Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill

[Keith&Co.]

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.

I am literally saying that if we HAVE a set criteria for putting a face on currency, that's more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule. Kind of a starting point. But we can ignore it. Don't even need to rewrite the guidelines.
So arguing by way of the set criteria, whatever it may be, whether it's something you've actually found, or something you may have inferred, possibly from an incomplete sample set, that's really a non-starter. The precedent of ignoring precedent is already widespread.

Like you can't name a ship after a person who's still alive, except for the Hyman G. Rickover. He attended the christening.

 

[TomC]

The next Fleet, the Ohio class, was named after States. Well-known states like Florida, Maryland, Wyoming,

I'm not fond of naming such things after places.
It's too much like naming them for living people.

I grew up in Indianapolis. The ship named for my home town was one of the worst naval disasters in WWII.
Tom

 

[ideologyhunter]

Maybe in some future USA we'll be able to completely customize our cash, and in that case, I'd scuttle all these historical riddles and put a good old dachshund on my money. Any good dachshund will tell you that if money isn't used for something fun, it's bullshit. Plus they're cute beyond cute and I smile just to look at them.

 

[Gospel]

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.

I am literally saying that if we HAVE a set criteria for putting a face on currency, that's more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule. Kind of a starting point. But we can ignore it. Don't even need to rewrite the guidelines.
So arguing by way of the set criteria, whatever it may be, whether it's something you've actually found, or something you may have inferred, possibly from an incomplete sample set, that's really a non-starter. The precedent of ignoring precedent is already widespread.

Like you can't name a ship after a person who's still alive, except for the Hyman G. Rickover. He attended the christening.

Seems reasonable. I do not personally have an issue with dead statesman being the criteria, I just have an issue with historical black figures being kept out for the second time (if you catch my drift).

 

[Keith&Co.]

The next Fleet, the Ohio class, was named after States. Well-known states like Florida, Maryland, Wyoming,

I'm not fond of naming such things after places.
It's too much like naming them for living people.

Weird.
But with a place, you get happy sponsors without as much political baggage.
The commissioning of The Kentucky? The state supplied so much booze for the parties....

Plus, you can really freak some people out. Corpus Christi successfully lobbied to get a sub named after the city. But someone realized that when the CO of a ship comes or goes, he's announced by the ship's name. "George Washington, arriving," or "Indianapolis, departing." It was intolerable to some people that Navy Tradition would result in someone saying "Body of Christ, arriving" without it actually being the Second Coming.
So, the ship's full name was the USS City Of Corpus Christi.
Which made for some fun in Sonar. EVERY time they announced a contact, someone would ask if it was the Corpus Christi.
And the thumper sonar tech would insist, "It's THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI!"
"It is? I'll tell the OOD it's the Corpus Christi."
"No, no, i mean, the ship's name is City of-"
"That's what i asked, what's the name of the ship. It's the Christi. Conn, sonar, contact bearing 240 is-"
"No! I'm saying you have to say the full name or it's blasphemy."
"Show me where that's written."

But we were in the wrong ocean. It was never the Christi.

 

[Elixir]

Make everyone happy, name an aircraft carrier The Tubman.

She could even share the honor with the paleo-anthropologist Louis Leakey and they could name it
THE USS LEAKEY TUBMAN

 

[laughing dog]

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?

Well, there was a theme. But there is no reason for the theme to remain unchanged throughout time.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

I don't get it. Why is that how it reads? I'm a liberal progressive.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. Why not exchange all the people on the money? Why not have a new theme. That's what most countries do when they break from the pattern? When Sweden removed its kings, it did it on all the money. Denmark did the same thing. I think that's a general theme with money around the world. There typically is a unifying theme. I think it's a good thing to help people identify which bills are American money.

I get the feeling that your reaction is based on that you seem to think that the only way to discuss this is to be for or against racism, and you put me in the racism box. But there are other dimensions in this other than to be for or against racism.

 

[Mumbles]

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?

Well, you're certainly laughably wrong, since among other things, the Tubman $20 was pushed for by the Women on 20s campaign, rather than some sort of "bone" that Biden (or Obama) came up with on their own. In fact, you can see a photo of the campaign founder right here.

 

[Elixir]

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.

