Slashdot Mirror
US Treasury To Feature Harriet Tubman On $20 Bill (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Harriet Tubman will become the first African-American woman to be featured on the face of U.S. paper currency in more than a century. Tubman was born a slave and went on to become an anti-slavery crusader. Ironically, she will be replacing Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the U.S. and a slave owner. According to Wikipedia, "Jackson held as many as 44 [slaves] by 1820, and later held up to 150 slaves, making him among planter elite. Throughout his lifetime Jackson may have owned as many as 300 slaves." The decision to feature a woman on a bill started in part from a young girl's letter to President Obama about the lack of women on U.S. currency. A social media campaign "Women on 20s" then began pushing for a woman to replace Jackson on the currency early last year. Originally, the department announced it would feature a woman on the $10 bill instead of Alexander Hamilton. Now it's being reported Hamilton will stay on the front of the bill with a group of women on the back of it. Civil rights era leaders will reportedly be depicted in the new $5 bill.
While this is a cool idea -- there are no women and no people of color featured on any US bills right now, and that doesn't accurately reflect the demographics of the country -- I can see it causing some confusion. On balance, it's probably a good decision, but this is a pretty major change.
Facts have a liberal bias.
So Harriet Tubman, a former slave, will be put on the front of the new $20 and Andrew Jackson, a slave owner, will be sent to the back of the bus...whoops.. to the back of the bill. Seems right to me!
Waiting for the Youtube videos of store clerks looking wide-eyed at these new bills and proclaiming they're not legitimate currency. It'll be like $2 bills and golden dollars all over again *grabs popcorn*.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
jes sayin
I'll never accept one. They are only worth 70% of what a bill with a man on is worth.
Yup, just another absurd move of political correctness. And one that will not be accepted by the public when they see how ugly the money is becoming.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
"Ironically, she will be replacing Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the U.S. and a slave owner."
They are replacing a picture of a man with a picture of a woman... that is no more ironic than the above sentence.
I know it's ancient tradition and all, but it seems to me like people are probably one of the worst things you can put on your currency. No matter who you choose, it's going to piss off at least a third of the population immediately, and there's a good chance that in fifteen to a hundred years you'll figure out that, by modern standards, the subject committed multiple atrocities.
A few years ago, if you had asked the average citizen to decide who was the least controversial person in American history, someone that would never ever be considered a villain, they might easily have suggested Bill Cosby. Him, or the Stay-Puft Marshmallow man.
After Harriet's had her day, I say we switch over to a big "20" on there instead of a portrait. Or maybe "XX" if people want something a little sexier.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Two people have obviously never heard of the Mafia.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The USA has become an ideological state at this point. Throughout human history, diversity has never worked,and in fact has appeared in empires shortly before their demise. This is because diversity is paradoxical: when two or more groups occupy the same space, there can be no cultural standard in common, which means that government must step in with increasing police actions, leading to tyranny. It is why Plato wrote that tyrants always import people from the colonies.
No, you will always be guilty. Remember, you will always have to atone, but you will still always be guilty.
Smoke a little less ganja, and study a little bit more of your nation's history. (Alexander Hamilton wasn't President either.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
One of the rules of money is that the person on the money must be dead (or fictional). So Obama is excluded, so long as he's alive.
Learn to love Alaska
The Republicans have exchanged ideologies with the Democrats since then, so while this replaced a Democrat in name, what it actually did was emplace a person with something more related to current Republican ideology with a person holding something more related to current Democrat ideology.
History is full of funny gotchas like that. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
(Plus, we're replacing a Democrat with a Republican, so there's that.)
Between then and now, the parties have switched with the Republicans going from the liberal party to the conservative party, so putting any weight in a party label doesn't make much sense.
Learn to love Alaska
I would have gone with 3/5.
I often wish we'd gone in the direction some of the Bahamanian currency did.
Oh well.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
An 1866 act of congress forbids a living person to be on currency. The reasoning behind this is that historically the monarch/emperor would have their face upon the currency of their country - we do not have monarchs. Even having someone on currency only because they were a president seems too close to that, where as having them because they are a founding father seems more appropriate.
You can. In the firehose.
Pinky-beige is also a colour.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Hi, I'm a white person from South Africa. I'm African American.
While Tubman is a good choice (I personally would have preferred Dr. King, but I know they were going for a woman); why wasn't this done via a popular vote?
Were they afraid the American public would vote for Boaty McBoatface?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Who really cares though? Does anyone have such a connection to Jackson or Hamilton to care about their ouster? As an aside, I've always found it somewhat ironic for Jackson to be featured on the $20 given his positions on the American central banking system that he removed while in office, which was only later reestablished as the Federal Reserve under Wilson. Jackson didn't appear on the $20 until after that time, perhaps as some kind of cruel jape, but I don't know.
Talking about demographics and limiting it to skin color seems to miss the point. America was a country founded on the ideas of freedom and liberty for all, even though it took quite a while to attain that in fact, and in some ways still isn't there. A strive for equality before the law seems to be an embodiment of American values and something that should constitute large majority demographically. Thinking that I (or anyone else) can't identify with someone like Tubman or the leaders of the civil rights movements because of sex or skin color seems rather misguided. You wouldn't tell a little black girl that she couldn't look up to Ben Franklin because he was an old white dude and doesn't reflect her demographics would you?
I wouldn't mind mixing a few other bills up as well. I'm of the opinion that we could boot Grant from the $50 for Teddy Roosevelt who in addition to being a general badass also exhibited many other traits or characteristics that I feel symbolize the idea of America and the values for which we as a country should strive.
Really the only reason to care is that a person is more concerned with the people doing this for the wrong reason (i.e. so that they can act like they're so great because diversity, etc.) instead of because Tubman and others (Dr. King obviously comes to mind) epitomize some of the ideals on which this country was founded and that make it great. Opposing a reasonable solution just because the people pushing for it are doing so for the wrong reasons doesn't make anyone a better person and smacks of being a moral crusade of its own.
Yeah, the hundred dollar bill is now worth 14$ compared to the value when the larger bills were discontinued. So we really now max out with 14$ bills. I am sure they dream of getting rid of cash entirely in the near future....
love is just extroverted narcissism
The US Treasurer would make even more sense, their signature is even on the bills. Or the director of the Federal Reserve. Maybe we should live up to our national motto and put God on our currency. Better yet, Muhammad. It'd be worth it just to see the middle east's reaction, with all the dollars they possess.
Our stamps have a wide variety of things on them, various scientists, inventors, and other influential people, dollars could have the same.
My vote is for the bill of rights to be on the currency. The $1 could have the 1st amendment, $5 the 2nd, $10 the 4th, $20 the 5th, $50 the 9th and $100 the 10th (since the rich elite seem to 'forget' those two the most). The $2 could have the 14th, an honorary member of the bill of rights.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Tubman was born a slave and went on to become an anti-slavery crusader
This is about the most boring summary of her life possible.
Try this:
Short version - She was America's Joan of Arc.
Long version - She was beaten nearly to death as a teenage slave, and heard voices the rest of her life, which she believed to be God. Often did what God (the voice) told her to. Listening to God she
Personally, I hope they use her Civil War woodcut portrait, which shows her holding a rifle.
Ok, how about:
Black? No, that's also racist and denigrating, since black is sometimes poetically associated with evil.
