Final Reflection

A Theoretical Rant and Reflection: The New Hamilton Narrative

In 1757 Alexander Hamilton was born on the Caribbean Island of Nevis. Come 2015, Hamilton the Musical premieres on Broadway and Hamilton is born once again, in New York City. With Hamilton the musical came an overwhelming influx of interest regarding founding father, Alexander Hamilton. As a background figure, often not given more than ten minutes in a year-long history course, it seemed unlikely for the public to be so moved by his story, a story that already existed. Or did it? Lin-Manuel Miranda certainly did not create Alexander Hamilton when he wrote his musical, however he did revive a figurehead that was literally dissipating from memorialization (see the ten-dollar bill artifact included in my project). If Hamilton the Musical did revive Alexander Hamilton, giving him new life, I wonder if he is born again in this era only to die out as he once did. Or instead, has Hamilton rewritten alexander’s narrative in a way that is sustainable? Will they tell his story when we too are gone?

The reason I am able to do this project is because Lin-Manuel Miranda wrote an Alexander Hamilton that I care about. He made me care. It is this reason alone that fuels the discussion surrounding Hamilton, people care. McCluhan argues that it is not the information that we are sharing, but instead how we tell it that matters. For example, “Apple pie is in itself, good or bad; it is the way it is used that determines it’s value” Or, “The smallpox virus is neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines it’s value” (McCluhan, 3). Alexander Hamilton is himself neither good nor bad, it is the way he is memorialized that determines his value. I think that a pie is such a wonderful way to sum up the Hamilton Narrative. Think, all American immigrant and founding father Alexander Hamilton gets a musical written about him. This musical is the pie. Some people love pie (or musicals) in general, so they love Hamilton. Other’s love apples (Alexander Hamilton) but do not like their historic apples in pie. Some people love the flavor of the pie, the characteristic notes of cinnamon, and therefore love Alexander in Hamilton the musical. And some people think apples are pesticide ridden fruits that are mass produced for the entertainment of middle class families. These people do not like apple pie, or Hamilton, or probably anything for that matter.

Regardless of this lengthy metaphor (forgive me, it was too fun an image to pass up on), what I want you to take from it is this; Alexander Hamilton is an entity all his own that we will never get to experience first-hand, as people who are existing roughly two-hundred years after his death, it is how we interpret Hamilton that determines his value. Will he be interpreted as another white founding father who climbed the social toward in search of money and power, or instead will be a tolerant immigrant in search of the greater good? In Hamilton, I argue that we choose to interpret Alexander Hamilton as a hero.

According to Edward S. Casey in “Public Memory in Place and Time” it is the “particular past”, the past that we replay over and over again that is remembered. Casey states that “…an event here signified, though stemming from a quite particular past, will be remembered forever” (Casey, 17). This means that things are remembered as they are memorialized and not as they were. It is only through biased memory that we are able to memorialize anything, because anyone who once knew the “truth” (seeing the person or event during its’ time of impact, which will still be observed through a personally biased lens) will die. 

Since personal memory can only exist in relation to people seeing Hamilton and not meeting Hamilton I will choose to focus on collective and public memory. Collective memory refers to the recalling of the “same event …each in their own way” (Casey, 23). This is a series of personal memories strewn together by a common experience. “All that matters is a commonality of content”. What is interesting about a commonality of content is that this form of collective memory only becomes relevant within the theatre community; anyone who has seen or listened to Hamilton has a collective memory concerning the life of Alexander Hamilton. However, contrasting this growingly popular narrative is the one we read in history books before 2015, or the narrative written by those who see him as a racist slave-owner, as opposed to a progressive immigrant. These people, who are outside of the Hamilton frenzy, are unable to remember Alexander Hamilton in the same way those who are knowledgeable about the musical can.

Public memory, is less reflective than collective memory, instead it serves as an “active resource on which current discussions and actions draw” (Casey, 25). Public memory calls for action, it calls for thought and discussion surrounding the topic. “Public signifies out in the open” in contrast to private memories which are said to happen “offstage”, public memory then becomes memories that are “onstage”.  I thought that this metaphor was perfect for this analysis as it infers that public memory is occurrences on a stage, out in the open, in front of an audience. For something to be onstage it was intended to be seen, meaning that people are meant to react to it. As a musical, Hamilton intended to make an impact on the public. This is done through a series of creative choices, such as staging a minority-centered cast, stopping music during Hamilton’s death scene. Choices like these impact people emotionally, leading to discussion outside of the theater. It is through this analysis that the fans of Hamilton are able to build upon Lin-Manuel Miranda written narrative to create an image all their own. The public decides what is good and what is bad; Lin-Manuel Miranda re-wrote the narrative of Hamilton, but that is not where the narrative stops, instead people are continuously able to interact with the material, forming their own ideas and opinions.

I think that public memory encapsulates the Hamilton narrative so well because it infers that Alexander Hamilton’s narrative is constantly being picked and prodded, it’s changing and developing as new ideas about him are being introduced. In this sense, it isn’t necessarily important what Lin-Manuel Miranda says about Hamilton in his musical, instead this theory would argue that it is what discussions the musical inspires that matters. These inspirations, or public discussions are at the heart of my project. It is in these artifacts that we are able to see how one musical can ripple outward, changing ideas.

In reference to the reflection part of this essay, I would like to make it known that I hated using Omeka. I think that the very fact that Omeka is not user friendly contradicts the accessibility that technology is meant to provide for scholars. If I am unable to upload my analysis with the appropriate images and diagrams than I am not exposing my artifact in its’ most efficient form, therefore robbing my audience of comprehensive, thorough information. Having a complicated technology platform creates an elitism that caters to those who are advanced in technology as opposed to those who are advanced in their field of study. The website did not cater for the easy organization of materials (it is 1am the day before the project is due and I do not understand neatline) and could easily have been organized using a website builder like wordpress or weebly.

If the purpose of the project was to provide analysis accompanied by technological tools, we would have been better off using a website that allows us to easily embed video aids and images. I do not think that the Omeka website allowed me to better support my argument, instead I felt that I was trying fit my ideas into a mold that was uncomfortable and unnecessary. Overall, I was disappointed by my final project using Omeka. Although I was able to choose fun artifacts and write compelling analyses cocerning my central topic, this easily could have been done without the “help” of Omaka.

I think that technology should aid the creator in making their academic and artistic visions a reality, we should be able to express our thoughts through the platform, as opposed to putting all of our energy into uploading basic materials. I think that with time and dedication it is possible to make a beautiful Omeka site, but even in the example used about the factory fire, they had teams of graphic organizers. I think that technology is a good thing, I think that it is a great way to make information available to the public, but when it is not navigable this information becomes inaccessible.

P.S. My goal with the timeline was to have a timeline within an artifact illustrating the life of Lin-Manuel Miranda. Since they were not different artifacts, and instead events in his life I was unable to upload them as different plot points (I think). Therefore, when you go to my timeline you will see the entirety of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s life in a single plot description to the right of a map of Africa. If only there were worlds to vocalize this frustration. Lin-Manuel Miranda was not born in Africa, nor should his Birth and his role in Mary Poppins Returns be in a single life plot point, however as someone who was unable to figure out how to print until the age of fourteen, this was out of my hands. After messing around on Omeka, googling tutorials, and failing to find the “admin” or “settings” I am bitterly admitting defeat. Please do not hold this against me, there is technically a timeline within Neatline, it’s just one plot point.

Thank you.