We should probably get started. A great many people will have a great deal to say. And we ought to do what we can to make that happen. Welcome to the panel, the econd panel on hamilton. I am arby bernstein, i teach at city college at the colin powell for civic and global leadership. And i will spare you the rest. I would like to introduce my colleagues. I will introduce them in the order in which they will be speaking. We will be going down the row. Mr. Carp the professor of American History at brooklyn college. He is author of defiance of the patriots, the Boston Tea Party, and the making of america. The Boston Tea Party and the making of america. And rebels rising cities in the making of the American Revolution. Nancy is the author most recently of white trash, the 400 year untold history of class in america. Which is just been reviewed by the New York Times book review and the new yorker among other places. She is also the author of fallen founders, the life of aaron burr, the finalist for the l. A. Times book prize, and the coauthor with bernstein of madison and jefferson. Her first book, setch and citizenship in antebellum america was awarded the best book prize in 1999. She is a professer of American History at l. S. U. And writes regularly. Heather is professer at chair of the departments of drama and dance. She is author of early American Theater from the revolution to Thomas Jefferson, slavery and sentiment on the american stage 1787 and 1861, and the fortscoming, the best title, hideous characters and beautiful payingance. Performing jewish identity on the antibellium stage. I agree. Im looking forward to that one. She is also the author of many book chapters Journal Articles and editted volumes. Andrew is professer of history and American Culture studies. He is the author of fighting over the founders, how we remember the American Revolution which i had the pleasure to review for american political thought and founding Corporate Power in early philadelphia. Professer carp will lead us off. The show about a moncrath and friend of a banker, pries and lying eyes. Become the toast of sheer participants. A 10 man of action head of faction cut his life. I have a whole version of this thats entirely inverted but i , i when i started rhyming would get in a lot of trouble. So i will start by saying what we all confess how youve seen the show. Ive seen it three times but never listened to the sound trak. The song remains impressed upon my memory. I also should confess that i dont really care that much about the socalled Founding Fathers while i admire all the great works, lets face it, theyre actors this their broader ensemble. So in other words i stand for nothing but i want to explain why i fell for the show just as some of its brightest critics did. The show focuses on one of the big six Founding Fathers. But what we need to know is how well and in what way does it engage with the broader history of the revolution. The story dispatches with his early years in the first song and bulk of the show takes us from 1774 through the revolution war, the constitution, the administrations and the election of 18 o 00 and his death in 1804. How well does the show perform as history . Ome would say pretty well. Consulting primary sources directly, quotes extensively and even uses facksimlies of them on stage. She broadened out to get a sense of broader context. While referencing hiphop. Hers would say that the show relies too heavily on his slavery credentials. And deemphasized or even cell briesed some of his milt tarristic. But the problem is there is little scholarly criticism of the initial biography back when it came out in 2004 which has left current critics poorly equipped to engage in the debate over the quality of the musicals history now. There was a debate over the exhibit which i think was there from 20042005 so weve been here before, but ive seen few recent references to that debate either. Secondly, miranda told a story that focused on elite characters missing opportunities to show how the revolution affected by a broader swath of the population, how the revolution engaged with broader social and political movements. As we know, when a stage or screen performance you need a robust narrative throughline and that demand is the gravity that keeps popular naretters toward the founders. And this is not much of an exception in this regard. This is why we keep seeing stories, which frust traits academics who find this too simplistic for understanding history finally he told a story with very Fierce Female characters who dont have a lot of agency and mostly respond to what the men are doing, although even here high lights the anachronism of the scholar church asking for womens equality. O theres interesting stuff. The movie, the patriot is the history as godzilla is to biography. Biology. So whatever criticisms, it is not this generations pate are the. It is better than that. And if i can venture its treatment of history and race. Sir were not slaves we work the land as free men. Our faces melted off. I saw that movie in london. Theyre like a caricature of the french officer. So what does the show actually say about the revolution . We won the war. What was it all for . Hamilton vaguely answers this question. About glory seeking immigrants. Never mind his material advantages. Challenging a distant tyrant. The show was designed to make americans feel pretty good. Never mind the fate of the enslaved and dispossessed. And the constitution was about getting that country on a stable footing free from foreign endangelements and petty domestic interests. Ver mind the squeezed or the act. Overall the show serves up pretty vanilla stuff. But before the audience can interrogate any of this too deeply, you get swept up in the petty rivalries of the honorbound elite and the Hamilton Family. The show becomes about character even invoking who you would rather grab a beer with from the 2000 election rather than policy. Interestingly, the