Simran Sharma ’22
Ever since its Broadway debut in 2015, Hamilton has been a smash hit, encapsulating audiences much wider than just the musical theater crowd. Just less than a month ago, a filmed recording of the musical was released to Disney+. The quick, explosive success of the Broadway show has turned it into a household name and has since sparked a fascination with the historical founding of our nation, which, without Hamilton, people likely wouldn’t have found. However, amidst the rise in political activism we’ve recently experienced on social media, many have criticized the musical for glorifying our Founding Fathers. Above all, Hamilton is a source of entertainment. While the show definitely does inform, it’s ultimate goal, entertainment, is treated with priority, lending the musical to dramatization of certain events and the erasure of others. While the criticism of Hamilton for romanization of our history and prominent figures is definitely valid, the fair rebuttal that Hamilton is a broadway play, not documentary, stands. That being said, for a production which prides itself in the diversity within its cast, its subject matter may not be up to the standard which it claims to hold itself to. So, what did Hamilton get wrong, and what can we learn from it?
By far, the most prominent qualm with Hamilton’s portrayal of our history is with its treatment of slavery and histroical minority representation. While it does mention slavery through various lines in the musical, it greatly diminishes the prominence and effect it had during our nation’s founding. Slaveholding is used as a jab from one Founding Father to another in a rap battle, rather than being addressed with the weight it truly held. These flippant mentions of slavery may have been a commentary on how slavery was really treated at the time, but the musical doesn’t do enough to show the profound impact of it in other ways. Hamilton’s inclusion of John Laurens as a champion of civil rights, although a clear attempt at addressing slavery, comes off as a perpetuation of white saviourism due to the lack of any POC mention, aside from a brief nod to Sally Hemmings. Although the institution of slavery is mentioned, the musical fails to make it apparent that enslaved individuals were active participants in the Revolution. Additionally, Hamilton is portrayed as an abolitionist. While he did personally hold anti-slavery views, he never worked to enact change on them, and his financial system was highly dependent on slavery in the South.
Aside from an exaggeration of his abolitionist status, the portrayal of Alexander Hamilton was inaccurate, or details were specifically omitted, in other aspects. Hamilton’s politics were greatly watered down to cater him to the 21st Century. His distrust of the popular vote and belief in lifetime presidential and senate terms were never mentioned. Asides from a few vague statements regarding banking, his politics were left out. Additionally, his rivalry with Aaron Burr was greatly overstated so as to create a compelling narrative, whereas the truly prominent rivalry in Hamilton’s life was with Thomas Jefferson.
A recurring theme in Hamilton is “who lives, who dies, who tells your story?” This question truly parallels the issues I’ve outlined. The way Hamilton frames the history of our nation’s founding has made an impact in how many people see our Founding Fathers. The story was told in a way which reveres our founders, and in many eyes, that is our history. Despite the historical inaccuracies throughout Hamilton, personally, I love the musical and I’m sure many feel the same way. Honestly, I sometimes feel guilty about it. I hope that by educating myself about the realities of our history and pointing out the flaws in its portrayal, I can continue to enjoy Hamilton, but I remain unsure.
the len(z) 