During the lecture on Wednesday, while discussing the countering viewpoints of the Federalists and Antifederalists, I realized that the first assumptions I had of certain founding fathers were not as accurate as they seemed. Like most people, I'd never really heard much about Hamilton until I heard about the musical. Of course, I knew who he was, but not much more than that. So most of the first impressions I had of the founding father were based on a musical that painted him as a hero. And in many ways, he might be. However, after learning more about the federalist party and their beliefs, it creates an interesting contrast to the way Hamiton was painted by Lin Manuel Miranda. In the musical, Hamiton becomes a rags to riches story that never really got finished, a man who worked until he had everything he wanted but gave it up in an attempt to get more. It's a story that makes you root for this orphan immigrant who could have done more if he hadn't been murdered. Miranda paints him in a very liberal light, one that may be more exaggerated than I first realized. From what I've learned so far, the Federalists were a very elitist group who only wanted certain people in power, namely the very elite that Hamilton made himself a part of. This surprised me because based on what I had heard about Hamilton, I would have assumed he wouldn't be elitist since he only married into the elite and he himself was in no way "really" a part of an elite family. One would be led to assume that although Hamilton might have thought not everyone should be in power (a common viewpoint), that he wouldn't restrict it to a group of people that he wouldn't have been a part of, except for a lot of luck and an unmarried woman in a rich family. This certainly isn't pointed out in the play, and the audience is allowed to assume that Hamilton was the type of person you would expect an orphan immigrant to be, even if he was in colonial America.
This isn't to say that Hamiton was a terrible person, but more of a reflection on the assumptions I allowed myself to make on a play that may be historically accurate but is still at heart a play. Although Miranda highlights some of Hamilton's imperfections (The Reynolds pamphlet, his tendency to lash out publicly at people who disliked his policy), Miranda allows us to ignore the key fact that Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist, and more importantly, that the Federalist party was elitist in nature. This realization made me notice my assumption and re-evaluate my thoughts on history. I'll still be enjoying the soundtrack, and continuing to be interested in history, but have learned the valuable lesson of reading multiple sources before creating a solid opinion.
I like the insight about Hamilton. I wonder how it would be interpreted by someone who has studied American history and Hamilton, but hasn't seen the play. I, like many others, have not seen the play. On a broader note, I think this brings up an important question about the reliance of entertainment concerning education about history. That's a little off topic, though. I wonder how the play and subsequent public opinion of Hamilton would change if Hamilton was painted as the enemy the whole time, and not just for a minor fault like lashing out. I might be wrong about my assumption of the benevolence of how he is portrayed in the play, but I would be interested how such a change would be interpreted, and how it would be done.
ReplyDelete