Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill

[ideologyhunter]

No, I've seen too much of the damn Brady Bunch. And Marcia would want the $100.

 

[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

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).

I'm trying not to refer to my personal schadenfreude when I make an argument.

But I can't help imagining a Proud Boy having to deal with a 19th century black chick when he goes to buy gas or something. Makes me giggle.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Again, I was never questioning whether to put Tubman on the money. You just made that up.

Really? Because the person who did the OP said a lot of stuff indicating why someone else should be on the money instead of Tubman.

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.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

That's true, and this would have been a far more reasonable way to start a thread and a discussion of how Tubman seems to break with an informal tradition in the US of putting founders and presidents on currency, especially widely used currency (Susanan B Anthony is on what amounts to a commemorative coin that is rarely used and only minted for a couple of years decades ago). Instead, you led and doubled down with silly, objectively false, and ethically perverse notions that she "was a one trick pony...certainly never seen as a leader of white and black alike" and that what she did was a "small thing", "hardly aspirational", and deficient in "dignity".

All of it seems to be a motivated by a desire to push your general preconception that progressives are racist who hold up unworthy minorities who've done nothing of note just to "throw the black community a bone".

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.

Two problems: One is that hero worship of which deference to authority is a subtype is human problem the world over, including in so called "less individualistic cultures" such as in Asia where dictatorial fascism is a byproduct of it, and ignoring the individuality of the unwashed masses is a tool to concentrate more attention and power on select individual "heroes" at the top.

The second, related, problem is that "just following orders" is, like authoritarianism, a manifestation of worship of select individuals at the top, giving them too much credit and thus power. It has often been used in the West, not just by the Nazis, but by many immoral actions by the military, such as the US atrocities in Vietnam. Yes, the underlings are not treated as responsible individuals, but that b/c select individuals are over emphasized for their role. Acknowledging "broader sociological forces" entails more acknowledgment of the causal role and responsibility of many different individuals whose less salient actions create and reinforce the cultural context that drives society level events and changes. Your comment implies that you think attributing high levels of influence/credit for society level events to select individuals is the same as holding individuals accountable for their actions, and thus outside of the West where we value individualism it's okay to "just follow orders". However, it is precisely the excessive focus on select individuals that is a cause of failing to hold other individuals in society accountable, whether it's for bad or good outcomes.

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.

Sure, but that's like Trump taking credit for making more people realize just how sizable, dangerous and anti-democratic the right wing is in the US, b/c his absurd lies sparked events that exposed it. If you'd raised the question of how Tubman on the $20 reflects something new in the current values & ethos of the US, then I'd thank you. But you did not merely ask that question, you advanced an argument based on thoughtless and uninformed notions motivated by a desire to advance a more general ideological thesis about the condescending racism of the left. This seems to be a recent rhetorical trend of yours I find disappointing and inconsistent with the more level headed conception I previously had of you.

 

[Gospel]

Again, I was never questioning whether to put Tubman on the money. You just made that up.

Really? Because the person who did the OP said a lot of stuff indicating why someone else should be on the money instead of Tubman.

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.

Now now, let's be fair, DrZoidberg was expecting the traditional hail and farewell upon arrival of that conclusion. DrZoidberg clearly did not expect there to be so much resistance and as such moved the goal post to a less hostile area.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Again, I was never questioning whether to put Tubman on the money. You just made that up.

Really? Because the person who did the OP said a lot of stuff indicating why someone else should be on the money instead of Tubman.

Yes, really. I suggest reading it again. I merely pointed out that the other people on the money were statesmen, and Tubman isn't. If they're to follow the existing theme of the money, then Tubman doesn't fit that theme. You then, in your crazy head, made that into me arguing against putting Tubman on the money, as if she's not good enough, or not worthy.

Do you acknowledge that there is a theme regarding who is featured on the American money? Or do you reject the idea that there's any kind of pattern regarding what people are on it?

 

[Gospel]

Again, I was never questioning whether to put Tubman on the money. You just made that up.

Really? Because the person who did the OP said a lot of stuff indicating why someone else should be on the money instead of Tubman.

Yes, really. I suggest reading it again. I merely pointed out that the other people on the money were statesmen, and Tubman isn't. If they're to follow the existing theme of the money, then Tubman doesn't fit that theme. You then, in your crazy head, made that into me arguing against putting Tubman on the money, as if she's not good enough, or not worthy.

Do you acknowledge that there is a theme regarding who is featured on the American money? Or do you reject the idea that there's any kind of pattern regarding what people are on it?

