Harriet Tubman to replace Jackson on face of $20 bill

[Esquire]

That's ridiculous. There are "historical people" who weren't politicians. What of the most celebrated artists, humanitarians, explorers, scientists, and so on?

Again, overwhelmingly white males. It's unfortunate, but true.

[Joun_Lord]

That's ridiculous. There are "historical people" who weren't politicians. What of the most celebrated artists, humanitarians, explorers, scientists, and so on?

Historical people as in historical people that were important to government as have most people who have been on money, hence my mention of Presidents and Senaturds and Founding Fathers. I should have clarified that better though. Of course there are other historical people but none of the "caliber" currently associated with having their mug on money save some temporary thing like the Sacajawea gold dollar that apparently wasn't even that popular (though possibly not because of who was on it).

Just putting anyone who was popular on money probably won't sit well and is probably not a great idea anyway. Maybe people related to important historical times like Rosa Parks or Harriett Tubman but maybe not artists and such. Again, don't want a Kardashian on the money in future. Putting historical artists and celebs on money could in the future do so. Kim Kardashian certainly is a noteworthy media artist and is probably celebrated, certainly media outlets seem to. She probably has some historical impact on this age of America, a terrible one but still an impact like bashing your face against a concrete wall.

I certainly would not be opposed to "normal" historical figures who may not have played a role in government but help shaped America but not every Tom Selleck, Dick Cheney and Harry Whittington who have made the news.

[B5B7]

Traditionally, figures on currency may not be presidents but they have to be major government officials

This is an extremely silly policy. In Australia we have people like Douglas Mawson (Antarctic explorer), Caroline Chisholm (humanitarian), John Flynn (founder of RFDS), and many others from a variety of fields.

[Darmalus]

In a different thread someone posted a few picture of historic US bills, it got me wondering why we restrict ourselves to a single person. With 4 coins and 4 bills in circulation (the others being rare enough to be discounted, I haven't seen a 1$ coin in over a year) that's 8 faces, and even representation would be 50% female and only one black and one latino.

If we had a group of 4 or 5 on each bill it'd be easier to put in historic figures that might not otherwise make the cut. I'd still want to reserve one side for a non-human icon, monument, artifact or feature of some sort.

The problem with history is there isn't an even representation of the genders or races. Predominately throughout American history historical people were white males. All the Founding Fathers were white males, all Presidents until Barack Obungler, most Senators and Congress critters have been and even now a majority still are (I've read like 80% still are white and male). To have non-whites and non-males represented one has to lower the standards of who gets on money (which probably isn't a bad thing so long as it isn't lowered too far, I don't want one day a fucking Kardashian on a dollar). Someone like Harriet Tubman or Rosa Parks is highly important to history but not on the same scale as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, or a President. People who were pioneers of government or ran the entire country. Not exactly alot of non-white males who are part of those categories. But again, like a 30 year old virgin lowering the standards some of who appears on the bills ain't a bad thing.

As for multiple people on the each bill, personally I'd be against multiple people on the same bill because I think it would look cluttered. I like kinda simple but elegant monies. Having multiple people on each denomination, as in multiple versions of the same money, I think might cause headaches by having different versions of the same money. Probably cause confusion for confused people when they are paying for something fast and don't pay too close attention to what they are paying for. Already happens with current money, probably be worse with a greater variety of money.

The idea that is bouncing around in my head would be to move the people away from being the centerpiece. Pulling a $1 out of my wallet, there's Lincoln on the front, and on the back... honestly it's a seal and a random meaningless pyramid. Having all those different state quarters didn't seem to confuse anyone.

Switch it around, make the front something iconic but impersonal, like the white house, and make the back a collection of important persons with a uniting theme. Science, a war, westward expansion, space, industry, civil rights. If it's multiple people then each person can effectively represent a group, allowing smaller groups to have a representative even if they are numerically insignificant or from different eras. If you wanted a space theme, you could have the first astronaut, first man on the moon (both white males) then first black astronaut, female astronaut, and so on.

