Lin-Manuel Miranda’s musical “Hamilton” has captivated audiences worldwide, blending hip-hop with historical narrative to tell the story of one of America’s founding fathers. The production concludes with a powerful question: “Who lives, who dies, who tells your story?” This simple yet profound question drives us to consider which narratives we want to define our national identity. It especially points to the effect of immigration and SES. Miranda points out that Alexander Hamilton is a pretty great New York immigrant success story. It’s equally important to look beyond the myth and consider the contradictions of Hamilton’s life and legacy.
Though Miranda’s depiction rings true in many ways, it simplifies a complex and sordid historical reality. Just a few short miles away, another founding father, Alexander Hamilton, left the Caribbean for New York. Yet, he was not an immigrant in today’s commonly understood meaning of the word. He was an English subject traveling within and between England’s two colonies. This important distinction begs the question of what narratives we’re building around immigration and identity in America today.
Hamilton’s vision for the United States as an oligarchy of rich men has continued to have dangerous and powerful consequences. His autocratic measures are somewhat whitewashed in favor of a more romanticized retelling of his achievements. Most importantly, these policies have laid the groundwork for today’s rampant economic stratification and inequality.
The Immigrant Narrative
Miranda stars as Hamilton, framing the history as an immigrant’s story, which it was for him. His family—then and now—migrated to New York from Puerto Rico. Yet, it is important to understand that Hamilton’s experience was dramatically different from today’s immigrants. Even though Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, they are often viewed as more foreign than Hamilton would ever have been.
“Who lives, who dies, who tells your story?” – Lin-Manuel Miranda, Hamilton
This one question reverberates through the culture wars of today. It really puts the lens on who gets to tell stories of what matters and whose experiences actually count. Casting of founding fathers as Black and Hispanic actors in Miranda’s highly praised musical is considered a radical move. Yet it raises concerns about perpetuating narratives shaped by those in power, often white men, while marginalizing the voices of others.
It seems the romanticism surrounding Hamilton’s character has allowed his followers to mask the authoritarian nature of his policies. He pictured a government ruled by top bankers and military leaders. This bold move fundamentally shifted the power game in the fledgling nation. This legacy still runs deep in our American politics and economics where we breed inequality of all kinds between race, class, and social lines.
The Politics of Representation
Miranda’s artistic choices have, without question, changed the ways in which we think about representation in the theater. By casting actors of color as historically white figures, he has opened doors for new narratives that challenge traditional perspectives. This new totally rad dynamic UIGEA-killing approach can still obscure the political accountability of those pols’ machinations.
Alexander Hamilton’s style of governance had a merciless, ruthless, centralizing, fiscal ululation. This too frequently pushed the priorities of average citizens to the backburner. His four-month tenure involved dismantling aspects of federal governance without considering the long-term effects on the middle class. This strand of authoritarianism, critics contend, played a major role in setting the stage for today’s economic inequality.
“a great beast” – Alexander Hamilton, quoted by Lyra D Monteiro
Hamilton’s ambition is so great that he is even described as a “great beast,” suggesting the monstrous ambition of the character. This metaphor suggests a predatory aspect to his pursuit of power. It’s a realization that adds a layer of complexity to the adulation frequently bestowed upon him in popular culture.
Despite its acclaim, “Hamilton” can sometimes perpetuate a sanitized version of history that neglects critical issues such as slavery and systemic racism. Obama’s former Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner has referred to Hamilton as the “original Mr. Bailout,” reflecting a legacy intertwined with financial manipulation and elite interests.
A Reflection on Modern America
“Hamilton” captures the zeitgeist of the Obama era and raises questions about how history informs contemporary society. The debates over its storyline are indicative of deeper fears over identity, hegemony, and the face of America writ large in 2018.
Miranda is much too smart to try to claim that Hamilton was some kind of great democrat. We need to wrestle with the more malevolent parts of his legacy. To be clear, Hamilton was a visionary genius, and we should still laud his contributions. These policies were transformative in shaping the social fabric and economic reality for countless Americans.