I recently read the essay, "Race Conscious Casting and the Erasure of the Black Past in Lin-Manuel Miranda's Hamilton" by Lyra D. Monteiro and I thoroughly enjoyed the presentation and analysis of some of the very poignant issues that the musical presents. I do, however, feel that some of Monteiro's claims were far too harsh. I challenge especially the position that it is wrong for a colored cast to be portraying figures who, in American history, were all white and primarily slave owning, or at the very least supporting of slave-ownership.

Dr. Monteiro takes the stance that the musical, "Hamilton" does a grave injustice by not including any historical people of color in the play, and therefore that it fails to deliver the representation that it is striving for in casting black and latinx people in all of the main roles (Monteiro 93). While I agree that the lack of historical representation in the show is disturbing, I believe that she puts too much responsibility on the members of the cast, and perhaps even on the writer. Monteiro does not take into consideration the true intentions of both the story that Miranda is attempting to portray and the purpose of casting people of color as these celebrated historical figures.

I disagree with Monteiro's stance that the founding fathers themselves should not be portrayed by people of color (Monteiro 91). The fact that someone took the time to say, "Hey, we need color in this play" is in and of itself a massive step forward in representation in media. The fact that someone decided, "Hey, we need everyone in this play to be a person of color" is incredible. The fact that they decided, "Let's cast colored people for these white characters" is unprecedented. When interviewed, many members of the cast said that they felt a connection to the story of the foundation of our nation in a way that they had not been able to feel in previous portrayals of the history, and that a large part of this connection was founded in the fact that this was the first time that these people were portrayed by black and brown people (Monteiro 93).

When the Revolutionary War was occurring, there were colored people involved and contributing. Of that, there is no doubt. However, these individuals are rarely viewed as being the heroes of America that the founding fathers are viewed as - a disgusting injustice, but a reality nonetheless. The America of the Revolutionary War era was not an America in which black and brown people could loudly and proudly represent themselves and fight for their country. This was because, to many of those in authoritative positions at the time, America did not belong to colored people.

This disparity can be seen in the fact that, as Monteiro herself pointed out, colored people are rarely if ever remembered as being participants in the early days of America in any context other than that of being slaves. Unfortunately, the heroes that are remembered are all white men, despite the fact that black and brown people not only existed as more than slaves but participated as fighters for freedom in a country where they were, disgustingly, not even viewed as fully human. Because of such disparities and lack of remembrance, colored Americans today often feel like they have little to no claim over the America that was birthed in 1776.

As Michael Paulson stated in his article "A Hamilton Star's Story: How Leslie Odom Jr. Became Aaron Burr, Sir", when people of color see colored people on stage, representing the heroes that Americans everywhere view as the source of America itself, they are able to settle a claim over the American story in a way that they have never been able to before (Paulson). When the cast of Hamilton makes the statement that the play is "the story of America then, told by America now," (Monteiro 93) it is not to say that people of color did not exist in America back then; they mean that people of color did not have a voice or representation in American then, but they do now, and that is how the cast will deliver the story.

Dr. Monteiro also makes the claim that the cast of Hamilton should not take such enjoyment in portraying the characters. She states that these people of color should feel uncomfortable with the idea of portraying white slave-owning people (Monteiro 91-94). While I understand the reasoning behind this, and I certainly respect this line of reasoning, I must point out that there are many other aspects of the characters that the cast members can find enjoyment in portraying. For example, Thomas Jefferson is shown as a wickedly sassy and intelligent gentleman; George Washington is noble, charismatic, and incredibly wise; Aaron Burr is complex in his intense devotion, his fear, and his ambition.

These are the aspects that the actors portray and feel a connection to; these are the reasons that the cast enjoys portraying these characters. These characters were all slave-owners/ supporters of slavery, and no one is denying or excusing that, certainly not Miranda or any of the cast. They were also very real and very interesting people, with multiple facets and flaws. Lin-Manuel Miranda focused his musical around these aspects of their characters instead of focusing on the fact that they were slave-owners because that was what was most relevant to the story he was trying to tell. The members of the cast find a level of joy, achievement, and connection in personifying these American heroes (Paulson); who has the right to deny them that? Who has the right to take that away from them?

Dr. Monteiro, you are telling the cast and producers of Hamilton - and by extension, those involved in any play that draws from non-fiction material- that their awareness of the negative facts surrounding the play or characters should eliminate any positive associations or portrayals of the performance. You claim that it is the responsibility of those involved in the play to educate the audience on the history of what they are seeing (Monteiro 95-97). In some cases, this may be true. If the story being told is one that people know very little about or that very few people even have knowledge of, then the writer should be aware of the audience's ignorance and make it the goal to fill that gap in the audience members' knowledge.

However, in the case of Hamilton, the goal was to tell the story of Alexander Hamilton, his role in the development of our country, and his struggle to overcome the obstacles in his life. That is the story that Lin-Manuel Miranda wrote, and that is the story that the audience receives. Educating the audience is not the responsibility of the writer. The majority of American citizens already know the basics and even some of the more nitty-gritty details of the beginning of our country, including the fact that it was a beginning entrenched in racism (a racism that continues to raise its horrible head from the shadows of our past even today).

The audience already knows that many of the founding fathers were white, that they were slave owners, and that people of color existed in America. If anybody in the audience is not aware of these facts, then it is the fault of their educators and/ or their own willful ignorance; the responsibility does not fall on Miranda or the cast. The only concern that the producers and participants of the play should have is to fulfill the roles that they have signed up for and fulfill them to the best of their abilities, and hope that critics and audience members receive and interpret the story the way the production team meant it to be.

Ms. Monteiro, I must ask you, in reading your critiques of Hamilton, whether you considered what the true intentions of the play and its casting actually were. I wonder if you thought beyond the faults that you perceived, or whether you only considered what you wanted to happen, yet did not see. I wonder at how you seem to only view the casting decisions from a negative light and why you wouldn't have done the play this way, rather than looking at how it has been beneficial to the members of the cast and to theater as a whole. The true intentions were to allow further connection and inclusion of people of color, and according to the members of the cast, the intention was achieved (Paulson).In your essay, you even acknowledge that Leslie Odom Jr. stated that he enjoyed and felt validated by being able to participate in the portrayal of American heroes, and his interview with New York Times reporter Michael Paulson reiterates this sentiment (Paulson). The decisions made in the casting of this musical were about people of color building a connection to the founding fathers and to the foundation of America. People of color participating in playing any and every role that they desire does not further enforce the idea that race divides the country, but rather enforces the fact that the color of an actor's skin (or that of any person, for that matter) does not define, limit, or inhibit their abilities, nor does it direct their ambitions.The inclusion enacted and embodied in Hamilton is a reflection of the inclusion that should be more evident in every aspect of the nation that we all live together in. After all, history has its eyes on us, and we are working to lay a strong enough foundation, one day, one action, and one musical at a time.