Negro? No, that's too close to that other word.
Afro-American? Definitely not. It's lazy, and assumes a particular hair style.
African American? Maybe, but aren't we then excluding Haitians and Jamaicans, among others?
Nubian? Ok, sounds cool, but WTF does that even mean?
Colored? NO! Hearkens back to the fifties with segregated drinking fountains and toilets.
People of Color? Don't ALL people have color?
OK, then how the fuck do we have a conversation in which someone is able to refer to or describe a person with dark skin, but is not of Indian descent and who doesn't just have an overly intense sun tan?
sig: sauer
If we are going to put rulers on the money, we are no better than those we fought to get away from, where the money is propaganda for the ruling class. We might as well have the Queen on our money. There were objections when presidents were used on the bills because it was too England-like to have the government head represented. We should have no presidents on the money. Ben Franklin is a good start. I want to see Edison and Tesla on bills, the fanboys for each would be interesting.
Learn to love Alaska
Parent is attempting to state carefully parsed statistical structures to counter widely available statistics that show that Blacks commit crimes at a rate greater than their proportion in the population. The goal is to refuse these statistics and to demonstrate that the criminal justice system is inherently biased and that this bias actually is the primary explanation for statistics which show Blacks committing crimes at a rate greater than their proportion of the population.
Personally, I'm willing to accept the idea that there is a greater level of criminality among Black populations but that it's a complex mix of sociological problems and economic distress that drives it, not race or racism. I think the criminal justice system is hard on anybody who isn't able to afford expensive legal representation.
yes I know Ben Franklin wasnt a president but come on, presidents on money is just logical.
Franklin was the 6th President of Pennsylvania.
Ingenious Americans
That word.. I do not think it means what you think it means.
An actual ruler (length scale) would indeed be useful.
I consider all people humans. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to have specific conversations about race, you can provide context, but outside of that everyone should just simply be human. People use these terms as full-on identities, instead of the context sensitive terms they are. We talk way too much about race and not enough about simply being better humans.
Good-bye
Yes, a state that is 37% black will reject a dollar bill with a black woman on it. Any other insightful and tolerant ideas Mr. Smug?
Why should it reflect "the demographics of the country"? It should be the top important historical figures, decided without considering gender or color.
They all owned slaves as well.
$1, quarter - George Washington
$2, nickel - Thomas Jefferson (though I'd probably give him a pass since he apparently loved one of them, and couldn't free them because of debt)
$50 - Ulysses S. Grant (he gets a pass for freeing them despite being in debt, and the whole kicked the South's butt in the Civil War thing)
$100 - Benjamin Franklin
Or can we skip the made-up rationale, and just say we felt it was about time to put a black / staunch abolitionist / whatever on our money, and we liked Andrew Jackson the least so he's voted off the island? That explanation would be sufficient for most of us. (Out of curiosity, I looked it up - Martha Washington was the first woman on U.S. paper currency - 1886 $1 silver certificate.)
Setting aside her race and gender, I like this choice for the fact that for once we're acknowledging the importance of someone who wasn't in a leadership position. We have this tendency to celebrate the person in charge and ignore the grunts, especially when it comes to presidents, and I'm glad to see someone else on a bill.
(Yes, Ben Franklin was never technically a president but only because he was too old. He might as well have been one.)
That's a cop out answer. So do I. But, answer the question. Say you and I are having a conversation about a common acquaintance named Jason Jones. And, suppose that we have two friends named Jason Jones, one of whom is what I would refer to as "black."
If you said, "Hey, I saw Jason at the theater", meaning the "black" Jason.
And, I said, "Oh yeah? Which Jason."
What would you say?
sig: sauer
You're going to have to explain why a white european thinks honoring Harriet Tubman is offensive to black Americans...
As for why replace Jackson- there was a push to get a woman on currency, so they'd have to replace somebody. Jackson isn't quite a founding father, and while he's made many great accomplishments for the nation, he comes with a lot baggage from owning slaves, personally killing several people, and arguably engaging in genocide against the native americans.
Does anyone have such a connection to Jackson or Hamilton to care about their ouster?
Amusingly, yes. The next bill due for a change was the $10 bill, but there's currently a Broadway musical about the life of Alexander Hamilton. The producer of that show wrote the treasury and asked them to postpone changing the $10 bill, and apparently they agreed to it.
The whole "people of color" thing has always seemed odd. Black is the absence of color where as white is the combined spectrum, and the presence of all colors. Logically speaking, white people are actually the "people of color."
I want the Sacajawea Dollar back. At least she didn't look constipated the way Susan B. Anthony did.
I'll take Tubman. It could have been MLK, you know.
Proposed change is divisive. And offensive to people of color. If you really want to put a woman of color, a historic personality, I would recommend to put Madam C.J.Walker. Rather than celebrating stubborn personas such as Rosa Parks, or a busybody Harriet Tubman, I would recommend putting C.J.Walker, who was black, former slave, however managed to be inspiration to others, create business and wealth. I guess it is too late, as it is already decided.
I don't understand why you think it is offensive to celebrate black people who fought for civil rights. Your idea of a black role model frankly sounds much more offensive, nothing against C.J. Walker who sounds inspirational, but to make her the centrepiece you're creating a distinction between "uppity blacks" and "good blacks". Not only does that imply that discrimination doesn't exist and black people just need to stop complaining and play by the rules, but you're actually applying that thinking to the 19th century when playing by the rules meant being subjected to legally encoded racism.
Oh, and Walker was born after the end of the civil war in 1867, I don't think she was a slave.
What is this with America's obsession with slavery. In large part of the Europe there was an equivalent of slavery - Serfdom. Serfdom is not romanticized in anyway and a lot of Europeans, pretty much have serfs in their genealogical tree, including myself. Serfdom and Slavery are identical in nature.
The US still talks about slavery in the context of racism because unlike serfdom the basis of slavery was racism.
I stole this Sig
have a look at europe's bills. No people on it. much better! (although I am a bit envious of the pound notes with james watt and charles darwin.)
In all likelihood that choice was made because the various EU countries couldn't agree on anything - so they hired Milton Bradley as an outside design consultant.
I kid, I kid...
#DeleteChrome
yes i know that thank you for the obvious. My point was MOST money has dead presidents on it, its easy to keep things simple without a lot of infighting to keep it that way
now some other group is going to complain that XYZ is not represented, this opens a whole can of worms and for what? what honest benefit is there to it? it costs money to retool (something we really dont have)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You can see a great image of her holding a pistol, and an actual pistol she owned (and probably shot several people with I imagine), here.
I personally think she is a great choice, she is kind of canonical American - a little bit wild, independent, and she made things happen rather than just letting a bad system break her.
I kind of like a motto for the second amendment of "Tubman knew what guns were for, you should too".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I would recommend to put Madam C.J.Walker.
I'd recommend JJ Walker - it'd be Dy-No-Mite!
#DeleteChrome
Since when do rules matter when it comes to the federal government? Obama could just make an executive order.
What would you say?
If ...
He doesn't already have a nickname, catchphrase, favorite hat, or other distinguishing element that we already
We don't know what either car they drives.
We don't know where either works.
We don't know who either's girlfriend is etc...
Then sure I'll eventually end up at 'black Jason' or 'white Jason'.
