By Joe Langabeer, Lincoln Labour Party member
With the original Broadway musical, Hamilton, recently making its debut on the Disney+ channel, another confirmation of its continuing popularity and capacity to still attract and fascinate thousands of people, it is useful to examine Hamilton and the implications it has for the theatre industry.
Hamilton is a musical written by Lin-Manuel Miranda, originally workshopped in 2009 and which has now been produced around the world, including in New York, Chicago, London, Puerto Rico and soon Australia. It is a biographical re-telling of the life of Alexander Hamilton, who played a major part in the American revolution and became the first Secretary to the US Treasury.
Hamilton was presumed to be of mixed racial heritage, coming from the British West indies, but it is difficult to know for sure because he is listed in official documents as white and portrayals of him are white, but his mother was a mixed-race immigrant. In any case, he is played in the musical by a Puerto Rican and many of the cast are black.
This musical has been widely praised for its storytelling, which is heavily intertwined with political and revolutionary themes, and for using the stage as a platform to discuss race and gender politics. Its music is drawn from hip-hop, R&B, pop, soul, and traditional-style show tunes and it also casts several black actors as the Founding Fathers and as other historical figures.
There is a lot to praise it for, but it has nonetheless many other issues when it is examined closer. It glorifies American history, but the biggest problem, from a political point of view, is the celebration of neo-liberal values which have haunted America’s economy (and western culture) for decades.
Biographical telling of a real person
An article published by Musical Theatre Studies, Hamilton and Class by Matthew Clinton Sekellick, written from a Marxist viewpoint, challenges the aesthetics of race, the narrative, politics and class focus of the musical.
Sekellick’s article argues against the colour-blind casting and the romanticisation of the Revolution to create a neo-liberalist narrative. In his opening statement he writes: “Hamilton is a wilful, forceful writing of the future through the rewriting of the past, but through its narrative, aesthetic strategies and subject matter, it presents a fundamentally bourgeois vision that reifies the American Revolution into a contemporary creation myth for America and its Dream”.
The musical is sold as a ‘revolutionary tale’, but one of an individual contributing to what amounts to a capitalist revolution. The musical is marketed as a ‘revolutionary’ show, but in the revolution its implications are concealed and form, in any case, only part of the narrative. The central character of Hamilton is viewed as flawed and the audience is shown his many setbacks as well as his victories, but his story is one that dogmatically conforms to the ideal of the American Dream.
If we were to look at today’s reality, it is evident that the capitalist vision that Hamilton was fundamental in designing has in fact prevented other immigrants from achieving prosperity in North America. He was instrumental, in his personal race towards his American Dream, in stopping others like him from reaching it.
Secretary to the Treasury
Ethnic minorities in North America have been degraded down to the most inhumane working conditions, and, without monetary help to begin with, they have not been able to climb the ‘neo-liberal’ ladder. Hamilton believed in the neo-liberal economy, an economy that is failing us especially in the current Covid-19 pandemic as it had previously failed us in the 2008 financial crisis.
Hamilton, Secretary to the Treasury, was the person behind the central economy bank and an advocate of the free market. All these issues expose a real problem within the musical’s supposed ‘progressive’ politics of equality, because Hamilton’s celebrated achievements contributed to the same inequalities faced by ethnic minorities.
The casting might be a good step towards diversity in stage productions and it is a practice that must be more widely recognised and adopted by the whole creative industry. However, what is needed is a more truthful telling of the damage done by these Founding Fathers, damage that is still evident in the political structures of North America today.
Miranda is not a poor man
The dual connection between writer Lin-Manuel Miranda and the musical Hamilton should be noted. He is the son of a Puerto Rican immigrant in New York City, but he is also the son of a powerful politician. Put another way, the Mirandas are members of the ruling political establishment. Miranda is not a poor man rising to the top; on the contrary, he has a class position that provides access to resources, like an elite private college education, enabling his talents to grow and flourish. When Miranda sings, “My name is Alexander Hamilton”, it is not just a tribute to his immigrant-cum-politico father, but also an act of identification with his class.
Sekellick’s article implies a connection between Miranda and Hamilton in that the musical is based upon the ideals of capitalism, underlining the dominance of the ‘culture’ of capitalism throughout society. In the book Hamilton: The Revolution it is likewise suggested that the musical is attuned to a newly diversified country, the United States, which is still battling with its own prejudice, but implying that it has progressed from the 18th Century to now. But we know this in not the case.
Whilst the musical promotes race, it is only promoted from an individualistic perspective and not a collective one. The show hardly recognises the shackles of class, which is a theme ignored by the vast majority of musicals, with exceptions being, for example, Blood Brothers or Billy Elliot.
What should really be prioritised
There is sometimes a certain degree of hypocrisy when dealing with issues of race and class in this format, issues that really should be prioritised and presented as two elements that deeply intertwine with each other. This is the feature that is fundamentally lacking and which undermines the whole quality of this musical.
Its misrepresentation of American history, glorified instead of critically analysed, and the dominating ethos and ideals of capitalism that frame the story, effectively undermine the real history of exploitation and slavery. It has been documented on several occasions that Alexander Hamilton was never an outright opponent of slavery, and actually condoned some of its practices. This has been documented in another book, Historians on Hamilton: How a Blockbuster Musical Is Restaging America’s Past.
Ideology and practice of neo-liberalism
For a show that on the surface promotes race equality and condemns slavery, it should focus less on glorifying these American figures and rather open up a discussion about dominant structures of the capitalist system and the oppression of BAME groups by the ideology and practice of neo-liberal policies. This is the only way true reparation for its history can be evaluated and it is a problem that Britain needs to accept too.
Overall, the musical Hamilton can be considered a neo-liberal propaganda piece and it needs to be seen through an analytical lens. The colour-blind casting is important, as is the rhetoric for empowerment in BAME communities, but a problem arises when it glorifies American history instead of confronting it.
July 13, 2020
