Month: September 2020

In chapter 5 of PHUS we learn more about the oppression of white women from the American Revolution to the Civil War. I think it’s important to note that when we read “women” in this chapter, it is specifically talking about white women because the oppression the whites women faced definitely is not the same as black women. This goes back to what we were talking about before about intersectionality which explains why the treatment of women at this time was not universal because it depended on many other factors besides womanhood. At the beginning of the chapter, the author calls this problem the “invisibility of women” which I think is an interesting way of putting it because it is kind of true. In history, with the exception of well-known female leaders, women are mentioned and acknowledged but it’s hardly ever in their own capacity. Instead, they’re always tied to whatever men are in their lives. Despite this fact, their oppression was also seen as an opportunity for “equality” granted by men. Although there were definitely strict ideas of what women could do, the fact that they could do anything at all, was an opportunity, for their time period at least. This gave the illusion of them being equal to men only because they weren’t on the same level as servants and slaves. While they were above them, they were still below men which they did end up getting fed up with also. 

Even though we are learning more about the perspective of women from this time, it is the same problem that we have with history in general. A consistent problem there has been with the women’s rights movement is that it often gets whitewashed by middle-class white women. We are reading the same problem. Just as U.S. history focuses on white men, the history of women’s rights ignores most women except those who were privileged. Another topic I want to talk about is the disenfranchisement of women through language. In the United States constitution it says “men,” and at one point, the New York constitution specifically said “male.” While it is acknowledged that this was to purposefully to keep women out of politics, how is it possible that this language is still used today? People argue that when the founding fathers said “men,” they meant everyone. This is can’t be true because they weren’t dumb, and if they wanted the constitution to protect everyone, that would have written that in the first place. On a smaller level, I feel like this argument is backed by our current use of gendered words. For instance, saying things like “you guys” in reference to everyone or “mankind” for all humans only defends the mocking statement made by Jefferson that women are “too wise to wrinkle their foreheads with politics.” I am not at all defending this comment but what I am saying is that little things such as language can be impactful which the founding fathers clearly understood.

I thought this chapter, “The Intimately Oppressed” was fascinating for many reasons. I knew it was going to be about women during early history, however I also knew that this specific book would tell the history in a very unique way, which it most certainly did. The first sentence, “It is possible, reading standard histories, to forget half the population of the country” had me contemplating the enormity of that concept and eager to keep reading the chapter.

I definitely learned more about women in early history from this chapter than all of my history classes combined. Never before has there been this much writing devoted to just women in a single history textbook, usually it is just a few paragraphs here and there, not wanting to distract the reader too much from the more important battles and significant dates. I couldn’t believe that I was learning about some of these concepts for the first time, such as the counterpart to the Boston Tea party, the “coffee party”. But it does make sense why I only knew a little about certain women and feminist groups, because tying back to the idea of history being written about the victors, the victors were their husbands, so only the women with famous husbands had their names recorded in history. Therefore this in-depth take on the unsung heroes no one has really heard about was quite refreshing and appreciated.

I also really enjoyed how the author implemented excerpts from not only the less appreciated women during this time to get their perspectives, but also from books and novels written by men, to condemn and criticize their astonishing writings. One such writing that stuck out to me was by Edmund Burke in his Reflections of the Revolution in France, who said “a woman is but an animal, and an animal not of the highest order”(111).

Hamilton and 1776 present to the audience a picture of actual historical stories through music. The music in both pieces was very engaging but one can notice that the songs are sung by the main characters of the story.

Hamilton is set in modern times and describes how America was in the past. It uses a modern type of music like hip hop and Pop. What is really interesting about the cast is that they are all nonwhite and the story addresses racial inequality through representing the minorities who are oppressed. It tells a story about their American dream. This is a great opportunity for society to move forward from the dominating white culture by having a diverse cast combining African Americans and Hispanic people. Although the play might not accurately tell the right history as some critics would say, the retelling of the forgotten story of the founding father who raised from being poor and played an important role in the American Revolution in such a diverse and unique way is what made it so popular and appealing to the audience. This play has opened my eyes and taught me things that I was never aware of before.

