Jump to content
THEUniversityofNevada

The world’s gonna know your name...

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

No. You’re overplaying the falsehoods of historical dramatization. It’s not true history, of course. Nor should it be, because then it would suck. But you’re confusing your interpretation of Hamilton with the historical truth.

Hamilton did marry into a slave-owning family but there is no evidence he was a slave owner himself. though not a true abolitionist, he was a manumissionist at a time when Jefferson was +++++ing his slaves.

It’s true he wanted the presidency to be more permanent, and closer to a monarchy. He was concerned about mob rule, like Plato before him. Right now, that seems a more valid take than ever before.

He was far from an angel, that much is true. He was a deeply flawed man among many deeply flawed men. But many of his ideas were groundbreaking. 

Also, Aaron Burr was an opportunist like today's politicians that all of us hate. In fact, you could argue he was this country's first real modern politician. So, +++++ that guy.

 

He was not "concerned with mob rule" he hated the people.  Difference.  This would have made a catchy line  “The people are turbulent and changing.” They seldom judge or determine right. They must be ruled by landholders, merchants and men of the learned professions.  He thought the American citizen was too stupid to know what was good for him/herself.  He was the ultimate authoritarian.  He wanted to re-establish an aristocracy like Britain.  He would make the president a king and congress lifetime appointments and new barons. 

They should have had a musical number about taking foreign bribes from overseas banks.  Maybe about stealing money from the people to bribe the husband of his side hoe.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

He was not "concerned with mob rule" he hated the people.  Difference.  This would have made a catchy line  “The people are turbulent and changing.” They seldom judge or determine right. They must be ruled by landholders, merchants and men of the learned professions.  He thought the American citizen was too stupid to know what was good for him/herself.  He was the ultimate authoritarian.  He wanted to re-establish an aristocracy like Britain.  He would make the president a king and congress lifetime appointments and new barons. 

They should have had a musical number about taking foreign bribes from overseas banks.  Maybe about stealing money from the people to bribe the husband of his side hoe.

 

Yes. He was an elitist, as were other founding fathers. (And can you argue right now that he didn't have a point with what I bolded? It's just today we call them low-information voters.) He was concerned with "mob rule" that would come from a pure democracy, and though he went further with those fears than most, the fear of the rule of the people wasn't exactly an anomaly at the time. In fact, James Madison was famously concerned with that, too, as were others. And Plato argued similarly about democracy long before that. Those fears are the reason we have a republic (I know somebody who wrote a book with that title once) and not an outright democracy. 

Move ahead 240 years and Hamilton's corporatist and moneyed vision of the country, for better and for worse, ended up being a lot more accurate than Jefferson's agrarian vision. He also championed entrepreneurship, a key tenet in his beliefs, which went on to be a defining (if not, the defining) characteristic of our culture.

In his day, he wouldn't have been considered the "ultimate authoritarian", even if it looks authoritarian to us now.

I'm not a fan of any particular founding father, save for George Washington (who had many flaws of his own, including the ownership of slaves). I am a fan of many of their ideas, though. Truth is, I find the lionization of all of our founding fathers to be a little troubling, as it lends itself to caricatures of complicated men. Many extrapolate the ideas of our founding fathers and jam them into their own belief system, usurping them for their own purposes. The Hamilton was a liberal, or Hamilton was a Republican, arguments are typically nonsense. 

Ultimately, Hamilton was wrong about a lot, and he was a snob with horrendous political judgment. But he was also a brilliant visionary, and many of his ideas shaped who we are as a people. Now "Hamilton"the musical is not a complete portrayal of the man by any stretch, as is the case with any dramatization. But it is far from an outright fabrication either. It's a fabulous musical and it excites people about history and hopefully makes them thirsty to learn more in the same way Harry Potter got kids to read, even if they aren't themselves great books.

Plus, those +++++ing songs will be in your head for a lifetime. "It might be nice ... It might be nice ... to have Hamilton on your side..." Just fantastic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, THEUniversityofNevada said:

Wait a second! Are you telling me, a piece of historically based popular fiction is NOT a perfectly accurate representation of actual history??

Next you’re going to tell us Gone With the Wind, Brave Heart, Last of the Mohicans, and The Patriot aren’t historically accurate. 

No way would Thomas Jefferson have ever lost a battle rap. Dude had rhymin' skills!