[The Romulan Republic]

Expect it to be reversed if a Republican wins the Presidency.

Hell, I wouldn't be shocked if the Republitard Congress tries to block it.

Why? It removes a prominent Democrat and replaces him with someone who was an abolitionist, when that term was synonymous with being a Republican (so Republicans will claim her).

Because today the Republican Party is increasingly embracing its identity as the party of the angry, misogynist, racist white man. It is a haven of Klansmen, Neo-Nazis, and Neo-Confederates, as well as your more low-key racists who will object to a white man being replaced with a black woman, and your traditionalists who will want to keep things the way they were in "the good old days".

Do remember that the Democrats and Republicans basically traded places on race several decades back.

You can't not know this, surely?

[Simon_Jester]

Also, fuck traditionalism.

Personally I favor dropping traditions when there is a reason, but not otherwise. Tradition allows us to be consistent, and to preserve good rules that keep us from doing stupid things.

I would argue the exact opposite, in that traditions should be kept only when there is a reason to do so. Good rules and practices should be able to stand on their own merits as opposed to appealing to traditions.

Thing is, it's often very easy to present reasons for sticking with a traditional approach... but to do so generally invites "you're just being a stick-in-the-mud" from people who don't think whatever reason you just pointed out is going to be important.

As a schoolteacher I'm painfully familiar with this; the profession is plagued with fads and stupidity forced on us by wealthy donors and politicians who think that they can throw away the lessons of experience. This results in American educational policy being full of decisions and actions that are as grotesquely stupid as it was when the Soviets put Lysenko in charge of their genetics research in the '40s and made it illegal to question his (false and often fraudulent) claims about how evolution and genetics work.

There are clearly traditions that don't work, and obviously traditions that can be changed, and indeed there are plenty of traditions that urgently need changing. At the same time, it's very easy to decide that the need to change things overrides common sense, experience, or intangible qualities that are hard for the would-be reformer to measure.

So at least stopping for a minute to listen and think before casually changing something that has been in place for a long time... that's generally a good idea.

As an example, there are a variety of 'traditional' names for US Navy aircraft carriers, which are based on noble abstract concepts, great battles fought in the past, and so on. Then at some point someone decided to name a nuclear carrier for a dead president. Then a Secretary of Defense. Then another dead president, and an admiral... and now we've gotten to where names like "Constellation" and "Ranger" and "Saratoga" are out of style, while names like "Gerald R. Ford" are on the way in....Considering that this has been going on for nearly fifty years (Assuming the ship named for JFK was the first), isn't this now just a silly tradition in itself?

Yes- but it came into play after we opened the floodgates by breaking with the precedent that major warships should be named after warlike or inspiring things, or possibly after bona fide military heroes.

Now, don't get me wrong, we still DO name ships after those things... but it's kind of demeaning when our biggest and baddest warship is named after president Ford.

[Joun_Lord]

The idea that is bouncing around in my head would be to move the people away from being the centerpiece. Pulling a $1 out of my wallet, there's Lincoln on the front, and on the back... honestly it's a seal and a random meaningless pyramid. Having all those different state quarters didn't seem to confuse anyone.

Switch it around, make the front something iconic but impersonal, like the white house, and make the back a collection of important persons with a uniting theme. Science, a war, westward expansion, space, industry, civil rights. If it's multiple people then each person can effectively represent a group, allowing smaller groups to have a representative even if they are numerically insignificant or from different eras. If you wanted a space theme, you could have the first astronaut, first man on the moon (both white males) then first black astronaut, female astronaut, and so on.

I assume you mean Washington on the front or have I accidentally stumbled into an alternate reality where the only thing is different is Washington has the 5 and Lincoln has the one? Because if so that would really suck, I'd hope for the reality where Doctor Who was never lost or the reality where Firefly wasn't canceled or even the reality where EA never got the rights to the Star Wars video game IP.

