Category: Uncategorized

It is not surprising to me that women have been fighting for so long for their basic rights and recognition for all that they do. Women have never gotten the credit they deserve and it is crazy for me to think that this fact stems from the way women were viewed in society so long ago in the middle ages. In the book, Zinn compares the treatment of women to the treatment of slaves. Both groups were seen as inferior on so many levels, and were often sexually abused. It saddens me how much oppression women and slaves had to endure during these times in history. 

The fact that in these times men took credit for all the many accomplishments women achieved deeply upsets me. Women are not objects, but they have been treated as such since the early days of existence, and in some cases still today. Women in these times first belonged to their fathers, and then when they got married they belonged to their husbands. Beyond this, “Besides absolute possession of his wife’s personal property and a life estate in her lands, the husband took any other income that might be hers. He collected wages earned by her labor…” (Zinn 107). Despite this, I am proud that so many women stood up for themselves throughout history, and fought for their rights. Women such as Anne Bradstreet and Phillis Wheatley will forever be remembered for courageously sticking up for themselves and other women through their poetry.

3 Comments

Chapter 6 of PHOUS was quite interesting for me to read as a man, as I have never understood, or put thought into the difficulty and suffering that women endured through history, and even in modern-day life. Women are neglected in history. Similarly to how we have talked about the middle and lower classes in the upbringing of our country, very few women are talked about in history books even though they made up nearly half of the population, and raised and parented the men that are idolized in history books today.

As expected, Zinn did a good job telling the untold and undisclosed truths of history, and the first sentence is enough to understand the point of view that his text is coming from, “It is possible, reading standard histories, to forget half the population of the country.” Throughout this reading, I believe that I obtained more knowledge about women’s role in our country’s past than I did throughout my entire studies of history in prior schooling. In previous years, history classes focus on important male figures, significant battle dates, and outcomes of wars; never before have I encountered a piece of literature with such an intense focus on women, and it was quite enlightening. While it is wrong that women are neglected in history, it contributes to the narrative that we have deeply discussed in this class that states “history is about the victors.” Usually, the victors have been males, and there female counterparts (wives) are left in the shadows but may have played a significant role in their husband’s success. Typically, if women were ever discussed in history, it was the women who were wed to a prominent male figure that was discussed, but this chapter talked about the “less prominent” women, which was new.

Finally, it was interesting to see Zinn’s use of foreign novels as a contributor to the narrative of the oppression of women during these times. There were occasions when a piece of literature written by a man was incorporated into the text to signify the maltreatment and poor perception that women faced in historical times, and I believe that made the text all the more significant and meaningful, to see how men wrote about women, and to see how wrong that was.

 

3 Comments

As I was going through the readings, what stuck out to me the most was how long women have been fighting for equal rights. For the most part, I believed the fight for gender equality to be a more modern concept (late 1800’s), I did not realize that women had been fighting for an equal say since they arrived in the New World. Before reading the latest chapter of PHUS, I would have never compared the treatment of women to the treatment of slaves. However, after learning the sad truth about their treatment and conditions, women were not far off.

Similar to slaves, women were essentially treated as property and their master was their husband. Anything they accomplished or earned was their husband’s achievement. I also found it interesting that men tried to censor the content women were allowed to intake. They would allow them to read books, but only the ones that cemented the teachings they wanted women to abide by. Thankfully there were brave women such as Anne Hutchinson, who fought for women’s rights knowing fully that she would be punished severely.

3 Comments

I really enjoyed these readings because it brought in women, who are historically the “other” sections in history books. I think that this is due to women being confined to the “domestic sphere” and their accomplishments were accredited to their husbands or unrecognized. Women were expected to be in charge of the household and raising and bearing children, and really did not the chance to expand into other work.

Anne Bradstreet and Phillis Wheatley did not go to school, but were educated by their father, and their slave master respectively. They are considered two brilliant poets whose words gave insight into their lives and beliefs. Yet, they were not originally published in the colonies, and both poets works were published in England.

Anne Bradstreet’s poems ranged from talking about the love of her husband, to the inevibility of death and the power of female leaders. Phillis Wheately fought racism through her poems and was considered an example of the intelligence of black people, used to further the abolition movement. Both women were religions and thier work referenced salvation, a common and important theme at the time.

Yet although these women are being talked about. They are commonly forgotten, Zinn says “invisable” in history. Women contributed more to society than what was expected of them, yet have no received recognition. It is 2020, and this is still a problem. Why are women considered extras in history books? Can this be changed? Inequality trends such as wage gap are still present. When women were forced into working in the industry with textiles they were paid almost nothing for their work. Today their is still a wage gap. While we have made progress, there is still a lot of work to be done. These themes are still extremely relevant.

4 Comments

In chapter 5 of PHUS, Zinn outlines the sad truth behind the oppression of women throughout the history of the United States. Zinn explains that “Women were expected to be subject to their husbands in all things” and were exploited and oppressed in basically all aspects of their lives. Men placed unrealistic expectations on women’s lives and told women to be passive. Men were expected to sin, but women were not. As a result of this oppression, women were able to create a sense of solidarity amongst each other and formed strong bonds. 

After reading this chapter I definitely felt a sense of discomfort. It’s so sad to think that women actually had to live in these conditions. They were not given the respect nor the opportunities that they deserved. As a woman, I often find myself taking advantage of the rights that women in history fought so hard to obtain. Although there has been improvement in the fight for equality for women, gender roles are still extremely prominent in society today. Women have faced new challenges in establishing themselves in the workforce and still being responsible for the majority of the work in their households. How long will it take to change the perceptions of gender roles? Will the roles ever truly balance out or be reversed?

 

3 Comments

After reading about the backgrounds and poetry of both Anne Bradstreet and Phillis Wheatly, I have reflected on the power of poetry. These two women both lived difficult lives, but somehow found solace in words. I was especially moved by Phillis Wheatly’s story because she seemed to overcome so much. Although I was confused on how she was educated and traveled to Europe for her poetry, but somehow was still enslaved and kept at arms distance from the family.

Additionally, I can understand the frustration from 20^th century critics of Black American literature because it seems that to a certain extent, she does not criticize slavery. In her poem On Being Brought from Africa to America she talks about educating people with Christian values and how she is grateful for that, but she did not criticize the fact that she was taken. I do not understand this, but she may have just been educated to believe this is ok. Another argument on why she didn’t speak out is that it was not safe to do so, or it would not have been well received by her audiences. I also agree somewhat with the article argued, that she used biblical allusions and her faith as a way to argue for abolition just more covertly.

5 Comments

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.

 

3 Comments

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).

 

4 Comments

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.

5 Comments

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. 

5 Comments

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.

8 Comments

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.

 

9 Comments

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.

7 Comments

 

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.  

5 Comments

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.

4 Comments

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.

5 Comments

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.

4 Comments

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.

 

2 Comments

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.

4 Comments

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.

2 Comments