By: Rahmel Bailey

Hamilton is probably the only founding father I will call a gangster. A gangster is someone who is ruthless, willing to do anything for success and doesn’t let anything get in the way of that success. Hamilton lived his life knowing death wasn’t far and made decisions to build and protect his legacy while he was alive. Much like a lot of OGs he was raised poor and without a father, he only had his mother around. The circumstances that he was born into fueled him take his shot and kill Red Coats in the revolution where he rose to fame. Shots were the same way his life ended when he was killed in a duel.

According to the code of THUG LIFE by Matulu Shakur, Hamilton unknowingly lived by some of the codes. He followed the beginning of the code because he knew he would be successful and that he would not live a long life. He was responsible for legal/ payment financial system by creating the country’s national financial system and help the nation develop credit and debt. As stated in the code, Hamilton knew true enemies that prevented him from reaching his success, this is why he had an intense feud with Burr who was his true enemy and tried to take his spot in the Washington cabinet. Hamilton followed the rule to respect brothers and sisters (not the family kind) by having respect for Washington and some of the other founding fathers even when their views weren’t aligned. And he had respect for sisters which was proven by the way he regarded his wife who spoke highly of him. Hamilton lived (actually he died) by the code to protect yourself. Whenever he was attacked by an enemy especially Burr he never backed down and was ready to take on anyone. Even when he was challenged to a duel by Burr, Hamilton didn’t back down even though he was opposed the feud. Hamilton lost his life because he was protecting himself. And more importantly, he didn’t shoot during the duel because he wasn’t to protect his reputation, which is the lasting memory of himself.

 

Hamilton is truly a gangster. A real OG.

 

By: Ian Byers

When I was reading the first chapters of Alexander Hamilton’s biography by Chernow, what stood out to me the most was Hamilton’s drive and passion. This characteristic of his is also a central tenant in how he is portrayed in the musical Hamilton. One suggestion prompt for this assignment mentions a comparison between this and one’s personal life at Georgia Tech, but I unfortunately can’t truthfully say that this is the case for me. Even in classes that I have truly enjoyed, I simply have not put in the effort that would have been required to achieve the things which Hamilton did in his early life. That isn’t to say that I don’t feel confident in working towards my goals, but rather that I haven’t found any goal for which I could imagine myself working tirelessly, day and night. Because of this, when learning about Hamilton, he is certainly someone who I can admire or even be inspired by. However, to draw anything more than a superficial parallel of people working towards their goal would be arrogant. The vast majority of people on college campuses, myself included, have never had to work as hard as Hamilton did just to survive. Perhaps it is this lack of hardship in my youth that led my to not seek out and pursue risky opportunities as readily as a young Hamilton. After all, there are many examples of modern celebrities who cite their struggles in times of poverty as a major motivation for their seemingly endless productive output.

Of course, I’m not asking for classes at Tech to get any harder! I just think it’s interesting to see how a person’s upbringing can radically change their outlook, for better or worse. One thing that I just looked up out of curiosity is Aaron Burr’s early life. It’s seems that although he was orphaned at a young age, he did have some family to look after him, and his childhood wasn’t anywhere near as dangerous as Hamilton’s. Going off of my earlier idea, maybe this is why he is portrayed as being more of a passive person in Hamilton, though I don’t know if that portrayal is accurate. Regardless, I’ve rambled a lot here and it has become pretty clear that I’m not great at more open ended assignments, so I’m going to go back to struggling with classes like everyone else and stop complaining!

By: Carol Rojas Ramirez

We all go to Tech so we’re all smart in one way or another. Some are brainiacs who will be solving crazy physics and math problems to design aircrafts and power plants. Others are brilliant strategists who will one day lead the World Bank or Wall Street.

Bottom line is, we all have expectations of what we want to do with our lives. Whether it originates from parental pressure, or the exceedingly high standards that you’ve set for yourself (I see you, my overachievers), or the standard of becoming a great something once you graduate from this Institution. I’m not going to lie, I feel it all the time. But honestly, I have come to believe that my fear of failure is not from being afraid of not becoming a doctor or lawyer or engineer, but rather not becoming the person I have always wanted to be, and I think that it has a lot to do with how I was raised and where I come from.

