Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill

[TomC]

I have a more than generous proposal, I believe. Let's take this to reconciliation:
1) Tubman on the 20
2) Trump on Cottonelle Flushable Wipes
3) Lindsey G. on Vagisil cream (extra strength)
4) Cruz on douche bulbs
5) Franklin Graham on Imodium

We already have a word for Santorum. I guess we don't need another one.

I just want to bring it up in this conversation.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can contrast it with Swedish money. We have no statesmen at all on Swedish money. It's all just famous entertainers. None of them are famous for anything of any consequence other than just making Swedes happy. That's the theme of Swedish money. That's my point. There's a theme. If there's a theme on the money and one person on the bills stick out like a sore thumb, you draw attention to that. If Harriet Tubman is on the money, won't everbody think that the black person on the bills is the only one on the money who didn't have any power. How isn't that a racist act? How isn't it just drawing attention to blacks lack of political power in USA? While true, is hardly aspirational. Aren't these guys supposed to be heroes to emulate? Is my train of thought crazy?

Not just crazy, full blown crackhead nonsense nutter. Unless you think wealth and personal power are the only things people should aspire to, your comment is absurd. Tubman personally helped rescue many hundreds of lives from the bondage a slavery, including playing a central lead role in a military Union assault that freed 750 slaves, and met with a General and prompted him to create a regiment of freed slaves against Lincolns wrongheaded wishes. Alone the direct impact of these are a greater more important contributions to US society, than that of 99.9% of it's population, accomplished despite having less wealth and power than almost all of them. In addition, she was a massive cultural changing inspiration to the people of her time and to people ever since. She was well known and a hero to many during her lifetime, had a biography written about her, and the US senate voted on a bill to pay her for her war services, which highlights her inspirational impact even on the political elite.

She used her cultural status to garner support for abolition, and suffrage for both blacks and for women. Actual democracy did not exist in the US until women and blacks could vote, so Tubman arguably did as much or more to create an actual democracy in the US than any of those on US currency.

Tubman was not a powerful member of the political elite, b/c racism and sexism (and not actual accomplishment and merit) determined who was among their ranks. In terms of the individual merit of accomplishing more with one's own efforts relative to the opportunities one had given their birth circumstances, she far outshines most of the founding fathers.

It is hard to imagine any informed and ethical person who wouldn't hold up Tubman as the epitome of what it is to be a true American willing to self sacrifice to advance the real core philosophical principles that define America and the whole progress of the post-Enlightenment western civilization, to at least if not far greater extent than Jefferson, Jackson, Franklin, etc..

So then why is Jefferson, Jackson and Franklin on the money? I'm not arguing against having her on the money. I'm trying to understand how the people on the money qualify to go there. How are they selected? What are the criteria?

Why were all of these people on the currency?

[TABLE="width: 216"]
[TR]
[TD]Salmon Portland Chase[15][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Alexander Hamilton[41][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Andrew Jackson[50][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Abraham Lincoln[57][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Winfield Scott[81][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]George Washington[97][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Albert Gallatin[32][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Robert Morris[77][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]John Quincy Adams[12][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Henry Clay[18][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]DeWitt Clinton[21][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Thomas Jefferson[52][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Daniel Webster[102][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Thomas Hart Benton[14][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]James Madison[60][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Benjamin Franklin[30][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Joseph King Fenno Mansfield[61][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Stephen Decatur[23][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Edward Everett[24][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William Learned Marcy[62][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]James Monroe[74][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Charles Sumner[94][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]James Abram Garfield[34][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Silas Wright, Jr.[107][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ulysses Simpson Grant[38][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Winfield Scott Hancock[43][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Thomas Andrews Hendricks[47][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Daniel Manning[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Martha Washington[101][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]David Glasgow Farragut[25][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]John Marshall[64][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]James Birdseye McPherson[70][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]George Gordon Meade[72][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Philip Henry Sheridan[87][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Edwin McMasters Stanton[93][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]George H. Thomas[95][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William Henry Seward[84][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William Windom[106][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Robert Fulton[31][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Samuel Finley Breese Morse [78][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Running Antelope[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William Clark[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Meriwether Lewis[55][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Benjamin Harrison[45][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]John Jay Knox, Jr. [53][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hugh McCulloch[66][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William McKinley, Jr.[67][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]John Sherman[88][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Michael Hillegas[49][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Grover Cleveland[20][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodrow Wilson[104][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William Pitt Fessenden[27][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William Tecumseh Sherman[90][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[ronburgundy]

I can contrast it with Swedish money. We have no statesmen at all on Swedish money. It's all just famous entertainers. None of them are famous for anything of any consequence other than just making Swedes happy. That's the theme of Swedish money. That's my point. There's a theme. If there's a theme on the money and one person on the bills stick out like a sore thumb, you draw attention to that. If Harriet Tubman is on the money, won't everbody think that the black person on the bills is the only one on the money who didn't have any power. How isn't that a racist act? How isn't it just drawing attention to blacks lack of political power in USA? While true, is hardly aspirational. Aren't these guys supposed to be heroes to emulate? Is my train of thought crazy?

Not just crazy, full blown crackhead nonsense nutter. Unless you think wealth and personal power are the only things people should aspire to, your comment is absurd. Tubman personally helped rescue many hundreds of lives from the bondage a slavery, including playing a central lead role in a military Union assault that freed 750 slaves, and met with a General and prompted him to create a regiment of freed slaves against Lincolns wrongheaded wishes. Alone the direct impact of these are a greater more important contributions to US society, than that of 99.9% of it's population, accomplished despite having less wealth and power than almost all of them. In addition, she was a massive cultural changing inspiration to the people of her time and to people ever since. She was well known and a hero to many during her lifetime, had a biography written about her, and the US senate voted on a bill to pay her for her war services, which highlights her inspirational impact even on the political elite.

She used her cultural status to garner support for abolition, and suffrage for both blacks and for women. Actual democracy did not exist in the US until women and blacks could vote, so Tubman arguably did as much or more to create an actual democracy in the US than any of those on US currency.

Tubman was not a powerful member of the political elite, b/c racism and sexism (and not actual accomplishment and merit) determined who was among their ranks. In terms of the individual merit of accomplishing more with one's own efforts relative to the opportunities one had given their birth circumstances, she far outshines most of the founding fathers.

It is hard to imagine any informed and ethical person who wouldn't hold up Tubman as the epitome of what it is to be a true American willing to self sacrifice to advance the real core philosophical principles that define America and the whole progress of the post-Enlightenment western civilization, to at least if not far greater extent than Jefferson, Jackson, Franklin, etc..

So then why is Jefferson, Jackson and Franklin on the money? I'm not arguing against having her on the money. I'm trying to understand how the people on the money qualify to go there. How are they selected? What are the criteria?

Even if some dead people in the past used some criteria that required being a founder or elected politician, who gives a fuck what they thought. Who is on the money doesn't impact any legal principles or constitutional ideals. It's a reflection of who and what we want to honor today. Currency is dying anyway, so it doesn't matter much, and I personally don't care who is on my money. But in more general terms of creating a culture that honors historical figures who embody what ought to be our national or just human values, which can include valuing freedom and democracy, then Tubman is as deserving as just about any.

Personally, I think our historical knowledge and ideas are way too focused upon individual persons rather than broader sociological forces and contingencies that produced the events and changes. I have no heroes and think society could do with less obsession with manufacturing them. But I think i am battling against innate human cognitive biases on that one.


If we are going to lionize historical figures on our money, then Tubman makes perfect sense, despite or maybe partly b/c all the others were politicians who held office, in large part b/c of being born into privilege which included the requisite of being a white male. I'd never given this much focused thought to her, and doing so has given me a far deeper appreciation for what she represents. If putting her on the $20 sparks that kind of reflection and consideration in some others about what we should honor and why we honor those we do, then it's a worthwhile thing to do despite the coming death of cash.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

So if Harriet Tubman goes on the $20, will they have to print a bunch more $5's and $10's because the MAGAdiots will refuse to use the $20's?

 

[Keith&Co.]

So if Harriet Tubman goes on the $20, will they have to print a bunch more $5's and $10's because the MAGAdiots will refuse to use the $20's?

They'll start to carry sharpies at all times, or at least every trip to the ATM.
Draw nooses and swastikas on the face.
Then get upset when their legal tender for all debts, both public and private, is refused at certain places of business as 'defaced.'

 

[ideologyhunter]

Hey, I write sarcastic stuff on money (including atheist reactions to the sacred motto) and I aint no nutjob. Let 'em do their worst. It's the most peaceful debate forum you could wish.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's an idea. Term limits for people in currency. Instead of just changing Jackson to Tubman, make a long term plan to rotate all the faces at specific predetermined intervals. For example, every 5 years change the face on one of the denominations. Each mug gets to be in the limelight for 35 years.

I like this idea, although I think the cycle could stand to be shorter.

 

[Gospel]

Here's an idea. Term limits for people in currency. Instead of just changing Jackson to Tubman, make a long term plan to rotate all the faces at specific predetermined intervals. For example, every 5 years change the face on one of the denominations. Each mug gets to be in the limelight for 35 years.

I like this idea, although I think the cycle could stand to be shorter.

I'm on the fence for this idea until Hariet has been on the 20 for at least 3/4 of the time Washington was on the 1.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I am all for the limited edition $1 with full frontal Trump, as long as it is stamped "Legal Tender for Front Row Tipping at Strip Clubs." Then you'd actually have the reciprocal of "Grab 'em by..." Did I overthink this?

 

[Derec]

Currency is dying anyway,

Oh I hope not. It still provides ability to pay somebody without being tracked.

But in more general terms of creating a culture that honors historical figures who embody what ought to be our national or just human values, which can include valuing freedom and democracy, then Tubman is as deserving as just about any.

I do not think her contributions, as laudable as they are, are significant enough to be on the currency. The main reason she is being put on the $20 is identity politics - she checks two big criteria - being black and being female.

If we are going to branch out of having dead presidents and founding fathers on currency, scientists would be a better choice.

Personally, I think our historical knowledge and ideas are way too focused upon individual persons rather than broader sociological forces and contingencies that produced the events and changes.

Oh bullcrap! The "trends and forces" school of history has been the dominant one for decades, to the point that impact of individual persons has been neglected way too much.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So then why is Jefferson, Jackson and Franklin on the money? I'm not arguing against having her on the money. I'm trying to understand how the people on the money qualify to go there. How are they selected? What are the criteria?

Why were all of these people on the currency?

[TABLE="width: 216"]
[TR]
[TD]Salmon Portland Chase[15][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Alexander Hamilton[41][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Andrew Jackson[50][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Abraham Lincoln[57][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Winfield Scott[81][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]George Washington[97][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Albert Gallatin[32][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Robert Morris[77][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]John Quincy Adams[12][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Henry Clay[18][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]DeWitt Clinton[21][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Thomas Jefferson[52][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Daniel Webster[102][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Thomas Hart Benton[14][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]James Madison[60][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Benjamin Franklin[30][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Joseph King Fenno Mansfield[61][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Stephen Decatur[23][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Edward Everett[24][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William Learned Marcy[62][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]James Monroe[74][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Charles Sumner[94][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]James Abram Garfield[34][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Silas Wright, Jr.[107][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ulysses Simpson Grant[38][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Winfield Scott Hancock[43][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Thomas Andrews Hendricks[47][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Daniel Manning[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Martha Washington[101][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]David Glasgow Farragut[25][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]John Marshall[64][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]James Birdseye McPherson[70][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]George Gordon Meade[72][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Philip Henry Sheridan[87][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Edwin McMasters Stanton[93][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]George H. Thomas[95][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William Henry Seward[84][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William Windom[106][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Robert Fulton[31][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Samuel Finley Breese Morse [78][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Running Antelope[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William Clark[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Meriwether Lewis[55][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Benjamin Harrison[45][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]John Jay Knox, Jr. [53][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Hugh McCulloch[66][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William McKinley, Jr.[67][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]John Sherman[88][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Michael Hillegas[49][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Grover Cleveland[20][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodrow Wilson[104][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William Pitt Fessenden[27][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]William Tecumseh Sherman[90][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Keep going. What's the explanation? Again, I was never questioning whether to put Tubman on the money. You just made that up. I was wondering what the selection criteria is. How people end up on the American money. The move to put Tubman on the money is clearly a leftist ideologically based move. The other ones have stayed on the money in spite of the presidency shifting between Republicans and Democrats. So I guess those were not ideologically motivated selections? What makes those different?

The list you just posted answer none of this. If anything it makes it less clear what the selection process is.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So then why is Jefferson, Jackson and Franklin on the money? I'm not arguing against having her on the money. I'm trying to understand how the people on the money qualify to go there. How are they selected? What are the criteria?

Even if some dead people in the past used some criteria that required being a founder or elected politician, who gives a fuck what they thought. Who is on the money doesn't impact any legal principles or constitutional ideals. It's a reflection of who and what we want to honor today. Currency is dying anyway, so it doesn't matter much, and I personally don't care who is on my money. But in more general terms of creating a culture that honors historical figures who embody what ought to be our national or just human values, which can include valuing freedom and democracy, then Tubman is as deserving as just about any.

What people a nation choses to honour is interesting, I think. It says a lot about the ruling elites and what stories they tell themselves. It says a lot about what stories are popular in the culture. It tells us about our aspirations.

Personally, I think our historical knowledge and ideas are way too focused upon individual persons rather than broader sociological forces and contingencies that produced the events and changes. I have no heroes and think society could do with less obsession with manufacturing them. But I think i am battling against innate human cognitive biases on that one.

Which is the way the rest of the world tends to think. The extreme focus on the individual is something we associate with the English speaking world. "I was just following orders" is a perfectly fine defence in most places in the world.

If we are going to lionize historical figures on our money, then Tubman makes perfect sense, despite or maybe partly b/c all the others were politicians who held office, in large part b/c of being born into privilege which included the requisite of being a white male. I'd never given this much focused thought to her, and doing so has given me a far deeper appreciation for what she represents. If putting her on the $20 sparks that kind of reflection and consideration in some others about what we should honor and why we honor those we do, then it's a worthwhile thing to do despite the coming death of cash.

I'm happy I could help.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Euro bank notes don't have people. Just buildings.

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

Iran has pictures of angry crowds during the revolution. That's interesting.

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

Egypt, unsurprisingly has ancient Egyptian monuments.

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

British Pounds go with scientists, authors, artists and Winston Churchill. Just one politician.

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

Finland does the same.

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

Turkey has Kemal Atatürk. Which is strange, since he is comparable to Hitler. Sure, he's the father of the nation. A man guilty of truly horrific things.

It's fun to look through banknotes from countries and wonder about what went in to choosing the designs.

 

[Swammerdami]

Whoever you choose as the prospective candidate, don't forget you ought to compare her against slave owners who didn't need to own slaves. These slave owners had contemporaries who were abolitionists and told them they were morally wrong. People such as Jefferson, while his words are decent, were hypocrites who couldn't live by the decent words they wrote.

The first thing that people say in response to any criticism of Jefferson is well you have to judge him versus people of the times (it's actually untrue that people of the times didn't know it was wrong) but where's the corollary to this principle regarding slaves to say you have to measure them in their context of being subjugated and controlled as well?

From my reading of history, and it was a long time ago so I could be wrong, Jefferson wanted to get rid of his slaves but couldn't do so due to local and commonwealth laws forbidding it.

Thank you, ZiprHead. Reflexive criticism of Jefferson, one of the Enlightenment lights, is yet another example of post-rational "political correctness" run amok.

 

[Gospel]

If we are going to branch out of having dead presidents and founding fathers on currency, scientists would be a better choice.

We can start with George Washington Carver on the $1 & cut costs on the redesign by only changing the picture.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Despense with people on money and use pictures of cute, furry animals. Cats, puppies, raccoons, possums.....

 

[southernhybrid]

Despense with people on money and use pictures of cute, furry animals. Cats, puppies, raccoons, possums.....

That would be okay with me, as long as we can replace, "In God we Trust" with "In dogs we trust". After all, dogs are far more loyal and trustworthy than humans.

 

[TomC]

Despense with people on money and use pictures of cute, furry animals. Cats, puppies, raccoons, possums.....

I get the sugar coated sarcasm part.

But I like putting heroes on the currency. And the U.S. has a complex history, including the dreadful part about racism and slavery. Celebrating Americans who helped fight our demons, at huge risk to themselves, is an excellent way to choose faces for public documents like currency.

Tubman is a hero. She's not the only one. But I want her on the 20 dollar bill.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

Despense with people on money and use pictures of cute, furry animals. Cats, puppies, raccoons, possums.....

I get the sugar coated sarcasm part.

But I like putting heroes on the currency. And the U.S. has a complex history, including the dreadful part about racism and slavery. Celebrating Americans who helped fight our demons, at huge risk to themselves, is an excellent way to choose faces for public documents like currency.

Tubman is a hero. She's not the only one. But I want her on the 20 dollar bill.
Tom

That's an excellent arguement. Personally, I would like to see each bill have a variety of faces on it, similar to the quarter got.

Make a pool of such candidates, in fact. Let people vote to generate a primary pool, and then a second round of "negative" voting to clear out 'troll' names (because you know 4chan will get at least one Grand Pisspot of the KKK elected).

 

[Keith&Co.]

What if we went like the Quarters?
Each state gets to submit one hero, subject to Federal guidelines. No traitors, no insurrectionists, no one named Trump, no one that ever made FBI's Most Wanted, no religious figure who owned a Rolex, no politician who owned slaves....