I agree.
We can't have national referenda on every goddam thing. No matter who or what is selected for depiction on currency, some will be pleased or appeased and some won't.
Big deal. I don't like Andrew Jackson. But I'm not going to burn all my $20 bills if they don't get rid of him. Nor am I going to waste my time trying to make a case against appeasing white males by depicting them on currency.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Oh noes, a black woman will be on our money. The horror.

 

[thebeave]

Let's just all be thankful that no one is pushing to put Tubgirl on the $20 bill.

 

[Politesse]

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?

That policy does not and has never existed. This is not a monarchy, but rather a democracy, and there are many non-presidents on our currency. Sacajawea, Franklin, Hamilton at present and many others historically. I don't see 4 out of 7 instead of 5 out 7 as some sort of sea change.

And while I'm not morally outraged by the idea of "throwing the black community a bone", not being a racist myself, I don't see how Barrack Obama would be any less of a blatantly political move. Worse, because his record on race issues is actually pretty mixed, and he never fought against slavery or saved thousands of American lives from tyranny as did Tubman.

If you want to know what makes Blacks feel unequal, white poeple losing their shit over the thought of honoring an abolitionist is one of those things. Or seeing opposition to slavery as a "purely Black issue" as you seem to be implying when you say that Tubman did not accomplish anything for Whites. Of course she did. She helped end the slave trade in a supposed democracy of which Whites are also a part. This also helped take down King Cotton, again, benefiting everyone including lower-class Whites. Monocropping the entire South was not sustainable, and contributed less to the overall economy than it took, especially because slavery was subsidizing costs to the largest plantation owners while squeezing smaller farmsteads who couldn't afford the capital investment.to creaqte such operations.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh noes, a black woman will be on our money. The horror.

Hey, we just saw people lose their shit at the thought of a black law enforcement officer being buried near their white relatives.
So, yeah, horror.
The ATM becomes yet another place the racists can no longer go without facing their decreasing relevance.

 

[Elixir]

Let's just all be thankful that no one is pushing to put Tubgirl on the $20 bill.

Dang, you're right! "TubMAN" is so SEXIST!
I'm making a sign and going out to protest!

 

[ideologyhunter]

Okay, run this down. TubMAN, bad. TubWOMAN, still contains MAN. TubPERSON, contains SON. Person being at least nominally non-gendered, replace SON with the non-gendered term ONE. You are a PERONE, just as I am a PERONE. Harriet TubPERONE.
(Although he will not be on currency, at least in this century, Charles Manson would present a unique problem, best solved with a hyphenated surname, thus:
Charles PERONE-PERONE.)

 

[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?

Well, you're certainly laughably wrong, since among other things, the Tubman $20 was pushed for by the Women on 20s campaign, rather than some sort of "bone" that Biden (or Obama) came up with on their own. In fact, you can see a photo of the campaign founder right here.

That's not how politics works. It doesn't matter who first came up with the idea. What matters is what president or politician pushes it through their ruling body. And their motivations for doing so.

 

[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?

That policy does not and has never existed. This is not a monarchy, but rather a democracy, and there are many non-presidents on our currency. Sacajawea, Franklin, Hamilton at present and many others historically. I don't see 4 out of 7 instead of 5 out 7 as some sort of sea change.

And while I'm not morally outraged by the idea of "throwing the black community a bone", not being a racist myself, I don't see how Barrack Obama would be any less of a blatantly political move. Worse, because his record on race issues is actually pretty mixed, and he never fought against slavery or saved thousands of American lives from tyranny as did Tubman.

If you want to know what makes Blacks feel unequal, white poeple losing their shit over the thought of honoring an abolitionist is one of those things. Or seeing opposition to slavery as a "purely Black issue" as you seem to be implying when you say that Tubman did not accomplish anything for Whites. Of course she did. She helped end the slave trade in a supposed democracy of which Whites are also a part. This also helped take down King Cotton, again, benefiting everyone including lower-class Whites. Monocropping the entire South was not sustainable, and contributed less to the overall economy than it took, especially because slavery was subsidizing costs to the largest plantation owners while squeezing smaller farmsteads who couldn't afford the capital investment.to creaqte such operations.