I am a first-generation immigrant. I was raised by single mother who never needed to speak twice to get her point across and had high expectations of me since I was in grade school. Even though she doesn’t have a fancy job, I fancy her a successful woman in her own right. And more than anything, I aim to be that woman, a resilient, independent, and well-educated woman. I think that a lot of women, like my mother, have lived through unimaginable struggles  but sadly, their stories have been lost in translation or never even been heard. But I know that they have raised strong and amazing men and women who have become leaders, teachers, scientists, etc… However, their mothers’ stories are never told. We could go on and on about the ambition of our founding fathers, which I am thankful for, but I also think that we should be talking about the women who didn’t have a voice in this period of time, particularly immigrant women and minority women living throughout the world. The women who endured so much, the women who fought conventions, those who gave so much of themselves to raise the future of America and of this world. That would be a hell of a musical. 

Rachel Faucette’s story is inspiring and highly underrated. After all, we didn’t even hear about her at all in the play. However, I do praise Lin-Manuel Miranda’s efforts in making this musical so diverse- not just with race but also in how he used his artistic license to make this such a pro-female musical.  There is no proof that Angelica was the strong, brilliant woman, struggling to be heard that Lin-Manuel Miranda presents in Hamilton. However, the underlying feminist tones in this play are inspiring. 

by: Emily Moseley

Kanye West and Alexander Hamilton have a LOT in common.

Before y’all stop reading because this probably sounds like an outrageous statement since we’ve been listening to, breaking down, and analyzing the genius behind Hamilton for so long, hear me out. Kanye West began his life here in Atlanta in 1977, his father a photographic journalist and mother a teacher. So you can already tell that West did not start out with deep pockets or many connections. Alexander Hamilton, born out of wedlock suffered the societal consequences for his entire early life. He was orphaned and penniless at age 13. There was not much on the horizon for him even at such a young age.

Now about family life (keep in mind the change in society after 200+ years): Kanye’s parents divorced when he was just 3 years old. He lived with his mother in Chicago’s South Shore neighborhood and spend summers with his father. Alexander Hamilton also never saw his parents in the same room. They were not married and his father never formally acknowledged him, rendering him a bastard.

Their educations had similar patterns as well. Upon moving back to Chicago, after living and studying in China for a year, Kanye was drawn to the hip-hop scene and befriended the DJ and producer No I.D. (his new mentor). He later dropped out of Chicago’s American Academy of Art to pursue his passion: music. Hamilton never had a chance at a traditional education because of his illegitimacy, so he looked to alternative means of education like individual tutoring, classes in a private Jewish school, and extensive reading. This allowed him to pursue his passion of creating change and writing things into existence.

See where I’m going with this?

By saying that Alexander Hamilton and Kanye West have a lot in common, I am in no way undermining the trials and tribulations that Hamilton endured as a child, by comparing him to a middle-class boy who had support from his mother. Their early childhoods differed significantly; however, their goals remained the same. The energy that each of them pour into their work is unmatched and they share a unique talent for going after what they want. Kanye, at times more explicit and harsh with his words, shares Hamilton’s drive and ultimate success in his pursuits.

“He is a 21st-century phenomenon — a producer turned rap superstar who has reinvented hip hop several times over in the course of a stellar career; but whose creative genius is sometimes eclipsed by his talent for putting his entire foot in his own mouth.”   – A&E Television Networks

Now take a look at this quote from an NBC news article about Alexander Hamilton from an interview with Lin Manuel Miranda about his show.

“Hamilton’s extraordinary life – he was a “bastard” son born in the island of Nevis who emigrated to the U.S. – is a quintessentially American story of genius and reinvention.”   – NBC News

And this isn’t going to be the first (or last article you read about this). Set designer David Korins even nominates Kanye West for the role of Alexander Hamilton once Miranda leaves the show.

“I worked with Kanye for a couple of years and I feel like he would be a great candidate. He’s very prolific, he has the stage presence and the rap and hip-hop music wouldn’t be a problem. At times he’s a misunderstood artist, so he could relate to Hamilton as well.”   – David Korins

I could go on with the similarities between Alexander Hamilton and Kanye West, but I think you get the point. Their unrelenting personalities brought them great success even if Hamilton’s ultimately led him to perish in a duel. Let’s hope history does not repeat itself here.

[Read more…]

By: Arfa Ul-Haque

Our first introduction to Aaron Burr is in the opening song where he is introduced as the narrator of the musical alongside Alexander Hamilton. He opens with the question of how a man with such a destitute origin became one of the most influential men in America’s history. The audience later learns that Burr came from similar origins as well. Both men grew up watching everyone they love around them die, but both men dealt with loss differently. While Hamilton was motivated to work harder and relentlessly to pull himself out of poverty, Burr learns to take things slow and appreciate what is around him. Through these experiences, Burr realizes he must wait for his happiness and success, while Hamilton works non-stop trying to become as successful as he can be.

