What's the Veeky Forums consensus on the Hamilton musical?

Shit songs

I refuse to see it, I've only heard about it from people who want to push a political agenda or people whose opinion on musical theater have never mattered to me.

Cant wait until the play commemorating Hillary's dissolution of the senate is played by men.

Oh, and this refusal comes partly from the fact that I don't live near New York or any venue where it would be shown, and I don't want to pay that much money for blackwashed entertainment marketed to people who actively dislike the history of this country.

It caused Jackson to be kicked off the $20 so I hate it by default. I hope Jack Lew the Jew gets cancer.

Revisionist scum

I love the fact that liberals and progressives are appropriating the mythology of the "Founding Fathers", denying this legitimazing avenue to conservative ideologues. For too many time, conservatism in the United States clinged to a false vision of the Constitution as a document which calls for limited government, instead of an imposition between centralizing advocates of federal government, such as Alexander Hamilton.

If this perception is changed through this musical, then "Originalism" will becomes competely irrelevant, as this articles says:

theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/lin-manuel-miranda-and-the-future-of-originalism/485651/

>Hamilton is changing the myth. For decades, originalism in constitutional law has had a generally conservative valence. Now, week by week, the thousands of patrons who pack the Richard Rodgers Theater and the hundreds of thousands more who listen obsessively to Hamilton’s cast album or download the viral videos are absorbing a new vision of the American Founding. And so the balance shifts. With the Supreme Court on the brink of moving leftward and Hamilton electrifying audiences from the Grammys to the White House, the lawyering class’s intuitions about the Founding are poised to change. The blockbuster narrative of this election year retells the nation’s origin story as the tale of a heroic immigrant with passionately progressive politics on issues of race and on issues of federal power. The audience is on its feet. So to all those Americans who expect original meanings in constitutional law to support mostly conservative outcomes, here is your Miranda warning: Within the foreseeable future, a jurisprudence of original meanings may fuel the most progressive constitutional decision making since the days of Chief Justice Earl Warren. Just you wait.

Now, I'm no progressive or liberal. I don't welcome this development because I want to see conservatives dispossessed of cultural legitimacy and destroyed.

I welcome this because if people start to see the founding as a "Progressive" moment, if people start to see the Constitution as a centralizing project, then American conservatives will cease to be limited by such cultural artifacts into respecting a democratical and liberal institutionalism that doesn't benefits them.

The less conservatives care about "muh founding fathers" and "muh constitution" the more they can think about organizing some Freikorps, or getting some Pinochet into power. If the American experiment is ultimately liberal and progressive, then anti-liberal and anti-progressive solutions must be found in non-American political traditions.

America delenda est.

and what progressive policies would true originalism support?

Can someone explain the whole blackwashing thing to me? Who is a nig that shouldn't be a nig? Not trying to b8 or anything, just curious because I see history normies talking about the musical and I'm no fan of Hamilton so I never really looked into it.

>Who is a nig that shouldn't be a nig?
The Founding Fathers

>his
>consensus

Fuck off, reddit trash.

All of them?

>Richard Primus
>Professor Primus grew up in South Bend, Indiana, where he attended the South Bend Hebrew Day School. Today, Professor Primus serves as President of the Hebrew Day School of Ann Arbor and as a Director of the Jewish Federation of Washtenaw County. He has also been an Overseer of the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research.

this isn't funny anymore

>democratical and liberal institutionalism

the fact that you think the founding had anything to do with either of those means they've already won. Hamilton called Democracy a "poison" for fucks sake.

I don't know anything about it other than that it is popular.

Hamilton disliked democracy because he wanted a strong central government and he saw the political power of landowners as preventing that.

Now democracy means shitkins voting a strong central government. So now Hamilton would approve democracy.

Hamiltion would have held the common people in as much contempt today as he did then.

The democratic republicans were flawed but they were closer to the spirit of the revolution

who should they have picked

jackson is still on the 20 you retard

he's on the back

anyone but him or Adam.

Wow so this is what pena vergüenza feels like.

>blackwashed entertainment marketed to people who actively dislike the history of this country.
>the show is a love letter to Alexander Hamilton and other historical figures
>dislike the history of this country

lmmmmmaaaaaaoooo

all of them.