On the other hand, 1776 does not tell the story of one person specifically but it represents ideas. It talks about freedom and loyalty to Britain; arguments in favor and against slavery. I learned from it a lot as it tells us about the American future, liberty, the Declaration of Independence, and the Continental Congress. It has a more classical style of music representing an older school of arts and celebrating the courage of Americans who fought for freedom. The characters were not as diverse as the ones in Hamilton as they were all white. Besides, I feel that one should be skeptical about the legitimacy of the information in the movie as some scenes might exaggerate the reality of how the actual characters were.

In middle school, when we began learning about the American Revolution, I would watch 1776 all of the time. Since Hamilton did not exist at that point, it was one of the only and best ways to see those I was reading and making reports about. Just like a bad or cringy movie you cannot help but to like, I couldn’t help but like 1776 as I saw some of my favorite historical people like Benjamin Franklin and John Adams moving and acting how I envisioned they did, which is based partly on history and party on my expectations founded in historical myth. I think these musicals are a good way of understanding the basics of what happened, who did what, and why, but they never fully address the more complex aspects of history simply because there is not enough time and because that is not the director Peter Hunt’s intended purpose.

It wasn’t until the end of middle school, beginning of high school when I learned more about the true colors of Thomas Jefferson. Until then, I saw him as a speaker for Enlightenment ideas and as a dreamy young politician in colonial America. This view of Jefferson was mainly based on this musical, especially with the scenes of him singing about and to his wife. Even though a key part of this movie was trying to show how important the wives were in the creation of American (from a 1972 perspective) through the inclusion of Jefferson’s and Adam’s wives, it romanticized their history. Yes, these women were fairly important in the creation of America, but others who were just as important were not talked about or shown like Jefferson’s slaves or anybody not in the elite, land-owning class. There are few, or maybe no, instances in 1776 where a “regular person” interacts with or helps the Continental Congress “heroes”, which just shows how romanticized the heroes of American history are. 

If you interpret these musicals at face value, you are missing a key part of history because art (musicals are a form of art) does not have the responsibility of telling a “truthful” or accurate history if the creator does not want to. 1776’s description even says that it is a “patriotic musical” that “celebrates the founding fathers”; although there should be a basis in truth as the musical uses historical characters and a real-life time period, Hunt is able to take creative liberty (note that this musical is also dated with what is considered American history). Similar to Hamilton, Lin-Manuel Miranda romanticizes Hamilton and the time period he is in so that you relate with the main character. He will not tell you about Hamilton’s involvement in the slave trade in the Caribbean (he disliked slavery but I don’t think it was central to his political positions), his ingrained elitism and dislike of those from lower social classes, assistance in passing the Alien and Subduction acts, and constant slander of other political opponents. 

From personal experience, without some type of prior knowledge, “patriotic” and dramatized musicals can be misleading, but if you mix in education it allows the musical to be both patriotic and truthful/more historical as you can contextualize and analyze the information. 

What I found most interesting was just how wrong I was about the Declaration of Independence.  I was always taught that there was a unified fight for independence. I knew that the Continental Congress fought over funding for the war, but I never knew the extent to which the Southern States didn’t want to secede from Britain. I found it interesting how 1776 was able to tell a serious story through music also while using comedy. I never realized how much the other states didn’t like Adams and Massachusetts, and I think 1776 did a very good job at displaying this. 

PHOUS makes me question what actually happened during these time periods.  In 1776 the people in the Continental Congress are portrayed as regular people, while in reality the delegates were some of the richest people in the colonies. I know that the film is probably inaccurate, yet I was still able to learn a lot from it.

Contrasting the style of 1776 to Hamilton 1776 uses a more classical style of music, while Hamilton is much more modern and upbeat. Both are very successful portraying their story while using different strategies. Hamilton represents a more modern America while telling a story about the past. The play accomplishes this by using minorities as all the characters, and using rap and hip hop music to tell the story. Meanwhile, most of the main characters in 1776 are white males representing what the Continental Congress actually looked like.

