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?
The decision to use this rubric over any other is admittedly arbitrary. However, once this rubric is agreed to then the decisions are not arbitrary, in fact it provides an OBJECTIVE standard, which is the opposite of arbitrary. The system we have now is arbitrary.
The point is that we should have some sort of objective standard. If it's the most influential American from any time period, I'm ok with that, but then we're going to disagree on what is meant by influential. Also, if that were truly the standard then we would have people like Eli Whitney, Henry Ford, Nikola Tesla, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller on our money because those people did as much as any other to influence our nation. If that is the standard you would be forced to include even controversial historical figures because the weight of their influence is immense, for better or worse.
If we establish the standard that it should be reserved only for influential Presidents then FDR should for sure be on there.
My point is there needs to be an objective standard, which there isn't currently.
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?
The decision to use this rubric over any other is admittedly arbitrary. However, once this rubric is agreed to then the decisions are not arbitrary, in fact it provides an OBJECTIVE standard, which is the opposite of arbitrary. The system we have now is arbitrary.
The point is that we should have some sort of objective standard. If it's the most influential American from any time period, I'm ok with that, but then we're going to disagree on what is meant by influential. Also, if that were truly the standard then we would have people like Eli Whitney, Henry Ford, Nikola Tesla, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller on our money because those people did as much as any other to influence our nation. If that is the standard you would be forced to include even controversial historical figures because the weight of their influence is immense, for better or worse.
If we establish the standard that it should be reserved only for influential Presidents then FDR should for sure be on there.
My point is there needs to be an objective standard, which there isn't currently.
I think you'd still have disagreement of what constitutes influential within the proposed strata of "having had something to do with the formation of the nation". We'd only be having debates on whether Franklin was more important than Madison.
There's not going to be an objective standard (for anything) unless it depends only on emperical inputs. I agree though that changing the rubric that way would have the effect of reducing the tendency of changes to who is on the money. But, I have a feeling that those behind the change to Tubman would be exactly those clamoring to change it 100 years from now as we once again revise our values.
There's not going to be an objective standard (for anything) unless it depends only on emperical inputs. I agree though that changing the rubric that way would have the effect of reducing the tendency of changes to who is on the money. But, I have a feeling that those behind the change to Tubman would be exactly those clamoring to change it 100 years from now as we once again revise our values.
A hundred years ago, Grover Cleveland was on the $20. Jackson was only put on the bill in 1928. I don't think changing the face on the money every hundred years or so is going to shake the foundations of this country.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
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?
The decision to use this rubric over any other is admittedly arbitrary. However, once this rubric is agreed to then the decisions are not arbitrary, in fact it provides an OBJECTIVE standard, which is the opposite of arbitrary. The system we have now is arbitrary.
The point is that we should have some sort of objective standard. If it's the most influential American from any time period, I'm ok with that, but then we're going to disagree on what is meant by influential. Also, if that were truly the standard then we would have people like Eli Whitney, Henry Ford, Nikola Tesla, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller on our money because those people did as much as any other to influence our nation. If that is the standard you would be forced to include even controversial historical figures because the weight of their influence is immense, for better or worse.
If we establish the standard that it should be reserved only for influential Presidents then FDR should for sure be on there.
My point is there needs to be an objective standard, which there isn't currently.
I think you'd still have disagreement of what constitutes influential within the proposed strata of "having had something to do with the formation of the nation". We'd only be having debates on whether Franklin was more important than Madison.
And this is precisely the sort of discussion we should be having. I don't oppose Tubman being on the bill, I just think there needs to be more rationale behind the decision other than ma feelz. If we're going to start putting great humanitarians on our money, then state as such. If it's former Presidents then state that. Founding fathers then state that. Some rational needs to be behind it.
And this is precisely the sort of discussion we should be having. I don't oppose Tubman being on the bill, I just think there needs to be more rationale behind the decision other than ma feelz. If we're going to start putting great humanitarians on our money, then state as such. If it's former Presidents then state that. Founding fathers then state that. Some rational needs to be behind it.