Anyway, having terrible luck when it comes to alternate reality aside the difference with the quarters and the dollars is there is far less going on on the quarters and one side has stayed more or less the same even before the state quarters. Its just pretty much the same Washington (or perhaps Lincoln in this damn rip-off reality) thats been on quarters forever and one image on the back. Not a whole gaggle of people and places. Plus coin sizes are unique. You can tell the difference between a quarter and say a dime or nickel just on size alone. Bills do not come in different sizes.

I do like your idea. Put stuff icons of America on the front and something themed on the back. Doesn't have the conflict of the person on the front having nothing to do with the people on the back and can give some people maybe not well known a spotlight. I don't know how well that would go over with the public. People are set in their ways and are used to somebody on the front and some bullshit on the back. Changing it up would probably piss people off, both for confusing them and a perceived slight against the people currently gracing the bills. Not too many people care that Jackson is getting kicked off the 20, quite a few people might get pissed if Lincoln gets kicked off the 1 or Washington gets kicked off the 5.

[TimothyC]

You can't not know this, surely?

Listen, I know you've drunk the leftist flavor-aid for a long time, but re-read what I've said:

It removes a prominent Democrat and replaces him with someone who was an abolitionist, when that term was synonymous with being a Republican (so Republicans will claim her).

Let us break this down for those that are hard of comprehension.

1. It removes a prominent Democrat - Jackson is still a prominent Democrat in party circles LINK
2. Tubman was an Abolitionist, and at the time, A Democrat as an Abolitionist was very rare
3. Republicans would claim her - Witness numerous comments by Republicans hearkening back to "The Party of Lincoln."

Do you understand now, or does my point continue to go over your head?

[The Romulan Republic]

Listen, I know you've drunk the leftist flavor-aid for a long time, but re-read what I've said:

Translation: "I am motivated entirely by partisanship, and have categorized you as leftist and therefore preemptive decided to dismiss anything you have to say regardless of the merits of the argument."

Let us break this down for those that are hard of comprehension.

1. It removes a prominent Democrat - Jackson is still a prominent Democrat in party circles LINK
2. Tubman was an Abolitionist, and at the time, A Democrat as an Abolitionist was very rare
3. Republicans would claim her - Witness numerous comments by Republicans hearkening back to "The Party of Lincoln."

Do you understand now, or does my point continue to go over your head?

Well, aren't you a condescending little shit?

Might want to get off your high horse until you're done being blatantly dishonest.

That Jackson is a prominent Democrat and that Tubman was an abolitionist back in the day when the Republicans actually stood for something worthwhile is fucking irrelevant. Because whatever lip service they may occasionally pay to Lincoln, the Republican Party today is more the ideological successors and heirs of the Confederacy than of Lincoln. And even if some Republicans would like to wrap themselves in Lincoln's legacy, they need the votes of a base to whom replacing a white man with a black woman is dirty PC SJW reverse-racism.

As far as I can see, your argument is just more of the tired Right wing apologist bullshit of trying to pin the 19th./early 20th. Century Democratic Party's racism on the modern Democratic Party while clinging to Lincoln's legacy, even as they insult and undermine everything Lincoln ever stood for.

The modern Republican Party has no fucking right to Lincoln's legacy.

[LadyTevar]

Traditionally, figures on currency may not be presidents but they have to be major government officials

This is an extremely silly policy. In Australia we have people like Douglas Mawson (Antarctic explorer), Caroline Chisholm (humanitarian), John Flynn (founder of RFDS), and many others from a variety of fields.

I actually think this is one of the reasons they are changing up our money -- simply because so many other countries have switched their money to other historical figures, from all walks of life. Even Great Britain's changed out HRM's face a couple times iirc.

[Gandalf]

The modern Republican Party has no fucking right to Lincoln's legacy.

Pretty much. Though this has me wondering, does the modern GOP lean on Lincoln a lot, or has he been totally supplanted by God King Reagan in party iconography?