show has eliza speculate that he could have done so much more if he would only lives. But speds more time that his early death gave him time to shape his own legacy. Although the show shows he would driven himself into irrelevance. I think protagonist, maybe hero, not so much. But we can debate that later. Iticisms of interpretation are completely valid and i want more of them. Im not trying to argue that its just a show and thereby beneath my highbrow criticism or we shouldnt sully ourselves with engaging with it because Popular Culture does matter to our audience students and nor would i argue on the other hand that somehow puts us to shame by presenting revolutiony history to a wider audience because that gives him too much credit. He as any arises achievements on our shoulders. We can and should be able to have it both ways. For what he gets right and gets wrong. In the end, is it good history is the wrong question. The audience knows its not strict history because were seeing people break into song, sophisticated corog if i. But we are asked to suspend belief and indeed in interesting ways. And this is vital to understanding the show and some of the really critics of the show havent seen it so they dont get whats there in the lyrics or in the songs is interacting with what the actors are doing physically obstage or what the visual representations are doing to enhance your multilevel understanding of whats going on in the show. So theres a dramatic problem. So what is the right question . In the same way that American Jews have traditionally asked of world events, but is it good for the jews . Our tribes must ask is it good for historians . I would say yes. Saying he was trying to earn our respect and he does deserve it for two reasons. One having to do with race and revolution. The new yorker reported early on that miranda was paying attention to the case in Staten Island and fergen. Were screaming rise up in my shot and a lot of people are feeling that way. So while some critics have been horrified that the show has no characters of color and instead a nonwhite cast playing white slave holders, the fact that the cast members are people of color allows miranda to construct the 18th century connect the 18 ds century revolution to current movements against police brutality, et cetera. To end the death with no defendants possibly referring to the nonindictment of Police Officers who caused fatalities. Again the show has no nonwhite characters, so does the color conscious casting solve this problem or deflect from it like a stage musician . The show makes use of a kind of prophetic memory that reconfigures the past to imagine a better future. Hamilton himself was not all that antislavery but miranda can still craft a work of art that argues for racial injustice. If thats surreal and provocative or just a defensive eraysure of people or color. Thats Something Else we can debate. But i say this sncht just about race or class and immigration status, its also about the timehonored theme of broadway musicals. Be true to yourself, follow your dreams. When he accepted the award, he quoted the show how lucky we are to be alive right now. D poigsy with the audience great theater heightens our emotional responses, use it had word passionate last night. Not just to the show itself but to the wider world. And that can be good for leading audiences to more eemple pa thetic broadranging and innovative investigation of the past. I think its important to way it treats history. Uses imaginative interventions to fill gaps in the record just like we do. So i would argue the show actually enhances the publics understanding of the revolution. At the very least hamilton encourages audiences to explore historical inquiries further. During the past year i initiated the narratives of the revolution series interviewing authors to see how they use fictional treatments to illuminate the truths about the revolution while reaching audiences beyond your typical book club subscribers. So the astonishing live of ok tavia nothing. Or chains and forge and the forth coming book ashes, writes these are both have black and female characters at their center telling a version that we would not otherwise have access to. While im more ambivalent, because by contrast its principal subjects are wellknown figures, i think the show benefits us as we study and teach the revolution by opening up questions about how we analyze and interpret the past. From four or five different songs, in the room, thomas writes well never really know what got discussed. Saying im erasing myself from the narratives. Were being called out. You have no control who lives who dies who tells your story. In the world was wide enough. The history obliterates in every picture it paints. Were constantly trying to tell our students that history isnt a dead recitation but a lively conversation full of missing pieces, redactions, owe clusions, repeating stories and manipulation. Hamilton the show confesses that its own portrayal is hardly the only way to tell the story. It deconstructs, remixes. Calling america an unfinished symphony. Better fits as described an org anicist. However tempted some might treat it as an essentialist show celebrating the vauls of elite propagnist. Some, but the show strongly argues, it shouldnt the last stop. The audience should keep reading, keep learning, and keep looking for inspiration. Its up to us to carve out some of the spotlight to write our way out. But at the same time, hamilton has made the world wider for us and i think thats worthy of our respect. I would be honored to be your obe edynt servant. Well, i feel like this is saturday night live so this is going to be the opposite view in a lot of ways about what has been said even though in certain points i think we do agree. My take is that whether professional hist torns agree or not, hamilton has been widely praised. Jodie of the New York Times asserted without qualification that the musical was a rigorously