The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Sailer in "Taki's Mag:" Alexander Hamilton, Honorary Nonwhite
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Lin-Manuel Miranda in “Hamilton”

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:

A striking example of how identity politics turn in practice into the Zillionaire Liberation Front has emerged in the war over which Dead White Male to kick off the currency to make room for a woman: the $10 bill’s Alexander Hamilton or the $20’s Andrew Jackson. Bizarrely, the reactionary genius Hamilton, apostle of rule by the rich, is rapidly morphing in the conventional wisdom’s imagination into an Honorary Nonwhite.

Read the whole thing there.

 
    []
  1. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Hamilton aint honorary Jefferson no more?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/sailer-in-takis-mag-alexander-hamilton-honorary-nonwhite/#comment-1316415
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Isn’t paper currency gonna disappear soon?

    Since money is about sin and greed, why not put pics of hoodlums or vain celebs?

    Lucky Luciano.

    Oprah.

    Gordon Gekko.

    Eddie Murphy.

    Tony Montana.
    “In Me I Trust”

    Read More
    • Replies: @dc.sunsets
    The death of currency has been greatly exaggerated.

    When the credit bubble finally bursts (it surely has not yet), the effect will be for there to be a massive "shortage" of money. It is impossible to run an economy like that of the USA on physical cash, but paradoxically the only "money" that won't be subject to evaporation will be banknotes.

    For this reason, in another paradox, it seems likely that the Fed (or Congress, if it seizes the Fed) will at some point in the crisis attempt to reflate the economy with paper banknotes or something equally physical.

    I anticipate that at least for bank system accounting purposes, you'll see a return to very large denomination notes.

    I vote for putting the faces of the Bushes, Clinton(s) and Obama on these Zimbabwe-level banknotes.
  3. 5371 says:

    Freeing capital was what radicals were about in that age. Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley and Richard Price thought no differently. Hamilton was more their disciple than one of Hobbes. States’ rights and Virginia planters were the established ideology and class back then, and you can make a good case for Hamilton as the radical working against them. Even natural rights ideas could be interpreted in a conservative sense and opposed from a radical standpoint, as Bentham did. But to introduce modern racial concepts into the debate, of course, is downright stupidity.

    Read More
  4. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Hadn't heard it before. It's actually not a bad opening song. Set's the stagel. It's typical to include some exposition in Broadway opening numbers. Here's the double song opener for Aida, for example (more singing, less hip hoppy piano plinking).


    https://youtu.be/v_XHTzc6lag
    , @Wilkey
    By all reports all the kiddies are going crazy about "Hamilton," the same way many of them did over Lin-Manuel Miranda's first Broadway musical "In the Heights" (also an overrated snoozefest). Miranda, whose father is a bigtime Puerto Rican New York lefty activist, did a better job when he worked with Tom Kitt on the musical "Bring It On."

    The first I saw of "Hamilton" was a video ca. 2009 of Miranda performing "Hamilton Mix Tape" (iirc) at the White House. It was pretty damn good, but the samples I've heard from the musical itself all seem pretty lame.

    It'll clean up at the Tony Awards, though. They want to crown a new Broadway hit after giving last year's Best New Musical to the dreary "Fun Home," and what better musical that one that purports to turn Hamilton into a wetback?
  5. If they want to remove Jackson from the $20, I think as a compromise they should replace him with a more underappreciated Jackson. I mean, of course, Tito.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "If they want to remove Jackson from the $20, I think as a compromise they should replace him with a more underappreciated Jackson. I mean, of course, Tito."

    No. Bo.

    BTW we can picture him in a football uniform on the front and swinging a bat on the back.
  6. Bliss says:

    Lincoln’s interaction with a cherokee chief from Sailer’s article in Takimag:

    their chief was seven-eighths white.

    In that case that Cherokee chief was probably whiter than the tri-racial melungeon Lincoln:

    Lincoln was nicknamed Abraham Africanus by his political opponents…

    Check out them melungeons:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=melungeons&biw=1097&bih=492&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs0YqQttvKAhUE-mMKHb5DD_AQ_AUIBigB

    Read More
  7. >Bizarrely, the reactionary genius Hamilton, apostle of rule by the rich, is rapidly morphing in the conventional wisdom’s imagination into an Honorary Nonwhite.

    That’s only bizarre according to a narrative that we know is BS

    Read More
  8. Our current money is rife with slaveholders, sexists, and racists. I suggest a clean sweep:

    $100 – Martin Luther King Jr.
    $50 – Rosa Parks
    $20 – Harriet Tubman
    $10 – Frederick Douglass
    $5 – W. E. B. Du Bois
    $3 – Harvey Milk
    $2 – Carrie Nation
    $1 – Barack Obama

    $1 coin – Elizabeth Cady Stanton
    Half-dollar – Abigail Adams
    Quarter – Thurgood Marshall
    Dime – Cesar Chavez
    Nickle – Booker T. Washington
    Penny – Malcolm X

    Read More
    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    $3 – Harvey Milk

    I saw what you did.
    , @Jacobite

    Dime – Cesar Chavez
     
    Chavez was an immigration restrictionist. I say bring back the $500 bill and put him on it.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    I'm actually inclined to agree with your suggestion, although I'd drop the one and two dollar bills entirely and replace them with coins. There's no need for a $3 bill.

    As for replacing the founders, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant on the currency, hell, yes, this country bears no relationship to them anymore anyway. If every time Joe Sixpack and Sally Homemaker see some "person of color" on the currency when they pull out wallet or purse, the sooner they'll realize it isn't their country either.
    , @ScarletNumber

    $3 – Harvey Milk
     
    I haven't laughed this hard in a long time.
  9. The “natural-born citizen” clause was introduced into the Constitution mostly to keep out the West Indian-born Hamilton, whom none of the other Framers could stand.

    Guy was a genius, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Discordiax
    Not true.

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
     
    The clause is not about HAmilton, but about a possible monarchist venture to put a Prince of some European royal family or other in the Presidency and then use the Presidency as a fulcrum to overthrow the republic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Henry_of_Prussia_(1726%E2%80%931802)#Proposal_for_King_of_the_United_States for a contemporary example.

    It was not uncommon in republics for a faction to invite a foreign prince in, to defeat their domestic enemies. IT also was pretty common for a family dynasty to gain power in a republic, and alternate between power and exile.
    , @tbraton
    I think you are making up that argument out of whole cloth. Alexander Hamilton had nothing to worry about since the Constitution made it clear that he could run for President.

    Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

    "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; "

    I believe Hamilton was a "Citizen of the United States" at the time of the Constitution's adoption.
  10. Bettega says:

    Alexander Hamilton was a centralizer, so modern progressives are fond of him.

    Read More
  11. “An overlooked cause is that American culture heroes, such as Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Ernest Hemingway, and Groucho Marx, tended to war against the stifling conformity imposed upon American life by schoolmarms and society dames. (Prohibition was the most notorious example of the mischief women and Protestant ministers got up to when the doughboys were fighting over in France.)”

    Much of the political correctness in our lives today is just puritanism driven by women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    There's a pretty clear line from Carrie Nation to Adria Richards, though most of our modern SJWs would never admit it.
    , @Anonymous
    Yup... It's almost as if all the depictions of controlling/power-craving females in literature corresponded to an actual personality trait in certain women across the ages... That biological compunction to try to run someone else's life has to manifest somewhere. I think Lady Macbeth was childless, right

    ---
    update: Whoops, forgot Act 1 Sc. 7 "I have given suck" etc.

  12. SPMoore8 says:

    As an older white male, I have to admit that I have absolutely nothing invested in who is on the currency. More interesting to me would be an effort to make our money multilingual. ¡En Dios confiamos!

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    That's a loss because each of them was a great man about whom if (with respect) you knew more you would as likely be indifferent to his image as you are to one of your mother or father. Our forefathers put their portraits on the money to keep them in our minds as examples of true virtue.

    Check out John Keegan's portrait of Grant in Mask of Command. I bet you'd be smitten by the man.
  13. anowow says:

    Rootless Illegitimate, ruthlessly ambitious, willing to run huge debts, spend lots of a military with an idea to self-aggrandizement, sexually amoral, good with figures- Hamilton would be seen as a sensible, moderate pol, a real statesman, by the NPR, CNN crowd and their audiences and the Chamber of Commerce sorts.

    Read More
  14. Of all the great men depicted on present-day US currency, Hamilton is one of two who never owned slaves (the other, of course, is Abe Lincoln). That Washington, Jefferson and Jackson were slave owners is common knowledge. Less well known, however, is that Franklin and Grant were also slave owners. Grant owned slaves through his wife Julia (who was from Kentucky) and kept them until they were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment. Ben Franklin owned slaves as a young man but later freed them and became an abolitionist in his old age.

    So clearly, anyone who wishes to remove the plutocratic Hamilton from the currency is in favor of slavery. But if he is to be replaced by a woman, I would suggest Julia Dent Grant, a distinguished First Lady. BTW, Grant’s family refused to attend their wedding because the Dents were prominent slave owners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @boogerbently
    Why are slave owners, back when it was legal, retroactively punished, but gays, before it was accepted, are not ?
    , @gcochran
    Grant bought one slave, freed him in 1859.
  15. dearieme says:

    To comport with the essence of American culture, why not just use movie stars?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacobite
    Good idea. I vote for William Powell and Irene Dunne!
    , @syonredux

    To comport with the essence of American culture, why not just use movie stars?
     
    I would rather use great American directors:

    DW Griffith*

    Buster Keaton

    Howard Hawks

    John Ford

    Orson Welles


    *Of course, there's no chance in Hell that he will ever be publicly honored again. He's now the great un-person of world cinema.
  16. 1/ I’m surprised that Steve didn’t mention that Hamilton was closer to being an immigrant than any of the other founding fathers having not only been born outside the 13 colonies, but having been born on an island that at one time wasn’t even British.

    2/ Given this website’s current fondness for meritocracy you would think that Hamilton, born a poor bastard, would be lauded, certainly over his many rich born contemporaries. Indeed I see more than a few parallels between him and say Clinton (Bill not DeWitt), a favorite of the NY crowd.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Of the senior founders, yes. But 8 other delegates to the constitutional convention were born outside the 13 colonies, in Ireland, England or Scotland. Hamilton was the only one born in a colony outside the American 13.

    Not sure of the point of your comment that Nevis was at one point not British. New York was at one point not British [Dutch], and so was New Jersey [Swedish, then Dutch.]

    Nevis, claimed but not settled by the Spanish for 100 years, and an English and French watering stop during that time, was claimed by England in 1620 and first settled in 1628. It was earlier and more consistently British than most of the 13 colonies.

    I just learned that the Nevis legislature meets in the building in which Hamilton was born. Cool.
  17. We live in Hamilton’s world now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    I think my history book pointed out that Hamilton's vision of a centralized, commercial federal republic was a lot closer to what actually happened than Jefferson's agrarian democracy.
  18. Alexander Hamilton brought central banking to the United States.

    He didn’t wake up one morning and think “Wow, European-style central banking is exactly what this incipient republic needs!”

    I’m sure Hamilton was well-compensated for his role in the establishment of the FBOTUS.

    Read More
  19. Jimi says:

    Also note how Woodrow Wilson’s reputation has changed from a great progressive to reactionary racist. The Left is giving up all pretenses of class-based politics in favor of identity politics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    The one lasting accomplishment of the Paul family was to ruin the reputation of Woodrow Wilson.

    I mean it would've happened eventually anyway but the nonstop "Woodrow Wilson was a racist" rants that engulfed the internet over the 2007-2013 period actually did get through to their intended audience, albeit not in the hoped for way (discrediting the Federal Reserve by association).

  20. @anony-mouse
    1/ I'm surprised that Steve didn't mention that Hamilton was closer to being an immigrant than any of the other founding fathers having not only been born outside the 13 colonies, but having been born on an island that at one time wasn't even British.

    2/ Given this website's current fondness for meritocracy you would think that Hamilton, born a poor bastard, would be lauded, certainly over his many rich born contemporaries. Indeed I see more than a few parallels between him and say Clinton (Bill not DeWitt), a favorite of the NY crowd.

    Of the senior founders, yes. But 8 other delegates to the constitutional convention were born outside the 13 colonies, in Ireland, England or Scotland. Hamilton was the only one born in a colony outside the American 13.

    Not sure of the point of your comment that Nevis was at one point not British. New York was at one point not British [Dutch], and so was New Jersey [Swedish, then Dutch.]

    Nevis, claimed but not settled by the Spanish for 100 years, and an English and French watering stop during that time, was claimed by England in 1620 and first settled in 1628. It was earlier and more consistently British than most of the 13 colonies.

    I just learned that the Nevis legislature meets in the building in which Hamilton was born. Cool.

    Read More
  21. Steve, you call “Hamilton” *an entertainment*- this on the twentieth anniversary of “Infinite Jest”……..

    Read More
  22. “Honorary Nonwhite”… the crown of one’s curriculum vitae.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Maybe if I get to be an Honorary Nowhite, I can play in the NBA and make some real money. I could even learn to say stupid stuff in Ebonics like Boogie Cousins. Man's gotta have a dream.
  23. AndrewR says:

    Steve why do you act like such a cuck on the JQ? Many Jews do not openly identify as white to begin with, and most of the ones who do identify as white only do so in a dishonest fashion, since they hold whites in contempt and rarely even bother to hide this. Only extreme outliers like Gottfried don’t want to see whites gone. Whom do you think you are helping when you lump Jews in with whites like you do here:

    “And it’s not hard to grasp how the show fits exactly what wealthy white New York liberals want to see: minorities defending Wall Street.”

    While obviously many traitorous whites do profit from helping to uphold Jew Supremacy, that doesn’t mean they should be ethnically lumped in with their masters.

    Man up and publish this comment instead of cuckishly deleting it like my last one. Bonus points if you have the balls to actually give me a serious response.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Andrew,

    While obviously many traitorous whites do profit from helping to uphold Jew Supremacy, that doesn’t mean they should be ethnically lumped in with their masters.
     
    The WASP preceded the Jew:

    https://nickbsteves.wordpress.com/american-malvern/

    Those traitorous (yes, to the United States and the principles upon which it was founded) whites long ago abandoned any solidarity with you and yours'. There is no "white" identity which contains you both, except in the minds of anti-white bigots.
  24. Ryan says:

    If we’re going to remove one of the two it has to be Jackson. If he’s looking up on us (OK possibly down, but let’s be realistic, looking up on us), he hates the fact that we put his picture on a financial device he’d consider evil.

    Read More
  25. Hamilton’s birthplace on Nevis is now a museum (which I have visited). His home in New York City is also a museum.

    Hamilton also opposed free trade and was an ardent protectionist. Maybe Donald Trump is channeling him.

    Read More
  26. @Xenophon Xendrix
    Our current money is rife with slaveholders, sexists, and racists. I suggest a clean sweep:

    $100 – Martin Luther King Jr.
    $50 – Rosa Parks
    $20 – Harriet Tubman
    $10 – Frederick Douglass
    $5 – W. E. B. Du Bois
    $3 – Harvey Milk
    $2 – Carrie Nation
    $1 – Barack Obama

    $1 coin – Elizabeth Cady Stanton
    Half-dollar – Abigail Adams
    Quarter – Thurgood Marshall
    Dime – Cesar Chavez
    Nickle – Booker T. Washington
    Penny – Malcolm X

    $3 – Harvey Milk

    I saw what you did.

    Read More
  27. SFG says:
    @Mike Zwick
    "An overlooked cause is that American culture heroes, such as Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Ernest Hemingway, and Groucho Marx, tended to war against the stifling conformity imposed upon American life by schoolmarms and society dames. (Prohibition was the most notorious example of the mischief women and Protestant ministers got up to when the doughboys were fighting over in France.)"

    Much of the political correctness in our lives today is just puritanism driven by women.

    There’s a pretty clear line from Carrie Nation to Adria Richards, though most of our modern SJWs would never admit it.

    Read More
  28. SFG says:
    @Pseudonymic Handle
    We live in Hamilton's world now.

    I think my history book pointed out that Hamilton’s vision of a centralized, commercial federal republic was a lot closer to what actually happened than Jefferson’s agrarian democracy.

    Read More
  29. Abe says: • Website

    Wow, replacement of one people with a different people, followed by the eradication of the replaced people’s monuments, symbols, and history. I remember there was a term for this used around the time of the Balkan Wars of the 90′s, but I can’t recall it now, probably because it was some horribly foreign-sounding Serbian or Albanian word. But I do recall it rhyming with something like “skeptic lensing”, or maybe it was “septic flensing”….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Je Suis Charlie Martel
    See E. Michael Jones "The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing"
  30. OT

    BBC are reporting on radio news that African “refugees” are being flown out of Israel to Africa. A/c/t the report, only 1% of applicants for asylum in Israel succeed.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35475403

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35478964

    (can you see the video in the US?)

    Adam will be held in Holot for 12 months. Then he is likely to face a stark choice:

    Go home to Sudan
    Stay in Israel, but be imprisoned indefinitely
    Accept departure to a third country

    The Israeli government has deals with two countries in Africa to host its unwanted migrants.

    It promises that people who take the option of “voluntary departure to third countries” will receive papers on arrival that give them legal status in the country.

    As an extra incentive, they’re given $3,500 (£2,435) in cash, handed over in the departure lounge of the airport in Tel Aviv.

    Israel refuses to name the two African countries but the BBC has spoken to migrants who say they were sent to Rwanda and Uganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    If Israel can make deals with African countries, why can't Germany? Paul Kagame seems like a pragmatic guy. Offer him $5k or $10k per refugee and he'll probably take them.
    , @Clyde

    It promises that people who take the option of “voluntary departure to third countries” will receive papers on arrival that give them legal status in the country.
    As an extra incentive, they’re given $3,500 (£2,435) in cash, handed over in the departure lounge of the airport in Tel Aviv
     
    .
    Israel has the best way to deport people. A cash incentive and free plane ride home. This allows the deportee to brag when he gets home about all the free money he got. A win-win situation. The feminized traitors who govern Germany and Sweden claim they will be deporting thousands of asylum seekers who are not from Syria. They are flat out lying but if they mean it, then this is how it is done!
    The deportee also has to allow his biometrics to be taken for a database.
  31. Jezter says:

    A bunch of non-whites playing white historical figures? Isn’t that cultural appropriation? Where are the protests and boycotts?

    Read More
  32. David says:
    @SPMoore8
    As an older white male, I have to admit that I have absolutely nothing invested in who is on the currency. More interesting to me would be an effort to make our money multilingual. ¡En Dios confiamos!

    That’s a loss because each of them was a great man about whom if (with respect) you knew more you would as likely be indifferent to his image as you are to one of your mother or father. Our forefathers put their portraits on the money to keep them in our minds as examples of true virtue.

    Check out John Keegan’s portrait of Grant in Mask of Command. I bet you’d be smitten by the man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Actually, I know all about the guys on our money, and have a generally high opinion of them. In particular, Grant is one of my personal heroes, and I would love to see someone do a mini-series of his life, starting out in the Mexican War, with a reputation as a skilled horseman, then, whiling away his time and becoming addicted to alcohol while stationed away from his wife in a gray and empty Oregon landscape, then leaving, and getting by working in his family's shop for years until the war happens -- then emerging as one of the few commanders on the Union side with real executive experience, etc. And one could add to that. His charity at Appomattox. His memoirs written as he was dying from cancer: and, to be honest, among the very top rank of any memoirs written, certainly superior than any written by a former US president. Altogether an admirable character. (So much going on there, you'd have to do a mini-series or a film trilogy to cover all the ground and do it justice.)

    But again, in today's culture, if you want to be remembered, it has to be in the media. Being on the money means little if anything. Our national heroes deserve better tributes than that. They deserve stirring cinematic and mini-series treatments.
  33. Abe says: • Website

    Big deal. Cuckservatives and libertardians have for almost a generation been flirting with the idea that inner city drug dealers- go-getting entrepreneurs trading in a product there is clearly a demand for but which a meddling nanny state has outlawed- are the REAL Americans, not those clock-watching, pink-complexioned stiffs working in auto plants or the Oakland docks for $65/hr. This is the implicit rationale behind Rand Paul’s claim that the justice system is unfairly incarcerating too many young, black males (too bad, BTW, since Paul seems like one of the smarter candidates; loved it when in one of the debates he pointed to Christie and said, “If you want WWIII, you have your candidate.”)

    The Welfare Reform Act of 1996(?) was white America’s last great act of self-assertion; but then Michael Jordan hugged every single last white man and high-fived every single last white boy in the country, and we’ve been living under this dopey illusion of racial comity ever since. Actually, no, he didn’t hug or high-five them, he sent them a complimentary pair of sneakers made in a Third World sweat shop with his image on them. And actually, no, those sneakers weren’t free, but marked up like 2000% .

    Read More
  34. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    There used to be only one face on American coinage, and that face happened to be female. She was Lady Liberty. If we need to put a woman on the folding green, I propose her. Besides, she’d focus attention on a rather neglected principle (at least in this day and age) instead of a individual person, and nobody would be able to argue that she’s not an appropriate selection.

    Read More
  35. slumber_j says:

    My wife and I have a running bet on how long one can be at a social event in Manhattan before talk turns to Hamilton. Usually it’s somewhere in the 5-10 minute range, but it can be as low as 2 minutes, and it almost never fails to happen.

    I am not exaggerating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SFG
    There's also probably a little bit of hometown pride--he *was* the only big name from New York, after all.
    , @Anonymous
    "My wife and I have a running bet on how long one can be at a social event in Manhattan before talk turns to Hamilton. Usually it’s somewhere in the 5-10 minute range, but it can be as low as 2 minutes, and it almost never fails to happen."

    Sheeple.
    , @Steve Sailer
    "My wife and I have a running bet on how long one can be at a social event in Manhattan before talk turns to Hamilton."

    I'm sure it's quite good.
  36. SFG says:
    @slumber_j
    My wife and I have a running bet on how long one can be at a social event in Manhattan before talk turns to Hamilton. Usually it's somewhere in the 5-10 minute range, but it can be as low as 2 minutes, and it almost never fails to happen.

    I am not exaggerating.

    There’s also probably a little bit of hometown pride–he *was* the only big name from New York, after all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    There’s also probably a little bit of hometown pride–he *was* the only big name from New York, after all.
     