“Non-Stop” is one of the main songs that depicts the discrepancies between Burr and Hamilton. Burr contradicts every point Hamilton makes in the song by saying that the Constitution is doomed to fail and is unfixable. He doesn’t want to associate himself with the US Constitution. He makes it clear that even if he agrees with a political standpoint, he refuses to publicly support it for fear of disapproval of the public.

Throughout the musical, Burr reiterates his mantra to “wait for it” and maintains his belief that keeping his opinions to himself would boost the public’s approval of him. In the last minute, he makes the decision to reject his motto and decides to follow Hamilton’s footsteps and take his shot. Both men made the mistake of mistakenly assuming what the other man would do. Hamilton, knowing that Burr never took opportunities that came his way, believes that Burr wouldn’t shoot. Burr, knowing that Hamilton was action-oriented and never threw away his shot, believed that Hamilton would shoot. When Burr realized that Hamilton threw away his shot, thereby disavowing his main belief, Burr shouts “Wait!” in an effort to take back his shot. In the end, Hamilton’s final decision that he stands by is throwing away his shot to kill Burr; Burr’s final decision to shoot Hamilton is one that he regrets for the rest of his life. Due to one fatal and uncharacteristic mistake, Burr is forever remembered as the “damn fool” who shot Hamilton.

Burr spent his whole life trying to escape Hamilton’s shadow and create his own legacy, but in the end, he is one left narrating Hamilton’s story. Those who remain neutral and refuse to disclose their opinions on any matter will not be remembered in history. His only legacy is the shot that killed his “first friend, his enemy” Alexander Hamilton.

Through the characterization of these rivals, Lin-Manuel Miranda teaches us that both men’s methods of how to go through life led to their downfall. There needs to be a balance between taking all opportunities that come your way and taking a break or waiting for the outcomes of success.

 

By: Zac Frederick

For this blog I’ve decided to take a closer look at each King George’s three songs “You’ll Be Back,” “What Comes Next?” and “I Know Him” and how each, though sung to the same tune, conveys a different meaning overall.

In “You’ll Be Back,” King George offers the colonists the message that their little rebellion will fail, and warns them in an emotional manner not to betray his love for them. While initially a seemingly romantic account of their relationship, he contrasts this notion both in the song and in reality by “send[ing] a fully armed battalion” to remind the colonists of his love. How beautiful.

“What Comes Next?” gives King George the opportunity to berate the Americans once again by telling them that they will fail a second time. This song depicts yet another emotional response to the situation across the pond, as he spats “You’re on your own / Awesome. Wow” and allows George to retain his position of power, as he is assured that the new country is destined to fail.

“I Know Him” depicts a shift in both the message and position of King George. No longer is George in any position to criticize with the upper hand, as he becomes the weaker party “perplexed” by how Washington is simply going to step down. Of course, he still believes that the Americans are destined to fail, but it is worth arguing that his credibility as an evaluator of the situation is in a way completely irrelevant. Any rational arguments he had in the first two songs have been reduced to bitter bickering from a behind the times king who himself admits that he “wasn’t aware that was something a person could do.” His relevancy and grip on the Americas – be that through military might or fear of failure – no longer exists and thus his necessity, even as a narrator, becomes nonexistent.

Thus, it becomes necessary for King George’s departure, so as it happens in the play.

by Noah Hammond

While listening to the Hamilton soundtrack on Spotify and keeping up with what happens in the musical, I’m impressed with how well it tells a complete and interesting story. Reading and studying history from a textbook can get tiresome, so the fact that Hamilton can tell the story of Hamilton with modern-sounding soundtrack is quite a feat. Miranda’s ability to have the characters personalities and motives shine through in their songs makes the story of Hamilton easy and enjoyable to follow.

I’ve been reading Game of Thrones recently and I can see a lot of similarities to Hamilton with how the stories are told. Both utilize the characters in the story to draw the audience in and get them to care about what happens to the characters and their goals. There is even parallels between the stories in the political sense. Characters clash with each other when their goals conflict and there are big consequences for almost all characters that try to get involved.