"A review of historical design process documents shows that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which develops and produces U.S. currency notes, has relied on a series of concepts which capture the core values of the United States during a specific time period."
And this is precisely the sort of discussion we should be having. I don't oppose Tubman being on the bill, I just think there needs to be more rationale behind the decision other than ma feelz. If we're going to start putting great humanitarians on our money, then state as such. If it's former Presidents then state that. Founding fathers then state that. Some rational needs to be behind it.
"A review of historical design process documents shows that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which develops and produces U.S. currency notes, has relied on a series of concepts which capture the core values of the United States during a specific time period."
Or, you know, maybe it's just "ma feelz".[/quote]
Anything along the lines of "core values during a specific time period" is a synonym. Whose core values? Define value without an appeal to emotion.
Harriet Tubman's core values for her time period. Slavery is bad and she was willing to risk great personal danger to practically abduct slaves and guide them North to freedom.
Harriet Tubman's core values for her time period. Slavery is bad and she was willing to risk great personal danger to practically abduct slaves and guide them North to freedom.
So if you're stating that the core value here is people that did a lot to end slavery and were brave why not any random Union soldier? Why not Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain? He risked great personal danger. If the Maine 20th don't hold at Little Round Top, the Union doesn't win that battle. Practically speaking, he did more to advance the cause of freedom. The reason why Tubman was selected is because she is a figure who resonates with a lot of people, which is pretty much the dictionary definition of ma feelz, just stated in a less condescending way.
Anything along the lines of "core values during a specific time period" is a synonym.
A synonym of what?
Whose core values? Define value without an appeal to emotion.
I'm not sure what you think "appeal to emotion" means, but your usage here doesn't really make sense to me. I'm not sure what you're asking me to avoid.
Anything along the lines of "core values during a specific time period" is a synonym.
A synonym of what?
Whose core values? Define value without an appeal to emotion.
I'm not sure what you think "appeal to emotion" means, but your usage here doesn't really make sense to me. I'm not sure what you're asking me to avoid.
Stop being obtuse. Of course it is a synonym of the concept we were referring to just moments ago. Core value is a synonym for ma feelz. What you feel is a core value may not be what I feel is a core value. Values are feeling based. They are neither logical nor objective. A core value is something that you subjectively feel has merit, is noteworthy, or admirable.
Stop being obtuse. Of course it is a synonym of the concept we were referring to just moments ago. Core value is a synonym for ma feelz. What you feel is a core value may not be what I feel is a core value. Values are feeling based. They are neither logical nor objective. A core value is something that you subjectively feel has merit, is noteworthy, or admirable.
A person's values are subjective, but we can certainly make an objective analysis of what the core values of the country are at a given time. People's preference for Coke or Pepsi is subjective, but I can objectively tell you that Coke is more popular.
Stop being obtuse. Of course it is a synonym of the concept we were referring to just moments ago. Core value is a synonym for ma feelz. What you feel is a core value may not be what I feel is a core value. Values are feeling based. They are neither logical nor objective. A core value is something that you subjectively feel has merit, is noteworthy, or admirable.
I would argue that core values are those things which you believe to be most important. Belief, in this case, being something you have been convinced is true, whether you were convinced for good reasons or bad reasons. Under those terms, someone's core values could be based on emotions, but that is not necessarily the case.
Stop being obtuse. Of course it is a synonym of the concept we were referring to just moments ago. Core value is a synonym for ma feelz. What you feel is a core value may not be what I feel is a core value. Values are feeling based. They are neither logical nor objective. A core value is something that you subjectively feel has merit, is noteworthy, or admirable.
I would argue that core values are those things which you believe to be most important. Belief, in this case, being something you have been convinced is true, whether you were convinced for good reasons or bad reasons. Under those terms, someone's core values could be based on emotions, but that is not necessarily the case.