    Well, there was John Jay:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay
  37. @Spotted Toad
    The "natural-born citizen" clause was introduced into the Constitution mostly to keep out the West Indian-born Hamilton, whom none of the other Framers could stand.

    Guy was a genius, though.

    Not true.

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

    The clause is not about HAmilton, but about a possible monarchist venture to put a Prince of some European royal family or other in the Presidency and then use the Presidency as a fulcrum to overthrow the republic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Henry_of_Prussia_(1726%E2%80%931802)#Proposal_for_King_of_the_United_States for a contemporary example.

    It was not uncommon in republics for a faction to invite a foreign prince in, to defeat their domestic enemies. IT also was pretty common for a family dynasty to gain power in a republic, and alternate between power and exile.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX

    It was not uncommon in republics for a faction to invite a foreign prince in, to defeat their domestic enemies.
     
    I wonder how it shifted from inviting a foreign prince to inviting a foreign people.
    , @random observer
    Good points.

    the Founders were also very familiar with the recent political experiences of Poland. Poland had for 200 years run an elective monarchy whose king, though he sat for life, had similar powers to those granted the presidency [very roughly] and whose position was not hereditary. The enormous noble caste who exercised the franchise had taken over time to selecting foreign candidates [Swedes, Poles, Frenchmen] who were too far down the line in their native realms and were looking for a throne. These generally either acted in the interests of their ancestral realms or provoked endless conflict among neighbouring powers over the next election.

    It was one of the major contributors to Poland's collapse into weakness, then servitude, then partition, a process that was going on parallel to the emergence of the United States and was widely considered among people interested in constitutional questions.
  38. @Black Death
    Of all the great men depicted on present-day US currency, Hamilton is one of two who never owned slaves (the other, of course, is Abe Lincoln). That Washington, Jefferson and Jackson were slave owners is common knowledge. Less well known, however, is that Franklin and Grant were also slave owners. Grant owned slaves through his wife Julia (who was from Kentucky) and kept them until they were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment. Ben Franklin owned slaves as a young man but later freed them and became an abolitionist in his old age.

    So clearly, anyone who wishes to remove the plutocratic Hamilton from the currency is in favor of slavery. But if he is to be replaced by a woman, I would suggest Julia Dent Grant, a distinguished First Lady. BTW, Grant's family refused to attend their wedding because the Dents were prominent slave owners.

    Why are slave owners, back when it was legal, retroactively punished, but gays, before it was accepted, are not ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan
    A better question is why are only European slave holders of the past 500 years punished? Non European slavers, such as the Ottomans, are barely mentioned. And ancient European slavers are celebrated.

    It seems that one is only condemned for slavery if one was from a Christian European nation, regardless if one actually was a Christian or not.
    , @NOTA
    For the same reason movies set in the past always involve sympathetic characters with modern 21st century US values. Most people don't seem to have the imagination to hold it in their heads that many perfectly good people didn't think like them, and indeed historical "heroes" usually had ideas not unlike those of their surrounding society.
  39. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Please Clap.

    ROTFL.

    Maybe Jeb can come up with Clap music. Rap is so tiresome.

    Read More
  40. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    This pomo sensibility is really getting stupid.

    No wonder Lancelot is now a Negro.

    Tarantino-ism is ruining culture into flippant hipsterism.

    JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR was about as far as one could go with this approach without turning it into total sham.

    I heard some of the soundtrack, and this Hamilton is insufferable.

    Tarantino, Southpark, Miranda… it’s all ahistorical mumbo jumbo garbage for a generation of fools who have no taste and would reduce everything into ugabuga.

    Read More
  41. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    I thought Mel Brooks SILENT MOVIE was a funny idea.. for a skit. Not a full movie.

    Same here. This Hamilton stuff might have made a fun 5 min skit, like some of the hilarious Epic Rap Battle of the Century.

    But an entire evening of this stuff? One has to be kidding.

    Obama saw this trash twice? Goes to show what kind of cultural sensibility he has.

    Maybe the next thing is make all the founding fathers homo.

    Followed by WWII as a rap war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Maybe the next thing is make all the founding fathers homo.

    Already in the works
    , @Anonymous
    Was the musical Hamilton conceived of and written by a black person or black people?
  42. For example, in 1863 Abraham Lincoln addressed fourteen Plains Indian chiefs visiting the White House about his plan to turn them from free hunters into reservation farmers.

    Makes me think of Chief Dan George in The Outlaw Josey Wales

    Read More
  43. @Threecranes
    "Honorary Nonwhite"… the crown of one's curriculum vitae.

    Maybe if I get to be an Honorary Nowhite, I can play in the NBA and make some real money. I could even learn to say stupid stuff in Ebonics like Boogie Cousins. Man’s gotta have a dream.

    Read More
  44. gcochran says:
    @Black Death
    Of all the great men depicted on present-day US currency, Hamilton is one of two who never owned slaves (the other, of course, is Abe Lincoln). That Washington, Jefferson and Jackson were slave owners is common knowledge. Less well known, however, is that Franklin and Grant were also slave owners. Grant owned slaves through his wife Julia (who was from Kentucky) and kept them until they were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment. Ben Franklin owned slaves as a young man but later freed them and became an abolitionist in his old age.

    So clearly, anyone who wishes to remove the plutocratic Hamilton from the currency is in favor of slavery. But if he is to be replaced by a woman, I would suggest Julia Dent Grant, a distinguished First Lady. BTW, Grant's family refused to attend their wedding because the Dents were prominent slave owners.

    Grant bought one slave, freed him in 1859.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Black Death
    True. But Grant owned slaves through his wife, Julia Dent Grant, a member of a prominent slave-owning family. They were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
  45. Jonah says:

    I just tried to listen to the original cast recording of Hamilton!

    I tried.

    It’s dreadful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    My wife forced me to listen to it. It's like listening to paint dry.
  46. Hepp says:

    As part of a time-tested strategy of divide and rule, the rich tend to push for policies and attitudes that increase identity-politics divisiveness—more immigration, more Black Lives Matter rioting, more transgender agitation, and so forth—which makes it harder for the nonrich to team up politically to promote their mutual economic interests.

    Blah, not everything is so rational when you scratch beyond the surface. If poor whites tomorrow became loving of blacks and transponders, the liberals would be happy to have them.

    Read More
  47. Jacobite says: • Website
    @Xenophon Xendrix
    Our current money is rife with slaveholders, sexists, and racists. I suggest a clean sweep:

    $100 – Martin Luther King Jr.
    $50 – Rosa Parks
    $20 – Harriet Tubman
    $10 – Frederick Douglass
    $5 – W. E. B. Du Bois
    $3 – Harvey Milk
    $2 – Carrie Nation
    $1 – Barack Obama

    $1 coin – Elizabeth Cady Stanton
    Half-dollar – Abigail Adams
    Quarter – Thurgood Marshall
    Dime – Cesar Chavez
    Nickle – Booker T. Washington
    Penny – Malcolm X

    Dime – Cesar Chavez

    Chavez was an immigration restrictionist. I say bring back the $500 bill and put him on it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Like Eugene Debs, Cesar Chavez was originally a restrictionist but fell into step with the party line eventually. As we've seen Bernie Sanders do recently, though I guess he was never an actual restrictionist.
  48. Jacobite says: • Website
    @dearieme
    To comport with the essence of American culture, why not just use movie stars?

    Good idea. I vote for William Powell and Irene Dunne!

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Good idea. I vote for William Powell and Irene Dunne!
     
    Heresy. William Powell must be paired with Myrna Loy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_and_Nora_Charles


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Man_(film)
  49. @Xenophon Xendrix
    Our current money is rife with slaveholders, sexists, and racists. I suggest a clean sweep:

    $100 – Martin Luther King Jr.
    $50 – Rosa Parks
    $20 – Harriet Tubman
    $10 – Frederick Douglass
    $5 – W. E. B. Du Bois
    $3 – Harvey Milk
    $2 – Carrie Nation
    $1 – Barack Obama

    $1 coin – Elizabeth Cady Stanton
    Half-dollar – Abigail Adams
    Quarter – Thurgood Marshall
    Dime – Cesar Chavez
    Nickle – Booker T. Washington
    Penny – Malcolm X

    I’m actually inclined to agree with your suggestion, although I’d drop the one and two dollar bills entirely and replace them with coins. There’s no need for a $3 bill.

    As for replacing the founders, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant on the currency, hell, yes, this country bears no relationship to them anymore anyway. If every time Joe Sixpack and Sally Homemaker see some “person of color” on the currency when they pull out wallet or purse, the sooner they’ll realize it isn’t their country either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    You are correct about the current state not having any relation to Jackson. But we are living in the hell created by the tyrant Lincoln and his drunken minion Grant.
    , @Romanian
    The stripper industry is going to enter a recession.
  50. syonredux says:

    Department of self-aggrandizement:Steve, should I feel ever so slightly chuffed at the notion that some of my postings might have had some degree of influence on this column?

    Putting women such as Susan B. Anthony and Sacajawea on coins failed to excite enthusiasm in the recent past. And the usual suspects being trotted out this time, such as Anthony (yet again), Eleanor Roosevelt, Rosa Parks, and, especially, Harriet Tubman, also suffer from not being very easy on the eyes. (My choice would be Marilyn Monroe. While America’s semi-famous women politicians and artists are largely second-rate relative to Europe’s, the same cannot be said for our goddesses of the silver screen.)

    Seeing as how we are probably never going to get another (besides Franklin, of course) American man* who did significant work in the arts and the sciences on our money, I’m still going to plunk for putting one of these ladies on US currency:

    Emily Dickinson

    Edith Wharton

    Willa Cather

    Mary Cassatt

    Hamilton as immigrant hero: Interesting reversal. American historiography used to see that as Hamilton’s weakness. It was thought that that prevented him from truly understanding the American mind.

    Pop culture and Hamilton: Hamilton was depicted as something of a villain in the John Adams HBO miniseries. Wonder if that will be the last time that we will see a negative version of him.

    Falling liberal idols: Who’s in bad odor these days: Jefferson (whole slavery thing), Madison (ditto), Jackson (slavery plus Amerinds),Woodrow Wilson (the vile racist who lauded Birth of a Nation), FDR (father of redlining, didn’t do enough to stop Hitler, Japanese internment), etc.

    *Although I still think that it’s positively criminal that people like Edison, the Wright Bros, Mark Twain, William James, Poe, Melville, Howard Hawks, etc, have never been on US currency.

    Read More
  51. syonredux says:
    @dearieme
    To comport with the essence of American culture, why not just use movie stars?

    To comport with the essence of American culture, why not just use movie stars?

    I would rather use great American directors:

    DW Griffith*

    Buster Keaton

    Howard Hawks

    John Ford

    Orson Welles

    *Of course, there’s no chance in Hell that he will ever be publicly honored again. He’s now the great un-person of world cinema.

    Read More
  52. @Xenophon Xendrix
    Our current money is rife with slaveholders, sexists, and racists. I suggest a clean sweep:

    $100 – Martin Luther King Jr.
    $50 – Rosa Parks
    $20 – Harriet Tubman
    $10 – Frederick Douglass
    $5 – W. E. B. Du Bois
    $3 – Harvey Milk
    $2 – Carrie Nation
    $1 – Barack Obama

    $1 coin – Elizabeth Cady Stanton
    Half-dollar – Abigail Adams
    Quarter – Thurgood Marshall
    Dime – Cesar Chavez
    Nickle – Booker T. Washington
    Penny – Malcolm X

    $3 – Harvey Milk

    I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time.

    Read More
  53. syonredux says:
    @SFG
    There's also probably a little bit of hometown pride--he *was* the only big name from New York, after all.

    There’s also probably a little bit of hometown pride–he *was* the only big name from New York, after all.

    Well, there was John Jay:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay

    Read More
  54. tbraton says:
    @Cattle Guard
    If they want to remove Jackson from the $20, I think as a compromise they should replace him with a more underappreciated Jackson. I mean, of course, Tito.

    “If they want to remove Jackson from the $20, I think as a compromise they should replace him with a more underappreciated Jackson. I mean, of course, Tito.”

    No. Bo.

    BTW we can picture him in a football uniform on the front and swinging a bat on the back.

    Read More
  55. syonredux says:

    John Adams on Alexander Hamilton:

    “What a pity it is that our Congress had not known this discovery, and that Alexander Hamilton’s projects of raising an army of fifty thousand Men, ten thousand of them to be Cavalry and his projects of sedition Laws and Alien Laws and of new taxes to support his army, all arose from a superabundance of secretions which he could not find whores enough to draw off! and that the same vapours produced his Lyes and Slanders by which he totally destroyed his party forever and finally lost his Life in the field of Honor.”

    Jew Or Nor Jew on Hamilton:

    January 11, 1755 or 1757 – July 12, 1804
    Thanks to the great New Jersey public school system, we learned a lot about our nation’s founding fathers.

    Take Alexander Hamilton. He was the first Secretary of Treasury, and he was killed in a duel, and… he’s on the 10 dollar bill, and…

    Here’s what they didn’t teach us in school: Hamilton was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis. His goyishe mother left her husband, Johann Michal Lavien (rumored, but not proven, Jewish), shacked up with Scotsman James Hamilton (Not a Jew), and bore Alexander out of wedlock.

    So when it was time for young Alex to go to school, the Anglican church would have none of that. So what did his parents do? That’s right, they enrolled Alex in a private Jewish school. (If you ever needed more proof that Jews were ALWAYS more tolerant than the goyim!)

    You can just picture young Alex, wearing a yarmulke and breeches (they wore breeches at the time, right?), dipping his quill into the inkwell, careful as to avoid an inkblot on that impossible letter shin… (They didn’t teach pistol shooting at that school, that’s for sure.)

    Sadly, Hamilton’s immersion in Judaism did not go farther than his primary education. But if anything, it taught him tolerance. “[The] progress of the Jews,” he wrote, “from their earliest history to the present time has been and is entirely out of the ordinary course of human affairs.”

    Why didn’t they teach us THAT in school?

    Jew Score:
    7

    Verdict: Sadly, not a Jew.

    http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=765

    Read More
    • Replies: @MaximumCynicism

    “What a pity it is that our Congress had not known this discovery, and that Alexander Hamilton’s projects of raising an army of fifty thousand Men, ten thousand of them to be Cavalry and his projects of sedition Laws and Alien Laws and of new taxes to support his army, all arose from a superabundance of secretions which he could not find whores enough to draw off! and that the same vapours produced his Lyes and Slanders by which he totally destroyed his party forever and finally lost his Life in the field of Honor.”

     

    Ha! Thank you for the Adams quote! Outstanding! Any citation?
  56. syonredux says:

    A little taste of the musical. Here are some lyrics from Cabinet Battle #1

    [JEFFERSON]
    Ooh, if the shoe fits, wear it
    If New York’s in debt—
    Why should Virginia bear it? Uh! Our debts are paid, I’m afraid
    Don’t tax the South cuz we got it made in the shade
    In Virginia, we plant seeds in the ground
    We create. You just wanna move our money around
    This financial plan is an outrageous demand
    And it’s too many damn pages for any man to understand
    Stand with me in the land of the free
    And pray to God we never see Hamilton’s candidacy
    Look, when Britain taxed our tea, we got frisky
    Imagine what gon’ happen when you try to tax our whisky

    [WASHINGTON]
    Thank you, Secretary Jefferson. Secretary Hamilton, your response

    [HAMILTON]
    Thomas. That was a real nice declaration
    Welcome to the present, we’re running a real nation
    Would you like to join us, or stay mellow
    Doin’ whatever the hell it is you do in Monticello?
    If we assume the debts, the union gets
    A new line of credit, a financial diuretic
    How do you not get it? If we’re aggressive and competitive
    The union gets a boost. You’d rather give it a sedative?
    A civics lesson from a slaver. Hey neighbor
    Your debts are paid cuz you don’t pay for labor
    “We plant seeds in the South. We create.”
    Yeah, keep ranting
    We know who’s really doing the planting

    And another thing, Mr. Age of Enlightenment
    Don’t lecture me about the war, you didn’t fight in it
    You think I’m frightened of you, man?
    We almost died in a trench
    While you were off getting high with the French
    Thomas Jefferson, always hesitant with the President
    Reticent—there isn’t a plan he doesn’t jettison
    Madison, you’re mad as a hatter, son, take your medicine
    Damn, you’re in worse shape than the national debt is in
    Sittin’ there useless as two sh***
    Hey, turn around, bend over, I’ll show you
    Where my shoe fits

    Note the use of the standard PC line of attack in regards to Jefferson. He owned slaves. Hence, we can safely discount anything that he says.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    Note the use of the standard PC line of attack in regards to Jefferson. He owned slaves. Hence, we can safely discount anything that he says.
     
    There's a lot more in there than that. Those are impressive lyrics. There's the conflict between an agrarian future and an industrial one. Southern slave-holders were the original free-trade, cheap-labor lobby. When you don't have to pay your workers, you don't have to worry about foreign markets undercutting your costs. Cheap labor and free markets go together.

    Hamilton and most of the founders were protectionists/mercantilists though. And America remained a protectionist country until the mid-20th Century, as Ian Fletcher has noted. We did to Britain what China has been doing to us.

  57. tbraton says:
    @Spotted Toad
    The "natural-born citizen" clause was introduced into the Constitution mostly to keep out the West Indian-born Hamilton, whom none of the other Framers could stand.

    Guy was a genius, though.

    I think you are making up that argument out of whole cloth. Alexander Hamilton had nothing to worry about since the Constitution made it clear that he could run for President.

    Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ”

    I believe Hamilton was a “Citizen of the United States” at the time of the Constitution’s adoption.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Spotted Toad
    Yep, looks like I fell prey one of the classic blunders-- thinking that Hamilton was the reason for the "natural born citizen" clause is prominently featured on a "Myths about Hamilton" web site.

    (The classic blunder being, listening to your family member the legal historian when legal history is on the line, since that's where I heard this, in a recent conversation about Ted Cruz's eligibility.)
  58. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Great column. My favorite part below.

    I didn’t realize Miranda was Puerto Rican. His previous Broadway musical (“In The Heights”) was set in a Dominican neighborhood in upper Manhattan. I guess there aren’t many Dominican Broadway composers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    If you scroll down to item #5 (the one with the four pictures)--"Hamilton" is #2), you can link to the November 2015 segment on the musical "Hamilton" on "60 Minutes." I believe you have to subscribe to watch the whole segment, but you can register for free for 1 week. https://www.bing.com/search?q=60+minutes+hamilton+episode&form=EDGNTC&qs=AS&cvid=7d4a38a4e28d4ac79e95d2dae75903f7&pq=60%20minutes%20%2B%20hamilton
  59. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anon
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEH9I_oJfqY&list=PLUSRfoOcUe4avCXPg6tPgdZzu--hBXUYx&index=2

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    Hadn’t heard it before. It’s actually not a bad opening song. Set’s the stagel. It’s typical to include some exposition in Broadway opening numbers. Here’s the double song opener for Aida, for example (more singing, less hip hoppy piano plinking).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    "Hadn’t heard it before. It’s actually not a bad opening song."

    Here's the problem. An entire production set to rap?

    I can't think of anything lazier for a musical talent.

    I've never been a fan of musicals, but some of them did come up with wonderful tunes like 'Maria' and 'Tonight' in WEST SIDE STORY, 'Heaven on their mind' in JESUS H. CHRIST SUPERSTAR, 'Old Man River' in SHOWBOAT, 'Sabine Women' in SEVEN HO's FOR SEVEN BRO's.

    But if this HAMILTON starts a new trend in musicals, it will be just endless raps and yaps.

    JCS is very uneven, but 'Heaven on their minds' is a killer song.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-voeq7Cebo

    One thing for sure, scientific and technological progress don't ensure cultural progress.

    I fail to see today's musical theater as progress from Verdi and Wagner.
  60. iSteveFan says:
    @boogerbently
    Why are slave owners, back when it was legal, retroactively punished, but gays, before it was accepted, are not ?

    A better question is why are only European slave holders of the past 500 years punished? Non European slavers, such as the Ottomans, are barely mentioned. And ancient European slavers are celebrated.

    It seems that one is only condemned for slavery if one was from a Christian European nation, regardless if one actually was a Christian or not.

    Read More
  61. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anonymous Nephew
    OT

    BBC are reporting on radio news that African "refugees" are being flown out of Israel to Africa. A/c/t the report, only 1% of applicants for asylum in Israel succeed.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35475403
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35478964

    (can you see the video in the US?)


    Adam will be held in Holot for 12 months. Then he is likely to face a stark choice:

    Go home to Sudan
    Stay in Israel, but be imprisoned indefinitely
    Accept departure to a third country

    The Israeli government has deals with two countries in Africa to host its unwanted migrants.

    It promises that people who take the option of "voluntary departure to third countries" will receive papers on arrival that give them legal status in the country.

    As an extra incentive, they're given $3,500 (£2,435) in cash, handed over in the departure lounge of the airport in Tel Aviv.

    Israel refuses to name the two African countries but the BBC has spoken to migrants who say they were sent to Rwanda and Uganda.


     

    If Israel can make deals with African countries, why can’t Germany? Paul Kagame seems like a pragmatic guy. Offer him $5k or $10k per refugee and he’ll probably take them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    I you add a little extra money, can he also disappear the worst ones and genetically pacify them? That might be the best gift for them in the long run.
  62. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @syonredux
    A little taste of the musical. Here are some lyrics from Cabinet Battle #1

    [JEFFERSON]
    Ooh, if the shoe fits, wear it
    If New York’s in debt—
    Why should Virginia bear it? Uh! Our debts are paid, I’m afraid
    Don’t tax the South cuz we got it made in the shade
    In Virginia, we plant seeds in the ground
    We create. You just wanna move our money around
    This financial plan is an outrageous demand
    And it’s too many damn pages for any man to understand
    Stand with me in the land of the free
    And pray to God we never see Hamilton’s candidacy
    Look, when Britain taxed our tea, we got frisky
    Imagine what gon’ happen when you try to tax our whisky

    [WASHINGTON]
    Thank you, Secretary Jefferson. Secretary Hamilton, your response

    [HAMILTON]
    Thomas. That was a real nice declaration
    Welcome to the present, we’re running a real nation
    Would you like to join us, or stay mellow
    Doin’ whatever the hell it is you do in Monticello?
    If we assume the debts, the union gets
    A new line of credit, a financial diuretic
    How do you not get it? If we’re aggressive and competitive
    The union gets a boost. You’d rather give it a sedative?
    A civics lesson from a slaver. Hey neighbor
    Your debts are paid cuz you don’t pay for labor
    “We plant seeds in the South. We create.”
    Yeah, keep ranting
    We know who’s really doing the planting


    And another thing, Mr. Age of Enlightenment
    Don’t lecture me about the war, you didn’t fight in it
    You think I’m frightened of you, man?
    We almost died in a trench
    While you were off getting high with the French
    Thomas Jefferson, always hesitant with the President
    Reticent—there isn’t a plan he doesn’t jettison
    Madison, you’re mad as a hatter, son, take your medicine
    Damn, you’re in worse shape than the national debt is in
    Sittin’ there useless as two sh***
    Hey, turn around, bend over, I’ll show you
    Where my shoe fits


    Note the use of the standard PC line of attack in regards to Jefferson. He owned slaves. Hence, we can safely discount anything that he says.

