This Guy Hates "Hamilton" So Much He Made a Play to Roast Lin Manuel-Miranda 

“Well I’m choosing not to look at that part”- ladies and gents American history

"It's like jewish people playing Hitler" Taika Waititi just entered the chat

“This guy” is acclaimed historian and writer Ishmael Reed. This is the best title you could come up with for this video?

I think people here don't realize that this isn't just some old man talking here. This guy is a celebrated poet and novelist not some guy on the street. The guy was a professor at Berkeley for 35 years. Edit: the guy was born black and has been thru his works promoted and fought for the black community for longer than Lin Manuel has been alive. You gotta put yourself in his shoes too.

While this guy's point is valid, the video missed a crucial part of the musical. Hamilton is meant to be told through Hamilton's perspective. It's the reason why Jefferson is extremely cocky and why Madison doesn't appear to be anywhere close to the genius that he was. But to say that an eleven Tony Award winning musical is worse than an 8th grade pageant (1:47) and that he has done more research than an award winning author and a creator who is praised for getting the facts correct COMBINED (1:43) is toeing the line of extreme narcissism, even more so because Chernow admits in his biography that Hamilton was a slave owner multiple times. Yes there are Americans that are going to completely overlook the bad side of this history because the music is catchy, but there are hundreds of other people that would gladly tell you that this musical and no musical based off of anything is 100% accurate (including myself). It's supposed to make Hamilton look amazing because Hamilton thought he was amazing. So to say that we are ignoring history because not everything can be put into a 2 hour show is ridiculous. Yes, the slaves that helped shape our nations history need a spotlight shown on them. But we shouldn't be personally attacking somebody because their show wasn't the one to do that.

Dexter was so uncomfortable in that whole tour group omg his face when the man said "I'll be there with the lynch mob"

I was waiting for this....and that Beyonce moment was cringeworthy...

Seems weird to gloss over 1) just how prominent a figure Ishmael Reed is and 2) that Toni Morrison bankrolled his play because she also hated Hamilton

Those two white fans were kind of scary with their “choosing not to look at that part”s and their lynch mobs.

Ishmael Reed won a Macarthur GENIUS GRANT. They went over that real quick, but it's arguably the most prestigious award for intellectuals presented in the world. Irony of ironies - Lin Manuel Miranda is also a Macarthur Genius Grant award recipient.

There is no part of Hamilton that is worshipping Alexander Hamilton as a role model nor is a major focus of the musical to paint him as something he wasn’t, an abolitionist. If anything it’s John Laurens who in the musical and in real life devoted himself to fighting for the rights of blacks. In terms of Alexander Hamilton, the play depicts his relentless devotion to make a legacy for himself as an immigrant orphan despite the odds.

Would love to see Miranda’s response to this.

3:40 “I’ll be there with a lynch mob” Whoa, hold on there buddy

I would have an issue with "Hamilton" if it were trying to be 100% historically accurate. But nobody is making that claim. Its creator, Lin-Manuel Miranda, is not making that claim. "Hamilton" is a piece of art that tackles universal themes such as rising above our circumstances, the perils of pride and the obsession of leaving a legacy. That's why the play is a hit. Because whether you're from Puerto Rico, US mainland, Britain, Spain, Australia, these are universal themes.

“All black cast in Hamilton” This makes me confused....the cast is pretty diverse if you ask me

I like Hamilton the musical and I can also agree that it is historically inaccurate and problematic. You can feel more than one thing at once.

"this guy" i love how black people get 'this guy' can't even name his title or anything?

“I’ll be there with the lynch mob.. oop!” DEAD lmao made me like the video

This guy: I used Hamilton to destroy Hamilton

You can't ignore history just because you like a musical

"The tickets are a lot cheaper..." 😭

I think Lin was first and foremost trying to make a good story. His show is an increadible work of art, it's easily one of the best written and preformed shows to touch broadway. It's harder to like the characters when you know that most of them own slaves. Lin's show is looking at history through rose tinted glasses, but he was not trying to be malicious about it. The show isn't propaganda, it's art. If he put any research into Lin himself he would know that the show was made with good intentions, the diverse cast was chosen with good intentions and the historical changes were made to make it a better story. Lin isn't a patriotic history denyer.