I believe that both Hamilton and 1776 do a decent job giving the viewers the historical story of what is happening. I have seen Hamilton many times, but this last viewing of it made me look at it differently. It taught me that the writers of Hamilton, and even 1776, glorify its heroes and do not give enough credit to the working class. I understand that these musicals have a timeframe that they have to be within, so explaining every detail is impossible. So technically these stories do not give nearly the full picture of what happened; however, they provide the viewer with some historical knowledge that would have been left unknown.

The prime example of the two is Hamilton. A near-forgotten founding father got his legacy reborn with the creation of this play. He played an integral role in the Revolution, but history seems to forget his name when teaching the lessons in class. I think the common topic that we seem to be focusing on right now in class is about forgotten history so this assignment fits perfectly with that.

In both of the soundtracks, the music that is sung by the leaders and “heroes” is upbeat and strong, portraying them in this way. The music also allowed the audience to stay engaged in these long stories about history and made them more popular than if it was just a documentary.

I found watching 1776 and Hamilton to be a very different experience compared to just watching a movie. I believe these live action plays give the viewer more insight than would live stream media. While they are both very different, they follow similar stories about the founding fathers and what led to the creation of the Declaration of Independence.

Personally, I found Hamilton to be more compelling because of the way Lin-Manuel Miranda created it and portrayed all of these originally white men in history as men of color. This changed my whole perspective on the story. I think that by doing this, the viewer is forced to confront the harsh reality that in the times of the Declaration these people, people of color, would have had no rights. Especially, under the laws laid out but the Declaration of Independence, which only protected white men who owned property. This theme of inequality underlies all of Hamilton, however I don’t think it is specifically brought about in the actual play. I believe 1776 failed on this aspect as well, especially due to the lack of diversity within the actors. Each playwright fails to show the side of the “others”. As we have talked about in class before, history is written by the victors, not the downtrodden “regular people”. I think adding more of this perspective to each, or at least mentioning it more often could help to bridge the gap between the shiny history we are taught growing up and the more authentic, relatable history that shows the realties of living during these times.

I find the dynamic of watching a live action play to be very impactful on picturing history.  Anyone that watches the play 1776 or Hamilton is given a picture of what history looked like.  People use these plays as a way to put the words they learn in history books into images.  I believe the playwrights have a crucial role in upholding the true values of the past, and not sugar coating it to make the founding fathers look like heroes, but rather for the men they actually were.  Live stream media revolves around television and many of the falsehoods that people believe today can be attributed to the glorified aspects of Hollywood.  

I find it interesting how the play writers of 1776 make John Adams, and a few of the other founding fathers seem very intelligent and very hard working.  In reality these were average people that happened to grow up in a social status that provided them the opportunity to pursue independence and speak on the behalf of the thousands of people living as a British colony.  I wonder about the truth of many scenes of the play 1776.  Jefferson adamantly opposes the institution of slavery in front of congress, and I fear the play is glorifying America’s founding fathers.  However, I am glad that both of the plays, especially Hamilton, acknowledge some of the faults of these men.  I am glad to see the more recent play is more concerned with performing a play that does greater justice to the past.  Hamilton is a play that broke color barriers, and did a great job of bringing out some more truth about the founding fathers, and I think this is what made the play so successful.  

As the curtain falls on Hamilton, the cast repeats one saying in a mysterious voice: who lives, who dies, who tells your story? Indeed, this is the main question the musical embarks to answer; however, while 1776 does not attack this question with the same veracity, it helps us better understand how the stories we tell about our founding fathers shape our understanding of our history. By examining two differences in the productions, we gain an understanding of how our story telling changes with time (the two films were made almost 50 years apart) and how that shift changes our perception of our leaders.