But honestly, It'll probably be "JJ" or "Honda Jason" or "Jason and Monica Jason" or "Passed-out-at-your-stag Jason"... "Jason from Highschool" or "not Jason from Highschool" or "not Jason and Monica Jason" or "Single Jason" or "Divorced Jason" or "Stupid Jason" or "Guitar Jason" or "Tatoo Jason" or "Manslut Jason" or "Wannabe rapper Jason" or "Bad Hair Jason" or "Cheap Suit Jason" or "Star Trek Jason"...
A Black man at 30 years old with no criminal convictions offends at a rate below that of a white man of 30 years of age with no criminal convictions.
I'm quite sure that is the case - because anyone with even a small tendency to crime has ALREADY been filtered out of your cherry-picked subset by the also-fact that quite a larger percentage of young black males will have a conviction than young white males. That may be because of profiling or poverty or whatever, but that is irrelevant in terms of your "fact" being bullshit and terribly misleading.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
My point was MOST money has dead presidents on it
Then you should have written that instead of specifically mentioning Benjamin.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
There is a world of difference between "conscription practices, naval military recruiting practices, and industrial labor practices" (all of which also inflicted on the descendants of slaves) and actual laws on the books based explicitly on race and ancestry.
Were the descendants of serf banned from voting? Were the descendants of serfs banned from buying property? Did the descendants of serfs have to use separate drinking fountains? Were the descendants of serfs lynched by hooded mobs? These were substantial discriminations still taking place one hundred years after slavery.
...In full vibrant color! That's a bill I'd like to spend.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
You forgot to mention the musical is wildly popular (sold out nearly a year in advance now) so it's not just New Yorkers raising a fuss about Hamilton - also it should be noted that complicating matters as far as racial politics go, is that Hamilton is all black actors only so in essence getting rid of Hamilton now is like tossing out a black man from the currency.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In less polite circles, we'd refer to what he's doing as "lying (through improperly compared statistics)", but there's race involved so shame on us.
Andrew Jackson was primarily an asshole, who coincidentally owned slaves.
why did they put Obama?
Why did they not put Obama? Probably because there's no way that Congress is going to pass a law saying that Obama doesn't need to be bound by the federal law which says that only dead individuals can appear on US currency.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
German money, pre-Euro, used to have Carl Gauss (and his curve), Paul Ehrlich and the Brothers Grimm among others.
And you will always be butthurt.
That's the point. The newspeak redefinitions are meant to make it difficult to describe concepts deemed politically incorrect.
Blame Canada, that's where she grew up and became popular. Possibly Germany as well depending on how you think early childhood shaped her music career.
No. Color is a descriptor that tags various attributes. I suppose your dr is racist and sexist for using those descriptors to customize your healthcare?
You're applying logic to 'social justice'? There's your problem.
Sounds like the left wing version of original sin, doesn't it?
There's never been a time when only presidents were on money. Before 1900 nearly all coins had "Lady Liberty". Lincoln was the first president to appear on money, in the early 1900s, and it was meant to be just a commemorative penny for his 100th birthday. Paper currency has had people such as Chief Onepapa, Daniel Webster, Lewis & Clark, a VP, a US treasurer, a Chief Justice, and others. Back when the $10,000 note was still in circulation, it also did not have a president on it. Right now Sacajawea is also on a gold coin.
It makes perfect sense that we honor people like Franklin or MLK on our money, they have contributed a lot to our history. Shit, Franklin was probably the best American we've had, he deserves to be on our largest bill.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Yes. They're spelled differently.
Democrats like to tell themselves that, to be sure, but progressives are not liberals.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
His last name? The funny one? The one whose feet smells? bad breath, scars, hairy/not hairy, bald, glasses, cowboy boots........
Good-bye
Why are you using rates in some places and raw numbers in other places?
I didn't. They are all rates. You are trying too hard to object.
There are actual sociological issues in mainstream black culture that lead to them committing more crime.
Nope. The facts say no. The facts say that when everyone (including the Blacks) believe that, then reality will reflect it, even when not true.
Learn to love Alaska
Jack Lew may not be able to sign his own name in a form that's recognizable, but he did make a good choice. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in a while.
Harriet Tubman is a perfect choice. She was a tough, God-fearing woman who was determined to do the right thing at any cost. We need more people like her.
I do believe if she were alive today, she'd kick Hillary Clinton's ass in any election.
Ben Franklin is on the $100, and he was never President.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I agree. We have been putting current and past nation leaders on money since money existed. Money is hardly even money without the face of a monarch or a president on it.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Abraham Lincoln seems to deserve to stay on a bill. I can see why they are all for removing Andrew Jackson, he was not exactly a pillar of fidelity, or a decent human being, even by the standards of the era he came from.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The reflexive anti-religion hate is strong with this one, so much so they apparently don't know the difference between the 'Pledge of Allegiance' (which contains "One Nation Under God") and the "The Star-Spangled Banner" (where 'In God We Trust" is believed to have originated from). Lets just ignore "In God We Trust" going back over 150 on different US coins.
Also time to pan elected officials from ending their oath of office with "so help me god?
So nope, probably not going to happen.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I consider all people humans.
I hope you aren't a college student, because you can get in trouble for saying that. Seriously... it's a "microaggression" enshrined in official policy at several colleges, more to come soon I'm sure.
Why is this a "microaggression? To quote the cited policy from above: "Statements that indicate that a White person does not want to or need to acknowledge race." (That doesn't really explain anything IMHO. I guess if you are a White person [capital letter in original] you are obliged to "acknowledge race"... whatever that means. TL;DR It just is a microaggression, shut up.) But if you are lucky enough to be a non-White person, I guess maybe you would be permitted to say that? Eh, probably better not to risk it.
Remember that Martin Luther King Jr. said he had a dream that people would be judged, not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character? This is considered "problematic" now.
Personally I agree with you. Even if statistically some things correlate with race, we should attempt to be color-blind in policy and in our interpersonal relations. However, I'm a white male, so my opinion is considered worse than wrong by the people who care about microaggressions.
I was raised on the slogan "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." The current crop of college students is being taught that nothing is more important than words and labels, and that rather than trying to be a good person or set a good example that they should be invoking authority to smack down people over minor offenses.
I see. So genocide is just a minor "scandal" or a "bad decision".
I thought this was America! Shouldn't we at least get to vote in a rigged election on it?
Obama stopped at nothing to erase any possible positive legacy. Heck, he managed to be worse than Dubya, and that's no small feat.
These two make the shenanigans of all prior candidates to the title of "worst president of the US" a kid's play. Giving a relatively small favour to an oil company? Wiretapping a single hotel rather than the entire country? Contemplating using IRS against an opponent rather than a widespread scheme of actually doing so?
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
How's that work for Hillary? Millions of people think she's broken hundreds of laws, and she's not in jail. Breaking the law and jail are not as tightly correlated as you assert.
Learn to love Alaska
Classical liberalism is more similar to libertarianism and conservatism than progressivism and socialism. So the word has changed too.
How can we claim to have a secular government when it promotes certain religions over others? They were wrong to do it then and they're wrong to continue doing it today.
I am an ethnic Chinese, from China
To me, racial background of a person is not important - what is important is the content inside - the personality
That is why, till this day I cannot understand the sheer hatreds towards the 'White Men' as espoused by the Democrats and the 'liberals'
Is a non-White Man automagically 'better' than a White man?