[Patroklos]

My objection to this is similar to what others have stated, basically that she is too low key. She is essential the face of a movement, but nothing she did was particularly distinguishable from hundreds (thousands?) of other people engaged in the exact same thing at the time and was not an over arching leader of anything. This especially true given what else was happening during that time period. Even within the civil rights movement you have far more important figures such as Fredrick Douglas or several radicals abolitionists in Congress. She was brave and deserves to be honored but sort of in the way any single guy landing on D-day is, and if there was one grunt from that beach that we lionized as the face of those various soldiers I would say the same thing about putting him on currency.

My more general criticism, however, is that I don't necessarily like the idea of people on money anyway. It seems very monarchist to me. Every petty king and despot stamped his/her face on money. Since we don't celebrate one man rule, I find the parallel inappropriate to perpetuate. Not the end of the world mind you but if I could change it I would.

So, in that vein I would put events, achievements or concepts linked to the country on our currency that celebrate the nation as a whole. And we in fact did do this before which in my opinion yielded the best currency we every had:

ELECTRICITY BRINGS LIGHT TO THE WORLD (my fav)

SCIENCE PRESENTING STEAM AND ELECTRICITY TO COMMERCE AND MANUFACTURE


HISTORY INSTRUCTING YOUTH


AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY


SUCCESS CROWNING COMMERCE AND LABOR


I could see us doing quite a bit of work like this for achievements like ushering in the atomic age, the space age, ushering in the information age, the age of flight, discover of genetics, and the like. Similarly I could see it for significant events or periods like the entire underground railroad (more appropriate to me than just Tubman) or Victory in in WWII or more specific battles (more appropriate to me than a singe GI on a bill), the abolishment of slavery, the trans continental railroad, victory in the cold war, etc.

It doesn't have to be in the neo classical style if that isn't your thing, but there is a LOT you can do artistically and with symbolism that is interesting.

As an example, there are a variety of 'traditional' names for US Navy aircraft carriers, which are based on noble abstract concepts, great battles fought in the past, and so on. Then at some point someone decided to name a nuclear carrier for a dead president. Then a Secretary of Defense. Then another dead president, and an admiral... and now we've gotten to where names like "Constellation" and "Ranger" and "Saratoga" are out of style, while names like "Gerald R. Ford" are on the way in.

So we dropped tradition (to commemorate a person who at that particular time we wanted to honor)... but without the precedent to govern what can and cannot be done, the choice of who to honor became a political football. To the extent that it is now being used to honor a literal political football player, one whose sole distinction was that his ass briefly occupied the Oval Office during the mid-70s after Nixon went down in flames.

...

Yes- but it came into play after we opened the floodgates by breaking with the precedent that major warships should be named after warlike or inspiring things, or possibly after bona fide military heroes.

Now, don't get me wrong, we still DO name ships after those things... but it's kind of demeaning when our biggest and baddest warship is named after president Ford.

Sorry Simon, but you are engaging in some serious myth making. First off, the naming of carriers after people, including presidents started with the Essex-class ships, well before nuclear carriers hit the scene. Given that is our first real massed produced carrier class and the most numerous they basically set the bar for naming conventions. There were only seven full service carriers before the Essex-class (with none of their names repeated until the Essex class) of which there were 24.

Essex-class were all built in the forties so within 13 years of the commissioning of the first real US carrier, USS Lexington. But even that is misleading because Wasp and all three Yorktown-class vessels were built after 1936 so were essentially contemporaries of the Essex ships. All of which again stresses there was no carrier naming tradition before the Essex-class. Inside that class were ships named after people including Benjamin Franklin, Randplph (PRESIDENT of the first Continental Congress), John Hancock and Bon Homme Richard (though referencing an earlier ship, the name itself in reference to Benjamin Franklin again).

The succeeding Midway-class (conventional) gives us our first carrier named after a US president, which was FDR. It was named that in 1945 just after his passing, a mere 18 years after the first real US carrier.

The succeeding Forestall-class had its namesake of course.

The succeeding Kitt-Hawk-class had the JFK.

Then we get to the Nimitz-class (the Enterprise-class being a one off) which we all know about.