The first difference between the two films is noticed in the introduction of each film’s first female character(s): Abigail Adams and the Schuyler Sisters. When John Adams converses with his wife via mail in the opening number of 1776, her interests are strictly domestic. Her concerns include her children, her out-of-state husband, and clothing pins. While she does stand up to John and demand the pins, her wishes are still restricted to the domestic sphere. In juxtaposition, the Schuyler Sisters’ opening number in Hamilton reveals Angelica Schuyler, the oldest of the three, to be an empowered woman with a knack for critical thinking. She confidently rejects suitors before proudly declaring women as political equals to men. The shift from 1776’s portrayal of Abigail Adams to Hamilton’s Angelica Schuyler shows how the author of each musical will attempt to tell a story about their female character in the next few hours. In 1776, Abigail Adams’ depiction tells the story that women in Colonial America were focussed solely on their husbands and family, a story furthered by Martha Jefferson’s depiction. Meanwhile, Angelica Schuyler’s intellectual pride tells a story that reminds us of how women were excluded from contributing their ideas in Colonial America. While most of Hamilton will focus on the ideas, conversations, and actions of men, it does not let you forget that women could have played an equally important role had they been permitted to transcend the domestic sphere. 

Thomas Jefferson’s depiction in the two films also reveals how two different story tellers from two different decades attempt to understand the founding fathers. In 1776, Jefferson is first introduced as a reluctant member of John Adams’ council to write the Declaration of Independence. Indeed, Jefferson wishes only to spend time with his wife and play violin. This depiction shows the third president in an extremely flattering light. In typical American fashion, Jefferson is glorified in 1776 as a reluctant leader who writes the declaration because he is begged. This version of Jefferson is incredibly likable. The issues of slavery are never touched on while his political leanings are hidden. In contrast, the Thomas Jefferson of Hamilton is introduced with a flamboyant musical number that exudes confidence. As the musical continues, Jefferson is beaten in political theater again and again, eventually avoiding an electoral upset to Aaron Burr by the thinnest of margins. This sharp contrast between the two musicals’ depictions of Thomas Jefferson shows how two story tellers can tell two different versions of the same story. In 1776, Jefferson is depicted as an ideal hero, while Hamilton attempts to make the third president’s flaws obnoxiously noticeable. Again, Hamilton attempts to tell a different story than the myths of national creation that preceded it.

Like Zinn, Hamilton is keenly aware that a historian’s perspective can shape the way a history is told. In the plays final number, characters — like Elizabeth Schuyler and Aaron Burr — live while characters such as Alexander Hamilton die. Indeed, the musical answers the questions “who lives?” and “who dies?”; however, by telling a different story of history, Hamilton makes the viewer think about the final question in more detail. Careful observation will reveal to the viewer that who tells the story is just as important as the story itself — the story itself being represented by the first two questions. Thus, the Hamilton’s finale truly focuses on one thing only: the story.

I love Hamilton. I saw the show on Broadway a few years ago, saw a tour at my local theatre, and I’ve watched it about a million times since it was released on Disney + this past summer. With that being said, I am obviously partial to Hamilton. However, I did find both entertainment and value in 1776. The 1972 film starring Mr. Feeny from the hit 90s show Boy Meets World follows a group of founding fathers as they work to draft the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. It’s no masterpiece compared to the phenomenon that is Hamilton, but it gives audiences a story that Hamilton did not: what happened in the meantime. There are brief mentions of the events of each show in the other as well as a few allusions (“Sit down John!”). 1776 shows the political aspect of the revolution (the writing of the Declaration of Independence) while Hamilton shows the military aspect of the revolution (the battles of the first act). 1776 showed why America wanted independence (America had acquired a new nationality, requiring it to become a new nation to paraphrase Ben Franklin) and Hamilton showed how America fought for independence. 

However, both of these depictions are guilty of romanticizing the “leaders” of the revolution. Both neglect the role of the working man, let alone women and slaves. Hamilton attempts to justify this by bringing diversity to the story, but it does fail to mention that Hercules Mulligan’s slave did most of the smuggling he was singing about. Neither of these shows are bad because they are romanticized and inaccurate, however. There is no need to chastise either when they are not sources meant to be academic. They are not scholarly articles or books written by experts in the field. The purpose of these two shows is to entertain and leave the audience with a message (similar to art), even if they are based on true stories. I believe that as long as the truth is taught in schools (which isn’t always the case, of course, but one can hope), there is nothing wrong with a little romanticizing.