Made a whole production The Haunting of Lin Manuel Miranda”? That’s a huge personal attack on someone just because you don’t like their play.

Although he has a point, I don't agree with the solution being "close the show". As he said before it's entertainment, therefore we could say that Disney's Pocahontas should be 'cancelled', because the true story was actually about an under aged girl who was taken hostage. Yet instead of canceling every piece of entertainment that has ever wrongfully portayed history, documentaries have been released that provide the viewer with factual information about the subject. The musical isn't supposed to be a fact by fact retelling of what happened, it's an art form, a piece of someone's interpretation. Personally, I disliked him kinda attacking Lin with his own musical, where he directly puts L.M.M. name in the title. He could spend time and effort by producing other stuff that help him inform people of U.S.A. history and not directly attack one person.

I would argue there is a subtle discussion of slavery in the play. Laurens is the only character who has abolition as his top priority. Hamilton may have been supportive of Laurens, but Hamilton never intended to end slavery as one of his ambitions. Hamilton ultimately cared more about securing his own legacy by gaining as much power as possible. Laurens' death to me is symbolic of the end of the slavery discussion as the new US government forms because none of the characters remaining in the play care about abolition by that point. Yes, we never get the slaves' perspectives but the play makes it clear the ideals of the revolution everyone fought for in act one are replaced by the personal egotistical agenda clashes of the power players in act two. In Hamilton "freedom" is defined as creating a space where one can climb the social ladder to the top if they can achieve things through merit. Sometimes heading to the top, those at the bottom are forgotten.

The title was clickbaity and made the guy look pettier than he is.

This guy is overreacting, I am not saying that his points aren't valid, I'm simply stating he is taking this way out of proportion. Hamilton is not a history lesson. It's a story. A work of art. Of course, not everything is going to be 100% accurate.

Considering the Rockefeller Foundation and the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American HIstory (the board of which happens to include Miranda's parents) have launched a multi-million-dollar history education program based entirely around this musical and targeting high schools in minority neighborhoods, we'd say the implications of the musical "not being completely historically accurate" actually matters quite a bit now.

I get what this man is saying. But god, not every single thing has to be historically accurate. If anything, it encouraged a lot of people to pick up a book and read the missing pieces. There's a difference with wanting to make a piece historically accurate, and having artistic freedom. Yes, we should not gloss over the fact that Hamilton had slaves himself, but we shouldn't also bury the fact that Madison, Jefferson, and Washington had more than him. The only story who was true was John Laurens and even so, that was to a degree. They failed to mention Laurens was married and had a daughter, that Mulligan was Irish, that Aaron Burr wasnt actually Charles Lee's second. There's so many other inaccuracies in Hamilton, but in the end it is an artistic choice that works. It's not just the story that makes it amazing. Its the music, and what exactly inspired, not just the words and melody, but 4 simple notes that reappear throughout with a purpose. "Shut the whole thing down" The musical is going to pull a Les Mis, it ain't shutting down anytime soon. With 4 national tours, a West End show, and kicking strong at the Richard Rogers theatre, this show, with it's obvious inaccuracy will thrive. And that's okay. People learn more about Alexander Hamilton because after listening to the soundtrack, they wanted to see what is true and what wasnt.

"Close the show." "Close Hamilton?" "Yeah" Him: 🤨, 👁👄👁 The other dude: 👁👄👁 Me: 👁👄👁

Here is my issue about with this person. Hamilton never said the at historical accurate representation of the life of Hamilton. Lin Marina has said several times. Also, Hamilton did manage the slaves of his father in law but his house never owned slaves because he was against the idea of slavery. That the difference. He lived at the time when slavery (sadly) essential to the economy and was one of the few voices (especially his wife ) at the time that was actively against slavery. Nobody perfect but at least tried to change and did so in some way. That is important.

I think the playwright went on a lot harder on the play and Lin specifically than I would, but he did make a great point about how many people go to see Hamilton and then consider that all the history lesson they need. It would have been interesting to interview more POC who went to see Hamilton, because I feel like even enjoying it, they wouldn’t have had the same “well I’ll just pick and choose history” viewpoint that the white people in the tour group had.

