'Hamilton,' the Broadway musical about founding father and treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton, has been a hit since its 2015 debut and called a once-in-a-generation theater experience.
But critics say the history the musical sings is a little tone-deaf.
"Scholars have debated whether 'Hamilton' overglorifies the man, inflating his opposition to slavery while glossing over less attractive aspects of his politics, which were not necessarily as in tune with contemporary progressive values as audiences leaving the theater might assume," The New York Times reported.
Although show creator Lin-Manuel Miranda (of Puerto Rican descent) cast nonwhite actors for his rapping founding fathers and other players, Rutgers University historian Lyra Monteiro says the show's take on race is flawed. Monteiro chalks this up to "Founders Chic" that casts founding fathers like Hamilton as "cool guys" rather than men of their time — namely, slave owners.
"It’s kind of bonkers to suggest that he was somehow suffering and feeling like slavery was an injustice at that time. There’s no historical evidence to back that up," Monteiro told Slate.
As the Tony Award nominations loom and "Hamilton" is expected to sweep, critics are worried that an overly varnished version of American history will be crystallized in the minds of many Americans. The show's popularity has even possibly derailed the U.S. Treasury's decision to replace Hamilton on the $10 bill — a spot many had hoped would go to a woman.
Miranda and the cast eschew such criticism, saying (accurately) that the play addresses slavery as best it can given its time setting in Colonial America.
"The question of slavery, which is the great original sin of this country, it’s in the third line of the show," Miranda told The New York Times. "There’s only so much time you can spend on it when there’s no end result to it."
Others argue that the show's success isn't about historical accuracy at all — and to shoot for that misses the point of everything that makes "Hamilton" great.
"'Hamilton' is a postmodern metatextual piece of fanfic, functioning in precisely the way that most fanfics do: It reclaims the canon for the fan," Vox's Aja Romano reported. "Like the best fanfic writers, he’s not just selectively retelling history — he’s transforming it."
Rutgers University historian Lyra Monteiro told Slate.
Email: chjohnson@deseretnews.com
Twitter: ChandraMJohnson