>>the show is a love letter to Alexander Hamilton and other historical figures
I can call anything a 'love letter.' The phrase is meaningless. The fact of the matter is that this play is revisionist history presented as entertainment, and I want nothing to do with it.

>Can someone explain the whole blackwashing thing to me?

The creator of the musical wanted to tell the story of Alexander Hamilton using rap and hip-hop music because that's the type of music he writes. Theater in America, Broadway and otherwise, almost exclusively uses colorblind casting, with some exceptions, but even so it's uncommon for minorities to have shows that actively seek non-white actors on Broadway.

>I can call anything a 'love letter.' The phrase is meaningless. The fact of the matter is that this play is revisionist history presented as entertainment, and I want nothing to do with it.

Any play, TV show, film or book based on historical events presents some form of revisionist history, sweetheart. It's not marketed to people who "actively dislike the history of this country" at all.

>I want nothing to do with it.

Awww I'm sure the show is hurting because of your lack of interest.

so they should've stuck to the same old same old yeah ok great recipe for success
only king george is white
and they did that on purpose he said something about wanting to 'get rid of the distance between the audience and the history' or something
they portray hamilton (and even burr) extremely positively

everything hamilton does that would be seen negatively they try to make it seem good

like when he cheats they show it as him being 'roped into it' and when his wife is mad they talk about 'letters that might have redeemed you' even though if the letters are really gone then there's no way of knowing that they would redeem him so they're just BSing to make hamilton look better

>Any play, TV show, film or book based on historical events presents some form of revisionist history
Yes, and 99% of them are bad entertainment on top of being bad history.
>sweetheart
Why the fuck do you people use this kind of language?
>It's not marketed to people who "actively dislike the history of this country" at all.
I can't even count how many BLM faggots I've heard chanting about how the history of America is the history of slavery and the destruction of black bodies You're a fucking liar.
>Awww I'm sure the show is hurting because of your lack of interest.
I don't care if my lack of interest hurts it or not, I'm just not interested in seeing the play.

People use that kind of language when they're both rude and self righteous about having bad opinions

>I can't even count how many BLM faggots I've heard chanting about how the history of America is the history of slavery and the destruction of black bodies You're a fucking liar.

it literally is you retard

and you still think it's everyone else who's being revisionist?

Darling, pls

>it literally is
But slavery was outlawed in the North for a long time prior to the Civil War, and the Civil War was fought 150 years ago. How can American history be the history of slavery? As for black bodies being destroyed, it's not like blacks are the only people who have ever suffered in this country.
I think you're being a revisionist. I wouldn't know if I am or not, I'm not really making a historical argument. I'm just pointing out that BLM perceives American history in a certain way, and that BLM dislikes what it associates with American history.
youtube.com/watch?v=USORHBUmN4k
Here you go! There are a lot more videos like this on YouTube. I shouldn't have to post any more to prove my point.

And, while I am making historical claims to counter others, I should point out that the actual problem I have with this revisionism is the fact that it's being foisted on the public without recourse to scholarship. The vast majority of people will not do extensive research about Alexander Hamilton after seeing this play and will base their judgment of him off of what they see in it. It's that simple.

>everything hamilton does that would be seen negatively they try to make it seem good
>when his wife is mad they talk about 'letters that might have redeemed you' even though if the letters are really gone

The show portrays the affair as disgusting and hurtful. The ensemble is literally saying NO NO NO NO NO. Hamilton tries to justify it to Angelica, who immediately tells him off. He only gets forgiveness later on, and it's portrayed as this huge huge miracle on Eliza's part.

The "letters that might have redeemed you" lyric is the show filling in a hole and incorporating the concept of 'who tells your story?' in that moment, since we do not have any existing letters between him and his wife during this time period, so why not fill in the hole and say Eliza decided to get burn their correspondence and write her own narrative by removing herself, and Hamilton at this point, from it?

"Hamilton" is not, and is never claiming to be, a 100% accurate representation of history. It's a version of Alexander Hamilton's story told through a specific lens, just like any other adaptation of a historical event or historical person's life.

So it's propaganda?

>I can't even count how many BLM faggots I've heard chanting about how the history of America is the history of slavery and the destruction of black bodies You're a fucking liar.