I know you're not asking me but yes there is a theme. Considering how extremely diverse the historically influential Americans are, at some point one should wonder why everyone on our currency is white.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, really. I suggest reading it again. I merely pointed out that the other people on the money were statesmen, and Tubman isn't. If they're to follow the existing theme of the money, then Tubman doesn't fit that theme. You then, in your crazy head, made that into me arguing against putting Tubman on the money, as if she's not good enough, or not worthy.

Do you acknowledge that there is a theme regarding who is featured on the American money? Or do you reject the idea that there's any kind of pattern regarding what people are on it?

I know you're not asking me but yes there is a theme. Considering how extremely diverse the historically influential Americans are, at some point one should wonder why everyone on our currency is white.

So if the theme is that they all have to be white, then you think it would be wrong to put Tubman on the money, right?

 

[Gospel]

Yes, really. I suggest reading it again. I merely pointed out that the other people on the money were statesmen, and Tubman isn't. If they're to follow the existing theme of the money, then Tubman doesn't fit that theme. You then, in your crazy head, made that into me arguing against putting Tubman on the money, as if she's not good enough, or not worthy.

Do you acknowledge that there is a theme regarding who is featured on the American money? Or do you reject the idea that there's any kind of pattern regarding what people are on it?

I know you're not asking me but yes there is a theme. Considering how extremely diverse the historically influential Americans are, at some point one should wonder why everyone on our currency is white.

So if the theme is that they all have to be white, then you think it would be wrong to put Tubman on the money, right?

You're weird.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So if the theme is that they all have to be white, then you think it would be wrong to put Tubman on the money, right?

You're weird.

Using your dishonest way of discussing I could now accuse you of moving goalposts

 

[TomC]

Yes, really. I suggest reading it again. I merely pointed out that the other people on the money were statesmen, and Tubman isn't. If they're to follow the existing theme of the money, then Tubman doesn't fit that theme. You then, in your crazy head, made that into me arguing against putting Tubman on the money, as if she's not good enough, or not worthy.

Do you acknowledge that there is a theme regarding who is featured on the American money? Or do you reject the idea that there's any kind of pattern regarding what people are on it?

I know you're not asking me but yes there is a theme. Considering how extremely diverse the historically influential Americans are, at some point one should wonder why everyone on our currency is white.

So if the theme is that they all have to be white, then you think it would be wrong to put Tubman on the money, right?

No. The problem isn't with Tubman. The problem is with the theme.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

So if the theme is that they all have to be white, then you think it would be wrong to put Tubman on the money, right?

You're weird.

Using your dishonest way of discussing I could now accuse you of moving goalposts

What was dishonest about pointing out that the theme is all the people on US currency is white? Is there someone not white on the currency that I'm not aware of? Does every last one of them share some other quality you know of that I don't?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Using your dishonest way of discussing I could now accuse you of moving goalposts

What was dishonest about pointing out that the theme is all the people on US currency is white? Is there someone not white on the currency that I'm not aware of? Does every last one of them share some other quality you know of that I don't?

See, it's no fun when other people try to misunderstand what you are saying on purpose. I think I have made my point.

 

[Gospel]

Using your dishonest way of discussing I could now accuse you of moving goalposts

What was dishonest about pointing out that the theme is all the people on US currency is white? Is there someone not white on the currency that I'm not aware of? Does every last one of them share some other quality you know of that I don't?

See, it's no fun when other people try to misunderstand what you are saying on purpose. I think I have made my point.

No, I don't see your point. The United States Of America has changed a lot since the last time they selected who'd appear on our paper money. Back then they had an inclusion issues (to say the least). America has changed substantially since then and this change was brought about by people like Harriet Tubman and many others (who are not all black btw). You're the one being dishonest because you intended to drive home the theme was statemen all along yet posed it as a question. You even suggested another statesmen (Obama) to keep with the theme because you believe it would be more respectful to black people by some strange show of inclusion by keeping true to form. Problem is, I DON'T GIVE A FUCK about staying true to form and I haven't met a single black person who says no to Hariet being on the bill. Have you? Do you even know any black people? If inclusion is the reason for adding a black person on paper currency (which it obviously is) then I being included in the choice say fuck the statesman criteria because many of my people did not have the opportunity to become statesman in the early times of this country. Hariet would have made a better statesman than any of those pricks in office anyway.


Sorry for being too honest i guess.