I agree with this. Value could be either emotional or not emotional.
FWIW I'm not trying to be an ignorant racist/sexist. My wife is a black female and she appreciated the announcement. Happy wife, happy life. Putting Tubman on the bill is not something I disagree with.
Harriet Tubman did a lot for a lot of slaves. I just think there needs to be some clear objective criterion for who appears on our money. In objective terms, looking at sheer numbers I think someone like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain did more to free the slaves than Tubman. If the Maine 20th doesn't defend that little hill, the Union loses Gettysburg. They lose Gettysburg and maybe the Union doesn't win the war. They didn't win too many battles to that point, maybe they could have still won through attrition, idk. He didn't have to do that. He was a professor who volunteered. He could have retreated from little round top. But he stood his ground. Tubman might have emotional resonance for some people but Chamberlain resonates with me.
I think people are looking at it why am I so petty that I don't want her on the bill? First of all, I don't oppose her being on the bill. Secondly, there are a lot of people who deserve to be on the bill. I could just reverse the logic, why are you so petty that Chamberlain isn't on the bill? The fact of the matter is that there are so many noteworthy people in history that it is impossible to have them all on money, so we need to be careful why we put someone on the bill, and if it's important then there should be objective criterion at least to the extent it is possible to be objective.
All I'm saying is that I want someone from the government to explain why she was selected without resorting to an appeal to emotion.
Stop being obtuse. Of course it is a synonym of the concept we were referring to just moments ago. Core value is a synonym for ma feelz. What you feel is a core value may not be what I feel is a core value. Values are feeling based. They are neither logical nor objective. A core value is something that you subjectively feel has merit, is noteworthy, or admirable.
I would argue that core values are those things which you believe to be most important. Belief, in this case, being something you have been convinced is true, whether you were convinced for good reasons or bad reasons. Under those terms, someone's core values could be based on emotions, but that is not necessarily the case.
I agree with this. Value could be either emotional or not emotional.
FWIW I'm not trying to be an ignorant racist/sexist. My wife is a black female and she appreciated the announcement. Happy wife, happy life. Putting Tubman on the bill is not something I disagree with.
Harriet Tubman did a lot for a lot of slaves. I just think there needs to be some clear objective criterion for who appears on our money. In objective terms, looking at sheer numbers I think someone like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain did more to free the slaves than Tubman. If the Maine 20th doesn't defend that little hill, the Union loses Gettysburg. They lose Gettysburg and maybe the Union doesn't win the war. They didn't win too many battles to that point, maybe they could have still won through attrition, idk. He didn't have to do that. He was a professor who volunteered. He could have retreated from little round top. But he stood his ground. Tubman might have emotional resonance for some people but Chamberlain resonates with me.
I think people are looking at it why am I so petty that I don't want her on the bill? First of all, I don't oppose her being on the bill. Secondly, there are a lot of people who deserve to be on the bill. I could just reverse the logic, why are you so petty that Chamberlain isn't on the bill? The fact of the matter is that there are so many noteworthy people in history that it is impossible to have them all on money, so we need to be careful why we put someone on the bill, and if it's important then there should be objective criterion at least to the extent it is possible to be objective.
All I'm saying is that I want someone from the government to explain why she was selected without resorting to an appeal to emotion.
I'm not from the government and I doubt government workers in the Treasurey department are patrolling this board. All I can give you is this quote from the Star Trek episode "Coming Of Age"...
"All Of You are acceptable candidates into Star Fleet, but we can only take one of you"
"All Of You are acceptable candidates into Star Fleet, but we can only take one of you" lol...That pretty much sums it up doesn't it? That's why there needs to objective criterion otherwise people are just going to bicker over their feelings.
Even if you were taking it on feelings, I still think that you're hard-pressed to find someone who can't point to a single other person who they feel did more to advance the cause against Slavery in the US than Tubman did. If it's a question of magnitude of historical impact, I think most would feel that Tubman loses on that criterion to lots of others, maybe Chamberlain included.