The thing that is significant about Hamilton and where I believe it gets a lot of its popularity from is that it tells the story in a form that approachable and already popular for a lot of people today. Hip-Hop has almost taken over the music industry and has so many different forms that nearly anyone can enjoy the soundtrack of Hamilton. It also has a diverse cast which helps attract more attention for being a unique and progressive group of people. All of these things combine to make Hamilton an extremely popular musical that has taken the country’s attention and held it for awhile. The price of tickets to see the musical is evidence enough of that.

By Grace Griggs

As pointed out in “A Singularity in Blue” Hamilton paints a fairly rosy picture of the Founding Fathers. Hamilton’s purpose is more to reframe the narrative of the American Revolution than it is to show an accurate version of the revolutionaries themselves. To this extent, the events and characters of the show should be taken, like anything “based on a true story”, with a grain of salt. Regardless of this, it is inevitable that a certain segment of the audience will take it for granted that Hamilton is completely historically accurate so it is important to pay attention to how characters are portrayed.

One questionable portrayal is that of General Charles Lee (below), who is introduced in “Stay Alive” with the line “I’m a general! Wheeee!”. Lee is presented as not only “inexperienced and ruinous”, but also as childish. Given Lee went on to slander Washington and damage the revolutionary cause, it makes sense that a story told from Hamilton’s perspective would view Lee this way. However, prior to the Battle of Monmouth fiasco, the historical Lee was a successful and well respected general. He was in the running for Washington’s position as Commander in Chief, but was turned down, in part because he wished to be compensated for English property he gave up when he joined rebellion, whereas Washington would work for free. This is clearly not the General Lee we see in Hamilton and it is not made clear whether the character is supposed to be the historical Lee or Lee as seen by Hamilton.

In comparison, the bias of the narrative is made explicit in “Say No to This” where the story is being told solely from Hamilton’s perspective. All of Maria Reynolds’ lines are preceded with an attributive from Hamilton like “she said”. The historical record of the events between Alexander and Maria is based entirely on Hamilton’s version of the events, where he painted Maria as a seductive caricature in order to absolve himself of guilt. It is clear that this is not supposed to represent Maria herself, but the way history views her through the lens of Hamilton’s writing.

While both of these depictions could be considered uncharitable at best, Maria’s characterization never strays into questionable territory because it is explicitly a biased caricature of the actual Maria Reynolds. Lee, on the other hand, is portrayed as a buffoon, without that same explicit purpose. It would be incredibly easy for an audience member to come away viewing the historical Lee as the caricature presented in the show. So, do the creators of a work like Hamilton have a responsibility to accurately and charitably represent historical figures? Are the legacies of the long dead worth protecting at the expense of artistic liberties? For figures like Lee, who is relatively obscure and became disgraced before his death, does it matter if his reputation is further tarnished 200 years later? I can’t answer these questions, but it seems important that they get asked.

By: Clarisa Colton

I don’t know if I can quite draw a parallel between Hamilton’s relentless pursuit of his work and my experience at Tech. Not that I don’t work hard – I feel like I do at least – but I feel like Hamilton’s life at age 19 differs so much from my own, as well as most other Tech students. For example, when Hamilton was just 20 (ok, maybe 22) he was first appointed as Washington’s aide. I feel like the kind of work that gets a person from where Hamilton started to there is not the kind of work I can possibly parallel with my own.

One thing that had really fascinated me throughout the musical is the fact that all these things (albeit slightly dramatized) are real things that happened. For me, it’s nearly impossible to reconcile the things that go on in the musical to someone’s real life. I think it goes to show how different things are today. In today’s world, I do not believe what Hamilton was able to accomplish at his age would be feasible. Although the age to be a United States Representative is 25 (Hamilton’s age when first on Congress), the youngest person currently a member of the House of Representatives is 33 – nearly 10 years older than Hamilton was. And I’m sure their efforts were relentless to get there.

As I listened and watched Hamilton, part of me considered how little I feel I’ve done compared to Hamilton, and others in the musical, I’ve realized it’s not really fair to compare myself to them. Today is a much different United States than was back then, and Hamilton himself was probably 1 in a million. But still, it’s incredible to learn the extent of what Hamilton was able to accomplish in his brief 47 (or 49) years.

I guess there are some people who you could compare him to – people like Steve Jobs. You know, those guys who are/were so incredibly smart and passionate about what they did that they excel beyond anyone else. So, in that sense, there are parallels that can be drawn between him and more contemporary people – but not your average Tech Student for sure.