 

[ZiprHead]

Using your dishonest way of discussing I could now accuse you of moving goalposts

What was dishonest about pointing out that the theme is all the people on US currency is white? Is there someone not white on the currency that I'm not aware of? Does every last one of them share some other quality you know of that I don't?

See, it's no fun when other people try to misunderstand what you are saying on purpose. I think I have made my point.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much. Your posts are coming across as thinly veiled bigotry.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I feel there are very fine people on both sides of this issue.
But that's just me.

 

[TomC]

Using your dishonest way of discussing I could now accuse you of moving goalposts

What was dishonest about pointing out that the theme is all the people on US currency is white? Is there someone not white on the currency that I'm not aware of? Does every last one of them share some other quality you know of that I don't?

See, it's no fun when other people try to misunderstand what you are saying on purpose. I think I have made my point.

Really, no, you haven't.

You seem to think that it's a consistent theme that is important. Maybe that's because you're from a relatively old monoculture. Denmark and Sweden are more similar to each other, culturally and historically, than Texas and Massachusetts are.

Our "theme" of dead WASP guys(heavy on the genocidal slavers) needs to go away. Currency is of necessity a long slow process of change. But it's clear that the U.S. could use an injection of multi ethnicity and heroes that represent modern American values into our theme. It's way past time to get started.
Tom

 

[Keith&Co.]

My first two boats were built for the Polaris Fleet, so called the '41 For Freedom.'
Asked my first chief about the name, he said they honored 41 Notable Americans who won and preserved our freedoms. Very patriotic.

I had to ask if Simone de Bolivar was every an American. And, well, he's from one of the American Continents.
And the Marquis de Lafayette? He fought in the Revolution, but not exactly an American.
Pretty sure Kamehameha wasn't American, by birth, by blood, or by choice.

At the time, we didn't question the boats named after Traitors like Robert E. Lee, but that would have been brought up if it was still floating today.

And, all due respect to George Washington Carver, Francis Scott Key, and Will Rogers, all Eminent Americans, their contributions to 'Freedom' don't quite ring the same bell as writing the Constitution, or wintering at Valley Forge, or marching through Atlanta with fire and firearms.




The next Fleet, the Ohio class, was named after States. Well-known states like Florida, Maryland, Wyoming, The Henry M. Jackson... So named for a politician in recognition of his longtime support of the nation's military.

So, really, no matter what the United States traditionally or officially adopts for a naming convention, or for selecting honorees, we can also ignore the conventions whenever it suits us. Because that's also a convention for the US. Like the old observation, the difficulty in planning against Americans is that they don't usually read their own policy guidelines, and even if they do, they ignore them.

We could put Deadpool on the $20 if we really felt like it. And any complaint that it doesn't fit with the precedent? We would say, 'Yep.' Because reasons.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I feel there are very fine people on both sides of this issue.

Near as i can remember, the $2 is the only one with people on both sides, isn't it?

 

[Gospel]

My first two boats were built for the Polaris Fleet, so called the '41 For Freedom.'
Asked my first chief about the name, he said they honored 41 Notable Americans who won and preserved our freedoms. Very patriotic.

I had to ask if Simone de Bolivar was every an American. And, well, he's from one of the American Continents.
And the Marquis de Lafayette? He fought in the Revolution, but not exactly an American.
Pretty sure Kamehameha wasn't American, by birth, by blood, or by choice.

At the time, we didn't question the boats named after Traitors like Robert E. Lee, but that would have been brought up if it was still floating today.

And, all due respect to George Washington Carver, Francis Scott Key, and Will Rogers, all Eminent Americans, their contributions to 'Freedom' don't quite ring the same bell as writing the Constitution, or wintering at Valley Forge, or marching through Atlanta with fire and firearms.




The next Fleet, the Ohio class, was named after States. Well-known states like Florida, Maryland, Wyoming, The Henry M. Jackson... So named for a politician in recognition of his longtime support of the nation's military.

So, really, no matter what the United States traditionally or officially adopts for a naming convention, or for selecting honorees, we can also ignore the conventions whenever it suits us. Because that's also a convention for the US. Like the old observation, the difficulty in planning against Americans is that they don't usually read their own policy guidelines, and even if they do, they ignore them.

We could put Deadpool on the $20 if we really felt like it. And any complaint that it doesn't fit with the precedent? We would say, 'Yep.' Because reasons.

If I'm understanding the sentiment of this post correctly, you're saying that America having such a diverse culture with many avenues to make a meaningful (and positive) impact on its history shouldn't have a set criteria for getting your face on it's currency. If I'm correct RIGHT ON! If I'm wrong... whatever.