The actors in the musical talked about and struggled with their characters. Primarily Daveed Diggs and Christopher Jackson. And have talked openly about how it felt to play a slave owner, hell at the end of the play when Eliza talks about slavery Chris bows his head to symbolize the failure of the founding fathers. There’s even a cut part of the musical (Cabinet Battle Three) that talks about it too. I think it’s a little ignorant to see that and think that that should be the only take away from the musical. While yes the portrayal was incorrect. Hamilton has so much more to give and so much more that it discusses (immigrants contribution, changing a broken system, standing up for what’s right, forgiveness and legacy). Again, I’m not saying it can’t be criticized. But I just don’t see it fit to dismiss the entire cast and crew who made such a entertainment masterpiece because of an inaccuracy in Hamilton’s portrayal. When Lauren’s was an excellent character, and the actors talked about the slave aspect many times.

I guess I'll give my thoughts Hamilton is not a documentary: if this guy doesn't like Hamilton that's fine, but criticizing Hamilton because it's not 100% historically accurate (or 80% really) isn't fair because that isn't what it's meant to be. Let me pose to you a situation, the world was wide enough portrays the duel Hamilton as aiming his pistol to the sky while burr shoots him, there is a debate about if Hamilton did that or not and it's more realistic to say that Hamilton did shoot. Hamilton becomes a more compelling story if story Hamilton didn't shoot, instead of Hamilton sticking to his guns and burr changing you get a switch, burr decided not to wait for it and did something off of impulse and Hamilton waited, the entire musical near every time burr failed it's because he waited instead of acted, in the version where Hamilton tried to shoot burr you have burr go through actual real character development whereas Hamilton stays static at his core, in the version that exists they both change because of each other highlighting the impact they both had on each other lives. Hamilton isn't a documentary and it shouldn't be. You might as well criticize Hamilton because "they wouldn't actually debate via song in Congress" or "The king wouldn't actually flamboyantly prance around his palace singing to himself about foreign affairs"

God some of these comments are literally proving Ishmael Reed’s point 😩

I love Hamilton, but this dude makes a great point and I totally agree with him, good on him for putting this out there.

Putting goofy music under this guy, who is a great writer and has much to say on the topic, is so incredibly condescending.

guy: *hates hamilton and sees it* hamiltrash: *loves it and probably can’t see it*

Leave it to Karen to say she's going to ignore the history because she likes something.

“If seen better eighth grade pageants” I don’t remember an eighth grade pageant getting nominated for 16 tony awards. I also doubt that “the haunting of Lin Manuel Miranda” would get one.

Ishmael Reed represents a much-needed figure in every period. We need people that are more skeptical and keep reminding us not to romanticize people who committed horrible crimes against humanity and/or were complicit to them. I can't overstate how MUCH I LOVE Hamilton. Every time I listen to specific songs I cry, it moves me every damn time and I am AMAZED by the lyrical and musical prowess of Miranda writing the whole damn play. This does not mean that I don't agree with Reed (well.... maybe I don't agree when he says that an 8th grade pageant would do better but eh I don't get offended when he says that) on his criticisms about whitewashing and about how cringy it is to see representations of people who used others for slavery talk about freedom - I personally always feel a little cringe when Miranda as Hamilton calls out Daveed's Jefferson on the south being sustained by slavery. On the other hand, I feel that it is important for actors of color to be featured and to be acclaimed for their performances. Even if it is kind of offensive and cringy people of color (especially black people) representing slave-owners, I think it would have been even worse if the cast was historically accurate - all white. tl;dr; I agree with Reed's criticism and I think his statement is important even though I love Hamilton with all my heart. I think what we love needs to receive and to be able to handle criticism

This video proves Ishmael Reed's points. The white tourists and tour guides trying to whitesplain away the buying and selling of human beings made me sick to my stomach.

just so you guys know ishmael reed has been an activist and writer since before lin manuel miranda was even born.

I have one thing to say; Hamilton isn’t a documentary.