After all the readings of “A People’s History of the United States”, I am learning to be very wary of how history is told as the reader may not be receiving the full story. I am now going to examine the way that “Hamilton” presents the legacy of Alexander Hamilton and how realistic it actually is or whether it romanticizes his legacy. “Hamilton” is extremely progressive in its use of people of color as the actors for the founding fathers to demonstrate that even though they aren’t mentioned in textbooks, people of color have existed in all times. The musical does a phenomenal job documenting his affair with Mariah Reynolds through songs like “Say No to This” and the “Reynold’s Pamphlet”. The musical doesn’t simply brush it off and allow Hamilton’s legacy to continue unscathed as many other historical sources would.

In terms of his views on slavery, Hamilton wasn’t perfect, but he was far more progressive than the average founding father. Hamilton supporting arming Black Slaves and allowing them to fight for their freedom in the revolutionary war. Hamilton was a member of the Manumission society which sought for a slow emancipation of slaves in the United States. In spite of these two moments in his life, Hamilton still signed in favor of the 3/5 compromise which equated African American slaves to 3/5 of a white person in order to move the legislation of the United States forward.  Even more concerning was Hamilton’s handling of the Schuyler’s slave transactions and the possibility that he may have purchased slaves for his own household. It is not entirely certain whether Hamilton himself owned slaves or merely handled transactions for others. Hamilton’s grandson actually testified that records exist that state he did in fact own slaves during his lifetime. Nearly none of this is mentioned in the musical. While Hamilton’s slave crimes are much less extreme than that of say Thomas Jefferson, their exclusion does falsely romanticize history.

I was very excited to watch the movie 1776 because I am such a big fan of Hamilton and I have been for quite some time now! I was very excited to compare and contrast the two pieces of work while also relating them to what we are discussing in class. I was very interested to watch the scene in the movie where the Southern delegates object the line in the Declaration of Independence which strongly condemns slavery in the US and calls for its abolition. Even though Thomas Jefferson wrote this line, he had countless slaves until the day he died. Jefferson’s stance on slavery is an interesting paradox that is in fact mentioned in Hamilton. In one of the songs, Cabinet Battle #1, Hamilton and Jefferson are debating the establishment of a national bank, and Hamilton rebuttals Jefferson’s points about the agricultural success of the South by claiming, “We know who’s really doing the planting.” This shows the trade-off between agricultural success and the ethical injustices regarding slavery that Jefferson couldn’t overcome even though he may have understood how wrong it truly was. In 1776, Jefferson ultimately was the one who scratched out the line, upon his and John Adams’ dismay, in order to persuade the South to sign the Declaration. Benjamin Franklin objected to the sentence about slavery and exclaimed that “The issue here is independence!” This line in the movie directly relates to what we were discussing in class which is that the elites of society have figured out, whether it is conscious or not, that war and external conflict helps appease internal struggles or tensions. These wealthy, white, property wielding men intricately used language in the Declaration that aired the grievances against King George III while not exposing the injustices that were occurring in the colonies. Benjamin Franklin’s statement shows the intentional deflection of the civil unrest in the colonies to anger and independence from England.

The exaggerated statement in the Declaration where Jefferson stated that all men are created equal and the conflicting stance on slavery that many colonists may have held during Revolutionary times, one of them being Jefferson himself, is also depicted in the lyrics of several Hamilton songs. One line that sticks out to me in particular and relates to this belief the most is in the song “My Shot” where John Laurens says, “But we’ll never be truly free, unit those in bondage have the same rights as you and me. Wait till I sally in on a stallion in the first black battalion.” John Laurens criticized slavery and wanted slaves to fight in the Revolutionary War and then be rewarded their freedom for their service. However, similar to Jefferson, he had several hundred slaves on his plantation and co-owned one of the largest slave-trading houses in the colonies. It is the unfortunate truth that although people in power may want the best for the public good, their own self-interests historically get in the way and they choose the more selfish, easy, and least controversial option.

This scene in 1776 was also interesting because of how many of the delegates condemned the parts of the Declaration when they insult Parliament or when they call King George III a tyrant. This shocked me and showed how not everyone was on the same page regarding the revolution and England in general. The American Revolution is always depicted as a unanimous and collective movement against the big bad English empire, however, that isn’t really historically accurate. In class, we discussed how merely 1/5 of the colonists fully approved of and supported the Revolution, which clearly relates to this scene. This scene showed how several colonists were still connected and related to their strong British roots and were hesitant to fully break away. This revelation starts to chip away at the commonly held myth surrounding the Revolution that all the colonies had enough and wanted to break free and start their own united country.

