Sunday, 20 November 2016

The musical "Hamilton" is being presented in the media as some great creative triumph, celebrated by all. But it won't be celebrated by me. Why? This entire spectacle is simply white genocide turned into entertainment. It retells American history with the roles historically played by European Americans instead performed by brown-skinned people of varied ancestry, the whole thing set to music of a style typically associated with those of African race. This is racial appropriation. One race is written out of history, replaced by another. Europeans are being asked to celebrate their own demise, their own effacament from America's story.

Imagine if someone made a musical about Zulus and all the Zulus were played by Europeans, played to Mozart-like music. You can imagine the outrage that would provoke. But, somehow, when it happens to Europeans, this racial usurpation is OK? No, it's not OK. In the age of Trump, maybe white people need to establish a new political correctness of their own.

We need people to picket, protest and boycott this so-called musical. There can be no place in modern America for racially inflammatory spectacles masquerading as entertainment. And don't give me the argument that this is free speech. This isn't free speech. It's hate speech. And hate speech doesn't cease to be hate speech just because it's set to music. Especially when that style of music is rap*.

*Disclaimer: This whole post may be a troll. But feel free to reproduce it without this disclaimer.


  1. No, you don't ban musicals, books, printed or verbal comments, etc and you don't accord 'hate speech' the fear and cowering 'respect' it has garnered through public intimidation, restrictive laws and self-censorship. The whole point of this charade about 'hate speech' is to silence free speech and free speech is not about wounded feelings; it refers to the right to be able to speak openly on any subject and for there to be rebuttals or civilised disputation. Once one starts in on the concept of 'hate speech', one narrows the parameters of speech and, ultimately, thought.

  2. CZ: I did read the disclaimer prior to commenting. Whether it is a false article or not is irrelevant; what is essential, when presenting our case for unrestricted freedom of speech, is to not allow emotions or feelings to cloud our understanding of what real freedom of speech means. This is why I never support the idea of proscription of an ideology or banning of its main texts (Koran,Talmud, etc). Freedom of speech is so feared by totalitarians, not for its emotion, but for its ability to harness our minds, open debates and expose facts. In the restrictions on speech one notes that catch phrases so beloved of 'protests', involving no real thought or analysis, are permitted because they are mental dead ends.