    Note the use of the standard PC line of attack in regards to Jefferson. He owned slaves. Hence, we can safely discount anything that he says.

    There’s a lot more in there than that. Those are impressive lyrics. There’s the conflict between an agrarian future and an industrial one. Southern slave-holders were the original free-trade, cheap-labor lobby. When you don’t have to pay your workers, you don’t have to worry about foreign markets undercutting your costs. Cheap labor and free markets go together.

    Hamilton and most of the founders were protectionists/mercantilists though. And America remained a protectionist country until the mid-20th Century, as Ian Fletcher has noted. We did to Britain what China has been doing to us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax

    Southern slave-holders were the original ... cheap-labor lobby.
     
    This can't be emphasized enough. It's quite literally unimaginable how much better off we'd be if the abolitionists had been successful 100 years earlier.
    , @syonredux

    Note the use of the standard PC line of attack in regards to Jefferson. He owned slaves. Hence, we can safely discount anything that he says.

    There’s a lot more in there than that. Those are impressive lyrics. There’s the conflict between an agrarian future and an industrial one. Southern slave-holders were the original free-trade, cheap-labor lobby. When you don’t have to pay your workers, you don’t have to worry about foreign markets undercutting your costs. Cheap labor and free markets go together.
     
    Sure. People like us can trace a direct line from plantation owners in the 18th century to billionaires advocating open borders in the 21st. But I rather doubt that that's what Miranda has in mind. He's simply using Jefferson's status as a slave owner as a way to shut down debate.
  63. syonredux says:
    @Jacobite
    Good idea. I vote for William Powell and Irene Dunne!

    Good idea. I vote for William Powell and Irene Dunne!

    Heresy. William Powell must be paired with Myrna Loy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_and_Nora_Charles

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Man_(film)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacobite

    William Powell must be paired with Myrna Loy
     
    Nix that. While I love her dearly and have seen her perform on stage, she was a damn liberal Democrat.
  64. Dr. X says:

    I nominate Monica Lewinsky for the currency.

    Nothing epitomizes the character of the postmodern U.S. better than Clinton getting a blow job in the Oval Office…

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Nothing epitomizes the character of the postmodern U.S. better than Clinton getting a blow job in the Oval Office…"

    Since it is political season, I guess it's OK to take a cheap shot at our former President, as long as you understand that he "did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." I hope you will be honest enough to inscribe those words on whichever bill Ms. Lewinsky appears. Otherwise people may get the wrong idea.
  65. @syonredux
    John Adams on Alexander Hamilton:

    "What a pity it is that our Congress had not known this discovery, and that Alexander Hamilton’s projects of raising an army of fifty thousand Men, ten thousand of them to be Cavalry and his projects of sedition Laws and Alien Laws and of new taxes to support his army, all arose from a superabundance of secretions which he could not find whores enough to draw off! and that the same vapours produced his Lyes and Slanders by which he totally destroyed his party forever and finally lost his Life in the field of Honor."
     
    Jew Or Nor Jew on Hamilton:

    January 11, 1755 or 1757 – July 12, 1804
    Thanks to the great New Jersey public school system, we learned a lot about our nation's founding fathers.

    Take Alexander Hamilton. He was the first Secretary of Treasury, and he was killed in a duel, and... he's on the 10 dollar bill, and...

    Here's what they didn't teach us in school: Hamilton was born on the Caribbean island of Nevis. His goyishe mother left her husband, Johann Michal Lavien (rumored, but not proven, Jewish), shacked up with Scotsman James Hamilton (Not a Jew), and bore Alexander out of wedlock.

    So when it was time for young Alex to go to school, the Anglican church would have none of that. So what did his parents do? That's right, they enrolled Alex in a private Jewish school. (If you ever needed more proof that Jews were ALWAYS more tolerant than the goyim!)

    You can just picture young Alex, wearing a yarmulke and breeches (they wore breeches at the time, right?), dipping his quill into the inkwell, careful as to avoid an inkblot on that impossible letter shin... (They didn't teach pistol shooting at that school, that's for sure.)

    Sadly, Hamilton's immersion in Judaism did not go farther than his primary education. But if anything, it taught him tolerance. "[The] progress of the Jews," he wrote, "from their earliest history to the present time has been and is entirely out of the ordinary course of human affairs."

    Why didn't they teach us THAT in school?

    Jew Score:
    7

    Verdict: Sadly, not a Jew.

     

    http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=765

    “What a pity it is that our Congress had not known this discovery, and that Alexander Hamilton’s projects of raising an army of fifty thousand Men, ten thousand of them to be Cavalry and his projects of sedition Laws and Alien Laws and of new taxes to support his army, all arose from a superabundance of secretions which he could not find whores enough to draw off! and that the same vapours produced his Lyes and Slanders by which he totally destroyed his party forever and finally lost his Life in the field of Honor.”

    Ha! Thank you for the Adams quote! Outstanding! Any citation?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-5152
  66. @tbraton
    "If they want to remove Jackson from the $20, I think as a compromise they should replace him with a more underappreciated Jackson. I mean, of course, Tito."

    No. Bo.

    BTW we can picture him in a football uniform on the front and swinging a bat on the back.

    C’mon, man. It’s gotta be Samuel L!

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "C’mon, man. It’s gotta be Samuel L!"

    I think it would be un-American to have someone pictured on our currency who played the French horn in high school. That would send an entirely wrong message to the world while we are still engaged in the Global War on Terror.
  67. @Anon
    I thought Mel Brooks SILENT MOVIE was a funny idea.. for a skit. Not a full movie.

    Same here. This Hamilton stuff might have made a fun 5 min skit, like some of the hilarious Epic Rap Battle of the Century.

    But an entire evening of this stuff? One has to be kidding.

    Obama saw this trash twice? Goes to show what kind of cultural sensibility he has.

    Maybe the next thing is make all the founding fathers homo.

    Followed by WWII as a rap war.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wYtG7aQTHA

    Maybe the next thing is make all the founding fathers homo.

    Already in the works

    Read More
  68. tbraton says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Great column. My favorite part below.

    I didn't realize Miranda was Puerto Rican. His previous Broadway musical ("In The Heights") was set in a Dominican neighborhood in upper Manhattan. I guess there aren't many Dominican Broadway composers.
    https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/695006853428805633

    If you scroll down to item #5 (the one with the four pictures)–”Hamilton” is #2), you can link to the November 2015 segment on the musical “Hamilton” on “60 Minutes.” I believe you have to subscribe to watch the whole segment, but you can register for free for 1 week. https://www.bing.com/search?q=60+minutes+hamilton+episode&form=EDGNTC&qs=AS&cvid=7d4a38a4e28d4ac79e95d2dae75903f7&pq=60%20minutes%20%2B%20hamilton

    Read More
  69. iffen says:

    Southern slave-holders were the original free-trade, cheap-labor lobby

    “The past is never…….”

    Read More
  70. “The composer and star, Miranda, is exactly the kind of minority whom wealthy white people want to believe in: a rare cultured Nuyorican from a high-achieving family”

    Oh my god he looks like Tony Montana in Scarface: “my little friend!”

    “Imagine a stage filling slowly, populated by characters plucked directly from history: Aaron Burr, George Washington, Marquis Gilbert de Lafayette, Angelica and Elizabeth Schuyler, and others—all white in historical reality, but here imagined as people of color.”

    I’m sorry, but I fail to see the difference between an all-black cast of historically white figures and when white actors are cast to play roles where the historical figure may not have been quite so Caucasian. Inaccurate history is inaccurate history, just that no one squawks when its done by the all black cast film Annie, or now Hamilton.

    Side note: Did anyone bother to ask any of the Occupy Wall Street movement leaders for their thoughts on who to replace Hamilton with on the $10? Wonder if Bernie Sanders would have an opinion.

    We all know what Hillary would say: “Which woman should we replace Hamilton with?”

    Hillary (smirking with contempt at the questioner): “Come on. It’s obvious. ME!”

    Read More
  71. Flip says:

    The Swiss put writers and artists on their money. I’d love to see Mark Twain on the $100.

    Read More
  72. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Dave Pinsen
    Hadn't heard it before. It's actually not a bad opening song. Set's the stagel. It's typical to include some exposition in Broadway opening numbers. Here's the double song opener for Aida, for example (more singing, less hip hoppy piano plinking).


    https://youtu.be/v_XHTzc6lag

    “Hadn’t heard it before. It’s actually not a bad opening song.”

    Here’s the problem. An entire production set to rap?

    I can’t think of anything lazier for a musical talent.

    I’ve never been a fan of musicals, but some of them did come up with wonderful tunes like ‘Maria’ and ‘Tonight’ in WEST SIDE STORY, ‘Heaven on their mind’ in JESUS H. CHRIST SUPERSTAR, ‘Old Man River’ in SHOWBOAT, ‘Sabine Women’ in SEVEN HO’s FOR SEVEN BRO’s.

    But if this HAMILTON starts a new trend in musicals, it will be just endless raps and yaps.

    JCS is very uneven, but ‘Heaven on their minds’ is a killer song.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-voeq7Cebo

    One thing for sure, scientific and technological progress don’t ensure cultural progress.

    I fail to see today’s musical theater as progress from Verdi and Wagner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Many of the songs in JCS are really good.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    I wouldn't worry about this starting a trend of rap musicals. The appeal here is, in part, the subject matter, and the sophisticated lyrics. Most rap would fail both tests.

    There have been musicals, for example, that stitched together a bunch of previously released pop songs (that Billy Joel one, and the one with the '80s hair band tunes). I can't see that working with rap.
  73. @Diversity Heretic
    I'm actually inclined to agree with your suggestion, although I'd drop the one and two dollar bills entirely and replace them with coins. There's no need for a $3 bill.

    As for replacing the founders, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant on the currency, hell, yes, this country bears no relationship to them anymore anyway. If every time Joe Sixpack and Sally Homemaker see some "person of color" on the currency when they pull out wallet or purse, the sooner they'll realize it isn't their country either.

    You are correct about the current state not having any relation to Jackson. But we are living in the hell created by the tyrant Lincoln and his drunken minion Grant.

    Read More
  74. Jacobite says: • Website
    @syonredux

    Good idea. I vote for William Powell and Irene Dunne!
     
    Heresy. William Powell must be paired with Myrna Loy:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_and_Nora_Charles


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thin_Man_(film)

    William Powell must be paired with Myrna Loy

    Nix that. While I love her dearly and have seen her perform on stage, she was a damn liberal Democrat.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    William Powell must be paired with Myrna Loy

    Nix that. While I love her dearly and have seen her perform on stage, she was a damn liberal Democrat.
     
    Politics are irrelevant when one ponders the immortal pairing that was William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles.
  75. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “The Treasury Department could not have anticipated that in the face of this dispute the musical “Hamilton” would become a Broadway smash, further elevating its subject.”

    No, of course he couldn’t. No way at all.

    Read More
  76. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @slumber_j
    My wife and I have a running bet on how long one can be at a social event in Manhattan before talk turns to Hamilton. Usually it's somewhere in the 5-10 minute range, but it can be as low as 2 minutes, and it almost never fails to happen.

    I am not exaggerating.

    “My wife and I have a running bet on how long one can be at a social event in Manhattan before talk turns to Hamilton. Usually it’s somewhere in the 5-10 minute range, but it can be as low as 2 minutes, and it almost never fails to happen.”

    Sheeple.

    Read More
  77. especially, Harriet Tubman, also suffer from not being very easy on the eyes

    Harriet Tubman could be Mike Tyson’s twin sister.

    Read More
  78. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    I thought Mel Brooks SILENT MOVIE was a funny idea.. for a skit. Not a full movie.

    Same here. This Hamilton stuff might have made a fun 5 min skit, like some of the hilarious Epic Rap Battle of the Century.

    But an entire evening of this stuff? One has to be kidding.

    Obama saw this trash twice? Goes to show what kind of cultural sensibility he has.

    Maybe the next thing is make all the founding fathers homo.

    Followed by WWII as a rap war.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wYtG7aQTHA

    Was the musical Hamilton conceived of and written by a black person or black people?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    It's the work of one man, Lin-Manuel Miranda, who born into a upper-middle class Puerto Rican family in New York and educated at Wesleyan. He looks mostly, but not wholly, white, slightly less white than, say, Marco Rubio. You'd probably identify him as Latin-looking.
  79. SPMoore8 says:
    @David
    That's a loss because each of them was a great man about whom if (with respect) you knew more you would as likely be indifferent to his image as you are to one of your mother or father. Our forefathers put their portraits on the money to keep them in our minds as examples of true virtue.

    Check out John Keegan's portrait of Grant in Mask of Command. I bet you'd be smitten by the man.

    Actually, I know all about the guys on our money, and have a generally high opinion of them. In particular, Grant is one of my personal heroes, and I would love to see someone do a mini-series of his life, starting out in the Mexican War, with a reputation as a skilled horseman, then, whiling away his time and becoming addicted to alcohol while stationed away from his wife in a gray and empty Oregon landscape, then leaving, and getting by working in his family’s shop for years until the war happens — then emerging as one of the few commanders on the Union side with real executive experience, etc. And one could add to that. His charity at Appomattox. His memoirs written as he was dying from cancer: and, to be honest, among the very top rank of any memoirs written, certainly superior than any written by a former US president. Altogether an admirable character. (So much going on there, you’d have to do a mini-series or a film trilogy to cover all the ground and do it justice.)

    But again, in today’s culture, if you want to be remembered, it has to be in the media. Being on the money means little if anything. Our national heroes deserve better tributes than that. They deserve stirring cinematic and mini-series treatments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Grant was a great general. Here is what Abe Lincoln said about him: "By the way, gentlemen, can either of you tell me where General Grant procures his whiskey? Because, if I can find out, I will send every general in the field a barrel of it!"

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Crow
    , @Rob McX
    I bet any film or miniseries devoted to him will be obliged to dwell on this for at least ten minutes, or the producers will be in trouble.
  80. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jonah
    I just tried to listen to the original cast recording of Hamilton!

    I tried.

    It's dreadful.

    My wife forced me to listen to it. It’s like listening to paint dry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Exactly. By comparison try and listen to the original soundtracks of both Hamilton and then Straight Outta Compton.
    For many millennials and younger, THAT is the current state of American popular culture.

    Ideas for putting famous women on US currency. Oh heck, let's just state it here and now: A very relevant woman for millions of Americans who follow pop culture of 2016?

    Kim Kardashian.

    On the $50.

    , @Wilkey
    "My wife forced me to listen to it. It’s like listening to paint dry."

    Miranda's earlier musical, "In the Heights," won four Tony Awards, including Best Original Musical and Best Score. It's songs don't seem to have seeped into the culture at all - not even by the abysmally low standards of the last 25 years. The last Broadway musicals to get their tunes into the American songbook were "Phantom" and "Les Mis" - and those musicals debuted on Broadway almost 30 years ago.
  81. tbraton says:
    @Dr. X
    I nominate Monica Lewinsky for the currency.

    Nothing epitomizes the character of the postmodern U.S. better than Clinton getting a blow job in the Oval Office...

    “Nothing epitomizes the character of the postmodern U.S. better than Clinton getting a blow job in the Oval Office…”

    Since it is political season, I guess it’s OK to take a cheap shot at our former President, as long as you understand that he “did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” I hope you will be honest enough to inscribe those words on whichever bill Ms. Lewinsky appears. Otherwise people may get the wrong idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X
    All I ask is that when the Department of the Treasury selects the official portrait of Monica for the $10, it includes the stain on her blue dress.
  82. @Anonymous
    Was the musical Hamilton conceived of and written by a black person or black people?

    It’s the work of one man, Lin-Manuel Miranda, who born into a upper-middle class Puerto Rican family in New York and educated at Wesleyan. He looks mostly, but not wholly, white, slightly less white than, say, Marco Rubio. You’d probably identify him as Latin-looking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Thanks. I just looked him up (on Wikipedia) for more info, and it looks like he was a 2015 recipient of a MacArthur Genius award. Also, with regard to whether or not anyone could have anticipated that Hamilton would be a hit on Broadway,

    From Wikipedia:

    "In 2009, Miranda read Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton and, inspired by the book, wrote a rap about Hamilton for the White House Evening of Poetry, Music, and the Spoken Word on May 12, 2009, accompanied by Alex Lacamoire. By 2012, Miranda was performing an extended set of pieces based on the life of Hamilton, referred to as the Hamilton Mixtape; the New York Times called it "an obvious game changer". In 2015, Chernow and Miranda received the 2015 History Makers Award by the New York Historical Society for their work in creating Hamilton.
  83. @Jacobite

    Dime – Cesar Chavez
     
    Chavez was an immigration restrictionist. I say bring back the $500 bill and put him on it.

    Like Eugene Debs, Cesar Chavez was originally a restrictionist but fell into step with the party line eventually. As we’ve seen Bernie Sanders do recently, though I guess he was never an actual restrictionist.

    Read More
  84. tbraton says:
    @Jim Don Bob
    C'mon, man. It's gotta be Samuel L!

    “C’mon, man. It’s gotta be Samuel L!”

    I think it would be un-American to have someone pictured on our currency who played the French horn in high school. That would send an entirely wrong message to the world while we are still engaged in the Global War on Terror.

    Read More
  85. NOTA says:
    @boogerbently
    Why are slave owners, back when it was legal, retroactively punished, but gays, before it was accepted, are not ?

    For the same reason movies set in the past always involve sympathetic characters with modern 21st century US values. Most people don’t seem to have the imagination to hold it in their heads that many perfectly good people didn’t think like them, and indeed historical “heroes” usually had ideas not unlike those of their surrounding society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Downton Abbey is fascinating on that count. The men allowed to (and even celebrated for) upholding the values of that period, while all the women have to be progressive (sic) according to the mores of CURRENT_YEAR, often to the detriment of their characters.

    All except Maggie Smith, who thereby often steals the show.
  86. @gcochran
    Grant bought one slave, freed him in 1859.

    True. But Grant owned slaves through his wife, Julia Dent Grant, a member of a prominent slave-owning family. They were freed by the Thirteenth Amendment.

    Read More
  87. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    It's the work of one man, Lin-Manuel Miranda, who born into a upper-middle class Puerto Rican family in New York and educated at Wesleyan. He looks mostly, but not wholly, white, slightly less white than, say, Marco Rubio. You'd probably identify him as Latin-looking.

    Thanks. I just looked him up (on Wikipedia) for more info, and it looks like he was a 2015 recipient of a MacArthur Genius award. Also, with regard to whether or not anyone could have anticipated that Hamilton would be a hit on Broadway,

    From Wikipedia:

    “In 2009, Miranda read Ron Chernow’s biography of Alexander Hamilton and, inspired by the book, wrote a rap about Hamilton for the White House Evening of Poetry, Music, and the Spoken Word on May 12, 2009, accompanied by Alex Lacamoire. By 2012, Miranda was performing an extended set of pieces based on the life of Hamilton, referred to as the Hamilton Mixtape; the New York Times called it “an obvious game changer”. In 2015, Chernow and Miranda received the 2015 History Makers Award by the New York Historical Society for their work in creating Hamilton.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "Hamilton" was like Obama -- It's the one one we've been waiting for!
    , @Romanian

    In 2015, Chernow and Miranda received the 2015 History Makers Award by the New York Historical Society for their work in creating Hamilton.
     
    What an extraordinarily Orwellian thing.
  88. @Abe
    Wow, replacement of one people with a different people, followed by the eradication of the replaced people's monuments, symbols, and history. I remember there was a term for this used around the time of the Balkan Wars of the 90's, but I can't recall it now, probably because it was some horribly foreign-sounding Serbian or Albanian word. But I do recall it rhyming with something like "skeptic lensing", or maybe it was "septic flensing"....

    See E. Michael Jones “The Slaughter of Cities: Urban Renewal as Ethnic Cleansing”

    Read More
  89. @MaximumCynicism

    “What a pity it is that our Congress had not known this discovery, and that Alexander Hamilton’s projects of raising an army of fifty thousand Men, ten thousand of them to be Cavalry and his projects of sedition Laws and Alien Laws and of new taxes to support his army, all arose from a superabundance of secretions which he could not find whores enough to draw off! and that the same vapours produced his Lyes and Slanders by which he totally destroyed his party forever and finally lost his Life in the field of Honor.”

     

    Ha! Thank you for the Adams quote! Outstanding! Any citation?
    Read More
  90. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    "Hadn’t heard it before. It’s actually not a bad opening song."

    Here's the problem. An entire production set to rap?

    I can't think of anything lazier for a musical talent.

    I've never been a fan of musicals, but some of them did come up with wonderful tunes like 'Maria' and 'Tonight' in WEST SIDE STORY, 'Heaven on their mind' in JESUS H. CHRIST SUPERSTAR, 'Old Man River' in SHOWBOAT, 'Sabine Women' in SEVEN HO's FOR SEVEN BRO's.

    But if this HAMILTON starts a new trend in musicals, it will be just endless raps and yaps.

    JCS is very uneven, but 'Heaven on their minds' is a killer song.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-voeq7Cebo

    One thing for sure, scientific and technological progress don't ensure cultural progress.

    I fail to see today's musical theater as progress from Verdi and Wagner.

    Many of the songs in JCS are really good.