Both musicals, 1776 and Hamilton, present historical information in a very different, yet interesting way. It’s told in a story form that is supposed to be entertaining, with singing, and jokes, and personal stories to go along. Although, I found both to be just that, entertaining, the whole time I was questioning what was real and what was added on to make the story more interesting. In 1776, John Adams is shown to be very disliked, except by Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, and had to fight to get the Declaration of Independence accepted by everyone. They show the character of each states’ delegate and even some of their wives. Was there really that big of a divide between the founding fathers? I had always believed they were always on the same page and worked together harmoniously, but this film shows otherwise. 

I also found it interesting the way many of the delegates were portrayed in 1776. Rhode Island drank the whole time, some just followed what others said, New York always abstain, and the others either stayed quiet or were bullies. They seemed childish. They were not the image that I always had in mind of the founding fathers. But again, it makes me question whether many were actually like that, or if it was exaggerated, or if they were even like that at all? Clearly there is some truth in the film though, and there must not have been a totally unanimous opinion on independence in the beginning. Something I didn’t know was that there was a whole passage about the cruelness of slavery that was eventually cut out. It’s interesting to see how this was the biggest divide in the nation for the longest time, even before we were actually a nation. 

Seeing these more comical and entertaining perspectives of history not only make history more interesting, but in some ways creates false ideas about what really happened. In this film, 1776, it’s clear the founding fathers are portrayed less united and divine as they were thought to be, and in reality that is probably more true.  There is bias in everything that is told, and the struggle is figuring out where the most truth is.

As we learn throughout history and Hamilton specifically, we learn that Alexander Hamilton was the forgotten founding father. Hamilton was left to fend for himself and make a name for himself. As he was the right-hand man to George Washington during the Revolution; we look at the taught history of the war… Hamilton isn’t mentioned. All credit goes to Washington.

After the war, and Washington is elected president; Hamilton is elected Secretary of Treasury. Hamilton is often told to set himself aside and comply with the other ‘more important’ people. Hamilton is left out over and over. He has been, in a sense put aside. Hamilton has the wisdom to be a founding father that has not been forgotten. Again, why are the people that matter a lot and have formed an important part of this country just set aside? Alexander had struggled through life; this in a way is still relevant in 2020. It is hard to start at the bottom and be known at the top. In today’s world, 2020, people who make extraneous impacts are left in the dust when it is time for giving credit.

What this homework assignment has made me think about is that yeah maybe I am a woman in the broken world right now, but if I want to make an impact in this world I must continue without recognition. And man does it stink to move forward, but impacts must be made to even have a chance to change what must be changed.

The Hamilton soundtrack was awesome in the way that it made very early American history feel like it was happening today for me. I was interested in the plot of the story the entire time, and was especially interested in why Hamilton did not get the authoritative opportunities he wanted so badly from Washington. There were 6 or 7 songs that brought back a common theme for Hamilton not to “Waste his shot”, and I began to wonder why this was. The more I listened, the more his background and heritage was brought up. Being an immigrant from Nevis, brought to New York as an orphan to continue his studies, Hamilton was not viewed as entirely equal to the rest of the “American” people. Because of this his genius was somewhat restricted to writing and drafting of papers. While he was extremely successful in doing so (he drafted 51 of the of Federalist Papers), it seemed to me that he always wanted more, almost demanding Washington to raise his position as he pleaded to not be called “son”.

One interesting point in the soundtrack to me was back to back songs “Yorktown” and “What comes next”. Here, America wins the revolutionary war, but then has to begin setting the foundation for what is to come next. It was interesting to think and hear the early debates between Hamilton and Jefferson, and I especially liked the song “What’d I miss”. I thought it made irony of the fact that Jefferson was so vocal about the formation about the United States, but wasn’t here to be a part of the revolution.