Some things in Hamilton were probably inaccurate to the actual history, but this guy doesn’t understand the message of the musical. Plus Hamilton is an interpretation and the play he wrote was basically an insult to Lin Manuel Miranda’s work, not knowing how much effort and hard work he spent into Hamilton and the community that supported the musical. All in all, Hamilton maybe historically inaccurate but it’s just a musical and you just have to leave as it is.

The tour guide said “And I OOP-“

I never looked at it from this perspective. I kinda agree with this guy.

Hamilton: *Talks about family, love, camaraderie and never giving up and played with a cast that showed the racial diversity of the modern-day America* Haters: *Ignores the good parts and the tweets by Lin-Manuel Miranda regarding the changing of some plot parts of the musical to enhance the over all dramatic experience of the play and make it positive for the sake of the audience*

If you ever have a flavorless dish, bring that man around because he is salty af. 😑

Im just going to point out im a history major: Hamilton was an abolitionist but most abolitionist in the 1700s weren't as serious as later. He did however, manage the sale of schuyler slaves to impress his rich inlaws. Whats ironic though is Hamilton was against free immigration and was the leading conservative for his time (by todays standards he would be a big business liberal) But what people dont understand is biographies (ive read many, even as a young kid) ussualy portray the figures in their perspectives (like their thoughts and personal mistakes) so if miranda based it from a biography, its going to be told in their perspective the same way that miranda was a migrants kid and stresses Hamilton as an immigrant. But above all, its just a story. Its not saying anything about black people thats bad and portrays slavery as something bad. If you want to know the truth, i encourage you to study history, but I know every inaccuracy known and i still love it. I respect the mans decision to not like it on personal beliefs, but its ok to like a story for what it is as long as thats only what you take it as: a story. Otherwise you'll probably hate almost every Disney movie you grew up with

This guy says that everyone's painting Hamilton and history itself in a positive light. Yes, that's inaccurate. You know what else is inaccurate? Saying that the Founding Fathers did no good and were nothing more then slave-holder and native exterminators. History is not positive. It's not negative either. It's just the truth. While we should definitely not ignore that the Founders of America were slave-owners, we should also not undermine there achievements because of it. It would be not be truthful to say Hamilton was a good person who was upstandingly moral all the time. It would also not be truthful to say he wasn't immensely inspiring and successful considering his position, or was nothing but a terrible person. People aren't perfect, and never were. Yes, even Founding Fathers. I think the main reason why so many people fall into the all-negative pithole is because we can't admit nor fathom just how human these creators of a nation were. Adams was brilliant, but was also a paranoid wreck. Jefferson was a great philosopher, but wasn't always very clear-sighted beyond his theory-world. Hamilton was greatly ambitious and immensely moral, but also failed to enact his morality all the time and was immensely cynical to the point of idiocy. Yes, they were these things, and they can be both good and bad.

I disagree with this guy. Personally I’ve never seen Hamilton because that shits way to expensive lol. But I am familiar with the sound track. Anyway, the fact that Manuel allowed a black/Hispanic cast to portray founding fathers was very beautiful to me. I’ve only known the play through audio, so while I was listening to it, in my mind all the characters displayed their confidence and humanity through the music. When I was done listening to Hamilton a few dozen times, I searched it up online. In my mind I pictured the actor of George Washington as a tall white guy and I was completely mind blown to see that it was being played by a black actor! There where black and Latino actors portraying these powerful historical characters! It was nice to see Black and Latino people were holding high positions like Presidents, senators and high ranking officials even if it was in a “semi-fictional” play. As a young Latino man, I was very moved by the play and not by the story of Hamilton itself but by the inclusion of “minority” actors in the play. As a young Latino man, my people are reported to be connected to cartels, drugs, violence, corruption, oppression, poverty, etc. Although some of these things might be true, Some of us are trying are very best to rise above this horrendous life we were born into. To see “minorities” portraying powerful figures such as the great founding fathers gives me a hope of, “maybe, just maybe someday we can make it”. I feel like this old man in the video didn’t interpreted the message that Lin Manuel wanted to portray with the inclusion of black and African actors.