    Read More
  91. Clyde says:
    @Anonymous Nephew
    OT

    BBC are reporting on radio news that African "refugees" are being flown out of Israel to Africa. A/c/t the report, only 1% of applicants for asylum in Israel succeed.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35475403
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35478964

    (can you see the video in the US?)


    Adam will be held in Holot for 12 months. Then he is likely to face a stark choice:

    Go home to Sudan
    Stay in Israel, but be imprisoned indefinitely
    Accept departure to a third country

    The Israeli government has deals with two countries in Africa to host its unwanted migrants.

    It promises that people who take the option of "voluntary departure to third countries" will receive papers on arrival that give them legal status in the country.

    As an extra incentive, they're given $3,500 (£2,435) in cash, handed over in the departure lounge of the airport in Tel Aviv.

    Israel refuses to name the two African countries but the BBC has spoken to migrants who say they were sent to Rwanda and Uganda.


     

    It promises that people who take the option of “voluntary departure to third countries” will receive papers on arrival that give them legal status in the country.
    As an extra incentive, they’re given $3,500 (£2,435) in cash, handed over in the departure lounge of the airport in Tel Aviv

    .
    Israel has the best way to deport people. A cash incentive and free plane ride home. This allows the deportee to brag when he gets home about all the free money he got. A win-win situation. The feminized traitors who govern Germany and Sweden claim they will be deporting thousands of asylum seekers who are not from Syria. They are flat out lying but if they mean it, then this is how it is done!
    The deportee also has to allow his biometrics to be taken for a database.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    How do they avoid incentivizing people to come across the border in hopes of getting sent home with the cash?
  92. Hibernian says:

    I think I’ve read that some people believe that Hamilton was part black because his mother, being West Indian and bearing a rich man’s son out of wedlock, somehow must have been a West Indian Sallie Hemmings, although possibly with less black and more white blood than Sallie. Also, I dimly remember reading a source that said that Hamilton, in his capacity as a merchant, owned slaves in transit in ships.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    I think I’ve read that some people believe that Hamilton was part black because his mother, being West Indian and bearing a rich man’s son out of wedlock, somehow must have been a West Indian Sallie Hemmings, although possibly with less black and more white blood than Sallie.
     
    It's a notion beloved by Afrocentists. WEB Du Bois, for example, was quite fond of it. But there's no evidence to back it up.
  93. @SPMoore8
    Actually, I know all about the guys on our money, and have a generally high opinion of them. In particular, Grant is one of my personal heroes, and I would love to see someone do a mini-series of his life, starting out in the Mexican War, with a reputation as a skilled horseman, then, whiling away his time and becoming addicted to alcohol while stationed away from his wife in a gray and empty Oregon landscape, then leaving, and getting by working in his family's shop for years until the war happens -- then emerging as one of the few commanders on the Union side with real executive experience, etc. And one could add to that. His charity at Appomattox. His memoirs written as he was dying from cancer: and, to be honest, among the very top rank of any memoirs written, certainly superior than any written by a former US president. Altogether an admirable character. (So much going on there, you'd have to do a mini-series or a film trilogy to cover all the ground and do it justice.)

    But again, in today's culture, if you want to be remembered, it has to be in the media. Being on the money means little if anything. Our national heroes deserve better tributes than that. They deserve stirring cinematic and mini-series treatments.

    Grant was a great general. Here is what Abe Lincoln said about him: “By the way, gentlemen, can either of you tell me where General Grant procures his whiskey? Because, if I can find out, I will send every general in the field a barrel of it!”

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Crow

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    http://www.theonion.com/video/biden-criticized-for-appearing-in-hennessy-ads-14392
  94. @Anonymous
    Thanks. I just looked him up (on Wikipedia) for more info, and it looks like he was a 2015 recipient of a MacArthur Genius award. Also, with regard to whether or not anyone could have anticipated that Hamilton would be a hit on Broadway,

    From Wikipedia:

    "In 2009, Miranda read Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton and, inspired by the book, wrote a rap about Hamilton for the White House Evening of Poetry, Music, and the Spoken Word on May 12, 2009, accompanied by Alex Lacamoire. By 2012, Miranda was performing an extended set of pieces based on the life of Hamilton, referred to as the Hamilton Mixtape; the New York Times called it "an obvious game changer". In 2015, Chernow and Miranda received the 2015 History Makers Award by the New York Historical Society for their work in creating Hamilton.

    “Hamilton” was like Obama — It’s the one one we’ve been waiting for!

    Read More
  95. @slumber_j
    My wife and I have a running bet on how long one can be at a social event in Manhattan before talk turns to Hamilton. Usually it's somewhere in the 5-10 minute range, but it can be as low as 2 minutes, and it almost never fails to happen.

    I am not exaggerating.

    “My wife and I have a running bet on how long one can be at a social event in Manhattan before talk turns to Hamilton.”

    I’m sure it’s quite good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "I’m sure it’s quite good."

    I haven't seen the musical or listened to the score, except for snippets, but everything I have read about it indicates that it is quite good. I have noticed, however, several posters on your blog stating it's terrible and made derogatory comments about the musical. Maybe those posters could indicate which past plays or musicals they have liked, so we can get a better sense of their tastes.
  96. Dr. X says:
    @tbraton
    "Nothing epitomizes the character of the postmodern U.S. better than Clinton getting a blow job in the Oval Office…"

    Since it is political season, I guess it's OK to take a cheap shot at our former President, as long as you understand that he "did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." I hope you will be honest enough to inscribe those words on whichever bill Ms. Lewinsky appears. Otherwise people may get the wrong idea.

    All I ask is that when the Department of the Treasury selects the official portrait of Monica for the $10, it includes the stain on her blue dress.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    The blue against the green background would present a difficult design problem, so we should probably rule out Monica Lewinsky as a possible candidate for the $10 bill.
  97. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Anon
    "Hadn’t heard it before. It’s actually not a bad opening song."

    Here's the problem. An entire production set to rap?

    I can't think of anything lazier for a musical talent.

    I've never been a fan of musicals, but some of them did come up with wonderful tunes like 'Maria' and 'Tonight' in WEST SIDE STORY, 'Heaven on their mind' in JESUS H. CHRIST SUPERSTAR, 'Old Man River' in SHOWBOAT, 'Sabine Women' in SEVEN HO's FOR SEVEN BRO's.

    But if this HAMILTON starts a new trend in musicals, it will be just endless raps and yaps.

    JCS is very uneven, but 'Heaven on their minds' is a killer song.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-voeq7Cebo

    One thing for sure, scientific and technological progress don't ensure cultural progress.

    I fail to see today's musical theater as progress from Verdi and Wagner.

    I wouldn’t worry about this starting a trend of rap musicals. The appeal here is, in part, the subject matter, and the sophisticated lyrics. Most rap would fail both tests.

    There have been musicals, for example, that stitched together a bunch of previously released pop songs (that Billy Joel one, and the one with the ’80s hair band tunes). I can’t see that working with rap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "There have been musicals, for example, that stitched together a bunch of previously released pop songs (that Billy Joel one, and the one with the ’80s hair band tunes). I can’t see that working with rap."

    There are probably dozens of them. It's a whole genre unto itself called the jukebox musical, and they can do quite well: Jersey Boys (Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons), Motown (various Motown acts), All Shook Up (Elvis), Mamma Mia (Abba), the Carole King musical, American Idiot (Green Day), On Your Feet (Gloria Estefan), Million Dollar Quartet, Rock of Ages, etc. Some make a more serious attempt at telling a story than others. American Idiot was crap.

    Taking pre-existing songs that are already popular is a good way to raise the odds of turning a profit. Repackaging songs from old musicals for new ones (Nice Work If You Can Get It, Anything Goes) is another proven method, with the advantage that it resurrects song from Broadway's golden era - Cole Porter, the Gershwins, etc.

    , @Anon
    "I wouldn’t worry about this starting a trend of rap musicals."

    How wrong you are. If you know anything about how cultural trends work, there will be a deluge of nothing but rap musicals.
  98. @AndrewR
    Steve why do you act like such a cuck on the JQ? Many Jews do not openly identify as white to begin with, and most of the ones who do identify as white only do so in a dishonest fashion, since they hold whites in contempt and rarely even bother to hide this. Only extreme outliers like Gottfried don't want to see whites gone. Whom do you think you are helping when you lump Jews in with whites like you do here:

    "And it’s not hard to grasp how the show fits exactly what wealthy white New York liberals want to see: minorities defending Wall Street."

    While obviously many traitorous whites do profit from helping to uphold Jew Supremacy, that doesn't mean they should be ethnically lumped in with their masters.

    Man up and publish this comment instead of cuckishly deleting it like my last one. Bonus points if you have the balls to actually give me a serious response.

    Andrew,

    While obviously many traitorous whites do profit from helping to uphold Jew Supremacy, that doesn’t mean they should be ethnically lumped in with their masters.

    The WASP preceded the Jew:

    https://nickbsteves.wordpress.com/american-malvern/

    Those traitorous (yes, to the United States and the principles upon which it was founded) whites long ago abandoned any solidarity with you and yours’. There is no “white” identity which contains you both, except in the minds of anti-white bigots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Many WASPs are apathetic about race if not outright race traitors. This is true. Jews, OTOH, rarely if ever act in ways traitorous to the tribe, although the high rate of miscegenation makes one wonder.
  99. tbraton says:
    @Steve Sailer
    "My wife and I have a running bet on how long one can be at a social event in Manhattan before talk turns to Hamilton."

    I'm sure it's quite good.

    “I’m sure it’s quite good.”

    I haven’t seen the musical or listened to the score, except for snippets, but everything I have read about it indicates that it is quite good. I have noticed, however, several posters on your blog stating it’s terrible and made derogatory comments about the musical. Maybe those posters could indicate which past plays or musicals they have liked, so we can get a better sense of their tastes.

    Read More
  100. @NOTA
    For the same reason movies set in the past always involve sympathetic characters with modern 21st century US values. Most people don't seem to have the imagination to hold it in their heads that many perfectly good people didn't think like them, and indeed historical "heroes" usually had ideas not unlike those of their surrounding society.

    Downton Abbey is fascinating on that count. The men allowed to (and even celebrated for) upholding the values of that period, while all the women have to be progressive (sic) according to the mores of CURRENT_YEAR, often to the detriment of their characters.

    All except Maggie Smith, who thereby often steals the show.

    Read More
  101. syonredux says:
    @Jacobite

    William Powell must be paired with Myrna Loy
     
    Nix that. While I love her dearly and have seen her perform on stage, she was a damn liberal Democrat.

    William Powell must be paired with Myrna Loy

    Nix that. While I love her dearly and have seen her perform on stage, she was a damn liberal Democrat.

    Politics are irrelevant when one ponders the immortal pairing that was William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacobite
    Politics aren't irrelevant to putting someone's face on currency. And as irresistibly cute as Myrna was she didn't hold a candle to Irene as an actress.
    , @tbraton
    "Politics are irrelevant when one ponders the immortal pairing that was William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles."

    I didn't care for her politics, but I thought Jane Fonda was superb in "Klute." I voted for him twice, but I also thought Reagan was superb in "Bedtime for Bonzo." My next door neighbor on Capitol Hill, an elderly widow from Virginia, used to scathingly refer to Reagan as "that B grade actor," which I thought was a little unfair. We never discussed politics much, but I believe she was a somewhat liberal Democrat.
  102. syonredux says:
    @Hibernian
    I think I've read that some people believe that Hamilton was part black because his mother, being West Indian and bearing a rich man's son out of wedlock, somehow must have been a West Indian Sallie Hemmings, although possibly with less black and more white blood than Sallie. Also, I dimly remember reading a source that said that Hamilton, in his capacity as a merchant, owned slaves in transit in ships.

    I think I’ve read that some people believe that Hamilton was part black because his mother, being West Indian and bearing a rich man’s son out of wedlock, somehow must have been a West Indian Sallie Hemmings, although possibly with less black and more white blood than Sallie.

    It’s a notion beloved by Afrocentists. WEB Du Bois, for example, was quite fond of it. But there’s no evidence to back it up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The picture on the $10 bill makes Hamilton look about as Northern European as anybody gets.
  103. Wilkey says:
    @Anon
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEH9I_oJfqY&list=PLUSRfoOcUe4avCXPg6tPgdZzu--hBXUYx&index=2

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzz

    By all reports all the kiddies are going crazy about “Hamilton,” the same way many of them did over Lin-Manuel Miranda’s first Broadway musical “In the Heights” (also an overrated snoozefest). Miranda, whose father is a bigtime Puerto Rican New York lefty activist, did a better job when he worked with Tom Kitt on the musical “Bring It On.”

    The first I saw of “Hamilton” was a video ca. 2009 of Miranda performing “Hamilton Mix Tape” (iirc) at the White House. It was pretty damn good, but the samples I’ve heard from the musical itself all seem pretty lame.

    It’ll clean up at the Tony Awards, though. They want to crown a new Broadway hit after giving last year’s Best New Musical to the dreary “Fun Home,” and what better musical that one that purports to turn Hamilton into a wetback?

    Read More
  104. tbraton says:
    @Dr. X
    All I ask is that when the Department of the Treasury selects the official portrait of Monica for the $10, it includes the stain on her blue dress.

    The blue against the green background would present a difficult design problem, so we should probably rule out Monica Lewinsky as a possible candidate for the $10 bill.

    Read More
  105. @Anonymous
    My wife forced me to listen to it. It's like listening to paint dry.

    Exactly. By comparison try and listen to the original soundtracks of both Hamilton and then Straight Outta Compton.
    For many millennials and younger, THAT is the current state of American popular culture.

    Ideas for putting famous women on US currency. Oh heck, let’s just state it here and now: A very relevant woman for millions of Americans who follow pop culture of 2016?

    Kim Kardashian.

    On the $50.

    Read More
  106. Wilkey says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    I wouldn't worry about this starting a trend of rap musicals. The appeal here is, in part, the subject matter, and the sophisticated lyrics. Most rap would fail both tests.

    There have been musicals, for example, that stitched together a bunch of previously released pop songs (that Billy Joel one, and the one with the '80s hair band tunes). I can't see that working with rap.

    “There have been musicals, for example, that stitched together a bunch of previously released pop songs (that Billy Joel one, and the one with the ’80s hair band tunes). I can’t see that working with rap.”

    There are probably dozens of them. It’s a whole genre unto itself called the jukebox musical, and they can do quite well: Jersey Boys (Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons), Motown (various Motown acts), All Shook Up (Elvis), Mamma Mia (Abba), the Carole King musical, American Idiot (Green Day), On Your Feet (Gloria Estefan), Million Dollar Quartet, Rock of Ages, etc. Some make a more serious attempt at telling a story than others. American Idiot was crap.

    Taking pre-existing songs that are already popular is a good way to raise the odds of turning a profit. Repackaging songs from old musicals for new ones (Nice Work If You Can Get It, Anything Goes) is another proven method, with the advantage that it resurrects song from Broadway’s golden era – Cole Porter, the Gershwins, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen

    There are probably dozens of them. It’s a whole genre unto itself called the jukebox musical, and they can do quite well: Jersey Boys (Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons), Motown (various Motown acts), All Shook Up (Elvis), Mamma Mia (Abba), the Carole King musical, American Idiot (Green Day), On Your Feet (Gloria Estefan), Million Dollar Quartet, Rock of Ages, etc.
     
    Rock of Ages, Mamma Mia, and On Your Feet I could see definitely fitting in that category. Jersey Boys was a biopic of the band that featured its songs (my girlfriend saw it on Broadway and said it was great; I saw a few minutes of the movie version and couldn't get into it). American Idiot was more of a concept album musical.
    , @Richard
    The concept is pretty old, going back at least to the ballad operas of the mid-18th century. John Gay's "The Beggar's Opera" (1728) is the best known example today. On the down side, it seems to correlate strongly with creative exhaustion; there wasn't a whole lot happening in terms of hot new plays in 1720s English theatre.
  107. Wilkey says:
    @Anonymous
    My wife forced me to listen to it. It's like listening to paint dry.

    “My wife forced me to listen to it. It’s like listening to paint dry.”

    Miranda’s earlier musical, “In the Heights,” won four Tony Awards, including Best Original Musical and Best Score. It’s songs don’t seem to have seeped into the culture at all – not even by the abysmally low standards of the last 25 years. The last Broadway musicals to get their tunes into the American songbook were “Phantom” and “Les Mis” – and those musicals debuted on Broadway almost 30 years ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I've heard a couple of Rent songs on the radio occasionally around Christmastime in the New York area. Also, everyone's heard "Defying Gravity" from Wicked. And if you count Frozen, there's "Let It Go" (sung by one of the original cast members of Rent).

    Plus, Aida (which debuted on Broadway in 2000, IIRC) has been pretty popular as a high school production -- plenty of them on YouTube if you look.
  108. @syonredux

    I think I’ve read that some people believe that Hamilton was part black because his mother, being West Indian and bearing a rich man’s son out of wedlock, somehow must have been a West Indian Sallie Hemmings, although possibly with less black and more white blood than Sallie.
     
    It's a notion beloved by Afrocentists. WEB Du Bois, for example, was quite fond of it. But there's no evidence to back it up.

    The picture on the $10 bill makes Hamilton look about as Northern European as anybody gets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    It's hard to make judgments based on portraits - portrait artists (especially in the pre-photographic age) tried to make the sitter look the way he would LIKE himself to look, not the way he really looked. Even today, you often see articles/websites/book jackets, etc. where the author choose a photo of him/herself taken decades ago, looking much younger/thinner/ handsomer than their current selves.

    While there is no evidence that Hamilton had any black ancestry, there is some that he had Jewish blood. His mother was rumored to be of Jewish ancestry, as was the man to who his mother was still married at the time of Hamilton's birth. And in addition to Hamilton Sr., there are rumors of yet another man in Hamilton's mother's life, also Jewish. It is notable that Hamilton fudged the date of his birth - probably to reconstruct a better time line in which Hamilton Sr. could have been his father. In general, Hamilton didn't like to talk about his early life because he had a lot to cover up.

    Certainly, Hamilton's career choices were more consistent with his being Jewish than black. If you think of him as someone who was Jewish but trying to conceal his background, his biography makes a lot more sense. Sort of the John Kerry of the 18th century.

  109. Jacobite says: • Website
    @syonredux

    William Powell must be paired with Myrna Loy

    Nix that. While I love her dearly and have seen her perform on stage, she was a damn liberal Democrat.
     
    Politics are irrelevant when one ponders the immortal pairing that was William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles.

    Politics aren’t irrelevant to putting someone’s face on currency. And as irresistibly cute as Myrna was she didn’t hold a candle to Irene as an actress.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kylie
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Politics aren’t irrelevant to putting someone’s face on currency.
     
    By the Maoist standards of our age, sure. But that's why DW Griffith has become an unperson.

    And as irresistibly cute as Myrna was she didn’t hold a candle to Irene as an actress.
     
    Dunno. They seem quite comparable to me. And Myrna Loy has the immortal Thin Man series backing her up.
  110. Rob McX says:
    @SPMoore8
    Actually, I know all about the guys on our money, and have a generally high opinion of them. In particular, Grant is one of my personal heroes, and I would love to see someone do a mini-series of his life, starting out in the Mexican War, with a reputation as a skilled horseman, then, whiling away his time and becoming addicted to alcohol while stationed away from his wife in a gray and empty Oregon landscape, then leaving, and getting by working in his family's shop for years until the war happens -- then emerging as one of the few commanders on the Union side with real executive experience, etc. And one could add to that. His charity at Appomattox. His memoirs written as he was dying from cancer: and, to be honest, among the very top rank of any memoirs written, certainly superior than any written by a former US president. Altogether an admirable character. (So much going on there, you'd have to do a mini-series or a film trilogy to cover all the ground and do it justice.)

    But again, in today's culture, if you want to be remembered, it has to be in the media. Being on the money means little if anything. Our national heroes deserve better tributes than that. They deserve stirring cinematic and mini-series treatments.

    I bet any film or miniseries devoted to him will be obliged to dwell on this for at least ten minutes, or the producers will be in trouble.

    Read More
  111. Broski says:

    The only reason the West believes in diversity propaganda so broadly is that many Europeans have so easily transcended their own natural racialism for a brief window of time. That transcendence makes them unique in human history, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Broski

    The only reason the West believes in diversity propaganda so broadly is that many Europeans have so easily transcended their own natural racialism for a brief window of time. That transcendence makes them unique in human history, though.

     

    It happened another time -- when Rome imported lots of other peoples into its lands and accepted their customs subject to their submission. Also Europeans running things.

    Maybe Europeans are singularly great at starting global and near-global empires, but have this flaw that causes the empires to collapse after a great run. Many highly complex systems collapse after a long time due to a slow but powerful flaw (e.g., stars, galaxies, Scottish-British monarchical lines).

    There have been three (relatively...) great peacetimes in Eurasian and then global history: the Pax Romana, Mongolica, and Brittanica/Americana. Mongolica seems to have been a fluke. (It was never centrally organized beyond a generation or two, etc. Great warriors, not great rulers.) Brittanica/Americana has been going strong since the sinking of the Spanish Armada, but it may be winding up.

    Perhaps Europeans' periodic experiments in transcending racialism (at root so their European rulers and the organs of state political expression can get richer) provide unique periods of peace and prosperity for other participants. There is little reason in human history to believe that any other participants can also transcend racialism.
  112. Rob McX says:
    @Discordiax
    Not true.

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
     
    The clause is not about HAmilton, but about a possible monarchist venture to put a Prince of some European royal family or other in the Presidency and then use the Presidency as a fulcrum to overthrow the republic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Henry_of_Prussia_(1726%E2%80%931802)#Proposal_for_King_of_the_United_States for a contemporary example.

    It was not uncommon in republics for a faction to invite a foreign prince in, to defeat their domestic enemies. IT also was pretty common for a family dynasty to gain power in a republic, and alternate between power and exile.

    It was not uncommon in republics for a faction to invite a foreign prince in, to defeat their domestic enemies.

    I wonder how it shifted from inviting a foreign prince to inviting a foreign people.

    Read More
  113. Broski says:
    @Broski
    The only reason the West believes in diversity propaganda so broadly is that many Europeans have so easily transcended their own natural racialism for a brief window of time. That transcendence makes them unique in human history, though.

