Ishmael Reed on Why He Thinks Hamilton is a Total Fraud

I found an interesting article I think it worthy of discussion regarding the musical Hamilton. Ishmael Reed is presenting a play now that pretty much embodies many of the critiques of the musical that have been going around for years from some academic; progressive; and other circles.

"Critics and academics claim the show erases critical facts about the founding fathers from its narrative, chief among them that Hamilton himself, supposedly an abolitionist, participated in the purchasing of slaves. Now, novelist, poet, playwright and MacArthur Fellowship recipient Ishmael Reed has responded to the Hamilton brouhaha with a theatrical work of his own: The Haunting of Lin-Manuel Miranda, a two-act play that serves as a rebuttal to Miranda’s roaring success."

https://observer.com/2019/01/playwright-ishmael-reed-on-why-he-thinks-hamilton-is-a-total-fraud/

"In Reed’s play, which was read to sold-out audiences in a series earlier this month at the Nuyorican Poets Cafe in New York City, the character of Miranda, who is floundering in the midst of the writing process, is suddenly visited by manifestations of slaves, Native Americans and white indentured servants who were conveniently left out of the book upon which he based his musical: Alexander Hamilton, by historian Ron Chernow. Distraught, Miranda listens as the facts are laid out for him one by one and his preconceived notions about America’s OG Federalist are shattered beyond recognition."

There are some interesting facts regarding the Schuyler Estate and its treatment of slaves and runaway slaves.

As for what Reed says is the greatest irony of the diverse casting being used as a benchmark of the musical's success and breaking new ground, Reed said that by "giving black people jobs . . . it deflected from the material."

Even if you disagree with this interpretation of the work, I do think it provides some food for thought. Many of his critiques seem harsh, but they aren't new and posters on this forum have talked about these issues in some capacity over the years.

I agree that the most problematic part of his critique is that he didn't see the musical but based his critiques on the Chernow biography. However, I will say that a lot of what he said has been said by others who have seen the musical and came to similar conclusions, so I give him a bit of a pass on that.

First of all, even accepting what he says as correct for sake of argument, it is not a "total fraud." That however illuminates what these folks are actually doing, which is attempting to get attention by hijacking something that already has attention. And it also highlights what's missing here: scholarship. An article in the Kushner Gazette giving someone their contrarian 15 minutes. Whatever.

Lin-Manuel's biggest sin is being successful.  That is unforgivable in certain circles.  

So, I had a couple of classes with Mr. Reed back in the day at Cal (University of California, Berkeley) and some interactions with him since then. He is a very sharp person and is not shy about his opinions.  (Although, in retrospect, I think he bit his tongue/lip quite a bit in class about certain topics and methods of storywriting)  From reading the interview article (which appears heavily edited), it does not appear he is attacking the musical or Miranda per se - but rather that he read or was informed that the Biography and the Musical both treat Hamilton as an abolitionist.  That is something Reed could not abide.  It sounds like the play Reed wrote has - in a Xmas Carol way - spirits meet with Miranda to try to enlighten Miranda (and the audience) on this particular issue.  

Elfuhbuh said: "Hamilton makes a snarky comment to Jefferson about Jefferson’sslave owning in the show."

Which, honestly, is pretty accurate. Hamilton was a member of an abolitionist society, and did not personally own slaves.

He just didn't see a problem with his wife's family or his friends owning slaves, or do much at all to prevent slavery political or personally. Not an abolitionist by any means, but the musical doesn't really paint him as one. I would say a bigger difference would be portraying hamilton as being pro immigration instead of a giant racist xenophobe who spearheaded anti immigration laws.

Somebody send him a DVD of 1776 and then butter a big ol' bucket of popcorn!  

Or any musical/play/film based on actual events, for that matter.  They all take dramatic license with the facts.  Not to mention that every single popular musical gets obsessively nit-picked by either those who truly disliked it or the those who jump on the contrarian bandwagon simply because the show IS popular (BWW has been plagued by the latter since Hairspray opened).  This man's personal vendetta against Miranda, who is not actually responsible for the popularity of the musical, is just embarrassing.

