Lin-Manuel Miranda's Hamilton is the latest musical rage. I have heard about it--including the uproar over the recent proposal to replace Hamilton's image on the $10 bill with that of a female one (ironic, given that the recent interest in Alexander Hamilton is due to a play that deliberately depicts him incorrectly). As you can guess, I am about to pick a gargantuan bone with Hamilton. But, before I do, I want to give praise where it is due. It takes a lot to get kids excited about history, and probably even more to get them to watch a musical. The play absolutely does both.
But Hamilton is not without some glaring problems. The most obvious is the cast. Miranda explains that the cast--which audition announcements made clear that only non-white actors were wanted--reflects what America looks like today. That is OK, except that America today includes white folks. I understand wanting to have a play that reflects our country's diversity. Miranda points out that he wants non-whites to feel included. But should inclusion of non-white actors come at the total exclusion of white actors? Isn't exclusion what we have been trying to get away from? This hardly seems like the right approach. Instead, the roles should have been open to all who wished to audition, and then the best actors chosen. You might say I am missing the point--that really, Hamilton is about revisioning history in a more inclusive context. That it's an opportunity for non-white folks to see themselves on stage. Well, I get that. I am gay. I haven't seen too many historical characters--real or imagined--that looked or loved the way I do. But I am OK with that. I understand that our past isn't how I might have chosen it to be. It's simply our past. I must learn from the past and allow it to inform my present and future. Hamilton also has the misfortune of being presented as history. Casting issues aside, it is not an accurate depiction of Hamilton's life. There are creative liberties taken. To tout it as an historical drama is misleading at best.
Kids should learn about and get excited over our history. But is our history so awful that we have to dress it up with creative liberties and deliberately leave out the race of the historical people being portrayed? Wouldn't it be better to be honest? To admit that women and non-whites were left out of a lot of our early history? Of course, they were there, but not Hamilton there. And that's OK, because we now see the error of that, and we've come a long damn way in opening all kinds of opportunities to all Americans. To deny that we have come so far is to deny history itself.