    The only reason the West believes in diversity propaganda so broadly is that many Europeans have so easily transcended their own natural racialism for a brief window of time. That transcendence makes them unique in human history, though.

    It happened another time — when Rome imported lots of other peoples into its lands and accepted their customs subject to their submission. Also Europeans running things.

    Maybe Europeans are singularly great at starting global and near-global empires, but have this flaw that causes the empires to collapse after a great run. Many highly complex systems collapse after a long time due to a slow but powerful flaw (e.g., stars, galaxies, Scottish-British monarchical lines).

    There have been three (relatively…) great peacetimes in Eurasian and then global history: the Pax Romana, Mongolica, and Brittanica/Americana. Mongolica seems to have been a fluke. (It was never centrally organized beyond a generation or two, etc. Great warriors, not great rulers.) Brittanica/Americana has been going strong since the sinking of the Spanish Armada, but it may be winding up.

    Perhaps Europeans’ periodic experiments in transcending racialism (at root so their European rulers and the organs of state political expression can get richer) provide unique periods of peace and prosperity for other participants. There is little reason in human history to believe that any other participants can also transcend racialism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Broski
    To speak to myself a third time, and violate Godwin's law while speaking to myself, how can I credit Europeans, broadly, for a great peacetime under British and American rule when many Europeans populations were also the enthusiastic supporters of Hitler and the Lenin-Stalin horrors?

    Hitler and the Soviets were both anti-Christian. The British-American Era has also been the protestant Christian era. Perhaps Christianity and Protestantism breed transcendence of race. When you come into a society that more or less participates in the Imperial peace system (late Prussian Germany and Imperial Russia), take away Christianity, and have a crisis on your hands, things go poorly with the whole transcending differences thing.

    Christianity has no explanatory power for the Roman peace, though.
    , @NOTA
    So the current Eurasian pax has included both world wars?
  114. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Mike Zwick
    "An overlooked cause is that American culture heroes, such as Mark Twain, H.L. Mencken, Ernest Hemingway, and Groucho Marx, tended to war against the stifling conformity imposed upon American life by schoolmarms and society dames. (Prohibition was the most notorious example of the mischief women and Protestant ministers got up to when the doughboys were fighting over in France.)"

    Much of the political correctness in our lives today is just puritanism driven by women.

    Yup… It’s almost as if all the depictions of controlling/power-craving females in literature corresponded to an actual personality trait in certain women across the ages… That biological compunction to try to run someone else’s life has to manifest somewhere. I think Lady Macbeth was childless, right


    update: Whoops, forgot Act 1 Sc. 7 “I have given suck” etc.

    Read More
  115. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Is “Book of Mormon” actually any good as a musical? I haven’t seen but figured this would be the most adverse place to ask

    Read More
  116. Broski says:
    @Broski

    The only reason the West believes in diversity propaganda so broadly is that many Europeans have so easily transcended their own natural racialism for a brief window of time. That transcendence makes them unique in human history, though.

     

    It happened another time -- when Rome imported lots of other peoples into its lands and accepted their customs subject to their submission. Also Europeans running things.

    Maybe Europeans are singularly great at starting global and near-global empires, but have this flaw that causes the empires to collapse after a great run. Many highly complex systems collapse after a long time due to a slow but powerful flaw (e.g., stars, galaxies, Scottish-British monarchical lines).

    There have been three (relatively...) great peacetimes in Eurasian and then global history: the Pax Romana, Mongolica, and Brittanica/Americana. Mongolica seems to have been a fluke. (It was never centrally organized beyond a generation or two, etc. Great warriors, not great rulers.) Brittanica/Americana has been going strong since the sinking of the Spanish Armada, but it may be winding up.

    Perhaps Europeans' periodic experiments in transcending racialism (at root so their European rulers and the organs of state political expression can get richer) provide unique periods of peace and prosperity for other participants. There is little reason in human history to believe that any other participants can also transcend racialism.

    To speak to myself a third time, and violate Godwin’s law while speaking to myself, how can I credit Europeans, broadly, for a great peacetime under British and American rule when many Europeans populations were also the enthusiastic supporters of Hitler and the Lenin-Stalin horrors?

    Hitler and the Soviets were both anti-Christian. The British-American Era has also been the protestant Christian era. Perhaps Christianity and Protestantism breed transcendence of race. When you come into a society that more or less participates in the Imperial peace system (late Prussian Germany and Imperial Russia), take away Christianity, and have a crisis on your hands, things go poorly with the whole transcending differences thing.

    Christianity has no explanatory power for the Roman peace, though.

    Read More
  117. snorlax says:
    @Jimi
    Also note how Woodrow Wilson's reputation has changed from a great progressive to reactionary racist. The Left is giving up all pretenses of class-based politics in favor of identity politics.

    The one lasting accomplishment of the Paul family was to ruin the reputation of Woodrow Wilson.

    I mean it would’ve happened eventually anyway but the nonstop “Woodrow Wilson was a racist” rants that engulfed the internet over the 2007-2013 period actually did get through to their intended audience, albeit not in the hoped for way (discrediting the Federal Reserve by association).

    Read More
  118. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Jim Don Bob
    Grant was a great general. Here is what Abe Lincoln said about him: "By the way, gentlemen, can either of you tell me where General Grant procures his whiskey? Because, if I can find out, I will send every general in the field a barrel of it!"

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Crow
    Read More
  119. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Wilkey
    "There have been musicals, for example, that stitched together a bunch of previously released pop songs (that Billy Joel one, and the one with the ’80s hair band tunes). I can’t see that working with rap."

    There are probably dozens of them. It's a whole genre unto itself called the jukebox musical, and they can do quite well: Jersey Boys (Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons), Motown (various Motown acts), All Shook Up (Elvis), Mamma Mia (Abba), the Carole King musical, American Idiot (Green Day), On Your Feet (Gloria Estefan), Million Dollar Quartet, Rock of Ages, etc. Some make a more serious attempt at telling a story than others. American Idiot was crap.

    Taking pre-existing songs that are already popular is a good way to raise the odds of turning a profit. Repackaging songs from old musicals for new ones (Nice Work If You Can Get It, Anything Goes) is another proven method, with the advantage that it resurrects song from Broadway's golden era - Cole Porter, the Gershwins, etc.

    There are probably dozens of them. It’s a whole genre unto itself called the jukebox musical, and they can do quite well: Jersey Boys (Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons), Motown (various Motown acts), All Shook Up (Elvis), Mamma Mia (Abba), the Carole King musical, American Idiot (Green Day), On Your Feet (Gloria Estefan), Million Dollar Quartet, Rock of Ages, etc.

    Rock of Ages, Mamma Mia, and On Your Feet I could see definitely fitting in that category. Jersey Boys was a biopic of the band that featured its songs (my girlfriend saw it on Broadway and said it was great; I saw a few minutes of the movie version and couldn’t get into it). American Idiot was more of a concept album musical.

    Read More
  120. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Wilkey
    "My wife forced me to listen to it. It’s like listening to paint dry."

    Miranda's earlier musical, "In the Heights," won four Tony Awards, including Best Original Musical and Best Score. It's songs don't seem to have seeped into the culture at all - not even by the abysmally low standards of the last 25 years. The last Broadway musicals to get their tunes into the American songbook were "Phantom" and "Les Mis" - and those musicals debuted on Broadway almost 30 years ago.

    I’ve heard a couple of Rent songs on the radio occasionally around Christmastime in the New York area. Also, everyone’s heard “Defying Gravity” from Wicked. And if you count Frozen, there’s “Let It Go” (sung by one of the original cast members of Rent).

    Plus, Aida (which debuted on Broadway in 2000, IIRC) has been pretty popular as a high school production — plenty of them on YouTube if you look.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    Yes, I meant to mention "Rent." "Seasons of Love" counts as a kind of holiday song. But even "Rent" is now 20 years old, believe it or not, and its one or two songs aren't remotely as popular as anything from "Phantom." It's a bit of a shock to me, though, that songs from ALW's slightly more recent "Sunset Boulevard" aren't more popular. It has a few numbers that are every bit as good as anything in "Phantom."

    I did overlook "Wicked," (which did not win best musical) but I intentionally excluded film musicals, especially Disney.

    And I think you should give "Jersey Boys" another go. It's seriously pretty spectacular. Clint Eastwood did a great job directing the movie, and the closing credits are pretty damn good - they inject a little bit of Broadway into the movie.

  121. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Steve: How would you appraise Tom Jefferson currently, conventional propriety-wise? Many white liberals still seem to genuinely like aspects of the guy — who was a Francophile at the right time and a legitimate intellectual, after all — but I can’t see it lasting. He was just too involved in property, if ya know-whadd-I-mean (today kids feel guilty even owning a car)… Christopher Hitchens really seemed to be trying to revive Jefferson chic by focusing on what an atheist he was but I suspect the people running either party, officially or de facto, are quite eager to throw Jeffersonianism under the bus… Unless I’m missing something he was the antithesis to the Davos TED-talking world-is-flat vogue. Doomed to the Jacksonian fate I reckon

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I wrote an article for Chronicles last year about Jefferson's huge contribution in the 1780s of replacing the traditional English metes-and-bounds system of marking property lines with a futuristic longitude and latitude system for federal land sales in the west. Jefferson's system made land sales efficient and cheaper (a lot fewer lawyers were needed). It was a major innovation in creating a Jeffersonian society of small landowners. But none of that seems very exciting today.
  122. snorlax says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Note the use of the standard PC line of attack in regards to Jefferson. He owned slaves. Hence, we can safely discount anything that he says.
     
    There's a lot more in there than that. Those are impressive lyrics. There's the conflict between an agrarian future and an industrial one. Southern slave-holders were the original free-trade, cheap-labor lobby. When you don't have to pay your workers, you don't have to worry about foreign markets undercutting your costs. Cheap labor and free markets go together.

    Hamilton and most of the founders were protectionists/mercantilists though. And America remained a protectionist country until the mid-20th Century, as Ian Fletcher has noted. We did to Britain what China has been doing to us.

    Southern slave-holders were the original … cheap-labor lobby.

    This can’t be emphasized enough. It’s quite literally unimaginable how much better off we’d be if the abolitionists had been successful 100 years earlier.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    It makes you wonder what they were thinking of. If the slave owners had their way, they'd have gone on importing Africans right through to the twentieth century and beyond, and the free population would get less and less white from the inflow of former slaves through escape or manumission. Then again, the present rate of population replacement is making the historical fact of slavery irrelevant.More Africans immigrated to America in the last decade than were ever brought in as slaves.
    , @Wilkey
    This can’t be emphasized enough. It’s quite literally unimaginable how much better off we’d be if the abolitionists had been successful 100 years earlier.

    And flabbergasting the number of Southerners who to their deaths fighting for that cheap labor lobby. I can't even begin to imagine myself putting on the uniform of the Chamber of Commerce and going into battle led by Generals Chuck Schumer, Tom Donohue, Grover Norquist, and their buttboy, Colonel Lindsey Graham.

    Yeah yeah, I get it - the South saw themselves as being invaded, etc. But still it was pretty ridiculous.
    , @Richard

    This can’t be emphasized enough. It’s quite literally unimaginable how much better off we’d be if the abolitionists had been successful 100 years earlier.
     
    Or how worse off we'd be if the abolitionists had faltered in the 1860s. Read up on the Knights of the Golden Circle and the filibustering expeditions of the 1850s to see what a wrecked ship the US would be today had the slave power gotten its way and absorbed half of Latin America into our borders in order to keep up the supply of slave states. With free state California blocking their access to the Pacific, the slave-owning aristocracy was drifting towards an "Invade the World, Invite the World" ideology, and there were all sorts of schemes to annex well-populated Hispanic territories that would undoubtedly have gained force were it not for the Civil War. One filibuster, William Walker, actually succeeded in conquering Nicaragua for a time with the ultimate goal of having it admitted to the USA as a slave state.
  123. @Anonymous
    Steve: How would you appraise Tom Jefferson currently, conventional propriety-wise? Many white liberals still seem to genuinely like aspects of the guy -- who was a Francophile at the right time and a legitimate intellectual, after all -- but I can't see it lasting. He was just too involved in property, if ya know-whadd-I-mean (today kids feel guilty even owning a car)... Christopher Hitchens really seemed to be trying to revive Jefferson chic by focusing on what an atheist he was but I suspect the people running either party, officially or de facto, are quite eager to throw Jeffersonianism under the bus... Unless I'm missing something he was the antithesis to the Davos TED-talking world-is-flat vogue. Doomed to the Jacksonian fate I reckon

    I wrote an article for Chronicles last year about Jefferson’s huge contribution in the 1780s of replacing the traditional English metes-and-bounds system of marking property lines with a futuristic longitude and latitude system for federal land sales in the west. Jefferson’s system made land sales efficient and cheaper (a lot fewer lawyers were needed). It was a major innovation in creating a Jeffersonian society of small landowners. But none of that seems very exciting today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    Have you continued to do the essays on how American Founders are still relevant because anticipated the future to some extent? Is there a non-gated version of your Chronicles article?
  124. Nick Diaz says:

    “While America’s semi-famous women politicians and artists are largely second-rate relative to Europe’s, the same cannot be said for our goddesses of the silver screen.”

    Actually, the most famous Hollywood actresses were European: Greta Garbo, Sophia Lauren, Audrey Hepburn, etc, all European. More recently, you have Keira Knightly, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Eva Green, Penelope Cruz and Daisy Ridley. Monica Bellucci could probably have become the greatest leading lady ever given her transcendental beauty, but it was not meant to be.

    Often, American women tend to be obese and to show early signs of senescence due to the American Diet(burgers, doritos, etc). It is actually pretty difficult to find attractive American women. Of course, out of 120 million adult American women, you will always find some beauties. I like Kate Hudson a lot. She is not the second coming of Helen of Troy, but she is beautiful even without makeup, has a girl-next-door look to her(not someone who is strangely beautiful) and is a simple girl who doen’t try to be sophisticated -nothing more pathetic than a simpleton trying to be something that (s)he is not. It just comes across as pretentious, pedantic and frankly comical. Another beautiful American actress, but with a more classic beauty than Kate Hudson, is Ann Hathaway. A big difference between European and American leading ladies is that American top actresses have a “salt-of-the-earth” looks and attitude to them, while European leading ladies prime for their finesse, sophistication and aristocratic elegance. Whether this difference reflects the pétit bourgeoise nature of American Society when compared to the more breeding-obsessed nature of most European societies is unknown.

    As for the topic at hand, conservatives should rejoice about the possiblity of removing a Founding Father from legal tender bills. After all, they were Enlightened libertarians that stood for everything that conservatives abhor: equality before the law as sacred and above the democratic vote(majorities cannot disenfranchise minorities by enacting laws to grant or remove rights of particular groups or individuals), secular state(the government has no religion andcannot enforce religion), and that the basis of Society is not the heterosexual family, or a certain ethnicity, but the individual human being. The reason why the Supreme Court recently ruled that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional is because government has not business in telling adult citizens what gender of people they should marry. They were simply upholding the American Constitution, which is a libertarian manifesto if there ever was one. Conservatives think that because the Founding Fathers were in favor of the right to own guns and to have property, that makes them “our kind of guys”. They don’t seem to understand that the FF were in favor of this because they were in favor of individial rights and that the government has no business controlling the access to weapons.

    But the same love of individual freedom that made the FF garantee such rights also made them enact laws that conservatives detest, such as the permanent separation of church and state, and the inability of majorities to vote their prejudices against minorities into law. This represents the values of the FF: they were intelligent, highly cultured and sophisticated men who had very little in common with corn-fed red-state Americans. There were huge disagreements between the FF on policies and the specific roles of government, but they all agreed in minimum government not only economically, BUT ALSO SOCIALLY. That is, a government that does not enforce ethnic, religious or social prejudices, and that does not allow the enaction of laws to that effect.

    Conservatives are in favor of freedom economically ONLY. The essence of conservatism is to uphold a certain group of people above all others(heterosexual couples with kids), and to intensely meddle with people’s lives for “moral” reasons. In all fairness, the policies of the U.S government recently, such as Affirmative Action , violate the FF’s mandates as well. The FF were LIBERTARIANS, and conservatives think they are on the same page of the FF just because the FF were in favor of the right to bear arms and own property. Socially, the FF were clearly liberal. A libertarian is a liberal socially, but economically he is a “liberal” in the English sense of the word, ofbeing in favor of economic freedom. This is why libertarians are often accused by dumb conservatives of being “liberals”: because the two words are semantically and lexicographically similar, and because libertarians and liberals do find common ground in some ways – but only in certain ways. However, despite the smilarity, liberalism and libertarianism are not synonyms. It gets even worse because Americans use the word “liberal” in a completely different way than Europeans: in England, a liberal is someone who follows the school of economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. In mainland Europe, the word liberal is used as a synonym for libertarian – but this does not mean that Europeans believe the two things are analogous, as to them what Americans call a liberal would be a social-democrat or central-leftist.

    It is flabbergasting that conservatives worship the FF. There is nothing more alien to a corn-eating midwestern American who loves to shoot guns, is in favor of prayer in schools and hates anything sophisticated as “un-American” than someone like Thomas Jefferson, who could dissert for hours on end about different vintages of Château Lafite, enjoyed reading the classics in the original Latin, hanged around men of letters and scientists, and thought that the separation of church and state was the one of the greatest accomplishments of the civilized World.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Nick,

    Your understanding of American conservatives is a facile caricature created by their enemies for the purposes of dehumanizing them. You should be ashamed of yourself for both your shallowness and your zeal to share that shallowness with the world.

    And no, I'm not a conservative, so I'm not taking what you're saying personally.
    , @Dr. X
    I think you're guilty of imposing 21st-century postmodern categories upon 18th century Whigs, and it simply can't be done. The Founders were neither "liberal" nor "conservative" in today's understanding. They were Lockean "liberals" who defended the rights of life, liberty, and property against royalist and monarchist "conservatives" who believed in mercantilism and subjection to hereditary monarchy.

    They all thought homosexuality was a perversion (Jefferson proposed castration for the crime of buggery) so issues you cite like gay marriage would have been incomprehensible to them. As far as religion goes, they were all socially conservative and took religion very seriously, but believed that organized religions had been corrupted by politics -- they were familiar with the decades of infighting between Anglicans, Catholics, and Puritans in 17th-century England. Consequently, they refused to create a national, "established" established religion like the Church of England.

    It's also worth noting that the Founders took federalism very seriously. While the Federal government was banned from establishing a religion or involving itself in marriage, state governments were NOT. The Founders expected that individual states would make such decisions for themselves under their state constitutions. They would have been aghast at the idea that the Supreme Court would declare a "constitutional right" to gay marriage and force states to perform it.

    Attempting to impose today's political categories and agendas on the Founders reflects a profound misunderstanding of the Founders, and of the constitution they wrote in 1787, prior to the democratizing, egalitarian amendments of the post-Civil War and Progressive Eras, and the 20th-century era of liberal judicial activism.
    , @syonredux

    Actually, the most famous Hollywood actresses were European: Greta Garbo, Sophia Lauren, Audrey Hepburn, etc, all European.
     
    On the other hand, America has Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, Lauren Bacall, Ava Gardner, Kim Novak, Eva Marie Saint,Grace Kelly, etc, etc, etc,
    , @guest
    You egregiously ignorant.
  125. Rob McX says:
    @snorlax

    Southern slave-holders were the original ... cheap-labor lobby.
     
    This can't be emphasized enough. It's quite literally unimaginable how much better off we'd be if the abolitionists had been successful 100 years earlier.

    It makes you wonder what they were thinking of. If the slave owners had their way, they’d have gone on importing Africans right through to the twentieth century and beyond, and the free population would get less and less white from the inflow of former slaves through escape or manumission. Then again, the present rate of population replacement is making the historical fact of slavery irrelevant.More Africans immigrated to America in the last decade than were ever brought in as slaves.

    Read More
  126. BB753 says:

    Lin-Manuel is a very strange composite Christian name for a Latino… Is he part-Chinese or something?

    Read More
  127. @BB753
    Lin-Manuel is a very strange composite Christian name for a Latino... Is he part-Chinese or something?

    I’ve wondered about that.

    Read More
  128. Romanian says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    I'm actually inclined to agree with your suggestion, although I'd drop the one and two dollar bills entirely and replace them with coins. There's no need for a $3 bill.

    As for replacing the founders, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant on the currency, hell, yes, this country bears no relationship to them anymore anyway. If every time Joe Sixpack and Sally Homemaker see some "person of color" on the currency when they pull out wallet or purse, the sooner they'll realize it isn't their country either.

    The stripper industry is going to enter a recession.

    Read More
  129. Romanian says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    If Israel can make deals with African countries, why can't Germany? Paul Kagame seems like a pragmatic guy. Offer him $5k or $10k per refugee and he'll probably take them.

    I you add a little extra money, can he also disappear the worst ones and genetically pacify them? That might be the best gift for them in the long run.

    Read More
  130. Romanian says:
    @Anonymous
    Thanks. I just looked him up (on Wikipedia) for more info, and it looks like he was a 2015 recipient of a MacArthur Genius award. Also, with regard to whether or not anyone could have anticipated that Hamilton would be a hit on Broadway,

    From Wikipedia:

    "In 2009, Miranda read Ron Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton and, inspired by the book, wrote a rap about Hamilton for the White House Evening of Poetry, Music, and the Spoken Word on May 12, 2009, accompanied by Alex Lacamoire. By 2012, Miranda was performing an extended set of pieces based on the life of Hamilton, referred to as the Hamilton Mixtape; the New York Times called it "an obvious game changer". In 2015, Chernow and Miranda received the 2015 History Makers Award by the New York Historical Society for their work in creating Hamilton.

    In 2015, Chernow and Miranda received the 2015 History Makers Award by the New York Historical Society for their work in creating Hamilton.

    What an extraordinarily Orwellian thing.

    Read More
  131. Romanian says:
    @Steve Sailer
    I wrote an article for Chronicles last year about Jefferson's huge contribution in the 1780s of replacing the traditional English metes-and-bounds system of marking property lines with a futuristic longitude and latitude system for federal land sales in the west. Jefferson's system made land sales efficient and cheaper (a lot fewer lawyers were needed). It was a major innovation in creating a Jeffersonian society of small landowners. But none of that seems very exciting today.