I mean, Hamilton founded an abolitionist society in New York and was one of the few American leaders to publicly support the Haitian Revolution. He wasn't John Brown, but he wasn't Jefferson Davis either. It really seems like this guy was just looking for a reason to hate the play. And I say this as someone who doesn't really care for the musical.

The tour guide was spot on, Hamilton is a work of art (and it's a musical, not a play). It's a story told from the main character's, Alexander Hamilton's, perspective. Has Mr. Reed never heard of the concept of the unreliable narrator? This whole discussion in the video actually reminds me of one of my favorite memes that circulated back when Hamilton first started to catch on in popularity. It was a text box where characters like Madison, Jefferson, Burr, and so on, were pointing out historical inaccuracies for each of their characters in turn. They were all minor changes made to fit the flow of the show (dates, locations, the order of battles, things like that) interspersed among each of their lines was a single word from Hercules Mulligan. If you read down the box (like an acrostic poem) you could see he was saying (in all caps) WHAT'S THIS ABOUT HORSE F@#$ING? In the same way that Hamilton wasn't a woke saint (not that the show claims that he was, but whatever), Mulligan never engaged in acts of bestiality. It's a story about Alexander Hamilton set to music. If you want the pure history, read Chernow's 800+ page biography.

Hated the idea of Hamilton and the fact that it was a history piece that white people were obsessed with is all I needed to know. Lol 😂

"Close the show" "Close the show?" "Yah" "Close Hamilton?" "Yah" *stares intensely*

It’s kinda like “The Greatest Showman” , the show runners for Hamilton never posted or said “based on true events” at the beginning of the show. So considering how Hamilton presents itself, I don’t think any one is taking historical notes from a musical.

Lin said it himself that Hamilton not historically accurate because it needs to fit into a musical style. You can’t really fit a whole life of someone in 2 hours and you do have to change a few things. But the musical did get me to go and learn more about it.

I get trying to point out the missing pieces of history in Hamilton, but the musical was already incredibly long compared to many other modern musicals. I still think Miranda did a wonderful job with Hamilton

Is he also going to point out that Hamilton, Laurens, Mulligan, Jefferson, Madison, and Washington were not, in fact, rappers? I love history. Of course not every single thing is going to derive from a college textbook on the American Revolution. The joy in the musical is appreciating the adaptations for what they are--what's the fun in picking out the historical inaccuracies? The broad story line is largely correct, which in my mind makes the show more fascinating to watch. I'm not saying we should ignore the bad of that time by any means, but it's possible to enjoy and appreciate the show for what it is at the same time.

Good for him. It’s an interesting perspective, and he has a strong backing for all his points. It’s a good conversation to be had.

the reason Hamilton is portrayed as more of a hero than he may have actually been, is because it's absolutely necessary for the people watching to like the character of Hamilton. I agree with the tour guide, it is a play and there is an amazing, positive message that the play spreads. although it is not entirely historically accurate, some of the historical details would've taken away from the plot. in the end, this isn't a biography, it's a play.

I don't blame him for making fun of Lin Manuel-Miranda. Lin also took part in writing the Encanto soundtrack and it also sucks ass.

I can’t believe some of these comments... there’s a difference between “not being completely historically accurate” and romanticizing this story in a way that makes people are uncomfortable. Forgetting that Phillip Schuyler had a son is a forgiveable bit of historical innaccuracy. There’s not much to unpack there - he just didn’t know. Hamilton being characterized as an avid abolitionist is a deliberate detail that warrants criticism. Of course this is for entertainment, but you can also look at the implications of entertainment on society, and how an author’s choices about which events they choose to alter change the context and meaning of the piece.

A lot of yall are missing the point of this man's play. It's not simply that its historically inaccurate, but *what* Lin *chose* to leave out in order to ensure his lead would be likeable. And you cannot sit here and tell me that didn't have a material negative effect. Hamilton stans ARE the negative effect. Y'all literally cannot come to terms with the idea that a musical that gave you serotonin might have some issues. You are so desperate and afraid of any conflict you make up excuse after excuse to defend.... a musical? Art is not some holy thing that is immune from faults or criticism, and appreciating art isn't about mindlessly stanning it. I get it, negative feelings feel bad and dont make you happy, but life isn't about living in ignorant bliss so please get critical or you're going to get left behind.