Another thing I thought about here was that today if a woman had been cheated on, I would expect to see her divorce her husband, but I had to remember that women were not seen as equal at this time, so she continued to stay with him, even on the morning of Hamilton’s duel with Burr. Then, in getting into Hamilton’s life, I wonder if he would have had won the presidency if he had not cheated on his wife and been caught. Would his election have substantially shifted American life today? It is interesting to ponder how much seemingly small events in this time period have led to such significant movements and institutions over the last 200 years.

In 1776, I found the element of it telling a story and it’s casualness to be very interesting. Not only was the movie upbeat because of the music, but it also made some jokes along the way to keep it lighthearted. At the same time, it also told a deeper story than one I had ever previously learned about the declaration of independence. To me, something I never knew was exactly how hard John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson had to fight to get the Declaration of Independence to be a consideration.

In class today, while looking at the pictures, we learned that stories and structures are built at the same time. We also learned that they are all misleading and none of them are the truth. As an example, professor Bezio talked about the titanic. While watching this movie, there were points that I laughed and even thought what the heck is going on, but I remembered what we talked about in class. This is relevant because while this story was interesting, I had to remember this is most definitely not word for word exactly what happened.

In the podcast #7 that I listened to, professor Bezio also talks about stories and the way we interpret what they mean, whether that be what they meant at the time or now. Professor Bezio also discussed the fact that every story has a lesson, and to figure out this lesson, one must use close reading, which includes Semitic theory. This theory is basically how we get our ideas from words. In 1776, there were certain quotes, which lead me to interpret this story the way I did.

For example, when the delegates were discussing talking to parliament, someone was worried they would offend parliament. Adams blurted out, “This is a revolution damn it! We’re going to have to offend somebody.” My idea from these words is that even if discussing this with parliament “offends” them, he doesn’t care if it means the United States can declare independence. Another quote was at the end when Wilson from Pennsylvania, had the final tie-breaking vote and he said, “I’m different from most of the men here. I don’t want to be remembered. I just don’t want the responsibility… But if I vote for you, I’ll be the man who prevented American independence.” The message I got from these words was that Wilson wanted to make the right decision for America rather than himself.

Stories always have a message or lesson, even if it ins’t a huge life lesson. Throughout the movie 1776, I could see a story being told with a message.

Our past reading in PHOS ignited my curiosity as to how the American Revolution truly played out for the colonies. We learned from Zinn that the majority of the population did not even feel inclined to rebel against the British; most of the colonial men joined up in arms to reap economic benefits after the war. Watching 1776 and Hamilton has now elevated my curiosity more since each one depicts the Revolution in different manners.

One key difference between 1776 and Hamilton is how America’s elite is represented. Hamilton does a refreshing job in showing the diversity of America with the inclusion of minorities such as women and blacks whose roles in America’s history are often silenced by those in power. In the Broadway production, Hamilton is even played by Lin-Manuel, who comes from Latino descent, which elevates the production’s multiculturalism even more. This musical displays how America’s society should have been represented in history from the start, but instead we have just been focused on rich old white guys.

How Lin-Manuel Miranda tells the story of Hamilton and his impact in the Revolution is also very different than any way history has been told. Miranda utilized modern hip-hop and rap to tell the stories, which resonated with the younger demographic of society and provided a more entertaining way to learn our nation’s history. I don’t think this has been done before in such an effective way. Not only did Miranda use modern storytelling forms, but he is also telling a story that has not been focused on in most curriculums, at least in my opinion. Until I watched Hamilton, I had never heard the full story of Hamilton’s involvement of the Revolution in my history classes. This is a shame since Hamilton was extremely educated and played a big role in the decisions the Founding Fathers made.

On the other hand, 1776 had a more traditional take on the history of the American Revolution. It involved the conversations of mainly wealthy white men. No women played key roles in the musical, unlike Hamilton with the Schuyler sisters and the daughters of Philip Schuyler, the Revolutionary War general. Although, 1776 was also unique in how the production told history with the presence of silly banter between the delegates of the states. I have never heard of any member of the colonial elite being humorous, so this was definitely something new to see.