Am I, a Chinese, better than any White man out there, just because I am a Chinese?
Is a Black woman better than a White man, just because she is a Black, and she is a woman?
How can anyone judge a person solely based on the racial profile and the gender of that person?
What kind of crap is this? I don't understand!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Technically it should be 60% or 3/5
Silence is a state of mime.
Maybe not.
Have gnu, will travel.
Why don't we do what the EU does and not put individuals on money at all? Let's put natural wonders on US bills.
Seriously? We've gotten so SJW that we're applying disparate impact claims to money?
Jesus. You want to ditch AJ, that's fine, he's kind of a horrible asshole. But Harriet Tubman? "Yeah, okay, we gotta find a black woman to put on a bill, is there anyone worthy? Rosa Parks hasn't been dead long enough."
I opened the comments just to see the shit show that was the discussion for this. Believe you me, you did not disappoint.
Thank you for being predictable, and keep on being classy.
I never said anyone was progressive. And didn't say that democrats are liberal. So your correction isn't.
Learn to love Alaska
'People of Color ' is a racist term. It defines people SOLELY by their skin tone.
Duh.
Of course it's a racist term. We're using that racist term because we're discussing races in the USA in a situation where the race is defined by their skin tone.
now that was truly funny!
the various bills cost 5.5 to 10.9 cents each to produce, so I don't really think skin tone ink is a major cost factor.
How can Obama be real if the moon landings weren't real?
Ezekiel 23:20
We've had these people on currencies in the past, over a hundred years ago. I also think in the past that currencies changed more often but for a relatively long period the US seemed to be stuck with an attitude that money shouldn't be changed (waste of money, if it was good enough for granddad then it's good enough for me, don't change what ain't broke, etc). So we were stuck with the same boring people for a long time.
Now that it's changing I like it. Keep it changing regularly and people will stop freaking out when it happens and stop accusing it of being some sort of liberal plot to overthrow the government.
Nope. Race correlates better than income. Race (corrected for recidivism) correlates with prison time better than any other measure (such as income, education, and all the other standard connections).
Learn to love Alaska
In Hamilton's time that would be the government treasury. As in "We the People". Whereas for the past 100 years we have had the 1% of the 1%'s treasury. You can see why Hamilton had to go.
I come here for the love
In the distant past we've had other non presidens on currency. Such as Martha Washington on a silver certificate.
Everyone I know liked the Sacajawea dollar, yet the government claimed the coin was unpopular and citing Federal Reserve bank lack of orders for it. Idiots, of course the way to get U.S. onto that coin would be to not let the banks choose, they would be given coins and not $1 notes, period-end-of-story.
This looks suspiciously like a fallacious appeal to fallacy.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The Republican is the party of rights, unchanged. What has changed is public discourse as seen by popular media: whereas it was once considered to be your right to keep what you earned, it is now claimed to be your right to smoke pot at public expense.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
We used to change currency a lot. Other countries still do this. But for some strange reason we stagnated and kept the same old boring bills for decades longer than we should have. Kept them the same for so long that some people seem to think there's something wrong with changing them, possibly unpatriotic, maybe assuming the current designs were actually legislated sometime in the past. The idea of "dead presidents" meaning money is a modern idea and it only exists because people have forgotten when currency last had a substantial change.
Quite a few religions have "God" though. Even many pantheistic ones have a "head honcho"
More people not president than president have been on the US paper currency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Yeah, I used to be really down on Jackson, until I investigated his biography more deeply and gained an understanding of why he made the decisions he did. Basically, if he hadn't relocated the Cherokee, they would have been exterminated like other tribes along the east coast. It wasn't a great decision but it's hard to think of a better one.
But still Tubman is pretty great too, so she's fine on the $20.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A lot of baggage, or only the slavery one? Most the "founding fathers" had slaves, even Benjamin F who later was against it.
So he killed some people dueling, that's fair game.
Genocide? Certain parts of some tribes were moved, while others are still in their original lands to this day. Followed orders, that's for sure.
They both have the same last name (Jones). Read more carefully.
... you know, I could go on, but this is just ridiculous. He was born black -- he's been black all his life. Ethnicity is one of the FIRST things every NORMAL person notices (not cowboy boots or glasses, which may vary from day to day.) Seriously, referring to him as the black Jason is fine and natural -- there's nothing wrong with it and, to go out of your way to avoid it is fucking pedantic.
Funny is a subjective evaluation. Skin color is not.
Either one can have bad breath
sig: sauer
Because appearance is the FUNDAMENTAL point of personal knowledge. Before you know someone's name, personality, preferences or anything else about them, you know their appearance.
sig: sauer
The tribes of which he killed some and relocated some are still around. Genocide means you try to wipe them out; instead he gave them very strong incentive to move
The Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility.
No, if you want real racists you'll have to go look in a mirror - for you seems care far more about racial purity than any Tea Party member, you filthy bigot.
Of course while continuing to benefit from all of the advancements to society, technology, medicine, industry, etc, that white men have developed.
I'm pushing the narrative of the truth. That you don't like it is your narrative. The numbers are the public number published by LEO in the US. You can start with the FBI. Run the numbers yourself. You have said you wouldn't believe me anyway.
Learn to love Alaska
In the distant past we've had other non presidens on currency. Such as Martha Washington on a silver certificate.
Distant past? How about Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill? And Sacagewea on the dollar coin, preceded by Susan Anthony?
Wow. Just wow.
Speaking as a non-American I used to believe that "America is fucked therefore Americans are fucked."
Reading this thread however I'm now convinced that "Americans are fucked therefore America is fucked."
By "other presidents" I meant other than the couple already mentioned so far.
And by currency I meant paper currency and not coins.
You're cherry picking statistics.
Tell us what percentage of black males 30 years of age have no convictions at all. Do the same for white males.
Most of your effect anyway is probably due to the fact that if black males haven't been convicted of anything by age 30, they're not likely to be convicted of anything because all criminal behavior drops off substantially from around age 30 on. They're not criminally inclined and they are unlikely to become more criminally inclined.
I'd also like to see the distribution of crimes white males are convicted of. How many are violent felonies? And for your group of more highly convicted black offenders, how many are violent felonies?
Just looking at police stats for my city alone seems to reinforce the idea that blacks have a higher rate of criminality. Predominantly black precincts have higher rates of homicide and violent crime involving firearms than any other area of the city.
Exactly, more so... if simply mentioning of 'god' from some part of government is unconstitutional, surely then our very own Declaration of Independence and it's reference to "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and being people being "endowed by their Creator" would be unconstitutional as well... yet despite much litigation on this, that is not the case, just see Aronow v. United States for one such notable example.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
The currency needs a whole new design, period. More color, translucent holograms, clear windows,etc. American currency is ridiculously old fashioned and the Federalist design style is too stuffy. And any redesign should involve regular refreshes of featured items, whether it's people or natural wonders or engineering achievements.
Personally, I'm willing to accept the idea that there is a greater level of criminality among Black populations but that it's a complex mix of sociological problems and economic distress that drives it, not race or racism. I think the criminal justice system is hard on anybody who isn't able to afford expensive legal representation.
