“Hamilton”: The Revolution betrayed

Everything I needed to know about “Hamilton” I learned in seven minutes. That’s right, folks: One clip on YouTube confirmed every suspicion I had about progressives’ bizarre new obsession with early American history.

For the uninitiated, “Hamilton” is a Broadway production, and a smashing success at that. Directed by New Yorker of Puerto Rican extraction, Liz Manuel-Miranda, it is an attempt to dramatize the life of Founding Father Alexander Hamilton for the big stage through the groove of hip-hop.

Doesn’t sound bad, right? In an age where American history is more neglected than ever,  a popular musical showcasing the lives of the Founders of our country ought to pique the general public’s interest in the formative years of our nation.

Problem: When liberals suddenly start gushing about American history in a positive light, every conservative worth his salt knows something is fishy is going on. The fact that the radically-Left Obama Administration decided to spare ol’ Alex from being axed from the $20 bill tells you everything you need to know.

Since when did Leftists become interested in America’s founding? The only parts of America’s history that seem to excite them either positively or negatively, in no particular order, are: FDR’s New Deal, the Kennedy years, the Civil Rights Movement, the Vietnam War protests, the Sixties in general, the ‘Red Scare’, the displacement of Native Americans, and—you guessed it!—slavery.

In fact, slavery is the only thing that leftists associate with the period between 1607 and 1865. Literally. Names such as George Washington, John Adams, George III, et al. have no meaning to them—they’re just “dead old white men.”

(Only Thomas Jefferson out of the Founders elicits a real emotional response from the Left: he didn’t include women, trans*folk, or blacks in his “All men are created equal” clause—and he owned slaves!—but he did defy sexual norms by carrying on with Sally Hemmings. So there’s that.)

So when my progressive friends suddenly started gushing about “Hamilton” in April, a non-socialist red flag immediately went up in my mind.

My liberal friends are lovely people, though sadly misguided politically. Many of them were involved in theatre, so perhaps that’s from where their enthusiasm for this production was derived. But why not another musical? Why “Hamilton”?

After months of “Hamilton”-mania, my suspicions were vindicated. Sure enough, the cast of America’s hottest new melange of authentic song/interpretive dance/‘spoken word’ is to give a private fundraising performance of said musical on July 12 for none other than the Duchess of Chappaqua herself, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

This led me to, naturally, look up a seven-minute performance of the cast performing a number at the Tony Awards on YouTube. (Considering seats to “Hamilton” cost upwards of $100,000 and are sold out for the next six years, I had to make do with the next-best option.)

Manuel-Miranda himself took the starring role as Alexander Hamilton. His hair tightly wound in a non-aesthetically pleasing ‘man bun’, he was flanked by a diverse chorus that is every college admission officer’s wet dream.

Gyrating to the groove of his own mediocre rhyme while clad in a pretend eighteenth-century Continental Army uniform, Manuel-Miranda greeted the Marquis de Lafayette. Last time I checked, the noble Marquis (a friend of my great-great-great-great-great grandfather who fought in the Revolution, by the way) was a white Frenchman of what is now considered ‘average’ stature.

Not so in “Hamilton”: Monsieur Lafayette is a tall black man. And then came the kicker—“Immigrants—we get the job done!” the duo exclaimed, to rapturous cheers from the audience. Up yours, Donald Trump!

Women are suddenly allowed to be Continental Army soldiers; the Marquis de Lafayette is black; Alexander Hamilton himself is Puetro Rican; there’s nary a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant in sight. Somehow the next song, “The World Turned Upside Down” (in which the chorus walked around dazed while carrying pieces of furniture in the air) expressed this sentiment perfectly.

In the comments section of a rather glowing review of “Hamilton” found on that impenetrable bastion of the American Right, National Review Online, one foolish commenter claimed he was pleased at the diversity of the cast, because now the American Origin Story is for everybody!

Really? I doubt it. No offense to women, trans*folk or black people, but white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant men created America. Sorry. The disguising of this fact—oh, look! let’s make Hamilton Hispanic; let’s make the Marquis black!—isn’t fooling anyone.

In fact, when I see “Hamilton,” I’m reminded of old propaganda paintings from the Soviet Union, showing young children from various ethnic groups in the Soviet Empire paying tribute to the master of political correctness, Stalin himself. And much like Stalin, the progressives who created “Hamilton” have every interest in erasing inconvenient history for their own purposes.

But there’s one last wild card to be played in this infectious politically-correct drama: the Donald. Let’s hope that following his election to the Presidency, the “Hamilton” cast and fans will be so upset they will indulge their progressive fantasy somewhere else…someplace bordered by a wall…Mexico, perhaps?


One thought on ““Hamilton”: The Revolution betrayed

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s