My "feeling" is that Tubman was selected because she is a Black Female. It seems to be our cultural values now to accord others advancement and respect for belonging to classes other than the race of Caucasian and the gender of Male, even when there are others whose achievements are greater who do belong to both those classes.
Basically, let's get our race and gender boxes checked so that we can go back to putting White Men on our currency.
I agree with this. Value could be either emotional or not emotional.
FWIW I'm not trying to be an ignorant racist/sexist. My wife is a black female and she appreciated the announcement. Happy wife, happy life. Putting Tubman on the bill is not something I disagree with.
Harriet Tubman did a lot for a lot of slaves. I just think there needs to be some clear objective criterion for who appears on our money. In objective terms, looking at sheer numbers I think someone like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain did more to free the slaves than Tubman. If the Maine 20th doesn't defend that little hill, the Union loses Gettysburg. They lose Gettysburg and maybe the Union doesn't win the war. They didn't win too many battles to that point, maybe they could have still won through attrition, idk. He didn't have to do that. He was a professor who volunteered. He could have retreated from little round top. But he stood his ground. Tubman might have emotional resonance for some people but Chamberlain resonates with me.
I think people are looking at it why am I so petty that I don't want her on the bill? First of all, I don't oppose her being on the bill. Secondly, there are a lot of people who deserve to be on the bill. I could just reverse the logic, why are you so petty that Chamberlain isn't on the bill? The fact of the matter is that there are so many noteworthy people in history that it is impossible to have them all on money, so we need to be careful why we put someone on the bill, and if it's important then there should be objective criterion at least to the extent it is possible to be objective.
All I'm saying is that I want someone from the government to explain why she was selected without resorting to an appeal to emotion.
I think you're underselling Tubman's work, and overselling Gettysburg. The notion that the South might have won the war if they had won Gettysburg strikes me as pretty absurd. Tubman's work wasn't just smuggling 70-odd slaves out of the South, even though that's what she's best known for. I find it hard to believe that any objective measure of impact on the country would put Chamberlain above Tubman.
Do you? Give us a recap so we know you understand. While your at at, piece together for us why this reference is appropriate or applicable.
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)
Unbelievable as it is, there those of us that really don't think genocide should have happened against the native American population. We would hit the undo button.
Now you can have a roll of Harriots. Now please, sit down, stop interrupting speeches and stop vandalizing the walk of fame - mkay? MKAY?
Why don't you just say "sit down and get to the back of the bus"? Racist much? Yes, indeed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I agree with this. Value could be either emotional or not emotional.
FWIW I'm not trying to be an ignorant racist/sexist. My wife is a black female and she appreciated the announcement. Happy wife, happy life. Putting Tubman on the bill is not something I disagree with.
Harriet Tubman did a lot for a lot of slaves. I just think there needs to be some clear objective criterion for who appears on our money. In objective terms, looking at sheer numbers I think someone like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain did more to free the slaves than Tubman. If the Maine 20th doesn't defend that little hill, the Union loses Gettysburg. They lose Gettysburg and maybe the Union doesn't win the war. They didn't win too many battles to that point, maybe they could have still won through attrition, idk. He didn't have to do that. He was a professor who volunteered. He could have retreated from little round top. But he stood his ground. Tubman might have emotional resonance for some people but Chamberlain resonates with me.
I think people are looking at it why am I so petty that I don't want her on the bill? First of all, I don't oppose her being on the bill. Secondly, there are a lot of people who deserve to be on the bill. I could just reverse the logic, why are you so petty that Chamberlain isn't on the bill? The fact of the matter is that there are so many noteworthy people in history that it is impossible to have them all on money, so we need to be careful why we put someone on the bill, and if it's important then there should be objective criterion at least to the extent it is possible to be objective.
All I'm saying is that I want someone from the government to explain why she was selected without resorting to an appeal to emotion.