That, plus systemic bias in the law enforcement and criminal justice systems, and the fact that said systemic and institutional bias has been in place for a century (and was really, really bad during the early 20th century. Hell, in many ways it was actually worse than outright slavery -- read "Slavery by another name") has led predictably and almost inevitably to a culture that distrusts and disdains the system. The only thing that should surprise anyone about the emergence of "thug culture" is that it took so long. And of course, the systemic bias and thug culture form a vicious, mutually-reinforcing cycle.
None of these factors alone is enough to fully explain the situation, but taken all together we should be surprised that it's not dramatically worse. Arguably, it's a testament to human resilience and the positive aspects of black culture that it isn't worse.
Odd, given that it was white men who ended slavery, forcefully, across the world. Odd also given that white men and women were victims of slavery by the millions, at the hands of slave masters of all races.
Unless they are goddamn Doublemint twins, there will be a differentiator besides race.
Good-bye
I agree, and I'm a pale blue-eyed dude.
Besides, I find it hilarious that ideological leftists would lobby so hard to replace a dead Democrat president with a Republican who happened to have a strong love for the Second Amendment... Me, I'm good with that.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
"Thanks to the pay gap, the twenty will now be wrorth $17." - Steven Colbert
Boot Grant and put Sherman on it.
Play Command HQ online
You got a few hundred years of torture to pay for, so probably not.
'Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."'
-- Abraham Lincoln
Play Command HQ online
What about those of us who support small government, but also aren't religious?
Such folk are dancing with the devil.
Play Command HQ online
Death marched, you mean.
Play Command HQ online
And one that will not be accepted by the public when they see how ugly the money is becoming.
Yup, I saw a picture of Harriet Tubman today, and I think both Susan B. Anthony or Frederick Douglas were prettier. I'm not saying that Andrew Jackson was any great looker either, but this seems to be a step in the wrong direction in terms of pure cosmetics - unless they have Halle Berry or somebody model for Harriet. Even Oprah.
The declaration of independence was unconstitutional.
Play Command HQ online
What's wrong with Tubman?
Play Command HQ online
We should swap the portrait for early Barbara.
Play Command HQ online
If we are going to put rulers on the money, we are no better than those we fought to get away from
Sorry, can't agree with that statement. We can be better than those we fought to get away from, even with recognizing those who put forth great effort to do so, and remain so.
Most of your effect anyway is probably due to the fact that if black males haven't been convicted of anything by age 30, they're not likely to be convicted of anything because all criminal behavior drops off substantially from around age 30 on. They're not criminally inclined and they are unlikely to become more criminally inclined.
So why would that not apply to white people? The only reason I cherry-pick 30+ is that the statistics for younger are less reliable. Juvenile records are sealed, so someone who is a repeat offender may not be identified as such at 18. And the types of crimes at under 30 are more likely to go unreported (more petty crimes, like shoplifting), so the reporting of crimes for all is less reliable. Crimes at 30+ are more likely "large". Thus they are more likely prosecuted and better tracked, as far as collecting statistics.
Just looking at police stats for my city alone seems to reinforce the idea that blacks have a higher rate of criminality. Predominantly black precincts have higher rates of homicide and violent crime involving firearms than any other area of the city.
When they are more likely to have gone to prison as an under-25, and prison does more to train new criminals than rehabilitate (see the making of a murderer, where an innocent man spent time in prison, and came out a murderer, as one of many examples), the system trains criminals, and targets Blacks.
The statistics show that places like Holland send almost nobody to prison, and have falling crime.
In the US we wrongly assign causality to prison. Crime doesn't cause prison sentences, but prison sentences cause crime. Places that reduce prison sentences see corresponding drops in crime.
Learn to love Alaska
Right, so it's promoting those above the rest.
Not the best example. Egyptians are clearly from Africa, and if they migrate to the USA they are African Americans.
They're not Black, though.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Sure. One of them could be a paraplegic. Then, we could call him "wheelchair Jason." The point is, what the hell is so wrong with using race as a differentiator? By positing that there is something wrong, you are inferring that one race might be favorable over another -- actual racism.
Going back to my original, hypothetic situation, what if you instead saw "white" Jason at the theater? I say, "Which Jason?" Is it so wrong to reply, "White Jason"? Would this cause us all to pucker and wince the same way? Why? Is this less racist or derogatory?
The answer is, NO. It's not less racist -- it acknowledges race. And that's fine. We live on a planet with many difference, beautiful races and it's okay to see this, and recognize this, acknowledge this in our speech, and identify this in our society.
sig: sauer
lol if you did that, the south would secede again.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I've been saying this ever since I first heard of the occupy movement. Why the fuck are we demonizing anybody who makes a lot of money? That reminds me of black neighborhoods that demonize success as "acting white". It's stupid and oversimplifies the shit out of the situation.
Besides, half of the so called 1% label themselves as liberal progressives.
By the way, using a label like "1%" or in the derogatory "a 1%er" is so fucking arbitrary it's beyond stupid. 1% of what? Recent circumstances have dramatically increased my income to ~80k USD per year, which according to globalrichlist.com puts me in the top 0.1% of income earners. Oh but wait, we're talking just the 1% of US income earners? Then why the fuck have I seen Europeans and Asians mention the 1%? And why is it the top 1% and not the top 2%?
It really truly is as arbitrary as labeling somebody based on the color of their skin.
The occupy movement are really just a bunch of bigots by another name, only because they supposedly represent the "underdogs" somehow, and for really no logical reason at all, it justifies everything they do.
In general I agree with this, but (especially in most parts of the US), the majority of people are white, so if you're identifying someone by their race, it's going to be much more likely that you will use the non-white person's skin color as the identifier. Objectively speaking, there's nothing wrong with that. But this doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Calling someone "wheelchair Jason" (which Jason will probably hear over and over and over) can make people (i.e., Jason) think that that's the one characteristic that defines him - people only see him as having a wheelchair, or being black. Sure, those things aren't bad, but white people, and/or able-bodied people get defined by other things, like "funny Jason," or "rich Jason," or "Jason who is allergic to strawberries." It's a minor difference, sure, but words have a huge impact on individual self-worth.
IIRC the bills have had the same people basically as long as almost everyone around has been alive. So it's not surprising that it's a bit shocking. They used to change more often I think. Now we change the designs but keep the people.
As for why Tubman was chosen it's purely because of a demand for diversity, so anyone that isn't black and female wouldn't be acceptable. Not a lot of black females to choose from.
Actually liberals (and everyone else) should hate wealthy, powerful people. That is the narrowest description for the group of people who have wreaked the most havoc, been the most cruel to the most people, etcetera. However, for some reason (I suspect because the winners write history) that has been deflected upon the much larger group called "white men." This is incredibly convenient for the wealthy because now everyone's hate is directed at a huge group of people who, mostly, had nothing to do with, and did not really profit from the sins of the wealthy. Were/are a lot of white men racist? Yes. Did a lot of white men actually own slaves? No. But those slave owners were able, through their power, to control the conversation and convince a lot of white people that Africans were subhuman, and thus it was OK for the wealthy to enslave Africans rather than pay those non-wealthy white people to work on the plantations.
Is racism bad? Yes. Do I think racists are assholes? Most vehemently! But i still understand that their racism is the result of a massive, multi-generational propaganda campaign instituted by the wealthy slave owners to rationalize their crimes against humanity: Not just against the slaves, but also against the poor white people who the wealthy put out of work and replaced with slaves.
