"Hamilton," "Les Miserables," and Duels

My son has taken a recent interest in the smash* Broadway musical, Hamilton. Like most middle schoolers who do not live in New York City, my son has not seen the play yet, but he has downloaded and listens to the music on the bus with other middle schoolers. My high school age daughter Claire Adele has no interest in Hamilton--she is a devoted Les Miserables fan, and anything else is less than. As John Seabrook writes in The Song Machine: Inside the Hit Factory, teen tastes change rapidly and kids won't like what their siblings like just because they need to be different. The Boy and Claire Adele are Exhibit A.

Would they fight to the death over which musical is better, Les Miz or Hamilton? Very likely, but they might also fight to the death over who gets to sit in the front seat of the car on the way to dinner. Which brings me to the topic of duels. As you may recall from your American history class in high school, (spoiler alert) Alexander Hamilton died in a famous duel with Aaron Burr. (And so ends the musical, I gather.)

So why a duel? I don't recall exactly what the Hamilton-Burr duel was about, but why did duels exist? What was the purpose? I looked it up on Wikipedia, and it said that people would believe so strongly in an idea that they would be willing to die for it. When the Boy first heard about duels to the death, his comment was "And the Europeans thought the Native Americans were savages?"

Duels brings up an interesting concept that I hadn't considered: believing in an idea so much you are willing to die for it. I suppose that is why soldiers go to war, or why suicide bombers exist. But to take a singular idea and fight another individual in an organized way with rules and protocols? That seems a little bizarre.

Or maybe not? Did it serve a higher purpose? Could there be good in duels? Consider this a hypothetical or philosophical argument. I do not suggest we return to this practice. Look at the current polarized political climate in the United States with the conservative Tea Party on one side and the uber-progressives on the other. Would people be more flexible in their thinking if they had to die for their opinions? Or would people let go, and listen more carefully to the other sides arguments? Would both sides have to come up with solid arguments as to why or why not? Did they seek a third way where both parties could be understood?

Would people be willing to die so transgendered people can use whatever bathroom they would like? "Because it is gross" is suddenly does not seem to be such a valid argument for a reason to die. "Because transgendered kids get bullied when they have to use the boys locker room in high school and they don't want to get beat up" might be a better argument. What about "Let's stop harassing transgendered kids regardless of what bathroom they use," also seems a bit more civilized, but that might not be sufficient for a transgendered kid who is trying to pass as one gender then has to use a different bathroom. "But was if a pervy old man tried to get in the girls' locker room?" "What if that man is wearing a bra and lipstick?" "How many transgendered people do you know? How many currently use the bathroom they identify with and we don't notice?" The dialogue night evolve more before people get out their swords or pistols. People might discuss things a little more thoughtfully and thoroughly before assuming the other side is completely wrong. It might be talked to death, by which I mean discussed about until all major points and perspectives have been exhausted. Maybe empathy and rigorous debate would reign. Respect of various positions would be necessary so that effective points and counterpoints could be made. Maybe the voice of those in the minority would have a reasonable chance of being heard.

The other interesting thing about duels in that both parties were consenting to participate. We are going to France this summer, and my father is worried about terrorist attacks. Last night at dinner, my daughter said that CNN said Europe might not be as safe as people think it will be this summer. I asked my kids what they felt about it.

"I think we will be okay," the Boy said, "but I don't want to die in a mass bombing. I'd rather have an individual death or be directly murdered by an ISIS person." This was an interesting conversation on death as we were at a restaurant where we had to wait for a table at 6:20 p.m. and the average age of the patrons was 75.

Claire Adele agreed with the Boy. "I think it is okay for terrorists to kill an army base," said Claire Adele. "Those people signed up to fight, and they are serving their country. That would be an honor death. People in airports aren't signing up to get shot."

Would duels stop terrorism? I don't think so. Instead, terrorism is just a variation of the concept. But what about my teenage kids? Is all of this arguing and bickering serving a higher purpose? Is it teaching them to stand up for what they believe in and argue in a safe spot? That it is okay to be different, where Les Miz and Hamilton can peacefully co-exist? And in the end, aren't they both singing similar songs?

* I just finished reading The Song Machine: Inside the Hit Factory by John Seabrook. It is a great read and now I know the difference between a "hit" and a "smash." A hit is something that is really popular. A "smash" is something really big and changes the rules of the game. Hamilton is a smash.