    Have you continued to do the essays on how American Founders are still relevant because anticipated the future to some extent? Is there a non-gated version of your Chronicles article?

    Read More
  132. Jack D says:
    @Steve Sailer
    The picture on the $10 bill makes Hamilton look about as Northern European as anybody gets.

    It’s hard to make judgments based on portraits – portrait artists (especially in the pre-photographic age) tried to make the sitter look the way he would LIKE himself to look, not the way he really looked. Even today, you often see articles/websites/book jackets, etc. where the author choose a photo of him/herself taken decades ago, looking much younger/thinner/ handsomer than their current selves.

    While there is no evidence that Hamilton had any black ancestry, there is some that he had Jewish blood. His mother was rumored to be of Jewish ancestry, as was the man to who his mother was still married at the time of Hamilton’s birth. And in addition to Hamilton Sr., there are rumors of yet another man in Hamilton’s mother’s life, also Jewish. It is notable that Hamilton fudged the date of his birth – probably to reconstruct a better time line in which Hamilton Sr. could have been his father. In general, Hamilton didn’t like to talk about his early life because he had a lot to cover up.

    Certainly, Hamilton’s career choices were more consistent with his being Jewish than black. If you think of him as someone who was Jewish but trying to conceal his background, his biography makes a lot more sense. Sort of the John Kerry of the 18th century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jacobite
    Rumors and political campaign mud-slinging are not evidence. The only thing that Hamilton was reticent about was the fact that his father and mother were not married. Nevertheless, Hamilton's father was of noble birth with a genealogy going back to the 14th Century and of which Hamilton himself was proud of. Please state your academic sources for your claim that Hamilton was Jewish.
    , @Wilkey
    "It’s hard to make judgments based on portraits – portrait artists (especially in the pre-photographic age) tried to make the sitter look the way he would LIKE himself to look, not the way he really looked."

    Presumably we have more than a few portraits of Hamilton, not to mention contemporary accounts of him, including his appearance. Do any of them suggest anything other than a man of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant appearance?

    Oh and sure he attended a "Jewish" school - a school, that is, with a Jewish teacher. That isn't quite the same thing as a Jewish school. Do Jews get counted as Christian when they attend schools with Christian teachers? Do I count as black because some of my teachers were black?
    , @syonredux

    While there is no evidence that Hamilton had any black ancestry, there is some that he had Jewish blood. His mother was rumored to be of Jewish ancestry,
     
    Rachel Faucette. No one has found any solid evidence of Jewish ancestry.

    as was the man to who his mother was still married at the time of Hamilton’s birth.

    Johann Michael Lavien. It's possible that he was Jewish.

    It is notable that Hamilton fudged the date of his birth – probably to reconstruct a better time line in which Hamilton Sr. could have been his father.
     
    After arriving in mainland North America, Hamilton gave 1757 as his birth year. However, documents from his youth in the Caribbean list it as 1755. Most historians favor the 1755 date. The usual explanation is that Hamilton advanced the date in order to not stand out among his classmates at King's College (now Columbia). Hamilton would have been about 19 (assuming that the 1755 date is correct) when he formally matriculated at King's. Most university students in the 18th century matriculated at age 15-16.
  133. Jacobite says: • Website
    @Jack D
    It's hard to make judgments based on portraits - portrait artists (especially in the pre-photographic age) tried to make the sitter look the way he would LIKE himself to look, not the way he really looked. Even today, you often see articles/websites/book jackets, etc. where the author choose a photo of him/herself taken decades ago, looking much younger/thinner/ handsomer than their current selves.

    While there is no evidence that Hamilton had any black ancestry, there is some that he had Jewish blood. His mother was rumored to be of Jewish ancestry, as was the man to who his mother was still married at the time of Hamilton's birth. And in addition to Hamilton Sr., there are rumors of yet another man in Hamilton's mother's life, also Jewish. It is notable that Hamilton fudged the date of his birth - probably to reconstruct a better time line in which Hamilton Sr. could have been his father. In general, Hamilton didn't like to talk about his early life because he had a lot to cover up.

    Certainly, Hamilton's career choices were more consistent with his being Jewish than black. If you think of him as someone who was Jewish but trying to conceal his background, his biography makes a lot more sense. Sort of the John Kerry of the 18th century.

    Rumors and political campaign mud-slinging are not evidence. The only thing that Hamilton was reticent about was the fact that his father and mother were not married. Nevertheless, Hamilton’s father was of noble birth with a genealogy going back to the 14th Century and of which Hamilton himself was proud of. Please state your academic sources for your claim that Hamilton was Jewish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    I fear Jack D simply thinks Hamilton was intelligent, and that is all the evidence he needs to be sure that he was Jewish.
  134. @Nick Diaz
    @Steve Sailer

    "While America’s semi-famous women politicians and artists are largely second-rate relative to Europe’s, the same cannot be said for our goddesses of the silver screen."

    Actually, the most famous Hollywood actresses were European: Greta Garbo, Sophia Lauren, Audrey Hepburn, etc, all European. More recently, you have Keira Knightly, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Eva Green, Penelope Cruz and Daisy Ridley. Monica Bellucci could probably have become the greatest leading lady ever given her transcendental beauty, but it was not meant to be.

    Often, American women tend to be obese and to show early signs of senescence due to the American Diet(burgers, doritos, etc). It is actually pretty difficult to find attractive American women. Of course, out of 120 million adult American women, you will always find some beauties. I like Kate Hudson a lot. She is not the second coming of Helen of Troy, but she is beautiful even without makeup, has a girl-next-door look to her(not someone who is strangely beautiful) and is a simple girl who doen't try to be sophisticated -nothing more pathetic than a simpleton trying to be something that (s)he is not. It just comes across as pretentious, pedantic and frankly comical. Another beautiful American actress, but with a more classic beauty than Kate Hudson, is Ann Hathaway. A big difference between European and American leading ladies is that American top actresses have a "salt-of-the-earth" looks and attitude to them, while European leading ladies prime for their finesse, sophistication and aristocratic elegance. Whether this difference reflects the pétit bourgeoise nature of American Society when compared to the more breeding-obsessed nature of most European societies is unknown.

    As for the topic at hand, conservatives should rejoice about the possiblity of removing a Founding Father from legal tender bills. After all, they were Enlightened libertarians that stood for everything that conservatives abhor: equality before the law as sacred and above the democratic vote(majorities cannot disenfranchise minorities by enacting laws to grant or remove rights of particular groups or individuals), secular state(the government has no religion andcannot enforce religion), and that the basis of Society is not the heterosexual family, or a certain ethnicity, but the individual human being. The reason why the Supreme Court recently ruled that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional is because government has not business in telling adult citizens what gender of people they should marry. They were simply upholding the American Constitution, which is a libertarian manifesto if there ever was one. Conservatives think that because the Founding Fathers were in favor of the right to own guns and to have property, that makes them "our kind of guys". They don't seem to understand that the FF were in favor of this because they were in favor of individial rights and that the government has no business controlling the access to weapons.

    But the same love of individual freedom that made the FF garantee such rights also made them enact laws that conservatives detest, such as the permanent separation of church and state, and the inability of majorities to vote their prejudices against minorities into law. This represents the values of the FF: they were intelligent, highly cultured and sophisticated men who had very little in common with corn-fed red-state Americans. There were huge disagreements between the FF on policies and the specific roles of government, but they all agreed in minimum government not only economically, BUT ALSO SOCIALLY. That is, a government that does not enforce ethnic, religious or social prejudices, and that does not allow the enaction of laws to that effect.

    Conservatives are in favor of freedom economically ONLY. The essence of conservatism is to uphold a certain group of people above all others(heterosexual couples with kids), and to intensely meddle with people's lives for "moral" reasons. In all fairness, the policies of the U.S government recently, such as Affirmative Action , violate the FF's mandates as well. The FF were LIBERTARIANS, and conservatives think they are on the same page of the FF just because the FF were in favor of the right to bear arms and own property. Socially, the FF were clearly liberal. A libertarian is a liberal socially, but economically he is a "liberal" in the English sense of the word, ofbeing in favor of economic freedom. This is why libertarians are often accused by dumb conservatives of being "liberals": because the two words are semantically and lexicographically similar, and because libertarians and liberals do find common ground in some ways - but only in certain ways. However, despite the smilarity, liberalism and libertarianism are not synonyms. It gets even worse because Americans use the word "liberal" in a completely different way than Europeans: in England, a liberal is someone who follows the school of economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. In mainland Europe, the word liberal is used as a synonym for libertarian - but this does not mean that Europeans believe the two things are analogous, as to them what Americans call a liberal would be a social-democrat or central-leftist.

    It is flabbergasting that conservatives worship the FF. There is nothing more alien to a corn-eating midwestern American who loves to shoot guns, is in favor of prayer in schools and hates anything sophisticated as "un-American" than someone like Thomas Jefferson, who could dissert for hours on end about different vintages of Château Lafite, enjoyed reading the classics in the original Latin, hanged around men of letters and scientists, and thought that the separation of church and state was the one of the greatest accomplishments of the civilized World.

    Nick,

    Your understanding of American conservatives is a facile caricature created by their enemies for the purposes of dehumanizing them. You should be ashamed of yourself for both your shallowness and your zeal to share that shallowness with the world.

    And no, I’m not a conservative, so I’m not taking what you’re saying personally.

    Read More
  135. NOTA says:
    @Clyde

    It promises that people who take the option of “voluntary departure to third countries” will receive papers on arrival that give them legal status in the country.
    As an extra incentive, they’re given $3,500 (£2,435) in cash, handed over in the departure lounge of the airport in Tel Aviv
     
    .
    Israel has the best way to deport people. A cash incentive and free plane ride home. This allows the deportee to brag when he gets home about all the free money he got. A win-win situation. The feminized traitors who govern Germany and Sweden claim they will be deporting thousands of asylum seekers who are not from Syria. They are flat out lying but if they mean it, then this is how it is done!
    The deportee also has to allow his biometrics to be taken for a database.

    How do they avoid incentivizing people to come across the border in hopes of getting sent home with the cash?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    If an illegal returns who was given cash to GTFO, then he gets booted. He already got paid once. You are correct. The details need to be worked out. One way is that after you have gotten rid of your undesirable illegals, asylum seekers and refugees via a free plane home and cash incentives, you tighten things up so they cannot make a repeat appearance on you soil.
  136. Wilkey says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    I've heard a couple of Rent songs on the radio occasionally around Christmastime in the New York area. Also, everyone's heard "Defying Gravity" from Wicked. And if you count Frozen, there's "Let It Go" (sung by one of the original cast members of Rent).

    Plus, Aida (which debuted on Broadway in 2000, IIRC) has been pretty popular as a high school production -- plenty of them on YouTube if you look.

    Yes, I meant to mention “Rent.” “Seasons of Love” counts as a kind of holiday song. But even “Rent” is now 20 years old, believe it or not, and its one or two songs aren’t remotely as popular as anything from “Phantom.” It’s a bit of a shock to me, though, that songs from ALW’s slightly more recent “Sunset Boulevard” aren’t more popular. It has a few numbers that are every bit as good as anything in “Phantom.”

    I did overlook “Wicked,” (which did not win best musical) but I intentionally excluded film musicals, especially Disney.

    And I think you should give “Jersey Boys” another go. It’s seriously pretty spectacular. Clint Eastwood did a great job directing the movie, and the closing credits are pretty damn good – they inject a little bit of Broadway into the movie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Of those, I've seen Rent, Wicked, and Sunset Boulevard on Broadway. Seasons of Love isn't Rent's best song, IMO. I always liked One Song / Glory, and Light My Candle are better. It's got several memorable songs, which is kind of rare for a musical.

    I couldn't name any Sunset Boulevard songs without looking them up, or even remember a melody. I do remember it was a really classy, expensive-looking production, and it had some clever lines in it.

    Wicked was an impressive bit of theater too, but there's really only that one song I remember. Most musicals are lucky to have more than 2 or 3 really good songs. One exception, in addition to Rent, was The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Most of the soundtrack is pretty good.

    I'll try to give Jersey Boys another try next time it's on.

    BTW, Fox put on a live performance of Grease on Sunday night, and it was really spectacular. You can watch the recording of it via the link in the tweet below.
    https://twitter.com/juliannehough/status/695014406455848961
  137. NOTA says:
    @Broski

    The only reason the West believes in diversity propaganda so broadly is that many Europeans have so easily transcended their own natural racialism for a brief window of time. That transcendence makes them unique in human history, though.

     

    It happened another time -- when Rome imported lots of other peoples into its lands and accepted their customs subject to their submission. Also Europeans running things.

    Maybe Europeans are singularly great at starting global and near-global empires, but have this flaw that causes the empires to collapse after a great run. Many highly complex systems collapse after a long time due to a slow but powerful flaw (e.g., stars, galaxies, Scottish-British monarchical lines).

    There have been three (relatively...) great peacetimes in Eurasian and then global history: the Pax Romana, Mongolica, and Brittanica/Americana. Mongolica seems to have been a fluke. (It was never centrally organized beyond a generation or two, etc. Great warriors, not great rulers.) Brittanica/Americana has been going strong since the sinking of the Spanish Armada, but it may be winding up.

    Perhaps Europeans' periodic experiments in transcending racialism (at root so their European rulers and the organs of state political expression can get richer) provide unique periods of peace and prosperity for other participants. There is little reason in human history to believe that any other participants can also transcend racialism.

    So the current Eurasian pax has included both world wars?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Broski

    So the current Eurasian pax has included both world wars?

     

    One could look at the 1914-1945 period as a brief break in the British-American Empire necessary to accommodate shifting of the capital and the empire's alliances and to address upstart competing ideologies (communism, fascism). Not wholly unlike Constantine's shifts in Rome's capital and the state religion.
    , @Broski
    See my comment 119 as well.
  138. Wilkey says:
    @snorlax

    Southern slave-holders were the original ... cheap-labor lobby.
     
    This can't be emphasized enough. It's quite literally unimaginable how much better off we'd be if the abolitionists had been successful 100 years earlier.

    This can’t be emphasized enough. It’s quite literally unimaginable how much better off we’d be if the abolitionists had been successful 100 years earlier.

    And flabbergasting the number of Southerners who to their deaths fighting for that cheap labor lobby. I can’t even begin to imagine myself putting on the uniform of the Chamber of Commerce and going into battle led by Generals Chuck Schumer, Tom Donohue, Grover Norquist, and their buttboy, Colonel Lindsey Graham.

    Yeah yeah, I get it – the South saw themselves as being invaded, etc. But still it was pretty ridiculous.

    Read More
  139. @Anon
    Isn't paper currency gonna disappear soon?

    Since money is about sin and greed, why not put pics of hoodlums or vain celebs?

    Lucky Luciano.

    Oprah.

    Gordon Gekko.

    Eddie Murphy.

    Tony Montana.
    "In Me I Trust"

    The death of currency has been greatly exaggerated.

    When the credit bubble finally bursts (it surely has not yet), the effect will be for there to be a massive “shortage” of money. It is impossible to run an economy like that of the USA on physical cash, but paradoxically the only “money” that won’t be subject to evaporation will be banknotes.

    For this reason, in another paradox, it seems likely that the Fed (or Congress, if it seizes the Fed) will at some point in the crisis attempt to reflate the economy with paper banknotes or something equally physical.

    I anticipate that at least for bank system accounting purposes, you’ll see a return to very large denomination notes.

    I vote for putting the faces of the Bushes, Clinton(s) and Obama on these Zimbabwe-level banknotes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde

    When the credit bubble finally bursts (it surely has not yet), the effect will be for there to be a massive “shortage” of money. It is impossible to run an economy like that of the USA on physical cash, but paradoxically the only “money” that won’t be subject to evaporation will be banknotes.
     
    You are 100% correct. "Not subject to evaporation" is accurate. In a deflationary crash people will lose bank deposits, bonds will go belly up, credit cards might not be accepted, but green Federal Reserve Notes will still be accepted, will maintain value and even go up in value. Paper money will be last man standing. Dittos for our humble coinage.

    In an hyperinflation Federal reserve Notes lose their value every day.
  140. Corn says:

    “I wrote an article for Chronicles last year about Jefferson’s huge contribution in the 1780s of replacing the traditional English metes-and-bounds system of marking property lines with a futuristic longitude and latitude system for federal land sales in the west. ”

    Is this article online? I’d love to read it. Also, Jefferson came up with a metric (decimal at least) system of weights and measures for the US in 1790 but Congress said no thanks.

    Read More
  141. Wilkey says:
    @Jack D
    It's hard to make judgments based on portraits - portrait artists (especially in the pre-photographic age) tried to make the sitter look the way he would LIKE himself to look, not the way he really looked. Even today, you often see articles/websites/book jackets, etc. where the author choose a photo of him/herself taken decades ago, looking much younger/thinner/ handsomer than their current selves.

    While there is no evidence that Hamilton had any black ancestry, there is some that he had Jewish blood. His mother was rumored to be of Jewish ancestry, as was the man to who his mother was still married at the time of Hamilton's birth. And in addition to Hamilton Sr., there are rumors of yet another man in Hamilton's mother's life, also Jewish. It is notable that Hamilton fudged the date of his birth - probably to reconstruct a better time line in which Hamilton Sr. could have been his father. In general, Hamilton didn't like to talk about his early life because he had a lot to cover up.

    Certainly, Hamilton's career choices were more consistent with his being Jewish than black. If you think of him as someone who was Jewish but trying to conceal his background, his biography makes a lot more sense. Sort of the John Kerry of the 18th century.

    “It’s hard to make judgments based on portraits – portrait artists (especially in the pre-photographic age) tried to make the sitter look the way he would LIKE himself to look, not the way he really looked.”

    Presumably we have more than a few portraits of Hamilton, not to mention contemporary accounts of him, including his appearance. Do any of them suggest anything other than a man of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant appearance?

    Oh and sure he attended a “Jewish” school – a school, that is, with a Jewish teacher. That isn’t quite the same thing as a Jewish school. Do Jews get counted as Christian when they attend schools with Christian teachers? Do I count as black because some of my teachers were black?

    Read More
  142. Richard says:
    @Wilkey
    "There have been musicals, for example, that stitched together a bunch of previously released pop songs (that Billy Joel one, and the one with the ’80s hair band tunes). I can’t see that working with rap."

    There are probably dozens of them. It's a whole genre unto itself called the jukebox musical, and they can do quite well: Jersey Boys (Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons), Motown (various Motown acts), All Shook Up (Elvis), Mamma Mia (Abba), the Carole King musical, American Idiot (Green Day), On Your Feet (Gloria Estefan), Million Dollar Quartet, Rock of Ages, etc. Some make a more serious attempt at telling a story than others. American Idiot was crap.

    Taking pre-existing songs that are already popular is a good way to raise the odds of turning a profit. Repackaging songs from old musicals for new ones (Nice Work If You Can Get It, Anything Goes) is another proven method, with the advantage that it resurrects song from Broadway's golden era - Cole Porter, the Gershwins, etc.

    The concept is pretty old, going back at least to the ballad operas of the mid-18th century. John Gay’s “The Beggar’s Opera” (1728) is the best known example today. On the down side, it seems to correlate strongly with creative exhaustion; there wasn’t a whole lot happening in terms of hot new plays in 1720s English theatre.

    Read More
  143. @tbraton
    I think you are making up that argument out of whole cloth. Alexander Hamilton had nothing to worry about since the Constitution made it clear that he could run for President.

    Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution:

    "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; "

    I believe Hamilton was a "Citizen of the United States" at the time of the Constitution's adoption.

    Yep, looks like I fell prey one of the classic blunders– thinking that Hamilton was the reason for the “natural born citizen” clause is prominently featured on a “Myths about Hamilton” web site.

    (The classic blunder being, listening to your family member the legal historian when legal history is on the line, since that’s where I heard this, in a recent conversation about Ted Cruz’s eligibility.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Also, if you really cared that much about keeping Hamilton away from power why go through it in such a roundabout way? Especially considering he wielded enormpu power anyway as the treasury secretary. Why not simply murder him, as, incidentally, Burr more or less did?
  144. Dr. X says:
    @Nick Diaz
    @Steve Sailer

    "While America’s semi-famous women politicians and artists are largely second-rate relative to Europe’s, the same cannot be said for our goddesses of the silver screen."

    Actually, the most famous Hollywood actresses were European: Greta Garbo, Sophia Lauren, Audrey Hepburn, etc, all European. More recently, you have Keira Knightly, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Eva Green, Penelope Cruz and Daisy Ridley. Monica Bellucci could probably have become the greatest leading lady ever given her transcendental beauty, but it was not meant to be.

    Often, American women tend to be obese and to show early signs of senescence due to the American Diet(burgers, doritos, etc). It is actually pretty difficult to find attractive American women. Of course, out of 120 million adult American women, you will always find some beauties. I like Kate Hudson a lot. She is not the second coming of Helen of Troy, but she is beautiful even without makeup, has a girl-next-door look to her(not someone who is strangely beautiful) and is a simple girl who doen't try to be sophisticated -nothing more pathetic than a simpleton trying to be something that (s)he is not. It just comes across as pretentious, pedantic and frankly comical. Another beautiful American actress, but with a more classic beauty than Kate Hudson, is Ann Hathaway. A big difference between European and American leading ladies is that American top actresses have a "salt-of-the-earth" looks and attitude to them, while European leading ladies prime for their finesse, sophistication and aristocratic elegance. Whether this difference reflects the pétit bourgeoise nature of American Society when compared to the more breeding-obsessed nature of most European societies is unknown.

    As for the topic at hand, conservatives should rejoice about the possiblity of removing a Founding Father from legal tender bills. After all, they were Enlightened libertarians that stood for everything that conservatives abhor: equality before the law as sacred and above the democratic vote(majorities cannot disenfranchise minorities by enacting laws to grant or remove rights of particular groups or individuals), secular state(the government has no religion andcannot enforce religion), and that the basis of Society is not the heterosexual family, or a certain ethnicity, but the individual human being. The reason why the Supreme Court recently ruled that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional is because government has not business in telling adult citizens what gender of people they should marry. They were simply upholding the American Constitution, which is a libertarian manifesto if there ever was one. Conservatives think that because the Founding Fathers were in favor of the right to own guns and to have property, that makes them "our kind of guys". They don't seem to understand that the FF were in favor of this because they were in favor of individial rights and that the government has no business controlling the access to weapons.