Similar interpretations can be applied across the board. All these situations boil down to nothing but a massive campaign to both divide and conquer, and to serve as a distraction to keep us all from coming after the wealthy with pitchforks in our hands.
Odd, given that it was white men who ended slavery, forcefully, across the world. Odd also given that white men and women were victims of slavery by the millions, at the hands of slave masters of all races.
Totally. If I punch you in the face constantly for an hour, when I stop I am a hero and you should definitely thank me.
I'm calling it, the next guy on the $50 bill will be Trump.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I know your name, a little of your personality and preference, but not your appearance. I know quite a few people I've only ever communicated with over email or the phone.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
While I appreciate your good intentions, the problem with ignoring things like race is that it ignores the very real differences and challenges that different groups have. It reminds me of those bogus intelligence test results that claimed black people were just genetically dumber, without accounting for the fact that the tests were biased towards western white culture.
We can acknowledge race and gender and sexual orientation without discriminating against them.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
To me, racial background of a person is not important - what is important is the content inside - the personality
That is why, till this day I cannot understand the sheer hatreds towards the 'White Men' as espoused by the Democrats and the 'liberals'
It is a noble sentiment, and it would be a better world if everybody shared it. However, I think you misrepresent the situation to some extent; these initiatives are not born of hate to white people, but are attempts at rebalancing a society that is still institutionally stacked against certain groups of people. In this case, the lady in question has a background that represents the struggle against racism and slavery in America in a particularly poignant way, and I think it is a very sympathetic gesture with great symbolic value to put her on a bank note. I think many people will look at it and feel a little bit better in some way.
What kind of crap is this? I don't understand!
No, it is hard to understand, I suppose; especially if you are young and haven't grown up in Europe or America. In my lifetime I have seen the race race riots in the US on television, the anti-war movement in the 60es and the ground-in suspicion against the Germans, the USSR and China. And I have seen these things and many others change for the better in most cases. I can recall how we all were casually racist - we would laugh at jokes about black people, people would talk about the scandal of somebody marrying a black person and so on; our ignorance perhaps made this innocent in a sense, but the thing is, what is done, is done, and looking back, I wish it hadn't been like that. The injustices we took part in sholdn't have been, and the problem with systematic injustice like this is that it sticks around for generations; when a group of people is pushed out to the poorest end of society, they don't get education, and even if society changes and don't keep them out because of skin colour, they now keep them out because they don't have the right education, and so it keeps rolling on. That's why the job still is not done - we may be getting in the right direction, and I think we are, but there is some way to go, and it is right that we keep going.
If you punch me in the face for an hour, should your grandchildren apologize to my grandchildren for you being an idiot?
The $2 Bill hasn't gone anywhere. Go to your Bank and request some brand new ones if you don't believe me. I spend them all the time.
No, the person who comes along and stops you from punching GP in the face for an hour is a hero and should definitely be thanked, regardless of whether that person is white, black, Jewish, or Wookiee.
So in US political lingo, what do you call European socialism that wants both freedom and progressive ideas?
Before you say you can't have both, keep in mind that the European idea of freedom is somewhat different to the US one.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
There is no such hatred, you've made it up. The answer is as simple as that.
but this is a pretty major change.
Who does it affect really? In my country we have two faces on each bill (one each side) and I couldn't name one of them. It makes no difference to anything I do, so couldn't care one bit whose face was on there.
There is no such hatred. You and others have made it up entirely. It's a US-only phenomenon, part of a delusion that was fostered by conservative US citizens when they realized that they cannot portray their country as the land of the good and free in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (Abu Ghraib, Iraq War, kidnapping, drone strikes, torture, etc.). It's a normal defensive reaction to find some cause and enemy in 'the others', no big deal and no need to bother as long as you keep your irrational feelings about 'liberals' halfway in check and remain reasonable.
Liberals don't hate white people. They just acknowledge that there has been a long standing bias towards white people, and that while it's a lot better today it's still far more perfect. Simply acknowledging that does not imply hatred of white people.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
There is no such hatred. You and others have made it up entirely. It's a US-only phenomenon, part of a delusion that was fostered by conservative US citizens when they realized that they cannot portray their country as the land of the good and free in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (Abu Ghraib, Iraq War, kidnapping, drone strikes, torture, etc.). It's a normal defensive reaction to find some cause and enemy in 'the others', no big deal and no need to bother as long as you keep your irrational feelings about 'liberals' halfway in check and remain reasonable.
I know that's not what you'd like to hear, but it's the truth.
All crime rates decline precipitously from age 30 onward and people under 30 are *vastly* more likely to commit violent crimes. The homicide rate for a 24 year old is nearly 5 times the homicide rate for a 35 year old according to the Justice Department.
I can't explain what crimes white non-offenders 30 years old might be committing but my suspicion is that isn't violent crime simply because the overall curve for violent crime falls off starting at 30 and dramatically after 30.
In the US we wrongly assign causality to prison. Crime doesn't cause prison sentences, but prison sentences cause crime. Places that reduce prison sentences see corresponding drops in crime.
I mostly agree that we imprison too many people for nonviolent offenses like drugs (my stand: legalize them all), but the there's a circular quality to your reasoning that would seem to imply that the majority of violent offenders were originally imprisoned for petty non-violent first time offenses and that they came out violent recidivists.
The counterfactual stance is that many first time offenders were convicted of violent crimes to begin with; that they are violent recidivists after they get out may also be true, but if their original crime was a crime of violence, it's hard to reason why they shouldn't have been imprisoned in the first place.
I think you also have an implication that they were imprisoned originally for wholly unjust reasons (falsified evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, or other rights violations). I'm willing to accept this might explain some of the higher level of crime, but not enough of it to explain the trend as a whole.
I'm also not sure how "not imprisoning people at all" is a legitimate strategy for fixing the obvious problems in Black communities. Eliminating convictions for drug offenses may be a start, but just last weekend where I live there were two people killed in a confrontation in a park (victims and perpetrators both black) and within 2 days there was a surge of reprisal shootings and at least one murder linked to the original event. Something is broken in Black communities and not putting violent offenders in prison isn't going to fix it.
NPR reporting http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/474983292/treasury-decides-to-put-harriet-tubman-on-20-bill that a portrait of Andrew Jackson will still be present on the back of the Tubman twenty.
What. The. Fuck. The US Treasury is offering an olive branch to the fans of a proud slave-holding author of genocide (Trail of Tears)? Jesus wept.
Current rankings by historians put him middle of the pack. But IMO, it's way too early to pass final judgment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just another day in Paradise
Hi, I'm a white person from South Africa. I'm African American.
Reminds me of my Egyptian coworker who applied for and won a scholarship for African Americans. They weren't happy when they discovered this, but couldn't do anything to overturn it.
Just another day in Paradise
I suspect that many of these $20 notes will get defaced quickly which would bring them out of circulation faster than normal.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
And here we have a Prime example of that irrational hatred of all things expressed by the left. They are unable to recognize that the acts of a few are not the acts of all (thus the citation of Abu Ghraib, the actions of a very small group of junior enlisted personnel) and basically a hatred of anything the US does, regardless of whether it removes a brutal dictator from power, allows for specific targeting of very precise locations rather than just carpeting a square kilometer with high explosive bombs to kill one bad guy (and everything else in that km2).