So its pretty clear naming carriers after people has been with us from close to the beginning. But its also not really true that the "traditional" names have gone unused. From the ones you mentioned Constellation is not one in the first place. You obviously didn't know this, but Constellation was CV-64 of the Kitty-Hawk class so its relatively recent, and on top of that it is the only ship to have that name inside the last century so its hardly traditional. It was also only decommissioned in 2003, we have only launched 2 carriers since then. Forrestal-class carriers had units named both Ranger and Saratoga that served up to 1993 and 1994 respectively, with only 3 carriers being launched since then.

Other "traditional" names have been in use by carriers until recently like Independence (deommed in 1998) and Enterprise (2012), both having been reused since.

So if you really think about it, they have actually been reused quite a bit and there hasn't been much time or opportunity to name other carriers with those names because there have been very few launched since they have become vacant. Yorktown was used by CG until recently, so it was occupied. Wasp is the namesake for the lead ship of an entire class of large amphibious assault ships and is still in service. Enterprise was just assigned so its being used. Really the only names of the original pre Essex carriers that has not seen any love is Lexington and Hornet.

Its really important to look at when the names are available, and what ships are available, when its time to name things. People harp on FDR having a DDG named after him instead of a carrier, but if you look at the timeline you will see that CVN-71 had already been assigned the name Theodore Roosevelt when the FDR decommissioned in 1977. Whether you think FDR deserved another carrier or not, I don't think many would consider having two carriers named "Roosevelt" at the same time is a good idea. A CV and a DDG can be easily distinguished. Other than that you would have to wait 60 odd years until the TR is decommissioned to be able to honor FDR again. I am glad they gave him a DDG.

And I have to harp on you for your Ford hate. I get that he might not be the most accomplished of Presidents out there but he is actually remembered in Washington as a pretty effective guy, especially given what he was handed. But more importantly he is a Navy veteran and this is really important if you want to understand how most of our carriers are named today. They are mostly named after people who had a profound impact on the Navy, perceived as positive by the Navy. The Secretary of the Navy names its ships, so that shouldn't surprise anyone. So given that, its hardly a scandal that when we have Presidents with honorable naval service memorable to the generation currently deciding what ships are named that they make sure all of those are covered (JFK, Johnson, Ford, Carter, GHWB, all navy veterans). Nixon would have one too, but even self love regarding your service veterans has some bounds.

However, to bring all of this back, I don't like naming ships after people either, for the same reason I don't like putting their faces on currency. At least with ships there are legitimate rankings in importance between the classes, so our non-capital ship destroyers/frigates having the names of naval heroes doesn't so much bother me as there is a lack of hubris there as opposed to carriers. But even there we fuck it up by having the USS Gabby Giffords (tha fuck?) and mix of adjectives and cities for the LCS. Just my opinion.

[Gandalf]

Thing is, it's often very easy to present reasons for sticking with a traditional approach... but to do so generally invites "you're just being a stick-in-the-mud" from people who don't think whatever reason you just pointed out is going to be important.

As a schoolteacher I'm painfully familiar with this; the profession is plagued with fads and stupidity forced on us by wealthy donors and politicians who think that they can throw away the lessons of experience. This results in American educational policy being full of decisions and actions that are as grotesquely stupid as it was when the Soviets put Lysenko in charge of their genetics research in the '40s and made it illegal to question his (false and often fraudulent) claims about how evolution and genetics work.

There are clearly traditions that don't work, and obviously traditions that can be changed, and indeed there are plenty of traditions that urgently need changing. At the same time, it's very easy to decide that the need to change things overrides common sense, experience, or intangible qualities that are hard for the would-be reformer to measure.

So at least stopping for a minute to listen and think before casually changing something that has been in place for a long time... that's generally a good idea.

Isn't that just an argument for thinking through actions as opposed to saying "do what we did yesterday?"