He's not just picking at it to pick it at it. If you're familiar with Reed's work then you'll see a consistency of social critiques about this country in general for decades. Of course he'll pick on the musical because it's successful. That success garners it attention and accolades. With that success you'll have people observing the phenomena and scrutinizing it in a critical way regarding its politics and dynamics portrayed since it's a show that was praised for being socially-conscious and progressive. It happens all the time in the left, especially when you do non-profit work like I do and we have to keep on our toes about the effects of our actions. The thing that really makes me question his critiques is that he seems to have used what he heard from other social critics about what the show portrays or represents to inform his work rather than personally observing it for himself. Even as a fan of the show, I can't really take this personally (maybe because I see where the critiques are coming from) because I feel like a show that has been praised as much as Hamilton also deserves the respect of being taken so seriously that it has real scrutiny. Great theatre can be about pushing the boundaries on such things and commenting and critiquing work and how it portrays life, society, and struggles with power and I think if anything, this actually sort of gives Hamilton a bit more credibility because it's not just a show you can be "mindless" about but can generate discussion....even if some people think the points are wrong at least a substantive discussion was generated.

haterobics said: "Err...

"I thinkHamiltonis probably the biggest consumer fraud sinceThe Blair Witch Project."

WTF was fraudulent about the Blair Witch Project?!"

Upon its initial release it was sold as 'real' found footage and that the 3 kids had actually disappeared.

Of course once it went wide the truth came out, but when it was at Sundance etc the filmmakers said it was real and it's website was set up like it was real.

Hamilton had a sorry upbringing as a poor white orphaned bastard in the West Indies, and he was exposed to the conditions there where blacks were little better than animals working on the sugar plantations until they dropped. So he really was inside himself against slavery and, further, unlike many abolitionists, he did not believe that blacks were inferior to whites. But if non-opposition to slavery was necessary to accomplish some policy matter, he would go along with it. As one who desperately wanted to see the Constitution ratified, he did not oppose the three fifths compromise.

I wouldn't feel too superior to those people. If I believed that racist hiring policies were in effect where I worked, but my department head got hot over the issue, insisting that fewer blacks were hired because they were less intelligent, and at a meeting over hiring he gave his opinion and then asked me what I thought, would I stay true to my principles or sell out to keep my job and career.

Anyway, I thought that most of the Founding Father myths, and others, had been obliterated by now. Jefferson, the man of whom President Kennedy said at a formal dinner in the White House, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone" should hold the Guiness Book of World Records record for hypocrisy. "All Men are Created Equal." He was one of the largest slave owners in the South and did not even free his slaves upon his death, as Washington did in his will. (About half his slaves belonged to his wife's family and he could not free them.) Jefferson could not even manage his home estate Monticello. He fell heavily into debt and had to be bailed out by friends.

Has everyone by now been made aware of Lincoln's statements during the final debate with Stephen Douglas in September, 1858.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.          (Fourth Lincoln Douglas Debate - September 18, 1858 - Charleston, Illinois)

And the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves. It freed the slaves in the Confederate states so Lincoln would get the Abolishist vote. It did not free the slaves in the Union border states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri so Lincoln could get the votes of those states.

Hey, nobody's perfect.

The facts of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s hip-hopera are shaky: Alexander Hamilton is celebrated as an abolitionist, despite credible evidence that he owned slaves and felt no particular way about their cause. 

This is blatantly false. It reflects poorly on Slate. Hamilton was one of the first to join the New York Manumission (Emancipation) Society founded by the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay, and Hamilton was a very active member. Anyone calling himself a journalist would be aware of this.

He was also one of the young officers who tried to persuade Washington to admit blacks into the Colonial Army in exchange for their freedom.

This is not to say that he did not let his principles slip at times when something of great personal importance was at stake.

Slavery was legal and practiced in New York until 1829. Slaves were mostly household workers and laborers. If slavery had been as important to the economy of New York as it was to the economy of the South, would New York have abolished slavery in 1829?

The fact that Reed has written a play explicitly to criticize Miranda, but staunchly refuses to see Hamilton itself and justifies that by saying his play is actually a critique of Chernow's biography, seems more than a little disingenuous.