There is such hatred. And any attempt to disagree with them is instantly labeled as hatred based on racism, sexism or some other ism. Rather than simply a disagreement of opinions.
If you punch me in the face for an hour, should your grandchildren apologize to my grandchildren for you being an idiot?
If you never did? And got away with it? Most certainly yes, your family should apologize.
...unless they really enjoy having a feud. I guess I don't know you. Perhaps you are from Tug Fork, West Virginia, and that's how people roll there. I'm not gonna judge.
Andrew Jackson's primary claims to fame, and a large reason he was electable to government, was the Battle of New Orleans in the War of 1812, which made him a war hero, and the Seminole War. A war in which he basically, as leftists would say, raped and pillaged the native American population.
The removal of Jackson only leaves two war heroes on Federal Reserve Bank Notes that you might see. George Washington on the $1 and Ulysses Grant on the $50.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
What about Nubians?
Time to offend someone
Well, actually, it'll still be three.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
People don't demonize Warren Buffet or Elon Musk, and they made lots of money. They have demonized Lloyd Blankfein, and Kenneth Lay, and Dennis Kozlowski, and (yes) Mitt Romney. There is a difference in terms of how they made their money and how they have (or not) abused the system. There are a large number of people making obscene amounts of money by fraud, rigging the system, lobbying congress, and screwing things up for the rest of the planet. "The Big Short" is a good example.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
Please provide a better reason to dissuade me than than. I would support William Tecumseh Sherman over Grant on some currency.
Time to offend someone
How quaint. I can't remember the last time I had a $20 in my wallet. Besides, my credit card has a nice picture of me on it!
Melanin enhanced?
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
That's a good idea: You can only be on a bill for 20 years, then they have to put someone else on it. It's not like there are not enough people to put on bills.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
Why would it be hilarious?
Jackson in no way represented an ideological leftist.
But Harriet Tubman certainly was, as an early pioneer for both civil rights and women's equality.
Or did you miss that whole part where between the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement majorities the ideologies of the parties shifted and essentially traded places? (really the purifying of the parties as the opposing wings left for the opposite party) The parties used to be amalgamations of many conflicting viewpoints based more on region and history, than on party label.
Why do people always ignore the great sorting that occurred as the factions began leaving for like minded fellow, and the parties became more cohesive monolithic platforms that we have today, in order to make vacuous points based on outdated labels?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Yea, he's not my favorite but, the vitriol that he gets from the Republicans is just stupid. Overall, he's done a decent job given the pile of crap he had to start with.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
still does jackass.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So when a black man kills someone, you go around looking for some black man to lynch; anybody will do as long as he has the same skin color? Thanks for clearing up what a despicable racist you are.
The fact is that slavery in the US was an institution created by the British empire and maintained by a minority of Southerners. At the time, the majority of Americans was opposed to it, and many Americans lost their lives fighting against it. And the majority of Americans today are descendants of people who arrived after slavery was abolished, often fleeing economic servitude and oppression themselves, starting from nothing in the US, and facing massive discrimination themselves. To lump all these people together based on nothing more than skin color makes you no different from a typical white supremacist.
My grandfather didn't "punch anybody in the face". He wasn't even in the US. Being neither British nor American by birth, I am totally unrelated to American slave owners. Yet because my skin is light and the skin of British colonial slave owners is white, you lump us together. That makes you a stinking racist.
And the real irony behind your "inheritable sociopathy" argument is that the population with the largest percentage of slave owner ancestry in their genes in the US is actually African Americans, because African American slaves were frequently raped by their owners, and genetics doesn't depend on whether the sex was consensual or not.
I can't understand why not going with a white man 100% of the time is considered hatred of white men.
No, you don't know my name. You don't know my personality or preference. You know a little of my Slashdot online persona. You don't even know my gender.
But, this is all irrelevant. In the hypothetical scenario I outlined above, my friends of differing ethnicity are personal, hand-shakable acquaintances. Certainly, for text-only, online discourse, race is not going to be a differentiator.
But, AmiMoJo, you bring up a very interesting point: What if this had all happened in a virtual world, with avatars? What if the two Jasons were identical in every other way, except for the color they had chosen for their avatars? Would it be so wrong to call one of them "red Jason", and the other "green Jason"?
sig: sauer
Sherman and Grant both won battles, but Grant had much more difficult fights to win. Vicksburg was tough.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The slavery is one aspect, yes. You can call the duel fair game, but his actions during that duel put a stain on his honor, at the time. He also killed many native americans. As a General, he ordered his troops to attack the villages of women and children, rather than engage the fighters. He was the one giving the orders. When he was president, he pushed his own legislation of the indian removal act, got it through congress and signed it. He was the driving force behind the trail of tears, which is considered by many as one of the darkest episodes in American history. I realize the perils of judging historical figures, and comparing what is acceptable today, versus the realities they dealt with. I'm just pointing out that a lot of the other faces who grace currency are less controversial, which is why he is the obvious choice to remove. Hell, he hated the idea of centralized banks, and probably wouldn't want to be the face on something which he opposed.
It's also the most easily recognized and readily accepted currency around the world. Start changing it's appearance drastically and or frequently and that quality will diminish as small businesses around the world won't be as willing to take a currency they don't readily recognize due to its' uniform and long standing look and feel.
It works everywhere because it doesn't change dramatically in look and feel and is universally recognized.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Odd, given that it was white men who ended slavery, forcefully, across the world.
Sure, but Andrew Jackson was not one of the people working to end slavery. He was working to extend and deepen it. He also deprived thousands of Native American citizens of their rights (and for many, their lives) in defiance of Supreme Court rulings. No president did more to undermine justice and the rule of law. He belongs on the $20 bill as much as Mussolini belongs on the 20 euro bill (I was going to compare him to Hitler, but I didn't want to Godwin the discussion).
/. used to be a tech site - I get too much news already - just too many of these stories - political clickbate that at this point is just more noise to deal with.
Slashdot has always had political stories. It was, afterall Rob Malda's blog before such things were called blogs, and politics was of interest to him. You might not like it, but simply rewriting history to match your wishes is not helpful.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"This ain't about race. If I'm on the bottom and you're on the bottom, we are the same color; dirt fuckin' poor.
Benjamin Franklin was also not a President, and he's on the $100 bill.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I wasn't disagreeing with you about mentioning someone's race. It's fine in some situations, it really depends on the context.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Alexander Hamilton is on the $10 and the closest he got to being President was Treasury Secretary, and a senior aide to George Washington.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
So? I wasn't commenting on Jackson, I was commenting on irving47's racist rant.
Well, Europeans did the smart thing for once and didn't put any people on euro bills. And the US should do the same.
(And if we are going to put people on money, it should be American scientists and engineers, not activists and politicians, no matter how worthy their cause.)
i'd prefer hamilton stay than jackson. jackson always seemed like kind of a dick. and hamilton like someone who could have gone on to do some even better things if not for getting shot.