How am I a liar? Please show, with concrete evidence, how the show is marketed to people who "actively dislike the history of this country."

Also, you're letting a mask slip a bit her. You're saying that it's marketed to people who dislike the history of the country... and you're saying that the history of America is the history of slavery and the destruction of black bodies. So you don't think it's okay to dislike slavery and the destruction of black bodies? Are you racist? If so, just let me know, so we can end our conversation. Also, as I'm sure you've read the rules, this isn't /pol/ with dates, so you would probably be better off posting somewhere else.

I really wish these people would just leave my country and stop ruining it for the rest of us.

>I should point out that the actual problem I have with this revisionism is the fact that it's being foisted on the public without recourse to scholarship. The vast majority of people will not do extensive research about Alexander Hamilton after seeing this play and will base their judgment of him off of what they see in it. It's that simple.

And...? People do that all the time. If that really gets your goat, well, suck it up you big pussy, because it's been that way since historical fiction was invented. Cleopatra didn't have a snake bite her tits, Joseph II wasn't a music hating asshole, etc.

Funnily enough, the creator of the show created a school program to tie into the musical--the program includes a lesson plan that discusses the real history, has the kids see the show and attend a talk with the cast, and the the plan continues to having the kids write essays comparing the real history versus what was portrayed in the show. The creator has stated on 38789343 occasions that not everything in the show is accurate, that many liberties were taken, and so on.

>Please show, with concrete evidence, how the show is marketed to people who "actively dislike the history of this country."
Well, you're a fan of it, and you think American history is the history of slavery and the destruction of black bodies. Do you not hate that history?

>So you don't think it's okay to dislike slavery and the destruction of black bodies?
I think anyone can believe and say whatever they want. I think that slavery is a natural phenomenon. I don't think it would be a good idea today. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'racist.' I certainly don't think that every human being is equal, and I certainly think that some of the differences between people result from genetics, and that different races have different genes and therefore develop differently.

>propaganda

No. It's historical fiction, like any media based on historical events.

Same.
>you big pussy
Is this really the best you can do? Call me a racist and a pussy? Are you just b8ing?
>Funnily enough, the creator of the show created a school program to tie into the musical
Oh boy, an even more in-depth form of indoctrination is available for those who want to pay even more!

If America is a racist country then you should leave and find a less racist country that you would be more comfortable in. Stop destroying our heritage and culture.

>your heritage and culture is slavery and killing black people
So go somewhere else and live in a culture that isn't. Our culture is our culture and it is chauvinistic of you to change it to be more in line with your values.

If my shoes doesn't fit my foot I don't cut off the toe-cap of the shoe, I find a new pair of shoes.

All of that is propaganda. It's not hard to understand. If it's about history and it isn't a proper scholarly work, it's propaganda--and even if it is a proper scholarly work, odds are it's propaganda.

Notice how you didn't address anything I actually said.

Look, I'm sorry that you can't handle historical fiction, and that it makes your autism act up. But that's your own problem to deal with. Get some big boy panties and move on. Get a summer job while you're at it, too.

...

You didn't provide any concrete evidence that the show is "marketed towards people who actively hate the history of this country."

Also, thanks for confirming you're racist. Why are you in Veeky Forums, though?

EVERYONE

LOOK AT THIS PROPAGANDA

FUCK

PROPAGANDA EVERYWHERE

NO ONE IS SAFE

>Notice how you didn't address anything I actually said.
Why would I need to? All you can do is call me names and spout givens about how all media portraying historical events does so from a certain perspective. I'm just going one step further and pointing out that narratives exist.
>I'm sorry that you can't handle historical fictio
I actually enjoy some historical fiction and many movies about history. I just don't have any interest in seeing this show, and being called a racist and a revisionist for expressing that lack of interest makes me want to see it less.
You should really just move to a different country.
Who needs concrete evidence? King George III is the only white person in the cast. The Founding Fathers are blacks. You'd have to be completely oblivious to the state of race relations in the US not to notice what's going on here. Either that or willfully blind.

