telling a story set in the 1700s, then there would be a lot less problems, right? All of the show's major issues arise when the show interacts with the real world and vice versa.
Think about the people who really get to see Hamilton. A seat in the Richard Rogers costs on average $304. Multiply that by four so the whole family gets the experience and you're looking at upwards of a thousand dollars for one night at the theater. Realistically, who do you think can afford to go see this show? Is it really the marginalized Black community, who in 2015 (the year Hamilton opened), only raised 75% of the salary of a white man on average? The minority this show is supposed to be representing doesn’t get to see their representation nearly as much as the rich white ticket holders. Something about mostly white people dropping thousands to go see Black people sing songs about revisionist history doesn’t sit right with me.
Now, I wouldn’t go as far as calling Hamilton a minstrel show, as some boldly claim, but employing actors of color to reinforce white audiences values is something they have in common. To some, this casting choice says, “We don’t have to tell the stories of real historical figures of color. We just have to pretend that we are.” Hamilton is a white narrative for widely white audiences that uses “color-conscious” casting as a pretense for inclusivity. Remember, there is not one historical character of color in the entire show. Conversely, many BIPOC I know have articulated how important it was for them to see people who looked like them taking center stage in one of the most famous stories in history. If being able to see America as truly a land of the free and home of the brave, where all men are created equal, even if only for two and a half hours, is worth something to them, then who are we to rob them of that?
The biggest problem Hamilton has is its most ignorant audience members. These are the people who make moodboards for the Founding Fathers, have nicknames for them and fanfictions written about them. These are the people who see these men exclusively as characters and not as the flawed people they were. Obviously, it’s unrealistic to assume every audience member will do the adequate research of the origins of the show, but all of that responsibility can’t fall on the show itself either. It’s virtually impossible to comprehensively and accurately capture an entire era of history with such a limited amount of time. A more reasonable request perhaps is a list of resources for proper education on a page in the shows Playbill or a similar resource list on the same webpage where theatergoers can purchase tickets. Not a difficult fix in my opinion.
Hamilton made its debut at the Public Theatre five months after the police murder of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Montana. The U.S. was still reeling from the first spurring of what we would come to know as the Black Lives Matter Movement (BLM). The re-release of Hamilton occurred in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless other innocent Black folx in this country. So many factors come into play with both the historical and current context that make analyzing this show through a racial justice lens very nuanced. As a white woman, I don’t believe it to be my place to speak extensively on how Hamilton relates to BLM, but see the resource list at the end of this article if you wish to educate yourself about the Black experience in this time.
Liking Hamilton is “problematic” and there is no simple solution when you examine it from a sociopolitical point of view. How is loving the character of Jefferson different from the statues of him that should be torn down? Or the rest of the ahistorical politics Hamilton is littered with? I honestly don’t know. You are allowed to like the show. You're allowed to appreciate the music, the actors, and the six years of effort put into this musical’s creation. But that is only if you are equally aware of the implications its content has on its audience, and the dark history it is based on. Art is complicated, and the world we live in is even more so. I can tell you that one is fact, but the other isn’t entirely fiction. These characters are representations of real men and there is no simple way of unblurring the line between the musical and history, but research is a great place to start. Listen to scholars when they say ‘this part was wrong,’ and more importantly, listen to BIPOC when they voice their troubles with the show.
Hamilton closes with an emotional musical number titled “Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story?” It’s emphasized that we truly have no control over how history portrays us. In its most positive light, it’s a call to action. To live our lives driven with purpose to help those in need and better the world around us. To speak up and speak out against oppressors and fight hard for the things you believe in. To be a friend to the excluded and give platform to the disadvantaged. To learn from the mistakes of those who came before us, and create history we are proud to be a part of, no matter how desolate a scene it may be. It is truly only a matter of time until our time runs out, and it’s our responsibilities to make the most of it.
See https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/a-growing-black-lives-matter-resource-list-for-designers-and-humans/ comprehensive BLM Resource List for where and how to donate, organize, self-educate, and take action.
Bibliography
Klein, Christopher. “Alexander Hamilton's Complicated Relationship to Slavery.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 8 July 2020, www.history.com/news/alexander-hamilton-slavery-facts.
Reddie, Richard. “Religions - Christianity: Atlantic Slave Trade and Abolition.” BBC, BBC, 2007, www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/slavery_1.shtml.
Patten, Eileen. “Racial, Gender Wage Gaps Persist in U.S. despite Some Progress.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 30 May 2020, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gender-wage-gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/.
Mineo, Liz. “Correcting 'Hamilton'.” Harvard Gazette, Harvard Gazette, 7 July 2020, news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/10/correcting-hamilton/.
Phillips, Maya. “'Hamilton,' 'The Simpsons' and the Problem With Colorblind Casting.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 July 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/arts/television/hamilton-colorblind-casting.html.
“1820 To 1847 : History Of Liberia: A Time Line : Articles and Essays : Maps of Liberia, 1830-1870 : Digital Collections : Library of Congress.” The Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/collections/maps-of-liberia-1830-to-1870/articles-and-essays/history-of-liberia/1820-to-1847/.
Caulfield, Keith. “'Hamilton' Hits No. 2 on Billboard 200, Is Highest-Charting Cast Album Since 1969.” Billboard, 13 July 2020, www.billboard.com/articles/business/chart-beat/9417164/hamilton-number-2-billboard-200.
Comments