I think you're underselling Tubman's work, and overselling Gettysburg. The notion that the South might have won the war if they had won Gettysburg strikes me as pretty absurd. Tubman's work wasn't just smuggling 70-odd slaves out of the South, even though that's what she's best known for. I find it hard to believe that any objective measure of impact on the country would put Chamberlain above Tubman.
I agree with pretty much everything here, but don't undersell Gettysburg. That battle to the Civil War was theorized to be what Saratoga was to the Revolutionary War. While the South lost, so we will never know, that battle deserves its credit for being one of the more momentous battles of the Civil War.
My opinion on this is a bit odd: I think Tubman should be on the two-dollar bill, and that said bill should see a larger print run. Do you know who's currently on it without using Google? I do. Invisitext below this line.
Thomas Jefferson
Practically nobody knows that from memory. Mint and actually circulate the two-dollar bill, and Harriet Tubman will be far more well-known versus replacing a violent lunatic on the 20.
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.
That's not fair at all.
Magneto spent some five years in a Nazi death camp. I...don't remember the Indians in the Southeast ever managing one of those.
Seriously, though, Jackson fanboys should be happy. He opposed a central bank, anyway. So it's less "so long" and more "bye, Felicia".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
The decision to use this rubric over any other is admittedly arbitrary. However, once this rubric is agreed to then the decisions are not arbitrary, in fact it provides an OBJECTIVE standard, which is the opposite of arbitrary. The system we have now is arbitrary.
The point is that we should have some sort of objective standard. If it's the most influential American from any time period, I'm ok with that, but then we're going to disagree on what is meant by influential. Also, if that were truly the standard then we would have people like Eli Whitney, Henry Ford, Nikola Tesla, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller on our money because those people did as much as any other to influence our nation. If that is the standard you would be forced to include even controversial historical figures because the weight of their influence is immense, for better or worse.
If we establish the standard that it should be reserved only for influential Presidents then FDR should for sure be on there.
My point is there needs to be an objective standard, which there isn't currently.
I think you'd still have disagreement of what constitutes influential within the proposed strata of "having had something to do with the formation of the nation". We'd only be having debates on whether Franklin was more important than Madison.
There's not going to be an objective standard (for anything) unless it depends only on emperical inputs. I agree though that changing the rubric that way would have the effect of reducing the tendency of changes to who is on the money. But, I have a feeling that those behind the change to Tubman would be exactly those clamoring to change it 100 years from now as we once again revise our values.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And this is precisely the sort of discussion we should be having. I don't oppose Tubman being on the bill, I just think there needs to be more rationale behind the decision other than ma feelz. If we're going to start putting great humanitarians on our money, then state as such. If it's former Presidents then state that. Founding fathers then state that. Some rational needs to be behind it.
https://modernmoney.treasury.gov/currency/currency-theme
"A review of historical design process documents shows that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which develops and produces U.S. currency notes, has relied on a series of concepts which capture the core values of the United States during a specific time period."
Or, you know, maybe it's just "ma feelz".
https://modernmoney.treasury.gov/currency/currency-theme
"A review of historical design process documents shows that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, which develops and produces U.S. currency notes, has relied on a series of concepts which capture the core values of the United States during a specific time period."
Or, you know, maybe it's just "ma feelz".[/quote]
Anything along the lines of "core values during a specific time period" is a synonym. Whose core values? Define value without an appeal to emotion.
Harriet Tubman's core values for her time period. Slavery is bad and she was willing to risk great personal danger to practically abduct slaves and guide them North to freedom.
So if you're stating that the core value here is people that did a lot to end slavery and were brave why not any random Union soldier? Why not Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain? He risked great personal danger. If the Maine 20th don't hold at Little Round Top, the Union doesn't win that battle. Practically speaking, he did more to advance the cause of freedom. The reason why Tubman was selected is because she is a figure who resonates with a lot of people, which is pretty much the dictionary definition of ma feelz, just stated in a less condescending way.