I have to agree with ishmu reed, but I prefer to look at the play as a retelling of our founding myth not about historical accuracies. Representing how we feel now, more than how it was. I think peoples poor understanding of our founding fathers is not an issue of the play but our educational system.

Even though I love Hamilton, he has a point...

Miranda has said that Hamilton isn’t a textbook and that he’s just trying to make it seem more modern. And Hamilton was still very progressive compared to other people at that time. No. He wasn’t “woke” but nobody was

Acclaimed black historian and writer: “this musical made by a Latino man about a slave owner makes me uncomfortable” Ppl with brainworms: “YOU DIDNT GET IT. ITS A MAKING A STATEMENT” (Also I want you to know Toni Morrison funded Reed’s play too)

This guy is a narcissist if he thinks he's done more research than Chernow, who wrote a 700+ page novel on Alexander Hamilton m

Funny how the play with the most diverse cast literally had to be about the whitest thing possible

I think Miranda was just trying to make a play about Alexander Hamilton. To me it just seemed like he was trying to be diverse 😂😂 Like chill dude

It’s theatre. No one has this reaction to Les Mis. Or Miss Saigon. Or any other play/musical that made a statement on important historical events. So why now? Because it’s made millions, has a world wide spread, and this guy is jealous? Maybe. Who knows? At the end of the day, Hamilton is there to entertain the masses. I understand that there are historical inaccuracies, but that’s theatre. There has to be some changes in order to create a more ‘theatrically interesting’ piece of theatre. Hamilton did so much for the diversity of people, bringing together, LGBTQ, Blacks, POC, Asian, white and all other people together for just a couple of to bask in the glory of a musical that is theatrically stunning and a composer, orchestrator, choreographer, and all the other people involved to create such a magnificent show. Hamilton will never close. Not for a long time. Miranda found a gap in the market and took advantage. Just like Rogers, Hammerstein, Olivier and all the rest.

Hamilton is A story of Alexander Hamilton not THE story

Also, if Lin had kept "Cabinet Battle #3" (The demo's up on RU-vid. Look it up now if you havent) in the musical, this petty parody play probably wouldnt have existed

I enjoyed that the dude's criticism of Miranda and Hamilton was a play of his own. It's like rap battles. The art is enhanced by the sparring of the two to hopefully, in the future, make better plays.

"but no one Actually thinks Alexander Hamilton was a good person, the musical is told through his perspective of course it's biased" hey as someone who was neck deep in the tumblr Hamilton fandom, ur dead wrong lmao. I reblogged Miku binder Thomas Jefferson unironically so you can take my word for it.

Misleading title. He doesn't hate Hamilton he is setting the history straight. Again this man is absolutely right

Wait didn’t Hamilton wright essays against slavery? Didn’t he also support John Lawrence and his dream of a black battalion?

Lin Manuel Miranda never said that the musical was completely historically accurate

"well im choosing not to look at that part" IGNORANCE AT ITS FINEST. Not to mention the tumblr hamilton fans, that's a whole new level of crazy.

Should all pieces of entertainment be historically accurate?

lets remember the musical also shows him tell his son to shoot at the sky, he shoots at the sky, he cheats on his wife, and it wasnt a quick hookup he banged maria multiple times and payed to keep things hush hush, and voted for a man he hated just to keep a man who has done no harm to him from winning. it paints him as Hamilton, not a perfect (far from it) human being.

I see a lot of people in the comments saying that the point of "Hamilton" was that it was viewing history through rose colored glasses and that the story is told from Hamilton's PoV, but I think this guy's point is that it shouldn't have been made with that that perspective

Can we just agree that making a play about bashing someone who spent years of hard work and dedication on something is a little to far

This guy is so much cooler than Lin Manuel. The way they whitewash Hamilton literally buying and selling people is fucked up

I think the Hamilton musical perfectly captured the passion and contradictions of the founding fathers.

But that play looks so bad, though. I think this piece could be a really interesting forum of debate, but make it live up to the art form of theater. As is, it looks like a bad high school production of Our Town.