Now you're getting it.

well obviously they can't say the affair was good

but they let hamilton tell it as "she led me to her bed" and he kept saying "well I better go" until she kept seducing him

the whole song is him being portrayed as an object being acted upon instead of an actor and participant

thereby diminishing his guilt

of course it's not like they'll pretend like the affair was nothing and he does need to get forgiveness but they do portray it as a 'not really my fault she's a slut' kinda thing

>The "letters that might have redeemed you" lyric is the show filling in a hole and incorporating the concept of 'who tells your story?

this is true however it's really only if you look into it

it will still give the suggestion that hamilton is the 'good guy'

so they don't DENY that that's what they're doing (biasing the story) since that's a theme of the entire play as you said but they're still doing it and getting the same effect

>Why are you in Veeky Forums, though?
To discuss history, of course.
>E-everyone who disagrees with me in this thread is a racist and shouldn't be browsing this board!
lol

Propaganda general?

You still haven't provided any evidence, so clearly you don't like to discuss history.

?"Hamilton" is not, and is never claiming to be, a 100% accurate representation of history. It's a version of Alexander Hamilton's story told through a specific lens, just like any other adaptation of a historical event or historical person's life.

this

>I think that slavery is a natural phenomenon
this is a meaningless statement

what ISN'T a natural phenomenon?

>I certainly don't think that every human being is equal, and I certainly think that some of the differences between people result from genetics, and that different races have different genes and therefore develop differently.

and might you -by some crazy coincidence- happen to believe that your race just happens to be one of the 'good ones'

If they were saying Hamilton was the "good guy," then Eliza wouldn't need to forgive him, nor would she treat him coldly up until the moment of forgiveness.

...

>you think American history is the history of slavery and the destruction of black bodies. D

Sweetie, YOU said that people who like the show were "chanting" against slavery and the destruction of black bodies. Damn, racist and no reading comprehension...

>there are 25 unique posters in this thread
>clearly there's no way I can be talking to more than one person

If I'm a racist because of my opinions then I'm ok with that because these are my opinions and I'm not backing down from them just because you brandished a buzzword at me. The more people you brand as racist simply for disagreeing with your cultural chauvinism the less power that word will have as time goes by as "racists" will cease to be violent caricatures who lynch negroes and become people we consider our friends and neighbors.

>Why are you in Veeky Forums, though?
This a Veeky Forums not your preferred Soviet model state. There are no internal passports here, people can come and go as they please, comrade commissar.

>you should leave and find a less racist country that you would be more comfortable in

>doesn't understand globalism and westernization and thinks there's a country without racism
>thinks people can just up and leave (are you a rich boy)

damn it, Barry

Veeky Forums has a rule which states that this isn't /pol/ with dates. I hope you can read.

Salieri did nothing wrong.

man you literally said that you think racism is 'our heritage'

it's one thing to be a racist

but to be a racist, admit it, then backtrack and deny it again is just pathetic

DOUBLE propaganda!

ok but there's a degree of nuance we're missing

they do portray him as a 'good guy' but not a PERFECT guy

they show the affair as single, isolated, mistake he made as opposed to a black mark on his character

I don't mean they portray him as a saint but they do show a bias in that song towards him simply because it's portrayed as HER seducing him and him reluctantly agreeing

>Don't you deny muh Southern heritage! Long live the glorious South! Scarlett O'Hara is an American treasure!

Yes?
and?
In what way did I violate that "rule", am I starting a National Socialism image dump thread?
Spamming holocaust denial infographics?
Linking to Moonman videos?

This may not be /pol/ with dates, but it certainly isn't Veeky Forums with dates either.

>they show the affair as single, isolated, mistake he made as opposed to a black mark on his character

I'm not sure what you want the show to do here. Do you think they were supposed to have a lyric during the finale like "I can't wait to see you again--to tell you go to hell one more time for cheating on me you jerk--it's only a matter of time"? It is portrayed as a moment in his life when he made a mistake, which he is then forgiven for later on. Which did happen, since the pair eventually reconciled and Eliza was in love with him until the day she died.