This is a bit a derail, but what defeated slavery was what is known as "wage slavery". When cheap and accurate clocks and punch card systems were introduced factory owners quickly realized that they could make the slaves/workers oppress themselves. And they could save on guards and whippings. Better to have impossible quotas and let your workers beat themselves up for failing to live up to your standards. You have no responsibilities at all for your workers anymore. It's a lot cheaper and more productive than having slaves. That's the system we still have today. And then bathe in the glory of being an abolationionist. Be a blood sucking cruel capitalist, while riding on the high horse of morality. In hindsight the ending of slavery was an inevitable result of industrialization coupled with capitalism. The American South was stubbornly hanging on to a system that was already obsolete and impossibly inefficient by the early 1800's. Even if the Confederacy would have won the Civil War, slavery would still have ended soon after the war. Either by law or simply by plantation owners freely freeing their slaves. After emancipation most blacks stayed working on the same plantation, and nothing much changed well into the 1930'ies. I'm not trying to take any glory away from Tubman. Just pointing out the economic reality of slavery's impracticability in a modern economy.

Example from history, both Hitler and Stalin had the "brilliant" plan to turn a part of their population into slaves (Gulags and Concentration camps). In the hope that it was free money and make their countries rich. Both learned quickly that it only made their economy shrink. Slaves aren't creative and try to come up with new ways to increase productivity, in the hope of climbing a corporate ladder. They always want to work as little as possible. Moving a Jew from the free market of labour and putting them into a concentration camp made Germany loose money immediately.

 

[Politesse]

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?

That policy does not and has never existed. This is not a monarchy, but rather a democracy, and there are many non-presidents on our currency. Sacajawea, Franklin, Hamilton at present and many others historically. I don't see 4 out of 7 instead of 5 out 7 as some sort of sea change.

And while I'm not morally outraged by the idea of "throwing the black community a bone", not being a racist myself, I don't see how Barrack Obama would be any less of a blatantly political move. Worse, because his record on race issues is actually pretty mixed, and he never fought against slavery or saved thousands of American lives from tyranny as did Tubman.

If you want to know what makes Blacks feel unequal, white poeple losing their shit over the thought of honoring an abolitionist is one of those things. Or seeing opposition to slavery as a "purely Black issue" as you seem to be implying when you say that Tubman did not accomplish anything for Whites. Of course she did. She helped end the slave trade in a supposed democracy of which Whites are also a part. This also helped take down King Cotton, again, benefiting everyone including lower-class Whites. Monocropping the entire South was not sustainable, and contributed less to the overall economy than it took, especially because slavery was subsidizing costs to the largest plantation owners while squeezing smaller farmsteads who couldn't afford the capital investment.to creaqte such operations.

This is a bit a derail, but what defeated slavery was what is known as "wage slavery". When cheap and accurate clocks and punch card systems were introduced factory owners quickly realized that they could make the slaves/workers oppress themselves. And they could save on guards and whippings. Better to have impossible quotas and let your workers beat themselves up for failing to live up to your standards. You have no responsibilities at all for your workers anymore. It's a lot cheaper and more productive than having slaves. That's the system we still have today. And then bathe in the glory of being an abolationionist. Be a blood sucking cruel capitalist, while riding on the high horse of morality. In hindsight the ending of slavery was an inevitable result of industrialization coupled with capitalism. The American South was stubbornly hanging on to a system that was already obsolete and impossibly inefficient by the early 1800's. Even if the Confederacy would have won the Civil War, slavery would still have ended soon after the war. Either by law or simply by plantation owners freely freeing their slaves. After emancipation most blacks stayed working on the same plantation, and nothing much changed well into the 1930'ies. I'm not trying to take any glory away from Tubman. Just pointing out the economic reality of slavery's impracticability in a modern economy.

Tubman fought against economic exploitation in all its forms, she wasn't just an abolitionist.

You are very incorrect that the South "would have" immediately abolished slavery without compulsion. They didn't even truly end the practice after the war in real life, exploiting the obvious loophole in the law to create "chain gangs" of former slaves now imprisoned and thus still vulnerable to legal enslavement, a situation that continues to this day in many southern states. They do not care that it ultimately costs them money; they enslave because they can, not because it profits them.