factual period drama. The Washington Post credited the historical hamilton for envisioning the United States as the federal industrial democracy we have today. As opposed to jeffersons agrarian out openenism. They ignore that major and not so hip constituency were wealthy speculators. Theater lovers on the internet ardently defend the production as a Genuine Article of history. Charlie rose when he interviewed insisted that it was not only history but something that could and should replace all traditional historical interpretation. Miranda demurd but that didnt stop growth. Publicity for the musical centered on the biography of hamilton. The same strategy was used for hbos john adams, the mini series claimed to be based on David Mcculloughs biography. It really wasnt. T as jeremy meticulously demonstrated, the Television Production was riddled with flagrant errors. I dont remember anyone having a problem with sterns careful survey not of a selective few of the factual errors. And i think its not knit picking. And thats a critique that you get for pointing out what i think are more Serious Problems and errors with the musical. I see the musical as far less original than others claim it is. As i pointed out in my Washington Post piece burs character reliss on a well established device used by his political enemies and later fiction writers. The plots in the musical is simple. His behavior is traced back to the loss of his parents which supposedly led him to lose his moral compass. The lyrics are quite explicit. And then he becomes the coming flipflopper who waits to see, quote which way the wind blows, is developed along predictable lines. We call this type casting. In the end it makes for good opera but the real historical conditions that shape the relationship between hamilton and bur are irrelevant. For me the most flagrant bias is hamiltons personality is stripped of his less than desirable qualities. Miranda has been quite open in saying that, hamilton is my man. Americans have had a nak for turning them into heroes. Some call it sheik, others to sustain patriotic pride. Every generation reinvents the founders in itsd own image. One reason i think hamilton is so popular is the powerful mixture of innocence and recklessness that is channeled through his character. Theater goers treated to vigorous youth, brazen sex appeal, macho brashness, capped off by socalled genius, all wrapped up in a loving and whimscal portrait of hamilton who tells it like it is in the pounding nonstop rhythms of hiphop. But as we know, as historians know, hamilton was far more calculating and at times could be utterly vicious. He had no love for the unwashed masses. That side never appears because it undermines what i think is still a historic story line. As written to me in an email, hamilton allows americans to overcome disillusionment with the founders when slavery enters the picture. So what is clear that hamilton purchased slaves and his fatherinlaw owned as many as 27 slaves, his northernness, his caribbeanness, is conflated with abolitionism. But this slight of hand is what makes hamilton much less progressive than appears to be at first glance. As david summed it up, it desires to offer a view but envelope offering a for founders sheek. I would add it has to do with more politics. His hamilton is a simbol for the age of obama. Listen to how nate silver writing described obama in 2009. Hes the first president who is unmistakeably urban, pragmatic, superior, hip, stubborn, multicultural. As everyone knows the earliest trial run performance was in the white house. As a consequence of this act of trance ferns the historical hamilton is given obama like quality, genius, pragmatic, concerned, stubborn, and clearly the most farfetched attribute of all, hamilton is a hip multicultural pop star. By this calculation, if hamilton is like obama, then the American Dream is really possible. We also have to seriously evaluate the medium. The world of theater relies on emotion creating, and a different take, creating a fantasy world in which the past is wrapped up in the warm glow of illusion. It is, i think, more man iplative than dry historical prose but clearly much more fun because its goal is not to be objective but to make the audience repress nationality and indulge in is he ductive power of playfulness. Dancing and singing invites the audience. The harsh reality of the early republic is hidden as retold as a fairy tale. The founders are americas version of camelot and versions have been around since at least the early 20th century. Have we all forgotten 1776 so quickly . A grew up loving tap dance. Im certain but now ive been corrected, we are the only two on this panel who probably took tap dance lessons. My favorite danceers. But i never would confuse singing in the rain with an accurate history of early hollywood. I have a different take on the gender. I am actually troubled by what i see as the foe feminism. This is not an embrace of womens history miranda has relocated the more credible 18th century feminism of aaron burr his wife and daughter to the more conventional skilers. The reason is fairly obvious. Hamilton must always be the progressive icon. I find it quite dismissive as warming the bed. This is the only reference to her that without actually using her name and reduces his future wife to an adult rer and a mistress. If the same device used with sally who is merely mentioned in the interest of attacking everyson. So my question is, what could possibly be less progressive than to trash the women as a means to bring down the men . The larger difficulty is that this fake feminism is a common pattern what i call the Molly Pitcher syndrome. Instead of talking about feminism, they create a fake heroic female character. The female lead is given qualities she never had. Abigail was learned in latin. She was not. She was knowledgeable enough to tell her husband how to revive his Defense Strategy in representing the british officers