Eh, I don't know what evidence you want. Obviously there aren't ads for it that say "If you hate your country and its history, you'll love Hamilton!"
>what ISN'T a natural phenomenon?
Nothing, which is my point.
>and might you -by some crazy coincidence- happen to believe that your race just happens to be one of the 'good ones'
I don't believe in racial superiority, I believe that some organisms are more fit to survive in their environment than others. A breed of hairless dog that can't keep warm in the winter wouldn't be as fit for an environment with harsh winters as a dog with a thick coat of fur would be. Humans didn't all evolve in identical environments, why shouldn't some be more fit for some environments than others? Anyway, the failure of the black community to achieve levels of success comparable to those of whites has nothing to do with the quality of the races and everything to do with fitness. If you think 'fit' means 'superior' then you're just daft.
The answer is no, I don't think my race is 'good' compared to others.
I said that it was marketed toward that kind of person, which I've found to be true. The only people who talk like you, my dear fuckbuddy, are people who feel this way. You yourself are an example of such a person. Are you denying your own existence?
You're arguing with various people.
Racism is, in fact, my heritage, because I know for a fact that many members of my family see differences between themselves and members of other races. If you think that America is a product of nothing but slavery and anti-black violence, then you think my national heritage and not just my personal heritage is racist. I know that I can't convince you otherwise.
I'm a 2nd generation New Englander on my mother's side, and my father's family has lived in New England since they arrived in this country. I hold no Confederate sympathies. Stop strawmanning.

>still can't wrap his head around the fact that in an anonymous thread with 26 unique posters in it odds are he isn't only talking to the same poster

>Eh, I don't know what evidence you want. Obviously there aren't ads for it that say "If you hate your country and its history, you'll love Hamilton!"

I want evidence of the claim you made. What evidence do you have to back up your claim? You can't provide anything, as is clear at this point.

>I'm a 2nd generation New Englander on my mother's side, and my father's family has lived in New England since they arrived in this country. I hold no Confederate sympathies. Stop strawmanning.

It's pretty obvious where your sympathies lie.

I already gave you some. You're one of the people I'm talking about, part of the HIDF and a virulently anti-American racebaiting shitposter. I've given up on convincing you of anything.
And where would that be? Who the hell is Vivien?

So what if those are his sympathies?
Southern culture is not obligated to erase itself just because it makes you uncomfortable. Southerners are not obligated to apologize until the end of time for owning black slaves at one point in their history any more then the modern day Mongols are obligated to perpetually apologize for massacring the city of Urgench.

>Southern culture is not obligated to erase itself just because it makes you uncomfortable. Southerners are not obligated to apologize until the end of time for owning black slaves at one point in their history any more then the modern day Mongols are obligated to perpetually apologize for massacring the city of Urgench.
inb4
>lol racist pussy ;P

How long until they make a musical where Abraham Lincoln is a black man, all of the union army is black and the only whites portrayed on stage/screen are southern racists?

>I already gave you some. You're one of the people I'm talking about, part of the HIDF and a virulently anti-American racebaiting shitposter.

So... no, you don't have any concrete evidence. You stated your claim before you even talked to me, so what's your evidence aside from your wild strawman comments about who I am?

Why are you on Veeky Forums, again? "W-Well!!! You're totally one of them!!! Anti-American!!!!" is not concrete evidence for anything, nor is it an argument.

My my, look at all that projection.

You clearly are anti-American though.

By all means then clarify your opinions since they are apparently being misrepresented!
:^)

I'm clearly anti-American... how? I'm asking this person to provide some concrete evidence for the claim that the show is being marketed towards people who "actively dislike the history of this country."

Like I said, King George III, the villain of the War of Independence, is the only white man in the play. The Founding Fathers are all black. Race relations are what they are, the discourse of protest movements is what it is. Here you are, calling me a racist for not wanting to see this play. I don't see how you need more evidence than that.
Are you telling me that you don't see how what you're doing can be perceived as anti-American? You're talking about how the history of this country is basically just slavery and racism. Do you like this history? Are you proud of it? I think there's more to this history than that, which is why I like my country.
Fuck you. Seriously, fuck you. You're everything wrong with America. I wish I could reach through my computer and slap you.

So you're saying you don't actively dislike the history of this country?

>:^)

Oh, reddit! What shall I do? Where shall I go?

>reddit

Frankly my dear I don't give a damn.
:3

Eliza is also white.

And not all all the founding fathers are black. Hamilton isn't even black.

>Eliza
I haven't seen the play, I don't know who you're referring to.
>not all the founding fathers are black
Which ones were IRL? How does this change anything? The simple fact of the matter is that it's blackwashed revisionism.