[Simon_Jester]

Patroklos, I think I may be the victim of myth-making and not the creator of it. Bear in mind that while I am reasonably historically literate it is not THAT hard to fool me about things and to get me complaining about stupid shit. I mean, I used to be a fan of "the Air Force should just buy more planes like B-52s and A-10s." Then I graduated from college and grew a damn brain.

Anyway, I'm too tired right now to parse your argument but I'll trust your judgment enough to not quibble with you over anything.

Gandalf, strictly it is. But ultimately, "don't change traditions without a reason" and "think through your actions" tend to converge to pretty much identical policies. The reason we have precedents is to avoid having to revisit the same decision over and over without good cause for doing so. Do that enough times, and sooner or later you'll make a mistake.

The countervailing risk is that you'll keep making the same mistake over and over... but in that case you should be able to prove it IS a mistake.

[Elfdart]

I can't wait for Theodore Roosevelt, another genocidal fuckwit, to have his mug removed from the currency too.

[whackadoodle]

I could see us doing quite a bit of work like this for achievements like ushering in the atomic age, the space age, ushering in the information age, the age of flight, discover of genetics, and the like. Similarly I could see it for significant events or periods like the entire underground railroad (more appropriate to me than just Tubman) or Victory in in WWII or more specific battles (more appropriate to me than a singe GI on a bill), the abolishment of slavery, the trans continental railroad, victory in the cold war, etc.

Ushering in the atomic age:



the space age:



the information age:



the age of flight:



discover(sic) of genetics? If you mean heredity, Mendel was Austrian; if you mean DNA, only one of the guys was American (working in Yee Olde Englande to boot). I am having a hard time figuring out how to shit on this one, but here goes:

[whackadoodle]

I can't wait for Theodore Roosevelt, another genocidal fuckwit, to have his mug removed from the currency too.

Yeah, 'cause it triggers me seeing his face every time I pull a $1000 bill from my wallet.

And genocidal? What the fuck kind of bud are you smoking this morning? Hyerbolis Extremis Sativa?

[Elheru Aran]

Patroklos, something happened to your pictures, unless you meant for each one to be the same bondage-porn actress?

[Purple]

I see them just fine (Japan, Tank juice for some odd reason, 9/11). The problem is likely on your end.

[whackadoodle]

Patroklos, something happened to your pictures, unless you meant for each one to be the same bondage-porn actress?

The site he is linking to fucks with anyone trying to link to its hosted images. Bandwidth, ya know?
Though the image he's trying to link to isn't much better than rope-girl.
Behold:

A MILF playing grabass with a schoolboy!

[Purple]

Isn't that a tad archaic for a banknote? I mean... really archaic. It looks like something from the 19th century.

[whackadoodle]

Isn't that a tad archaic for a banknote? I mean... really archaic. It looks like something from the 19th century.

Maybe that's because it is.

[Patroklos]

Yeah, I reported my post to have the images removed, obviously the host of the pics doesn't appreciate the linking,

Purple, I happen to like no-classical art but the point was the concept of nonspecific artistic license with the abstraction of concepts, events and achievements that can incorporate all sorts of things to make everyone happy. It doesn't have to be in the ne-classical style. You don't even have to maintain the same art style between all the notes.

[Elheru Aran]

Neoclassical is popular for currency because it's clear, representative, and easy to adapt to the printing style they use for currency. They use it pretty much everywhere. That picture could have toned down on the superfluous greenery and the attempt at allusion, though.

I would have no issue with quietly changing the picture on our currency every decade or so to keep things fresh, which is pretty much what they're doing anyway except on a rather longer time-scale. A little more variety than just dead white men is called for, I suspect.

Frederick Douglass would be a nice candidate, perhaps... just the thing to rustle the right-wing's jimmies.

[Patroklos]

Also a Republican. Whether you think it reflects reality or not, Republicans happily claim him so it won't ruffle any feathers. It can't be a man though. Of any color. Choosing a black man is just a conspiracy to out fox the feminists by the misogynist Illuminati. If it had been MLK (a good pick in my opinion), they would have complained.