    But the same love of individual freedom that made the FF garantee such rights also made them enact laws that conservatives detest, such as the permanent separation of church and state, and the inability of majorities to vote their prejudices against minorities into law. This represents the values of the FF: they were intelligent, highly cultured and sophisticated men who had very little in common with corn-fed red-state Americans. There were huge disagreements between the FF on policies and the specific roles of government, but they all agreed in minimum government not only economically, BUT ALSO SOCIALLY. That is, a government that does not enforce ethnic, religious or social prejudices, and that does not allow the enaction of laws to that effect.

    Conservatives are in favor of freedom economically ONLY. The essence of conservatism is to uphold a certain group of people above all others(heterosexual couples with kids), and to intensely meddle with people's lives for "moral" reasons. In all fairness, the policies of the U.S government recently, such as Affirmative Action , violate the FF's mandates as well. The FF were LIBERTARIANS, and conservatives think they are on the same page of the FF just because the FF were in favor of the right to bear arms and own property. Socially, the FF were clearly liberal. A libertarian is a liberal socially, but economically he is a "liberal" in the English sense of the word, ofbeing in favor of economic freedom. This is why libertarians are often accused by dumb conservatives of being "liberals": because the two words are semantically and lexicographically similar, and because libertarians and liberals do find common ground in some ways - but only in certain ways. However, despite the smilarity, liberalism and libertarianism are not synonyms. It gets even worse because Americans use the word "liberal" in a completely different way than Europeans: in England, a liberal is someone who follows the school of economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. In mainland Europe, the word liberal is used as a synonym for libertarian - but this does not mean that Europeans believe the two things are analogous, as to them what Americans call a liberal would be a social-democrat or central-leftist.

    It is flabbergasting that conservatives worship the FF. There is nothing more alien to a corn-eating midwestern American who loves to shoot guns, is in favor of prayer in schools and hates anything sophisticated as "un-American" than someone like Thomas Jefferson, who could dissert for hours on end about different vintages of Château Lafite, enjoyed reading the classics in the original Latin, hanged around men of letters and scientists, and thought that the separation of church and state was the one of the greatest accomplishments of the civilized World.

    I think you’re guilty of imposing 21st-century postmodern categories upon 18th century Whigs, and it simply can’t be done. The Founders were neither “liberal” nor “conservative” in today’s understanding. They were Lockean “liberals” who defended the rights of life, liberty, and property against royalist and monarchist “conservatives” who believed in mercantilism and subjection to hereditary monarchy.

    They all thought homosexuality was a perversion (Jefferson proposed castration for the crime of buggery) so issues you cite like gay marriage would have been incomprehensible to them. As far as religion goes, they were all socially conservative and took religion very seriously, but believed that organized religions had been corrupted by politics — they were familiar with the decades of infighting between Anglicans, Catholics, and Puritans in 17th-century England. Consequently, they refused to create a national, “established” established religion like the Church of England.

    It’s also worth noting that the Founders took federalism very seriously. While the Federal government was banned from establishing a religion or involving itself in marriage, state governments were NOT. The Founders expected that individual states would make such decisions for themselves under their state constitutions. They would have been aghast at the idea that the Supreme Court would declare a “constitutional right” to gay marriage and force states to perform it.

    Attempting to impose today’s political categories and agendas on the Founders reflects a profound misunderstanding of the Founders, and of the constitution they wrote in 1787, prior to the democratizing, egalitarian amendments of the post-Civil War and Progressive Eras, and the 20th-century era of liberal judicial activism.

    Read More
  145. Richard says:
    @snorlax

    Southern slave-holders were the original ... cheap-labor lobby.
     
    This can't be emphasized enough. It's quite literally unimaginable how much better off we'd be if the abolitionists had been successful 100 years earlier.

    This can’t be emphasized enough. It’s quite literally unimaginable how much better off we’d be if the abolitionists had been successful 100 years earlier.

    Or how worse off we’d be if the abolitionists had faltered in the 1860s. Read up on the Knights of the Golden Circle and the filibustering expeditions of the 1850s to see what a wrecked ship the US would be today had the slave power gotten its way and absorbed half of Latin America into our borders in order to keep up the supply of slave states. With free state California blocking their access to the Pacific, the slave-owning aristocracy was drifting towards an “Invade the World, Invite the World” ideology, and there were all sorts of schemes to annex well-populated Hispanic territories that would undoubtedly have gained force were it not for the Civil War. One filibuster, William Walker, actually succeeded in conquering Nicaragua for a time with the ultimate goal of having it admitted to the USA as a slave state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    I believe you are omitting from your alternative history the fact that Brazil peacefully ended slavery in 1888, the last state in the Western Hemisphere to do so and a mere 23 years after the end of our Civil War which took the lives of upward of 750,000 Americans. The fact of the matter is that slavery was becoming uneconomical and would have ended on economic grounds without the need of the bloodshed of our Civil War.

    I believe any attempt to make Nicaragua a state would have first required a treaty to make it a territory of the U.S. and would have required a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate. After all, the Louisiana Purchase was submitted to the Senate as a treaty and was approved by the Senate by more than a 2/3 vote. A similar proposal was made by President Grant to make the Dominican Republic a territory with a path to statehood in 1870, but the Senate defeated the proposed treaty by a 28-28 vote, and the Dominican Republic never became a state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Santo_Domingo#Treaty_submitted_and_failure
  146. tbraton says:
    @syonredux

    William Powell must be paired with Myrna Loy

    Nix that. While I love her dearly and have seen her perform on stage, she was a damn liberal Democrat.
     
    Politics are irrelevant when one ponders the immortal pairing that was William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles.

    “Politics are irrelevant when one ponders the immortal pairing that was William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles.”

    I didn’t care for her politics, but I thought Jane Fonda was superb in “Klute.” I voted for him twice, but I also thought Reagan was superb in “Bedtime for Bonzo.” My next door neighbor on Capitol Hill, an elderly widow from Virginia, used to scathingly refer to Reagan as “that B grade actor,” which I thought was a little unfair. We never discussed politics much, but I believe she was a somewhat liberal Democrat.

    Read More
  147. tbraton says:
    @Richard

    This can’t be emphasized enough. It’s quite literally unimaginable how much better off we’d be if the abolitionists had been successful 100 years earlier.
     
    Or how worse off we'd be if the abolitionists had faltered in the 1860s. Read up on the Knights of the Golden Circle and the filibustering expeditions of the 1850s to see what a wrecked ship the US would be today had the slave power gotten its way and absorbed half of Latin America into our borders in order to keep up the supply of slave states. With free state California blocking their access to the Pacific, the slave-owning aristocracy was drifting towards an "Invade the World, Invite the World" ideology, and there were all sorts of schemes to annex well-populated Hispanic territories that would undoubtedly have gained force were it not for the Civil War. One filibuster, William Walker, actually succeeded in conquering Nicaragua for a time with the ultimate goal of having it admitted to the USA as a slave state.

    I believe you are omitting from your alternative history the fact that Brazil peacefully ended slavery in 1888, the last state in the Western Hemisphere to do so and a mere 23 years after the end of our Civil War which took the lives of upward of 750,000 Americans. The fact of the matter is that slavery was becoming uneconomical and would have ended on economic grounds without the need of the bloodshed of our Civil War.

    I believe any attempt to make Nicaragua a state would have first required a treaty to make it a territory of the U.S. and would have required a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate. After all, the Louisiana Purchase was submitted to the Senate as a treaty and was approved by the Senate by more than a 2/3 vote. A similar proposal was made by President Grant to make the Dominican Republic a territory with a path to statehood in 1870, but the Senate defeated the proposed treaty by a 28-28 vote, and the Dominican Republic never became a state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Santo_Domingo#Treaty_submitted_and_failure

    Read More
    • Replies: @Richard
    I'm much less confident than you. Brazilian landowning and business interests were opposed to abolition (which occurred only because of a princess's imperial decree, and was motivated mainly by moral concerns) and their opposition led to the deposition of the Brazilian emperor the next year and his replacement by an oligarchic republic, although the new Brazilian government didn't try to put the genie back in the bottle. Without the forced destruction of U.S. slavery it doesn't happen, at least not in 1888.

    Slavery was never economical from the perspective of the general public, it only prospered for a powerful and well-megaphoned aristocracy, but that was formidable enough. You're right that the admission of new territory would have required 2/3 Senate ratification, but the filibustering movements were operating in a social context which had just seen the successful annexation of Texas in 1845, the Mexican Cession of 1848, and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853, all expected to be entirely or mostly slave territory, and the fact that a Republican president like Grant would later seek the annexation of the modern Dominican Republic a few years later proves that northern interests which aligned with the Slavocracy in favoring the earlier acquisitions of territory were still present in the 1870s. The Senate that rejected Santo Domingo was more than 80% Republican with most of the former Confederate states still under Reconstruction governments, and responding to the altered political conditions that followed the Civil War and abolition of slavery. It still got half.
  148. @Discordiax
    Not true.

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
     
    The clause is not about HAmilton, but about a possible monarchist venture to put a Prince of some European royal family or other in the Presidency and then use the Presidency as a fulcrum to overthrow the republic.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Henry_of_Prussia_(1726%E2%80%931802)#Proposal_for_King_of_the_United_States for a contemporary example.

    It was not uncommon in republics for a faction to invite a foreign prince in, to defeat their domestic enemies. IT also was pretty common for a family dynasty to gain power in a republic, and alternate between power and exile.

    Good points.

    the Founders were also very familiar with the recent political experiences of Poland. Poland had for 200 years run an elective monarchy whose king, though he sat for life, had similar powers to those granted the presidency [very roughly] and whose position was not hereditary. The enormous noble caste who exercised the franchise had taken over time to selecting foreign candidates [Swedes, Poles, Frenchmen] who were too far down the line in their native realms and were looking for a throne. These generally either acted in the interests of their ancestral realms or provoked endless conflict among neighbouring powers over the next election.

    It was one of the major contributors to Poland’s collapse into weakness, then servitude, then partition, a process that was going on parallel to the emergence of the United States and was widely considered among people interested in constitutional questions.

    Read More
  149. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Dave Pinsen
    I wouldn't worry about this starting a trend of rap musicals. The appeal here is, in part, the subject matter, and the sophisticated lyrics. Most rap would fail both tests.

    There have been musicals, for example, that stitched together a bunch of previously released pop songs (that Billy Joel one, and the one with the '80s hair band tunes). I can't see that working with rap.

    “I wouldn’t worry about this starting a trend of rap musicals.”

    How wrong you are. If you know anything about how cultural trends work, there will be a deluge of nothing but rap musicals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "How wrong you are. If you know anything about how cultural trends work, there will be a deluge of nothing but rap musicals."

    Rap music is over 30 years old. "In the Heights," Miranda's first rap musical, is about a decade old. It won a lot of Tony Awards but it isn't especially popular. The audience for rap and the audience for musical theatre don't overlap all that much, and probably never will. There will be musicals with rap numbers in them, just as so many musicals like to have a variety of musical styles in them, but rap musicals will be rare. Popular rap musicals will be even rarer.
  150. Broski says:
    @NOTA
    So the current Eurasian pax has included both world wars?

    So the current Eurasian pax has included both world wars?

    One could look at the 1914-1945 period as a brief break in the British-American Empire necessary to accommodate shifting of the capital and the empire’s alliances and to address upstart competing ideologies (communism, fascism). Not wholly unlike Constantine’s shifts in Rome’s capital and the state religion.

    Read More
  151. Broski says:
    @NOTA
    So the current Eurasian pax has included both world wars?

    See my comment 119 as well.

    Read More
  152. 5371 says:
    @Jacobite
    Rumors and political campaign mud-slinging are not evidence. The only thing that Hamilton was reticent about was the fact that his father and mother were not married. Nevertheless, Hamilton's father was of noble birth with a genealogy going back to the 14th Century and of which Hamilton himself was proud of. Please state your academic sources for your claim that Hamilton was Jewish.

    I fear Jack D simply thinks Hamilton was intelligent, and that is all the evidence he needs to be sure that he was Jewish.

    Read More
  153. Clyde says:
    @dc.sunsets
    The death of currency has been greatly exaggerated.

    When the credit bubble finally bursts (it surely has not yet), the effect will be for there to be a massive "shortage" of money. It is impossible to run an economy like that of the USA on physical cash, but paradoxically the only "money" that won't be subject to evaporation will be banknotes.

    For this reason, in another paradox, it seems likely that the Fed (or Congress, if it seizes the Fed) will at some point in the crisis attempt to reflate the economy with paper banknotes or something equally physical.

    I anticipate that at least for bank system accounting purposes, you'll see a return to very large denomination notes.

    I vote for putting the faces of the Bushes, Clinton(s) and Obama on these Zimbabwe-level banknotes.

    When the credit bubble finally bursts (it surely has not yet), the effect will be for there to be a massive “shortage” of money. It is impossible to run an economy like that of the USA on physical cash, but paradoxically the only “money” that won’t be subject to evaporation will be banknotes.

    You are 100% correct. “Not subject to evaporation” is accurate. In a deflationary crash people will lose bank deposits, bonds will go belly up, credit cards might not be accepted, but green Federal Reserve Notes will still be accepted, will maintain value and even go up in value. Paper money will be last man standing. Dittos for our humble coinage.

    In an hyperinflation Federal reserve Notes lose their value every day.

    Read More
  154. AndrewR says:
    @Desiderius
    Andrew,

    While obviously many traitorous whites do profit from helping to uphold Jew Supremacy, that doesn’t mean they should be ethnically lumped in with their masters.
     
    The WASP preceded the Jew:

    https://nickbsteves.wordpress.com/american-malvern/

    Those traitorous (yes, to the United States and the principles upon which it was founded) whites long ago abandoned any solidarity with you and yours'. There is no "white" identity which contains you both, except in the minds of anti-white bigots.

    Many WASPs are apathetic about race if not outright race traitors. This is true. Jews, OTOH, rarely if ever act in ways traitorous to the tribe, although the high rate of miscegenation makes one wonder.

    Read More
  155. syonredux says:
    @Jacobite
    Politics aren't irrelevant to putting someone's face on currency. And as irresistibly cute as Myrna was she didn't hold a candle to Irene as an actress.

    Politics aren’t irrelevant to putting someone’s face on currency.

    By the Maoist standards of our age, sure. But that’s why DW Griffith has become an unperson.

    And as irresistibly cute as Myrna was she didn’t hold a candle to Irene as an actress.

    Dunno. They seem quite comparable to me. And Myrna Loy has the immortal Thin Man series backing her up.

    Read More
  156. syonredux says:
    @Jack D
    It's hard to make judgments based on portraits - portrait artists (especially in the pre-photographic age) tried to make the sitter look the way he would LIKE himself to look, not the way he really looked. Even today, you often see articles/websites/book jackets, etc. where the author choose a photo of him/herself taken decades ago, looking much younger/thinner/ handsomer than their current selves.

    While there is no evidence that Hamilton had any black ancestry, there is some that he had Jewish blood. His mother was rumored to be of Jewish ancestry, as was the man to who his mother was still married at the time of Hamilton's birth. And in addition to Hamilton Sr., there are rumors of yet another man in Hamilton's mother's life, also Jewish. It is notable that Hamilton fudged the date of his birth - probably to reconstruct a better time line in which Hamilton Sr. could have been his father. In general, Hamilton didn't like to talk about his early life because he had a lot to cover up.

    Certainly, Hamilton's career choices were more consistent with his being Jewish than black. If you think of him as someone who was Jewish but trying to conceal his background, his biography makes a lot more sense. Sort of the John Kerry of the 18th century.

    While there is no evidence that Hamilton had any black ancestry, there is some that he had Jewish blood. His mother was rumored to be of Jewish ancestry,

    Rachel Faucette. No one has found any solid evidence of Jewish ancestry.

    as was the man to who his mother was still married at the time of Hamilton’s birth.

    Johann Michael Lavien. It’s possible that he was Jewish.

    It is notable that Hamilton fudged the date of his birth – probably to reconstruct a better time line in which Hamilton Sr. could have been his father.

    After arriving in mainland North America, Hamilton gave 1757 as his birth year. However, documents from his youth in the Caribbean list it as 1755. Most historians favor the 1755 date. The usual explanation is that Hamilton advanced the date in order to not stand out among his classmates at King’s College (now Columbia). Hamilton would have been about 19 (assuming that the 1755 date is correct) when he formally matriculated at King’s. Most university students in the 18th century matriculated at age 15-16.

    Read More
  157. guest says:
    @Spotted Toad
    Yep, looks like I fell prey one of the classic blunders-- thinking that Hamilton was the reason for the "natural born citizen" clause is prominently featured on a "Myths about Hamilton" web site.

    (The classic blunder being, listening to your family member the legal historian when legal history is on the line, since that's where I heard this, in a recent conversation about Ted Cruz's eligibility.)

    Also, if you really cared that much about keeping Hamilton away from power why go through it in such a roundabout way? Especially considering he wielded enormpu power anyway as the treasury secretary. Why not simply murder him, as, incidentally, Burr more or less did?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Hamilton didn't shoot into the ground or straight up into the air. He shot a branch above and behind Burr. His defenders have various theories for why Burr shouldn't have seen this as hostile intent on Hamilton's part. (I believe they were entitled to reload and take a second shot at each other.) One pro-Hamilton theory is that he wasn't going to shoot at Burr but Burr shot first and Hamilton's shot was a spasmodic reaction to being hit. Well, maybe ...

    All in all, it's hard to imagine Ben Franklin getting himself into such a jam and not getting himself otu.

  158. syonredux says:
    @Nick Diaz
    @Steve Sailer

    "While America’s semi-famous women politicians and artists are largely second-rate relative to Europe’s, the same cannot be said for our goddesses of the silver screen."

    Actually, the most famous Hollywood actresses were European: Greta Garbo, Sophia Lauren, Audrey Hepburn, etc, all European. More recently, you have Keira Knightly, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Eva Green, Penelope Cruz and Daisy Ridley. Monica Bellucci could probably have become the greatest leading lady ever given her transcendental beauty, but it was not meant to be.

    Often, American women tend to be obese and to show early signs of senescence due to the American Diet(burgers, doritos, etc). It is actually pretty difficult to find attractive American women. Of course, out of 120 million adult American women, you will always find some beauties. I like Kate Hudson a lot. She is not the second coming of Helen of Troy, but she is beautiful even without makeup, has a girl-next-door look to her(not someone who is strangely beautiful) and is a simple girl who doen't try to be sophisticated -nothing more pathetic than a simpleton trying to be something that (s)he is not. It just comes across as pretentious, pedantic and frankly comical. Another beautiful American actress, but with a more classic beauty than Kate Hudson, is Ann Hathaway. A big difference between European and American leading ladies is that American top actresses have a "salt-of-the-earth" looks and attitude to them, while European leading ladies prime for their finesse, sophistication and aristocratic elegance. Whether this difference reflects the pétit bourgeoise nature of American Society when compared to the more breeding-obsessed nature of most European societies is unknown.

    As for the topic at hand, conservatives should rejoice about the possiblity of removing a Founding Father from legal tender bills. After all, they were Enlightened libertarians that stood for everything that conservatives abhor: equality before the law as sacred and above the democratic vote(majorities cannot disenfranchise minorities by enacting laws to grant or remove rights of particular groups or individuals), secular state(the government has no religion andcannot enforce religion), and that the basis of Society is not the heterosexual family, or a certain ethnicity, but the individual human being. The reason why the Supreme Court recently ruled that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional is because government has not business in telling adult citizens what gender of people they should marry. They were simply upholding the American Constitution, which is a libertarian manifesto if there ever was one. Conservatives think that because the Founding Fathers were in favor of the right to own guns and to have property, that makes them "our kind of guys". They don't seem to understand that the FF were in favor of this because they were in favor of individial rights and that the government has no business controlling the access to weapons.

    But the same love of individual freedom that made the FF garantee such rights also made them enact laws that conservatives detest, such as the permanent separation of church and state, and the inability of majorities to vote their prejudices against minorities into law. This represents the values of the FF: they were intelligent, highly cultured and sophisticated men who had very little in common with corn-fed red-state Americans. There were huge disagreements between the FF on policies and the specific roles of government, but they all agreed in minimum government not only economically, BUT ALSO SOCIALLY. That is, a government that does not enforce ethnic, religious or social prejudices, and that does not allow the enaction of laws to that effect.

    Conservatives are in favor of freedom economically ONLY. The essence of conservatism is to uphold a certain group of people above all others(heterosexual couples with kids), and to intensely meddle with people's lives for "moral" reasons. In all fairness, the policies of the U.S government recently, such as Affirmative Action , violate the FF's mandates as well. The FF were LIBERTARIANS, and conservatives think they are on the same page of the FF just because the FF were in favor of the right to bear arms and own property. Socially, the FF were clearly liberal. A libertarian is a liberal socially, but economically he is a "liberal" in the English sense of the word, ofbeing in favor of economic freedom. This is why libertarians are often accused by dumb conservatives of being "liberals": because the two words are semantically and lexicographically similar, and because libertarians and liberals do find common ground in some ways - but only in certain ways. However, despite the smilarity, liberalism and libertarianism are not synonyms. It gets even worse because Americans use the word "liberal" in a completely different way than Europeans: in England, a liberal is someone who follows the school of economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. In mainland Europe, the word liberal is used as a synonym for libertarian - but this does not mean that Europeans believe the two things are analogous, as to them what Americans call a liberal would be a social-democrat or central-leftist.

    It is flabbergasting that conservatives worship the FF. There is nothing more alien to a corn-eating midwestern American who loves to shoot guns, is in favor of prayer in schools and hates anything sophisticated as "un-American" than someone like Thomas Jefferson, who could dissert for hours on end about different vintages of Château Lafite, enjoyed reading the classics in the original Latin, hanged around men of letters and scientists, and thought that the separation of church and state was the one of the greatest accomplishments of the civilized World.

    Actually, the most famous Hollywood actresses were European: Greta Garbo, Sophia Lauren, Audrey Hepburn, etc, all European.