A synonym of what?
I'm not sure what you think "appeal to emotion" means, but your usage here doesn't really make sense to me. I'm not sure what you're asking me to avoid.
Stop being obtuse. Of course it is a synonym of the concept we were referring to just moments ago. Core value is a synonym for ma feelz. What you feel is a core value may not be what I feel is a core value. Values are feeling based. They are neither logical nor objective. A core value is something that you subjectively feel has merit, is noteworthy, or admirable.
A person's values are subjective, but we can certainly make an objective analysis of what the core values of the country are at a given time. People's preference for Coke or Pepsi is subjective, but I can objectively tell you that Coke is more popular.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I agree with this. Value could be either emotional or not emotional.
FWIW I'm not trying to be an ignorant racist/sexist. My wife is a black female and she appreciated the announcement. Happy wife, happy life. Putting Tubman on the bill is not something I disagree with.
Harriet Tubman did a lot for a lot of slaves. I just think there needs to be some clear objective criterion for who appears on our money. In objective terms, looking at sheer numbers I think someone like Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain did more to free the slaves than Tubman. If the Maine 20th doesn't defend that little hill, the Union loses Gettysburg. They lose Gettysburg and maybe the Union doesn't win the war. They didn't win too many battles to that point, maybe they could have still won through attrition, idk. He didn't have to do that. He was a professor who volunteered. He could have retreated from little round top. But he stood his ground. Tubman might have emotional resonance for some people but Chamberlain resonates with me.
I think people are looking at it why am I so petty that I don't want her on the bill? First of all, I don't oppose her being on the bill. Secondly, there are a lot of people who deserve to be on the bill. I could just reverse the logic, why are you so petty that Chamberlain isn't on the bill? The fact of the matter is that there are so many noteworthy people in history that it is impossible to have them all on money, so we need to be careful why we put someone on the bill, and if it's important then there should be objective criterion at least to the extent it is possible to be objective.
All I'm saying is that I want someone from the government to explain why she was selected without resorting to an appeal to emotion.
I'm not from the government and I doubt government workers in the Treasurey department are patrolling this board. All I can give you is this quote from the Star Trek episode "Coming Of Age"...
"All Of You are acceptable candidates into Star Fleet, but we can only take one of you"
My "feeling" is that Tubman was selected because she is a Black Female. It seems to be our cultural values now to accord others advancement and respect for belonging to classes other than the race of Caucasian and the gender of Male, even when there are others whose achievements are greater who do belong to both those classes.
Basically, let's get our race and gender boxes checked so that we can go back to putting White Men on our currency.
I think you're underselling Tubman's work, and overselling Gettysburg. The notion that the South might have won the war if they had won Gettysburg strikes me as pretty absurd. Tubman's work wasn't just smuggling 70-odd slaves out of the South, even though that's what she's best known for. I find it hard to believe that any objective measure of impact on the country would put Chamberlain above Tubman.
Do you? Give us a recap so we know you understand. While your at at, piece together for us why this reference is appropriate or applicable.
Unbelievable as it is, there those of us that really don't think genocide should have happened against the native American population. We would hit the undo button.
Why don't you just say "sit down and get to the back of the bus"? Racist much? Yes, indeed.
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
I agree with pretty much everything here, but don't undersell Gettysburg. That battle to the Civil War was theorized to be what Saratoga was to the Revolutionary War. While the South lost, so we will never know, that battle deserves its credit for being one of the more momentous battles of the Civil War.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Thomas Jefferson
Practically nobody knows that from memory. Mint and actually circulate the two-dollar bill, and Harriet Tubman will be far more well-known versus replacing a violent lunatic on the 20.
That's not fair at all.
Magneto spent some five years in a Nazi death camp. I...don't remember the Indians in the Southeast ever managing one of those.
Seriously, though, Jackson fanboys should be happy. He opposed a central bank, anyway. So it's less "so long" and more "bye, Felicia".
On phasing: