Harriet Tubman will bump Andrew Jackson from the front of the $20 bill while Alexander Hamilton will stay put on the $10 — a historic move that gives a woman prime placement on U.S. currency and quells a controversy kicked up by Hamilton super-fans.
I think there are some better persons than Tubman like MLK. But it's a wonderful change rather than getting rid of Hamilton. Hamilton's more of a hero than Jackson. Jackson is basically the Magneto of the US presidents. You like 'em, but you can't love him because of what he stands for.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Joking. I honestly don't know why people care. "Yay, women on the bill". I realize for women, it is likely a bigger deal, but I can't see why people are getting legitimately upset.
I think there are some better persons than Tubman like MLK.
I agree but there intention was to get a woman on a bill and unfortunately American history has few of those worth remembering that are not currently alive (the US mint won't put living people on monetary notes or coins.)
The SJWs have run wild! The PC Police have conquered the last bastion of American freedom! Soon all straight white males will have been erased from history and the mere mention of their names will be a capital offense! Amok! Amok! Amok!
What's this "paper money" you guys are talking about?
It's the stuff primitive peoples who don't have access to bitcoins use.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
The SJWs have run wild! The PC Police have conquered the last bastion of American freedom! Soon all straight white males will have been erased from history and the mere mention of their names will be a capital offense! Amok! Amok! Amok!
Well, you've already got people doublethinking about racism such that it is impossible to hold racist views about whites and that seems like a good start if that's your goal. So... congratulations, I guess?
I have no love of Jackson and I'm quite enthusiastic about the choice of Tubman, so I'm happy that they ended up there. But I'd love to hear an explanation as to why it takes the cast of a Hip Hop Broadway play to keep Hamilton on the $10. And where was all the uproar when they originally announced that decision? It is beyond preposterous.
Well, you've already got people doublethinking about racism such that it is impossible to hold racist views about whites and that seems like a good start if that's your goal. So... congratulations, I guess?
That sort of talk will land you in the gulags faster than you can say "white privilege".
I have no love of Jackson and I'm quite enthusiastic about the choice of Tubman, so I'm happy that they ended up there. But I'd love to hear an explanation as to why it takes the cast of a Hip Hop Broadway play to keep Hamilton on the $10. And where was all the uproar when they originally announced that decision? It is beyond preposterous.
Most people don't know much about American historical figures beyond Washington and Lincoln. Especially not treasury secretaries.
I think it's good that Jackson was taken off the bill because there are a lot of people who did more for the formation of the nation than he did.
However, I also think that anyone on the bill should be associated with FORMING the nation. By forming of the nation, I mean around at the time of the founding fathers, and somehow associated with the American Revolution. Lincoln as a possible exception because he is so well known and served as President at a crucial time.
That being said, I would have liked a Thomas Paine/Paul Revere type figure. Or if a woman, perhaps Marry Ludwig Hays aka Molly Pitcher. I know the Molly Pitcher story has become a bit of a tall-tale, but I think that's what the currency should be about. Larger than life figures that formed the nation, whether their story is exaggerated or not.
I think it's good that Jackson was taken off the bill because there are a lot of people who did more for the formation of the nation than he did.
However, I also think that anyone on the bill should be associated with FORMING the nation. By forming of the nation, I mean around at the time of the founding fathers, and somehow associated with the American Revolution. Lincoln as a possible exception because he is so well known and served as President at a crucial time.
That being said, I would have liked a Thomas Paine/Paul Revere type figure. Or if a woman, perhaps Marry Ludwig Hays aka Molly Pitcher. I know the Molly Pitcher story has become a bit of a tall-tale, but I think that's what the currency should be about. Larger than life figures that formed the nation, whether their story is exaggerated or not.
That seems kind of arbitrary. Why people who founded the nation, and not people who helped shape it later?
This was a great choice. Eleanor Roosevelt would have also been a great choice. We could stand to lose Ulysses S. Grant. Great general though he was, a great president he was not. I also woudn't mind seeing the higher denomination bills getting some "facetime".
This was a great choice. Eleanor Roosevelt would have also been a great choice. We could stand to lose Ulysses S. Grant. Great general though he was, a great president he was not. I also woudn't mind seeing the higher denomination bills getting some "facetime".
I think there are some better persons than Tubman like MLK.
I agree but there intention was to get a woman on a bill and unfortunately American history has few of those worth remembering that are not currently alive (the US mint won't put living people on monetary notes or coins.)
Ok, this is the real can of worms. Should the US go looking for accomplished people who happen to be a member of such and such gender, race, sexual orientation, and so forth, to put on the money? Or is that something that the US should reserve only for the most accomplished and influential Americans, regardless of status?
I personally feel that the same rationale underlies Harriet Tubman that did Sacajawea. Let's get two under-represented social classes out of the way in one swoop, so now we can go back to putting White Men on our money. Which is really a shame, because it does no one any favors. At the least, the US could consider doing something like the UK where the faces on the currency get rotated in and out often enough that there's no case for so and so being less important than such and such who got left out.
Because it's going to be a shame specifically in that light, no matter what you do, because all the Presidents have compelling claims as being the most influential Americans, and all happen to be White Men. Even Andrew Jackson, there's a case to be made for how he made progress for gender norms. At about the same time period when European Monarchs were still looking for religious grounds to divorce their wives, you had "petticoat politics" within the Jackson cabinet, where the message emerged that these questions are not going to be the basis for American power. Everyone likes to point out the Indian policy, slaveholding, and so forth, as things to be held against the old Presidents, but for just about every one of them too you have things you can point to that advanced civil liberties in the US.
We know black lives matter, see? Harriet Tubman knew they mattered. We'll even put her on the $20 dollar bill. We'll replace THAT GUY who did that terrible thing that never shouldn't have happened (though we would have made the same choice again and we will NOT hit the undo button or give any land back) Now you can have a roll of Harriots. Now please, sit down, stop interrupting speeches and stop vandalizing the walk of fame - mkay? MKAY?
I think there are some better persons than Tubman like MLK. But it's a wonderful change rather than getting rid of Hamilton. Hamilton's more of a hero than Jackson. Jackson is basically the Magneto of the US presidents. You like 'em, but you can't love him because of what he stands for.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Joking. I honestly don't know why people care. "Yay, women on the bill". I realize for women, it is likely a bigger deal, but I can't see why people are getting legitimately upset.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I'm more happy that it was Jackson who got booted instead of Hamilton.
Grant being on the $50 is probably something that should be addressed next. MLK would be a good choice for that one. As would FDR.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Very true. It's not like Andrew Lloyd Webber ever did that.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
It's the stuff primitive peoples who don't have access to bitcoins use.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Seriously this is pretty cool. Nice work, US Mint.
Art is life itself.
But apparently Australian bank notes are the best in the world.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well, you've already got people doublethinking about racism such that it is impossible to hold racist views about whites and that seems like a good start if that's your goal. So... congratulations, I guess?
I have no love of Jackson and I'm quite enthusiastic about the choice of Tubman, so I'm happy that they ended up there. But I'd love to hear an explanation as to why it takes the cast of a Hip Hop Broadway play to keep Hamilton on the $10. And where was all the uproar when they originally announced that decision? It is beyond preposterous.
That sort of talk will land you in the gulags faster than you can say "white privilege".
Most people don't know much about American historical figures beyond Washington and Lincoln. Especially not treasury secretaries.
However, I also think that anyone on the bill should be associated with FORMING the nation. By forming of the nation, I mean around at the time of the founding fathers, and somehow associated with the American Revolution. Lincoln as a possible exception because he is so well known and served as President at a crucial time.
That being said, I would have liked a Thomas Paine/Paul Revere type figure. Or if a woman, perhaps Marry Ludwig Hays aka Molly Pitcher. I know the Molly Pitcher story has become a bit of a tall-tale, but I think that's what the currency should be about. Larger than life figures that formed the nation, whether their story is exaggerated or not.
That seems kind of arbitrary. Why people who founded the nation, and not people who helped shape it later?
Eleanor is going to be on the back of the five.
They're putting people who did important stuff at the Lincoln Memorial on the back of the five, apparently.
https://modernmoney.treasury.gov/new-bills/5-bill
Ok, this is the real can of worms. Should the US go looking for accomplished people who happen to be a member of such and such gender, race, sexual orientation, and so forth, to put on the money? Or is that something that the US should reserve only for the most accomplished and influential Americans, regardless of status?
I personally feel that the same rationale underlies Harriet Tubman that did Sacajawea. Let's get two under-represented social classes out of the way in one swoop, so now we can go back to putting White Men on our money. Which is really a shame, because it does no one any favors. At the least, the US could consider doing something like the UK where the faces on the currency get rotated in and out often enough that there's no case for so and so being less important than such and such who got left out.
Because it's going to be a shame specifically in that light, no matter what you do, because all the Presidents have compelling claims as being the most influential Americans, and all happen to be White Men. Even Andrew Jackson, there's a case to be made for how he made progress for gender norms. At about the same time period when European Monarchs were still looking for religious grounds to divorce their wives, you had "petticoat politics" within the Jackson cabinet, where the message emerged that these questions are not going to be the basis for American power. Everyone likes to point out the Indian policy, slaveholding, and so forth, as things to be held against the old Presidents, but for just about every one of them too you have things you can point to that advanced civil liberties in the US.
My Buying Thread