With both of these musicals, the same historical events are being discussed but in very different ways. Different people and issues are focused on in each one. There are so many perspectives of historical events that are told now and so many different ways in which they are told. So, my question is, how can we discover all these perspectives that have been silenced for so long? How do we know what voices to look for? There is so much information out there, how does one know what questions to ask and where to look for them to get the full story of an event.

After watching 1776 there were many aspects that stood out to me that we talked about in class and were also present in the movie. I think that the discussion of gender roles and social class division was very evident in the movie. For example, while the dialogue between John and Abigail Adams seemed loving there was still a clear power dynamic between the two. Abigail was sitting at home waiting for her husband to come home while John was busy with his important work. Additionally, the dynamic between the custodian and the congressional delegates was an important division between social class. The custodian was clearly in a lower social class while the delegates are all wealthy and hold a great deal of power. I think that this contributes to the ideas we’ve been discussing about history being written by the victors and Zinn’s chapter from Monday’s class about the American Revolution. There’s such a focus on the wealthy men’s wants and perspective on declaring independence but we get no perspective from the common man such as the custodian. Just like how only one fifth to one third of the population was for the American Revolution, we can’t tell what proportion of the colonists were for declaring independence because the emphasis is always on the people in power.

Another aspect that stood out to me after discussing the connotations of various portraits of leaders was the inclusion of Benjamin Franklin getting his portrait painted. This scene drew a sharp distinction between different types of leaders and approaches to leadership. On one end Franklin is depicting his social status and wealth by paying someone to paint a portrait of him in a powerful position. On the other end we see Adams very passionate about his work and being painted in a more personable light as he writes letters back and forth to his wife. We also hear him say “I’m not promoting John Adams. I’m promoting independence.” This gives the impression that Adams is less worried about his socials status and more interested in pushing the agenda that he thinks is best for the people. This relates back to the portraits because we also see these two sides of leaders when looking at Lincoln’s and Washington’s portraits versus the candid photographs we saw of Obama. There’s one side to the leaders that is focused on power, wealth and status while the other side emphasizes personality and passion.

I think that the elements of comedy that were incorporated into the movie made it hard decide whether the movie was an accurate depiction of the historical event. The movie itself also seems to show the perspective only of the delegates and not of the common people so even if the movie is accurate to the political elite’s perspective, it’s just a portion of the sentiments that were shared during this time. This made me think how difficult it must be to make a historically accurate movie because you can only create a movie from one point of view so there will always be several voices left out.

The film, 1776, showed a very interesting perspective to the Founding Fathers and the lead-up to the Declaration of Independence. Many elements of comedy are used to poke fun at the different members of Congress and the lack of seriousness within the meetings. They make stereotypical jokes about New Jersey and New York being very loud and that no one listens to each other. Benjamin Franklin falls asleep often during the meetings and Steven Hopkins is always drunk and asking for more alcohol instead of contributing to the discussions. It also seemed that before the question of independence was proposed they never actually resolved anything important. They would have daily weather reports from Jefferson and when George Washington would send reports of bad news looking for support, they never came up with any plans to help him and the army. While this may have been a comedical exaggeration, I think that the film was getting at the idea of privilege among the wealthy men and disregard for any issues that were not their own. The Congress members treat the custodian, Andrew McNair, as their own personal servant and when he voices his opinions about independence he immediately gets shut down and is reminded that he is not one of the Congressmen so his opinions don’t matter to them. This relates to the Constitution only applying to men who owned property where the majority of Americans were excluded and ignored from the policymaking and from the concerns of the “important” people. 

Throughout the film, they mentioned a few times about how the history of the independence of the colonies would be written. John Adams was describing how he was embarrassed that the only way for Jefferson to be able to write the Declaration of Independence was if he could be with his wife. Ben Franklin responds to him saying, “Don’t worry John, it won’t appear in the history books” (1:19). Another example is when John Adams says that he won’t be in the history books and it will only be about Franklin, Washington, and Washington’s horse that will be known to have conducted the entire Revolution. The film was emphasizing that there is a certain narrative that was created about the independence of the colonies to try and make it sound more patriotic and united against England. This was a major theme in the movie shown through the exaggerations and comedy making it clear that the Founding Fathers were not divine leaders that they are often made out to be.