As I wrote in my last post, I have been reading and reflecting on the criticism that Lin-Manual Miranda received on the release of In The Heights. In my research, I went down a rabbit hole and came across something very interesting: a critique of Hamilton (the musical) by the playwright Ismael Reed in a play called “The Haunting of Lin-Manual Miranda”. This play criticizes, what Ismael considers, Miranda’s smoothing over of Alexander’s Hamilton slave-owning ties and not even addressing his contributions to the genocide of Native Americans. I learned that this interesting play was partially funded by Toni Morrison, a very intriguing factor, so I dug deeper.

I’m a big fan of Hamilton, I never saw the play but I loved the songs so much that I have listened to the album and some of its songs over 20 times. I must admit that my love for Hamilton had not brought me close to the critique of the show. The musical has been criticized for romanticizing a figure who at times used brutal force to put down civil unrest, and who although didn’t own any enslaved people, worked alongside and with many American founding fathers who owned people. Hamilton has been criticized as a form of whitewashing, where black actors play the roles of those founding fathers who might have owned their own ancestors without fully addressing slavery. The issue of slavery is barely mentioned in the musical and in one cabinet battle where the issue would have been addressed, the song is edited out due to time constraints. The discussion on what the artist ultimately chooses to leave in the show and which parts are taken out, is an important discussion and a very valid critique of the show.

And I see nothing wrong with the critique that is leveled against Hamilton, as well as In the Heights. I agree with them both: In In the Heights, the majority of the main characters are played by light-skinned Latin Americans, thus not fully representative of the Afro-Dominican community that the musical represents and Hamilton is a romanticized story of a flawed founding father of the United States.

Yes, they are all those things and that’s not all they are.

When I listened to the Hamilton album the first time, what I heard was not an attempt to bring a nuanced understanding and interpretation of history with all its complexities, rather what I heard was a story that was told through the rhythm, vernacular, the intonation and the music of people who were marginalized by those very same characters that they now inhabited.

There is a reason that the show was so hugely successful. Its language, musicality and vibration, and sensations it captured resonated with many people who saw it or listened to the album. Hamilton was an affective manifestation of parts of history through dance, movement of the body with words, and showcasing the sensations that specially rap, hip-hop and R&B music bring to life. What was created out of that musically then interrupted our hegemonic understanding of figures such as Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Hamilton did that brilliantly.

Hamilton allowed historically disenfranchised people to not only occupy the roles of the white men and women who founded the United States of America but to also tell their stories in their own interpretation. There is power in that and yes there is space for critique in that as well. Both exist simultaneously, its brilliant side and its darker side where some parts of history were relegated to the shadows once more.

What I grapple with is why people would be calling for the cancellation of shows like Hamilton and In the Heights for these flaws. I sometimes think there has been an increasing desire, perhaps coming out of the frustration of injustices remained unaddressed for too long, that any anti-oppressive work, especially art, must address all the complexities and problems of a situation that it represents. There seems to be an increasing desire for perfection, or something close it.

We as a society seem to elevate people to hero status because of one good deed they have done and when they inevitably disappoint us in another area of life, because they are imperfect humans, we seem to rush too quickly to denounce them or their previous creations fully and completely. I know about my own perfectionism, I’ve written about it before, and if not checked my perfectionist part will prevent me from publishing any piece of writing that it deems not perfect, and that’s almost always every single piece. The desire for perfection and the fear of criticism stops many artists from bringing forward their ideas.

I think there are two parallel questions: what do we do when a film, a musical, or a book, doesn’t address what we think is important to address and how do we still find a place to enjoy the parts of the art that do address significant issues?

I’m still thinking about these questions. But I keep coming back to this fact: imperfect humans make imperfect art. They get some things right and other things wrong. Perfection is over-rated, it is not achievable, and as Anne Lamott says it’s “the voice of the oppressor”. To demand the withdrawal of meaningful art about marginalized people because it is not perfect is to inadvertently support the oppressive status quo.