I have nothing against disagreeing with the play but making a play about the haunting of the author is super aggressive

For a person that likes historical facts and truth , I can’t say I don’t disagree with this man, he’s right.

The thing is.. lin knows about slavery, and he knows that Hamilton wasn't a perfect person

I like Hamilton but his points ARE valid

HAMILTON IS AMAZING THESE PEOPLE DONT DESERVE A PLAY

But Lin never claimed that the musical was all facts.

Hamilton isnt a racist musical. I have seen it listened to it and memorized it (I know it is bad), but the way they portray the presidents etc are just amazing. They are telling a modern version of Hamilton's story. It isnt racist but I understand why you would think that.

I love how people are taking this so SERIOULSY. Dudes, I’m black and this ain’t racist. It’s a flipping PLAY! Yes, Hamilton him self was racist (maybe I don’t know all the detail) but Lin Manuel Miranda was making a PLAY, people. A PLAY. He never said it was to be 100% accurate. It has the main points and facts, and then presented to make characters likeable and loved. It was written as a story told through music, not a history documentary. Lin himself isn’t racist. He put effort into making sure he has a diverse cast. I cannot stress this enough: ITS A PLAY PEOPLE, WATCH IT, ENJOY IT. IF YOU DONT, YOUR OPINION.

Hamilton was political propaganda. Burr was misrepresented. Charles Lee, misrepresented. Washington, deified. Jefferson, villainized. There is so many historical inaccuracies that if you took any of it at face value, you would be woefully misinformed about the revolution and it's diverse cast of characters. Plain and simple, I like my historical fiction to be accurate. Hamilton does not provide that experience.

It’s art. Lin has even said that he’s taken liberties to make it work in the musical form. The choice to cast PoC, the use of modern music and looking at issues like slavery with a modern perspective.... it’s all showing that it is NOT to be taken as historically accurate and that it’s not concerned with that. I feel like this guy is being wilfully offended.

In something of a meta way, the show itself recognizes that it might not be true. Hamilton, while skilled with his words and dedicated to a fault, is not portrayed as a paragon of men. In fact, quite the opposite: Act 1 shows his rise from poverty, his place in the war, and his contributions to gaining independence. All positive things. Act 2 looks into how Hamilton’s own narcissism, stubbornness, and immaturity got the better of him later in his life. He refuses to let go of any insult, whether it be from Thomas Jefferson or from his own party members, such as John Adams. He refuses to accept that sometimes being quiet is necessary lest you get yourself in further trouble, as proven with his crafting of the Reynolds Pamphlet in response to claims that he was a traitor. And of course, he refuses to relent on anything, even the simple act of apologizing to Aaron Burr. And that costs him is life. Hamilton is shown to be a great man, but not a _good_ man. He’s petty, self-centered, relentless, and highly confrontational. But at the same time, it’s told from his perspective, so with it being so centered on him, we see an exaggerated version of him. A pure genius. An abolitionist. A hero. And maybe he was all those things, to an extent, but clearly he thought quite highly of himself. The show almost shows us the Hamilton he himself would’ve wanted us to see. And that’s the point. Something interesting some people forget, something that many don’t even know, is that the basic premise of Hamilton is that in this depiction, Hamilton is likened to a classic ‘80s or ‘90s hip hop artist, almost to the point of stereotype. A poor minority who never knew his father and grew up impoverished, who escaped his bad situation and influenced the movements of the day just on the merit of his spoken and written word. Hamilton is, if you will, the first hip hop artist and activist, in a very loose sense. Obviously some things are changed between actual history and the show, and those differences should be noted by viewers and listeners, but the goal of changing them is to create a more cohesive narrative that fits that basic premise. Hamilton wasn’t an abolitionist, or if he was he was likely a hypocrite by simultaneously owning slaves and benefiting directly from the institution, but a modern hip hop artist would idealize freeing those in bondage from their shackles, especially in a literal sense. So the fictional Hamilton has to be abolitionist. It’s to fit a narrative. And I think on those grounds, Lin Miranda can be forgiven for historical inaccuracy.

They’re really portraying him like some crazy dude and he’s not