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

Yes. He was an elitist, as were other founding fathers. (And can you argue right now that he didn't have a point with what I bolded? It's just today we call them low-information voters.) He was concerned with "mob rule" that would come from a pure democracy, and though he went further with those fears than most founding fathers, the fear of the rule of the people wasn't exactly an anomaly at the time. In fact, James Madison was famously concerned with that, too, as were others. And Plato argued similarly about democracy long before that. Those fears are the reason we have a republic (I know somebody who wrote a book with that title once) and not an outright democracy. 

Move ahead 240 years and Hamilton's corporatist and moneyed vision of the country, for better and for worse, ended up being a lot more accurate than Jefferson's agrarian vision. He also championed entrepreneurship, a key tenet in his beliefs, which went on to be a defining (if not, the defining) characteristic of our culture.

In his day, he wouldn't have been considered the "ultimate authoritarian", even if it looks authoritarian to us now.

I'm not a fan of any particular founding father, save for George Washington (who had many flaws of his own, including the ownership of slaves). I am a fan of many of their ideas, though. Truth is, I find the lionization of all of our founding fathers to be a little troubling, as it lends itself to caricatures of complicated men. Many extrapolate the ideas of our founding fathers and jam them into their own belief system, usurping them for their own purposes. The Hamilton was a liberal, or Hamilton was a Republican, arguments are typically nonsense. 

Ultimately, Hamilton was wrong about a lot, and he was a snob with horrendous political judgment. But he was also a brilliant visionary, and many of his ideas shaped who we are as a people. Now "Hamilton"the musical is not a complete portrayal of the man by any stretch, as is the case with any dramatization. But it is far from an outright fabrication either. It's a fabulous musical and it excites people about history and hopefully makes them thirsty to learn more in the same way Harry Potter got kids to read, even if they aren't themselves great books.

Plus, those +++++ing songs will be in your head for a lifetime. "It might be nice ... It might be nice ... to have Hamilton on your side..." Just fantastic.

 

And here we were, having a civil conversation.

Hamilton did not want a republic.  He wanted a voted monarchy.  But only the elites should be able to vote.  He wanted to establish barons.  Yes, all the Founding Fathers were elitists.  Hamilton even shocked most of them with his views of the people.  I am glad those ideas lost out.

My problem is not so much that it did not capture a complete portrayal of Hamilton.  It was that this spunky, fun, man of the people portrayal was complete opposite his character.  It would be like in 200 years there is a musical called "Trump" and the character of Trump is played by a kung fu action move star who is super article, sincere and charitable. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

And here we were, having a civil conversation.

Hamilton did not want a republic.  He wanted a voted monarchy.  But only the elites should be able to vote.  He wanted to establish barons.  Yes, all the Founding Fathers were elitists.  Hamilton even shocked most of them with his views of the people.  I am glad those ideas lost out.

My problem is not so much that it did not capture a complete portrayal of Hamilton.  It was that this spunky, fun, man of the people portrayal was complete opposite his character.  It would be like in 200 years there is a musical called "Trump" and the character of Trump is played by a kung fu action move star who is super article, sincere and charitable. 

 

I think you're being overly harsh in your portrayal of Hamilton, in the same way that Hamilton is painted in overly rose shades in the musical. One thing that is a factor in how Hamilton has long been remembered, at least before the musical, is that Hamilton never really got a chance to write his closing salvo. After his death, his political adversaries were in control of the narrative and his Federalist party was dead. History goes to the winners, so they say. That all said, I am OK with disagreement here.

As for your last point, you can't convince me that Convert isn't at home as we speak writing that musical, undoubtedly convinced that it is a middle-ground portrayal of a great man.

Edit: I forgot to address the republic. Yes, Hamilton didn't want a republic like we have. I didn't mean to suggest that. Our republic was a compromise.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

I think you're being overly harsh in your portrayal of Hamilton, in the same way that Hamilton is painted in overly rose shades in the musical. One thing that is a factor in how Hamilton has long been remembered, at least before the musical, is that Hamilton never really got a chance to write his closing salvo. After his death, his political adversaries were in control of the narrative and his Federalist party was dead. History goes to the winners, so they say. That all said, I am OK with disagreement here.

As for your last point, you can't convince me that Convert isn't at home as we speak writing that musical, undoubtedly convinced that it is a middle-ground portrayal of a great man.

 

As I was typing that up, I was thinking damn it, I would watch that.