    On the other hand, America has Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, Lauren Bacall, Ava Gardner, Kim Novak, Eva Marie Saint,Grace Kelly, etc, etc, etc,

    Read More
  159. syonredux says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    Note the use of the standard PC line of attack in regards to Jefferson. He owned slaves. Hence, we can safely discount anything that he says.
     
    There's a lot more in there than that. Those are impressive lyrics. There's the conflict between an agrarian future and an industrial one. Southern slave-holders were the original free-trade, cheap-labor lobby. When you don't have to pay your workers, you don't have to worry about foreign markets undercutting your costs. Cheap labor and free markets go together.

    Hamilton and most of the founders were protectionists/mercantilists though. And America remained a protectionist country until the mid-20th Century, as Ian Fletcher has noted. We did to Britain what China has been doing to us.

    Note the use of the standard PC line of attack in regards to Jefferson. He owned slaves. Hence, we can safely discount anything that he says.

    There’s a lot more in there than that. Those are impressive lyrics. There’s the conflict between an agrarian future and an industrial one. Southern slave-holders were the original free-trade, cheap-labor lobby. When you don’t have to pay your workers, you don’t have to worry about foreign markets undercutting your costs. Cheap labor and free markets go together.

    Sure. People like us can trace a direct line from plantation owners in the 18th century to billionaires advocating open borders in the 21st. But I rather doubt that that’s what Miranda has in mind. He’s simply using Jefferson’s status as a slave owner as a way to shut down debate.

    Read More
  160. @guest
    Also, if you really cared that much about keeping Hamilton away from power why go through it in such a roundabout way? Especially considering he wielded enormpu power anyway as the treasury secretary. Why not simply murder him, as, incidentally, Burr more or less did?

    Hamilton didn’t shoot into the ground or straight up into the air. He shot a branch above and behind Burr. His defenders have various theories for why Burr shouldn’t have seen this as hostile intent on Hamilton’s part. (I believe they were entitled to reload and take a second shot at each other.) One pro-Hamilton theory is that he wasn’t going to shoot at Burr but Burr shot first and Hamilton’s shot was a spasmodic reaction to being hit. Well, maybe …

    All in all, it’s hard to imagine Ben Franklin getting himself into such a jam and not getting himself otu.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    I don't want to get into the minutiae of the duel. Let's say Hamilton wanted to kill Burr, for argument's sake. Still, it was Burr who challenged Hamilton, wasn't it? With an intent to kill him. I'm not a gentleman, we stand outside the traditions of the code duello, and Hamilton was provided an opportunity to defend himself. Burr didn't ambush him on the way home from work and shoot him in the back, or anything. But he did shoot him with the intent to kill him for the fact that he was a political rival (and that he besmirched his honor, and blah, blah, blah).
    , @Jim Don Bob
    A good biography of Aaron Burr would be nice. I have never understood him. Or Benedict Arnold either. The reigning stories don't ring true to me.
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  161. guest says:
    @Nick Diaz
    @Steve Sailer

    "While America’s semi-famous women politicians and artists are largely second-rate relative to Europe’s, the same cannot be said for our goddesses of the silver screen."

    Actually, the most famous Hollywood actresses were European: Greta Garbo, Sophia Lauren, Audrey Hepburn, etc, all European. More recently, you have Keira Knightly, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Eva Green, Penelope Cruz and Daisy Ridley. Monica Bellucci could probably have become the greatest leading lady ever given her transcendental beauty, but it was not meant to be.

    Often, American women tend to be obese and to show early signs of senescence due to the American Diet(burgers, doritos, etc). It is actually pretty difficult to find attractive American women. Of course, out of 120 million adult American women, you will always find some beauties. I like Kate Hudson a lot. She is not the second coming of Helen of Troy, but she is beautiful even without makeup, has a girl-next-door look to her(not someone who is strangely beautiful) and is a simple girl who doen't try to be sophisticated -nothing more pathetic than a simpleton trying to be something that (s)he is not. It just comes across as pretentious, pedantic and frankly comical. Another beautiful American actress, but with a more classic beauty than Kate Hudson, is Ann Hathaway. A big difference between European and American leading ladies is that American top actresses have a "salt-of-the-earth" looks and attitude to them, while European leading ladies prime for their finesse, sophistication and aristocratic elegance. Whether this difference reflects the pétit bourgeoise nature of American Society when compared to the more breeding-obsessed nature of most European societies is unknown.

    As for the topic at hand, conservatives should rejoice about the possiblity of removing a Founding Father from legal tender bills. After all, they were Enlightened libertarians that stood for everything that conservatives abhor: equality before the law as sacred and above the democratic vote(majorities cannot disenfranchise minorities by enacting laws to grant or remove rights of particular groups or individuals), secular state(the government has no religion andcannot enforce religion), and that the basis of Society is not the heterosexual family, or a certain ethnicity, but the individual human being. The reason why the Supreme Court recently ruled that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional is because government has not business in telling adult citizens what gender of people they should marry. They were simply upholding the American Constitution, which is a libertarian manifesto if there ever was one. Conservatives think that because the Founding Fathers were in favor of the right to own guns and to have property, that makes them "our kind of guys". They don't seem to understand that the FF were in favor of this because they were in favor of individial rights and that the government has no business controlling the access to weapons.

    But the same love of individual freedom that made the FF garantee such rights also made them enact laws that conservatives detest, such as the permanent separation of church and state, and the inability of majorities to vote their prejudices against minorities into law. This represents the values of the FF: they were intelligent, highly cultured and sophisticated men who had very little in common with corn-fed red-state Americans. There were huge disagreements between the FF on policies and the specific roles of government, but they all agreed in minimum government not only economically, BUT ALSO SOCIALLY. That is, a government that does not enforce ethnic, religious or social prejudices, and that does not allow the enaction of laws to that effect.

    Conservatives are in favor of freedom economically ONLY. The essence of conservatism is to uphold a certain group of people above all others(heterosexual couples with kids), and to intensely meddle with people's lives for "moral" reasons. In all fairness, the policies of the U.S government recently, such as Affirmative Action , violate the FF's mandates as well. The FF were LIBERTARIANS, and conservatives think they are on the same page of the FF just because the FF were in favor of the right to bear arms and own property. Socially, the FF were clearly liberal. A libertarian is a liberal socially, but economically he is a "liberal" in the English sense of the word, ofbeing in favor of economic freedom. This is why libertarians are often accused by dumb conservatives of being "liberals": because the two words are semantically and lexicographically similar, and because libertarians and liberals do find common ground in some ways - but only in certain ways. However, despite the smilarity, liberalism and libertarianism are not synonyms. It gets even worse because Americans use the word "liberal" in a completely different way than Europeans: in England, a liberal is someone who follows the school of economics of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. In mainland Europe, the word liberal is used as a synonym for libertarian - but this does not mean that Europeans believe the two things are analogous, as to them what Americans call a liberal would be a social-democrat or central-leftist.

    It is flabbergasting that conservatives worship the FF. There is nothing more alien to a corn-eating midwestern American who loves to shoot guns, is in favor of prayer in schools and hates anything sophisticated as "un-American" than someone like Thomas Jefferson, who could dissert for hours on end about different vintages of Château Lafite, enjoyed reading the classics in the original Latin, hanged around men of letters and scientists, and thought that the separation of church and state was the one of the greatest accomplishments of the civilized World.

    You egregiously ignorant.

    Read More
  162. guest says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Hamilton didn't shoot into the ground or straight up into the air. He shot a branch above and behind Burr. His defenders have various theories for why Burr shouldn't have seen this as hostile intent on Hamilton's part. (I believe they were entitled to reload and take a second shot at each other.) One pro-Hamilton theory is that he wasn't going to shoot at Burr but Burr shot first and Hamilton's shot was a spasmodic reaction to being hit. Well, maybe ...

    All in all, it's hard to imagine Ben Franklin getting himself into such a jam and not getting himself otu.

    I don’t want to get into the minutiae of the duel. Let’s say Hamilton wanted to kill Burr, for argument’s sake. Still, it was Burr who challenged Hamilton, wasn’t it? With an intent to kill him. I’m not a gentleman, we stand outside the traditions of the code duello, and Hamilton was provided an opportunity to defend himself. Burr didn’t ambush him on the way home from work and shoot him in the back, or anything. But he did shoot him with the intent to kill him for the fact that he was a political rival (and that he besmirched his honor, and blah, blah, blah).

    Read More
  163. syonredux says:

    “I consider Napoleon, Fox, and Hamilton, the three greatest men of our epoch, and if I were forced to decide between the three, I would give without hesitation the first place to Hamilton. “

    Talleyrand on Alexander Hamilton

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Talleyrand being characteristically modest.

    The honor goes to Talleyrand himself.
    , @BB753
    Although Napoleon himself didn't hold Talleyrand in great regard:
    « Vous êtes de la merde dans un bas de soie ! »
    "(a piece of) shit in a silk stocking"

    http://www.talleyrand.org/vieprivee/talleyrand_injures.htm
  164. Wilkey says:
    @Anon
    "I wouldn’t worry about this starting a trend of rap musicals."

    How wrong you are. If you know anything about how cultural trends work, there will be a deluge of nothing but rap musicals.

    “How wrong you are. If you know anything about how cultural trends work, there will be a deluge of nothing but rap musicals.”

    Rap music is over 30 years old. “In the Heights,” Miranda’s first rap musical, is about a decade old. It won a lot of Tony Awards but it isn’t especially popular. The audience for rap and the audience for musical theatre don’t overlap all that much, and probably never will. There will be musicals with rap numbers in them, just as so many musicals like to have a variety of musical styles in them, but rap musicals will be rare. Popular rap musicals will be even rarer.

    Read More
  165. syonredux says:

    An exercise in historical masochism:

    US Presidents, 1789-1820: Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe

    US Presidents, 1989-2020: GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, Barack Obama

    Read More
  166. @Steve Sailer
    Hamilton didn't shoot into the ground or straight up into the air. He shot a branch above and behind Burr. His defenders have various theories for why Burr shouldn't have seen this as hostile intent on Hamilton's part. (I believe they were entitled to reload and take a second shot at each other.) One pro-Hamilton theory is that he wasn't going to shoot at Burr but Burr shot first and Hamilton's shot was a spasmodic reaction to being hit. Well, maybe ...

    All in all, it's hard to imagine Ben Franklin getting himself into such a jam and not getting himself otu.

    A good biography of Aaron Burr would be nice. I have never understood him. Or Benedict Arnold either. The reigning stories don’t ring true to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    One wonders whether Vidal went far enough 'round the bend to come back again to something approaching the truth.
  167. @syonredux

    "I consider Napoleon, Fox, and Hamilton, the three greatest men of our epoch, and if I were forced to decide between the three, I would give without hesitation the first place to Hamilton. "
     
    Talleyrand on Alexander Hamilton

    Talleyrand being characteristically modest.

    The honor goes to Talleyrand himself.

    Read More
  168. @Jim Don Bob
    A good biography of Aaron Burr would be nice. I have never understood him. Or Benedict Arnold either. The reigning stories don't ring true to me.

    One wonders whether Vidal went far enough ’round the bend to come back again to something approaching the truth.

    Read More
  169. Richard says:
    @tbraton
    I believe you are omitting from your alternative history the fact that Brazil peacefully ended slavery in 1888, the last state in the Western Hemisphere to do so and a mere 23 years after the end of our Civil War which took the lives of upward of 750,000 Americans. The fact of the matter is that slavery was becoming uneconomical and would have ended on economic grounds without the need of the bloodshed of our Civil War.

    I believe any attempt to make Nicaragua a state would have first required a treaty to make it a territory of the U.S. and would have required a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate. After all, the Louisiana Purchase was submitted to the Senate as a treaty and was approved by the Senate by more than a 2/3 vote. A similar proposal was made by President Grant to make the Dominican Republic a territory with a path to statehood in 1870, but the Senate defeated the proposed treaty by a 28-28 vote, and the Dominican Republic never became a state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Santo_Domingo#Treaty_submitted_and_failure

    I’m much less confident than you. Brazilian landowning and business interests were opposed to abolition (which occurred only because of a princess’s imperial decree, and was motivated mainly by moral concerns) and their opposition led to the deposition of the Brazilian emperor the next year and his replacement by an oligarchic republic, although the new Brazilian government didn’t try to put the genie back in the bottle. Without the forced destruction of U.S. slavery it doesn’t happen, at least not in 1888.

    Slavery was never economical from the perspective of the general public, it only prospered for a powerful and well-megaphoned aristocracy, but that was formidable enough. You’re right that the admission of new territory would have required 2/3 Senate ratification, but the filibustering movements were operating in a social context which had just seen the successful annexation of Texas in 1845, the Mexican Cession of 1848, and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853, all expected to be entirely or mostly slave territory, and the fact that a Republican president like Grant would later seek the annexation of the modern Dominican Republic a few years later proves that northern interests which aligned with the Slavocracy in favoring the earlier acquisitions of territory were still present in the 1870s. The Senate that rejected Santo Domingo was more than 80% Republican with most of the former Confederate states still under Reconstruction governments, and responding to the altered political conditions that followed the Civil War and abolition of slavery. It still got half.

    Read More
  170. @Steve Sailer
    Hamilton didn't shoot into the ground or straight up into the air. He shot a branch above and behind Burr. His defenders have various theories for why Burr shouldn't have seen this as hostile intent on Hamilton's part. (I believe they were entitled to reload and take a second shot at each other.) One pro-Hamilton theory is that he wasn't going to shoot at Burr but Burr shot first and Hamilton's shot was a spasmodic reaction to being hit. Well, maybe ...

    All in all, it's hard to imagine Ben Franklin getting himself into such a jam and not getting himself otu.

    Read More
  171. Clyde says:
    @NOTA
    How do they avoid incentivizing people to come across the border in hopes of getting sent home with the cash?

    If an illegal returns who was given cash to GTFO, then he gets booted. He already got paid once. You are correct. The details need to be worked out. One way is that after you have gotten rid of your undesirable illegals, asylum seekers and refugees via a free plane home and cash incentives, you tighten things up so they cannot make a repeat appearance on you soil.

    Read More
  172. Clyde says:

    While reading Ron Chernow’s exhaustive 2004 Hamilton biography, Mr. Miranda was struck by the parallels between Hamilton — an illegitimate immigrant from the West Indies who rose to power largely by the sheer force of his rhetoric — and such hustlers-turned-moguls as Jay Z.

    “By the second chapter, I was like, ‘I know this guy,’ ” Mr. Miranda said. “Just the hustle and ambition it took to get him off the island — this is a guy who wrote his way out of his circumstances from the get-go. That is part and parcel with the hip-hop narrative: writing your way out of your circumstances, writing the future you want to see for yourself. This is a guy who wrote at 14, ‘I wish there was a war.’ It doesn’t get more hip-hop than that.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/theater/lin-manuel-miranda-and-others-from-hamilton-talk-history.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius

    ‘I wish there was a war.’ It doesn’t get more hip-hop than that.”
     
    Well, that certainly ties a lot of loose ends together.
    , @guest
    Personal ambition and rags to riches is relevant to hip-hop, plus a million other things. "I wish there was a war" is a little more on the mark, as is the fact that he'd always be seen as a jumped up bastard brat, and that his mind is always on money. But I don't see much else tying Hamilton to hip-hop culture.

    No doubt he'd have been mocked for "acting white." He was a math whiz, went to private school, was partly self-taught, worked hard as a clerk, sucked up to the powerful, and so on. And it's not as if he joined a street gang; he was in a real army, even if it wasn't the legitimate army before it won the war. How "hip-hop" is it to go into the army?
  173. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Wilkey
    Yes, I meant to mention "Rent." "Seasons of Love" counts as a kind of holiday song. But even "Rent" is now 20 years old, believe it or not, and its one or two songs aren't remotely as popular as anything from "Phantom." It's a bit of a shock to me, though, that songs from ALW's slightly more recent "Sunset Boulevard" aren't more popular. It has a few numbers that are every bit as good as anything in "Phantom."

    I did overlook "Wicked," (which did not win best musical) but I intentionally excluded film musicals, especially Disney.

    And I think you should give "Jersey Boys" another go. It's seriously pretty spectacular. Clint Eastwood did a great job directing the movie, and the closing credits are pretty damn good - they inject a little bit of Broadway into the movie.

    Of those, I’ve seen Rent, Wicked, and Sunset Boulevard on Broadway. Seasons of Love isn’t Rent’s best song, IMO. I always liked One Song / Glory, and Light My Candle are better. It’s got several memorable songs, which is kind of rare for a musical.

    I couldn’t name any Sunset Boulevard songs without looking them up, or even remember a melody. I do remember it was a really classy, expensive-looking production, and it had some clever lines in it.

    Wicked was an impressive bit of theater too, but there’s really only that one song I remember. Most musicals are lucky to have more than 2 or 3 really good songs. One exception, in addition to Rent, was The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Most of the soundtrack is pretty good.

    I’ll try to give Jersey Boys another try next time it’s on.

    BTW, Fox put on a live performance of Grease on Sunday night, and it was really spectacular. You can watch the recording of it via the link in the tweet below.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    "which is kind of rare for a musical"

    Musicals used to have reserved spots on the charts, way back when people actually used to know songwriters' names. I don't know when that changed, though obviously rock and roll had something to do with it. But for a long while Broadway still churned out hits with Sondheim, Hamlisch, Weber, and so forth. But I can't name one damn song from the last 20+ years, though I could probably recognize one from Rent if I heard it. I've heard the name "Defying Gravity," but honestly have no idea how it goes.

    I have no idea what they're up to nowadays, what audience they write for, or how they'd stay in business if it weren't for revivals, reviews, and movie adaptations. I accidentally tuned into the Tonys recently for a split second and saw some girl singing about a fascinating wallet chain some lesbian wore over to her house that inspired her towards a life of lesbianism. What the hell? Broadway was always gay, since when were they nothing but gay (or "street")?

  174. @Clyde
    While reading Ron Chernow’s exhaustive 2004 Hamilton biography, Mr. Miranda was struck by the parallels between Hamilton — an illegitimate immigrant from the West Indies who rose to power largely by the sheer force of his rhetoric — and such hustlers-turned-moguls as Jay Z.

    “By the second chapter, I was like, ‘I know this guy,’ ” Mr. Miranda said. “Just the hustle and ambition it took to get him off the island — this is a guy who wrote his way out of his circumstances from the get-go. That is part and parcel with the hip-hop narrative: writing your way out of your circumstances, writing the future you want to see for yourself. This is a guy who wrote at 14, ‘I wish there was a war.’ It doesn’t get more hip-hop than that.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/theater/lin-manuel-miranda-and-others-from-hamilton-talk-history.html

    ‘I wish there was a war.’ It doesn’t get more hip-hop than that.”

    Well, that certainly ties a lot of loose ends together.

    Read More
  175. guest says:
    @Clyde
    While reading Ron Chernow’s exhaustive 2004 Hamilton biography, Mr. Miranda was struck by the parallels between Hamilton — an illegitimate immigrant from the West Indies who rose to power largely by the sheer force of his rhetoric — and such hustlers-turned-moguls as Jay Z.

    “By the second chapter, I was like, ‘I know this guy,’ ” Mr. Miranda said. “Just the hustle and ambition it took to get him off the island — this is a guy who wrote his way out of his circumstances from the get-go. That is part and parcel with the hip-hop narrative: writing your way out of your circumstances, writing the future you want to see for yourself. This is a guy who wrote at 14, ‘I wish there was a war.’ It doesn’t get more hip-hop than that.”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/theater/lin-manuel-miranda-and-others-from-hamilton-talk-history.html

    Personal ambition and rags to riches is relevant to hip-hop, plus a million other things. “I wish there was a war” is a little more on the mark, as is the fact that he’d always be seen as a jumped up bastard brat, and that his mind is always on money. But I don’t see much else tying Hamilton to hip-hop culture.

    No doubt he’d have been mocked for “acting white.” He was a math whiz, went to private school, was partly self-taught, worked hard as a clerk, sucked up to the powerful, and so on. And it’s not as if he joined a street gang; he was in a real army, even if it wasn’t the legitimate army before it won the war. How “hip-hop” is it to go into the army?

    Read More
  176. guest says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Of those, I've seen Rent, Wicked, and Sunset Boulevard on Broadway. Seasons of Love isn't Rent's best song, IMO. I always liked One Song / Glory, and Light My Candle are better. It's got several memorable songs, which is kind of rare for a musical.

    I couldn't name any Sunset Boulevard songs without looking them up, or even remember a melody. I do remember it was a really classy, expensive-looking production, and it had some clever lines in it.

    Wicked was an impressive bit of theater too, but there's really only that one song I remember. Most musicals are lucky to have more than 2 or 3 really good songs. One exception, in addition to Rent, was The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Most of the soundtrack is pretty good.

    I'll try to give Jersey Boys another try next time it's on.

    BTW, Fox put on a live performance of Grease on Sunday night, and it was really spectacular. You can watch the recording of it via the link in the tweet below.
    https://twitter.com/juliannehough/status/695014406455848961

    “which is kind of rare for a musical”

    Musicals used to have reserved spots on the charts, way back when people actually used to know songwriters’ names. I don’t know when that changed, though obviously rock and roll had something to do with it. But for a long while Broadway still churned out hits with Sondheim, Hamlisch, Weber, and so forth. But I can’t name one damn song from the last 20+ years, though I could probably recognize one from Rent if I heard it. I’ve heard the name “Defying Gravity,” but honestly have no idea how it goes.

    I have no idea what they’re up to nowadays, what audience they write for, or how they’d stay in business if it weren’t for revivals, reviews, and movie adaptations. I accidentally tuned into the Tonys recently for a split second and saw some girl singing about a fascinating wallet chain some lesbian wore over to her house that inspired her towards a life of lesbianism. What the hell? Broadway was always gay, since when were they nothing but gay (or “street”)?

    Read More
  177. BB753 says:
    @syonredux

    "I consider Napoleon, Fox, and Hamilton, the three greatest men of our epoch, and if I were forced to decide between the three, I would give without hesitation the first place to Hamilton. "
     
    Talleyrand on Alexander Hamilton

    Although Napoleon himself didn’t hold Talleyrand in great regard:
    « Vous êtes de la merde dans un bas de soie ! »
    “(a piece of) shit in a silk stocking”

    http://www.talleyrand.org/vieprivee/talleyrand_injures.htm

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored