Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill

[DrZoidberg]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55808324

This strikes me as odd. While Benjamin Franklin wasn't a president, he is a founding father. The rest of them are presidents. If they do want to make an anti-slavery symbol, wouldn't it be more appropriate to put Obama on the £20 note? While Harriet Tubman is an important black figure historically, she was a one trick pony. She never rose to gain any political power. She was certainly never seen as a leader of white and black alike.

I get the feeling that putting her on the $20 bill feels like throwing the black community a bone, rather than acknowledging blacks as equals. Which putting Obama on the $20 would do.

Is my reasoning crazy?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55808324

This strikes me as odd. While Benjamin Franklin wasn't a president, he is a founding father. The rest of them are presidents.

Hamilton wasn't President.

If they do want to make an anti-slavery symbol, wouldn't it be more appropriate to put Obama on the £20 note?

President Obama was in office a bit after slavery's abolition.

While Harriet Tubman is an important black figure historically...

Okay, you recognize her position as being an important black figure, so we'll just stop there.

I get the feeling that putting her on the $20 bill feels like throwing the black community a bone, rather than acknowledging blacks as equals. Which putting Obama on the $20 would do.

Harriet Tubman was according to you "an important black figure historically". So, why not include her? Because she wasn't a Senator? A Black (also not with an 's' at the end yet) didn't become President for over 150 years post abolition. Simply put, Tubman was America's First Avenger. If one was to argue for someone else, Frederick Douglas comes to mind. We are talking about 19th Century America.

Is my reasoning crazy?

I'd say more labored and devil advocated.

It is also time for Neil Armstrong on the $100 bill.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hamilton wasn't President.

Neither was the Buffalo.
Or Sacajawea.
Or Susan B. Anthony.

On the other hand, if we suggested putting Obama on a bill or coin, the usual suspects would cry that you can only honor people this way after they're dead, like warship's and memorial dirigible towers.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55808324

This strikes me as odd. While Benjamin Franklin wasn't a president, he is a founding father. The rest of them are presidents. If they do want to make an anti-slavery symbol, wouldn't it be more appropriate to put Obama on the £20 note? While Harriet Tubman is an important black figure historically, she was a one trick pony. She never rose to gain any political power. She was certainly never seen as a leader of white and black alike.

I get the feeling that putting her on the $20 bill feels like throwing the black community a bone, rather than acknowledging blacks as equals. Which putting Obama on the $20 would do.

Is my reasoning crazy?

You are forgetting Hamilton. Also, I think you are both right and wrong. People ARE probably doing this to appease certain groups. People are stupid and superficial.

Where I think you are wrong is in thinking there ought to be a requirement of being a government leader. Putting Tubman there isn't a correction to merely identity politics for sake of identity politics, but instead because there were no women nor blacks in charge of government for centuries because of slavery and patriarchy. The requirement itself sounds great but it is INDIRECTLY due to these other external factors.

So, given that the requirement is based not on one's qualities but instead the old identity politics of centuries-ago, then we have to ask the question, if we were to choose a black woman from the time that both women and blacks were unjustly banned from government leader positions, then whom would we choose? Then, after doing this to get a prospective candidate, what happens when we compare their qualities to those whom we have already chosen?

What other black women prospective candidates would you choose merely for analysis?

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?

Why is it logically valid to invoke this principle for white male land owners but the principle isn't applicable to black women slaves? Would someone say it logically only applies to (a) what one does but not (b) what one is constrained to do by the very people being excused in (a)? For what logical reason?

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55808324

This strikes me as odd. While Benjamin Franklin wasn't a president, he is a founding father. The rest of them are presidents. If they do want to make an anti-slavery symbol, wouldn't it be more appropriate to put Obama on the £20 note? While Harriet Tubman is an important black figure historically, she was a one trick pony. She never rose to gain any political power. She was certainly never seen as a leader of white and black alike.

I get the feeling that putting her on the $20 bill feels like throwing the black community a bone, rather than acknowledging blacks as equals. Which putting Obama on the $20 would do.

Is my reasoning crazy?

Yes. Harriet Tubman is an important symbol of basic human rights, decency and courage. If you look at our coins and currency, there are plenty of images of non-elected people (including eagles, buffaloes, pyramids with eyes along with Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin). She is replaced President Andrew Jackson, who was an ethnic cleanser of Native Americans, a slave owner with hundreds of slaves, and active defender of slavery. Moreover, Jackson was an economic ignoramus who abolished the first central bank of the USA.

Given that there is no inherent right to have one's image on currency. Nor is there any reason for sacrosanct images on our currency. Honoring the memory of Harriet Tubman is appropriate. Just as it would be appropriate to honor the memory of Frederick Douglas, Booker T. Washington or Sojourner Truth to name just a few.

As to the notion that this throwing some sort of bone to the black community, I would ask if you think having Andrew Jackson, or Ulysses Grantm or having George Washinton and Abraham Lincoln on bills and coins as throwing bones to the white community?

 

[TomC]

While Harriet Tubman is an important black figure historically, she was a one trick pony. She never rose to gain any political power. She was certainly never seen as a leader of white and black alike.

This is the kind of confident assertion and value judgement that makes you look painfully clueless about the USA.

For a black woman, at the time, what she accomplished was extraordinary. She's become a symbol of strength, cunning, and persistence in the face of overwhelming odds.

So while there are other top contenders, Tubman is an excellent choice. I like it.
Tom

 

[ronburgundy]

. She was certainly never seen as a leader of white and black alike.

Others have pointed out the problem with the notion that the person should need to be a major political leader, so I'll just focus on this quoted part of the OP. None of the "founders", and arguably no one on U.S. currency, except maybe Susan B. Anthony and Lincoln, was "a leader of white and black alike". So, why should that be a relevant criteria? Besides, Tubman was more a leader of whites, especially those with a conscience, than all others on currency were leaders of blacks, and she was more of a leader equally for men and women than any of those others were.

Slavery is among the most important, impactful, and shameful facts of U.S. history. It makes perfect sense to have a black American who gave so much of herself to free enslaved people, and b/c she was black and an escaped slave put herself at far greater risk in doing so than did any politician or any white abolitionist.

 

[rousseau]

Is my reasoning crazy?

You're over-thinking it, and what Jimmy Higgins said.

If anything Tubman makes a better choice than Obama, exactly because Obama was president. If Obama was chosen you could interpret it as following a norm, where choosing Tubman breaks from tradition and acknowledges a real human rights movement, and the significance of every day people.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

Let's suppose this is true hypothetically. The basis, probably true, is that he was in debt considerably. His debt lies in his own doings, does it not, or should we not blame competence but instead external factors? If we consider again how an individual is limited by others, shouldn't this apply equally to slaves in evaluating their lives?

Some time after Jefferson's death, his slaves were sold due to the indebtedness of the estate. At some point his heirs sold the mansion and the land for $7500 but it took a few years for them to realize how trying to keep the property was impractical.

What about the flip-side? How about if Jefferson instead years earlier had realized he created a lot of risk by his property and land usage and that instead of going into debt too much, he ought to settle up, cutting his losses short? It is unwise to keep digging a hole, especially when the hole is putting slaves' freedom at risk. Why not sell the mansion and property in entirety in order to free the slaves years before his death, cut his loss? Was there never a time when he could have done that? I am asking because other people took great personal risk, such as property and life in order to free slaves. For comparison purposes, I don't think Tubman owned a mansion...but she seems to have risked her life and grave injury and risk of re-entry into slavery.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

In my simple reckoning that's a dodge, a very weak argument. I mean if Jefferson and his buds had the backbone to fight a war against the most powerful nation on the planet am I supposed to believe that Jefferson couldn't free his slaves because of a local law? Seriously?

Jefferson's wealth was slaves, not land or patents or timber or books or anything else. That was economics at the time.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Let's suppose this is true hypothetically. The basis, probably true, is that he was in debt considerably. His debt lies in his own doings, does it not, or should we not blame competence but instead external factors? If we consider again how an individual is limited by others, shouldn't this apply equally to slaves in evaluating their lives?

Some time after Jefferson's death, his slaves were sold due to the indebtedness of the estate. At some point his heirs sold the mansion and the land for $7500 but it took a few years for them to realize how trying to keep the property was impractical.

What about the flip-side? How about if Jefferson instead years earlier had realized he created a lot of risk by his property and land usage and that instead of going into debt too much, he ought to settle up, cutting his losses short? It is unwise to keep digging a hole, especially when the hole is putting slaves' freedom at risk. Why not sell the mansion and property in entirety in order to free the slaves years before his death, cut his loss? Was there never a time when he could have done that? I am asking because other people took great personal risk, such as property and life in order to free slaves. For comparison purposes, I don't think Tubman owned a mansion...but she seems to have risked her life and grave injury and risk of re-entry into slavery.

One of the contributing factors to Thomas Jefferson's indebtedness is that his wife's father left her (which meant Thomas Jefferson) significant debts along with land.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55808324

This strikes me as odd. While Benjamin Franklin wasn't a president, he is a founding father. The rest of them are presidents. If they do want to make an anti-slavery symbol, wouldn't it be more appropriate to put Obama on the £20 note? While Harriet Tubman is an important black figure historically, she was a one trick pony. She never rose to gain any political power. She was certainly never seen as a leader of white and black alike.

I get the feeling that putting her on the $20 bill feels like throwing the black community a bone, rather than acknowledging blacks as equals. Which putting Obama on the $20 would do.

Is my reasoning crazy?

If you think Andrew Jackson was seen as a leader of white and black alike, then yes, your reasoning is crazy.

It's bizarre that someone from another country would continue to pass judgment on events in a country he knows so little about. Maybe pick up a history book before bloviating.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What other black women prospective candidates would you choose merely for analysis?

None. That's what I mean with throwing the black community a bone. Harriet Tubman was undoubtedly a hero, but what was her political impact? What power did she have? She was active in the suffragette movement in later years. But it's unclear whether anybody outside the black community gave a shit about her, or she was just treated like a celebrity. Frederick Douglass is a similar character. While admirable and awesome his one thing was the fight for black rights. Not for something general that impacts all Americans.

What I'm trying to get at is what is called "racism of low expectations". In the progressive world there are a lot of people who like to think of themselves as fighting racism. In order to avoid being seen as racist they will be impressed by black people no matter how small thing they do. They turn off their critical brain. While being critical of whites. It is a racist behaviour. Because this is how we treat children. Black people aren't taken seriously for their views. They're reduced to their skin. Aka tokenism. So in the attempt to come across as non-racist they end up being super racist.

If Americans put a black person on American money it's got to be a black person of the same political weight and dignity as the rest of them. Otherwise, isn't it an insult to blacks? The other guys on the money are pretty damn amazing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55808324

This strikes me as odd. While Benjamin Franklin wasn't a president, he is a founding father. The rest of them are presidents. If they do want to make an anti-slavery symbol, wouldn't it be more appropriate to put Obama on the £20 note? While Harriet Tubman is an important black figure historically, she was a one trick pony. She never rose to gain any political power. She was certainly never seen as a leader of white and black alike.

I get the feeling that putting her on the $20 bill feels like throwing the black community a bone, rather than acknowledging blacks as equals. Which putting Obama on the $20 would do.

Is my reasoning crazy?

If you think Andrew Jackson was seen as a leader of white and black alike, then yes, your reasoning is crazy.

It's bizarre that someone from another country would continue to pass judgment on events in a country he knows so little about. Maybe pick up a history book before bloviating.

If I thought I knew the answers why would I start a thread and ask questions? Asking questions is not to pass judgement. It's the other way around.

 

[Derec]

Why not go with a compromise and put somebody who is both a dead president and a tubman on the $20 dollar bill?

Show

Not to mention chief justice - quite a resume!

Also would alleviate the problem of the woeful underrepresentation of us Adipose-Americans ...

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The American way is to SELL it.

All this debate is silly. It's wacko to think you can prove your hero is more worthy than another. There's no reason why one image should be preferred to another, on the currency bills.

The best way to determine these is to auction the spaces to the highest bidder, for each bill. The same could be done with the postage stamp images.

Let anyone wanting to promote their hero or logo symbol pay a price, or bid for the space, and let the highest bidder determine the logo or design to go in the space.

Also the placement of statues in public places should be left to an auction process, leasing the spaces to bidders who can place whatever public displays they want to promote, and putting the funds into the public treasury. These public displays could promote business or political or religious or other causes the donors/buyers want to promote.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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?

 

[Bomb#20]

If Americans put a black person on American money it's got to be a black person of the same political weight and dignity as the rest of them. Otherwise, isn't it an insult to blacks? The other guys on the money are pretty damn amazing.

She's got more dignity than the rest of those guys put together. Amazing? They're a bunch of bloody politicians. They made speeches. I say get rid of the lot of them and put people on our money who did something useful themselves. Barton. Tubman. Tesla. Yeager. Salk.

We started putting presidents on our money because in Europe they were putting kings on their money.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If Americans put a black person on American money it's got to be a black person of the same political weight and dignity as the rest of them. Otherwise, isn't it an insult to blacks? The other guys on the money are pretty damn amazing.

She's got more dignity than the rest of those guys put together. Amazing? They're a bunch of bloody politicians. They made speeches. I say get rid of the lot of them and put people on our money who did something useful themselves. Barton. Tubman. Tesla. Yeager. Salk.

We started putting presidents on our money because in Europe they were putting kings on their money.

Nothing is preventing you from replacing all of them. That's what Sweden did. We used to have kings on our money, but they got out of fashion. So we switched to something else. I'd personally gone with scientists. But we have scientists on the back of the bills.

That said, USA is the world's first and still surviving true liberal democracy. So the foundation and creation of that is pretty cool IMHO. So it makes sense to put that in focus on the bills. Seen from Europe that is something I think Americans should be the most proud about. It's awesome. Great advertising for the awesomeness of USA. So I get the logic behind having founding fathers and notable presidents on the money. But Harriet Tubman has played no part in shaping American democracy. If she goes on the money she'll stick out like a sore thumb. No, it's not because she's black or a woman.

The founding fathers of Sweden were terrible people. Gustavus Vasa, who created the nation, was a psychopath on level with Hitler or Stalin. It makes sense not to have him on our money and longer.

Fun fact, we used to have Selma Lagerlöf on our money. A 19'th century author who was openly a lesbian. She wasn't put on the money for being a lesbian. She was put on the money because she was one of Sweden's top two authors. The other being Strindberg. Selma Lagerlöf was recently replaced by another woman, Astrid Lindgren. Also famous for being an author. Not for being a woman. What I like about these picks is that their accomplishments is why they're on the money. Not because of their gender. That makes it a hell of a lot cooler. As well as not being an insult to women.