We can agree to disagree.  The numbers are catchy and I guess that is the most important part of a musical.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

As I was typing that up, I was thinking damn it, I would watch that.

We can agree to disagree.  The numbers are catchy and I guess that is the most important part of a musical.

I love a line from V for Vendetta: "Artists use lies to tell the truth while politicians use them to cover the truth up." And even if you don't agree that Hamilton does this, at least the singin' and dancin' are top notch. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

And here we were, having a civil conversation.

Hamilton did not want a republic.  He wanted a voted monarchy.  But only the elites should be able to vote.  He wanted to establish barons.  Yes, all the Founding Fathers were elitists.  Hamilton even shocked most of them with his views of the people.  I am glad those ideas lost out.

My problem is not so much that it did not capture a complete portrayal of Hamilton.  It was that this spunky, fun, man of the people portrayal was complete opposite his character.  It would be like in 200 years there is a musical called "Trump" and the character of Trump is played by a kung fu action move star who is super article, sincere and charitable.

 

Why do we have to wait 200 years for that? That sounds awesome!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the catchy numbers, I don't think the play displays Hamilton as some hero. In fact he is a wildly flawed character throughout. Most of the catchy tunes are about his flaws. So although the signs displayed may not be specifically accurate, the fact that he was sinned/expressly flawed is the central theme of the work.

I mean if you came out of that production thinking Hamilton was displayed as some hero, I don't know what you saw.

So specifically historically accurate, no. But thematically accurate as an overlooked flawed human who had a fairly significant role in defining the Id of this country... I think it hit the mark there.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2020 at 11:09 AM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

 They should have had a musical number about taking foreign bribes from overseas banks.  Maybe about stealing money from the people to bribe the husband of his side hoe.

 

 

On 7/10/2020 at 12:27 PM, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

My problem is not so much that it did not capture a complete portrayal of Hamilton.  It was that this spunky, fun, man of the people portrayal was complete opposite his character.  It would be like in 200 years there is a musical called "Trump" and the character of Trump is played by a kung fu action move star who is super article, sincere and charitable. 

 

 

I gotta ask, have you ever actually seen the play?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, THEUniversityofNevada said:

 

 

This is amazing. I can’t believe I never saw this episode before

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2020 at 12:49 AM, SharkTanked said:

Despite the catchy numbers, I don't think the play displays Hamilton as some hero. In fact he is a wildly flawed character throughout. Most of the catchy tunes are about his flaws. So although the signs displayed may not be specifically accurate, the fact that he was sinned/expressly flawed is the central theme of the work.

I mean if you came out of that production thinking Hamilton was displayed as some hero, I don't know what you saw.

So specifically historically accurate, no. But thematically accurate as an overlooked flawed human who had a fairly significant role in defining the Id of this country... I think it hit the mark there.

I liked the little touches throughout, like when Thomas Jefferson arrives in NYC and goes to shake George Washington's hand, but Hamilton cuts Washington off so he shakes Jefferson's hand first. Such a dickhead. 

Also found it interesting that Miranda said he gave the two best songs to Aaron Burr. I wonder if that was a conscious choice or just a coincidence.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2020 at 12:49 AM, SharkTanked said:

Despite the catchy numbers, I don't think the play displays Hamilton as some hero. In fact he is a wildly flawed character throughout. Most of the catchy tunes are about his flaws. So although the signs displayed may not be specifically accurate, the fact that he was sinned/expressly flawed is the central theme of the work.

I mean if you came out of that production thinking Hamilton was displayed as some hero, I don't know what you saw.

So specifically historically accurate, no. But thematically accurate as an overlooked flawed human who had a fairly significant role in defining the Id of this country... I think it hit the mark there.

This is what I was thinking too. I don't think it has too rose colored glasses. Yeah Hamilton is the protagonist in the show but it shows his flaws. They don't spell out most of the criticisms mentioned here but they are alluded to(some outright discussed). It is an interesting poece of history with a specific viewpoint told in a specific way that has to have a large amount of artistic leeway. I don't think it portrayed anyone purely in positive or anyone purely negative. Burr had shades of grey even though he was the main antagonist. I could definitely empathize with him(so I do think it was conscious to give him the best songs as was mentioned earlier). As someone else mentioned it was fascinating story that hadn't been told because he wasn't able to.

Instead of people coming out of it thinking they know everything about it, it should make people come out of it looking to learn more about this period in history and the men that drove it. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...