... you're describing the light that reflects off them, and not their intrinsic pigmentation.
the pigment of my pen is blue, so blue light predominantly reflects off it and it absorbs most of the rest of the spectrum. it's how humanity has chosen to classify you know, color.
i think we stopped changing the portraits and designs because they were good enough... and changing them costs money, and there's no real reason to. what advantage does changing the portrait have over not changing the portrait? are we really that excited about who is on the money? fucks with counterfeiters sure, but also causes some confusion during the transition.
nope, no one required to worship or attend meetings of any God or gods....it's just words
The declaration of independence isn't a law nor constitutiion; it was written act of rebellion of colonies against the English throne
An interesting argument, but I think it's accepted more for its inherent value than for its stable appearance.
I don't doubt that a stable appearance contributes some intangible value, but bills like the $100 have changed significantly in the past 10-20 years without much impact on their value outside the US.
I'd also guess that a lot of the US currency outside of major western population centers (ie, traded on black markets or used in shadow economies) are old bills and any new money designs would take a decade to get into wide foreign circulation.
Plus a currency that doesn't change periodically becomes much easier for counterfeiters to duplicate, especially overseas where counterfeit detection is lower tech. Anti-counterfeiting designs using polymers or other hard to duplicate mediums besides rag paper would greatly inhibit counterfeiting.
So why not refer to their actions specifically, instead of opting to create an Emmanuel Goldstein?
Did you know it's possible to reply to a post without intent to contradict it? It's true! One weird trick to understanding the internet.
We don't have a (classic) liberal political party right now. It's the core problem in US politics IMO.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
so in US political lingo, what do you call European socialism that wants both freedom and progressive ideas?
A contradiction in terms? A self-contradictory ideal? Looks good on paper?
Before you say you can't have both
Too late.
keep in mind that the European idea of freedom is somewhat different to the US one.
Progressivism is big on re-defining words and insisting that means they win the argument.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The fact that you don't even have the worlds to describe this philosophy explains a lot about why American politics are so narrowly defined. It's basically a form of Newspeak that prevents you from considering alternatives.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The treasury should just get it ovwith and place Mickey Mouse on each and every bill. Just sayin' Sidney
'Right to keep what you earned'--more accurately translated as 'right to live in a society I don't want to pay for'.
There are certainly anarchists who call themselves libertarians. Fuck those guys. Rational libertarians don't object to the state providing infrastructure, policing, and contract/fraud enforcement. That's about 10% of the budget, however, so if you think that's what arguments about government spending are about, you're just wrong.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
The words are easy: freedom is the first priority. The founding principles of our nation, including the divisive ones, were well argued in the Federalist Papers, but the philosophy is mostly Locke's ("life, liberty, and property" became "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" when we told George to fuck off, but given it was a tax protest, we really meant "property"). Certainly Hobbes' notion, that we should blindly accept government power because anarchy is worse, is firmly rejected.
When you start talking about how the people will serve the government, instead of vice versa, you're not talking about freedom. When you start talking about how it's OK for the people to be afraid of the government because of X, rather the it's OK for the government to fear the people, you're not talking about freedom. When you start talking about "the collective good", you're not talking about freedom.
There are many worthy goals for a government, but freedom is the first priority, simple as that.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why do you think European ideas of freedom involve serving the government or fearing it?
We actually took the pursuit of happiness bit to heart. That's the main difference.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They were afraid they would vote for Donald Trump...
It's very easy to use the most visible difference. "Wheelchair Jason" might also be "Smart-ass Jason", but the chair is more visible. Likewise for "Black Jason", unless he's in a wheelchair, in which case the latter is what might get focused on.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Sacajawea looked horribly cross-eyed, however.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Then why do we change stamps? That costs money too, and yet the USPS is the only self sufficient department of government. It only causes confusion because in America we take so long to change the currency, meanwhile other countries get redesigns on a regular basis (ie, if the monarch dies). If we're already going about changing the currency for anti counterfeiting measures then updating the picture is no big deal; and changing the picture actually helps as it reminds the viewer that this is the new bill and to be sure to check for the security features. And we update things all the times, even if it doesn't look like it; we remake the engraving plates quite often because they wear out and this done with highly skilled labor (we don't 3d print them or use a Xerox), putting on a new picture adds very little to the total time to do this.
If there's no reason to change the picture then that would imply there was never a reason at all to put a picture on in the first place (especially pictures of controversial figures). Why bother changing the flag if we get a new state for that matter, or even having anything complex on it instead of being a solid color (I think fuchsia would be good, it would send a message that we're so crazy that you shouldn't mess with us)?
Hey, I tend to vote Rep., and while I'm not all that happy with what he's done, I don't disagree that we were in the dump at the start. But, I think we could argue about how long it took to turn around the economy, or about transparency, or about foreign policy. And, all that said, I'd still put him somewhere in the middle of the pack, but nowhere near the bottom of that list. I think presidents get judged by the people they surround themselves with, because those are the folks advising him, and actually directing most things.
Just another day in Paradise
Democrats like to tell themselves that,
Sounds a lot like a direct contradiction, with a mix of personal insult in there.
We don't have a (classic) liberal political party right now. It's the core problem in US politics IMO.
The Libertarian Party claims that mantle, but is far from it.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm also not sure how "not imprisoning people at all" is a legitimate strategy for fixing the obvious problems in Black communities. Eliminating convictions for drug offenses may be a start, but just last weekend where I live there were two people killed in a confrontation in a park (victims and perpetrators both black) and within 2 days there was a surge of reprisal shootings and at least one murder linked to the original event. Something is broken in Black communities and not putting violent offenders in prison isn't going to fix it.
Sounds like the argument about guns. Places without them generally don't need them. Places with them, more people want them. It's hard to go from one to the other (many people think it impossible), but being on the other side is obviously better. That you don't see a path, doesn't mean it can't be true.
There have been lots of studies into children. What you tell them becomes true. Call them stupid, and their IQ drops. Call them smart and their IQ goes up.
Call them lazy violent Nigger, and they become one? Seems to be in line with the large body of published research. So is that "thug" culture or American culture that's doing that? People think of Black people as being on welfare, but still the majority of people on welfare are white. The culture is to blame Blacks for things they didn't even do. Repeat 20 years, and you made a criminal. Congratulations, you made the evil you predicted. Then you blamed them for making themselves into what you made.
Learn to love Alaska
Sounds a lot like a direct contradiction, with a mix of personal insult in there.
You stated that the Republicans have moved from liberal to conservative. I added that the Democrats aren't liberal either, as much as they would like to believe so by calling the GOP "conservative". That the one does not imply the other was sort of my point. But the (mild) personal insult was, of course, intended, regardless of my point.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why do you think European ideas of freedom involve serving the government or fearing it?
I don't, I think people are OK with the loss of freedom entailed by those things because it's not their first priority.
We actually took the pursuit of happiness bit to heart. That's the main difference.
Yes, that.
Let me put it differently, and see if you agree. The classical American ideal is that freedom comes first, because every man's idea of happiness may be different, and who's to judge? The European ideal (and increasingly America as well) is that happiness is obviously X, Y, and Z, and that freedom shouldn't get in the way of that.
Personally I believe that every adult has the fundamental moral right to walk his own path to happiness, even if I disagree with his definition of happiness, or if I disagree that the chosen path leads to happiness by his definition. (Recognizing this right, BTW, is the current Dalai Lama's definition of "compassion" - far better put then my own attempts.) It's not my place to arrogantly insist that others do things the way I think is best, though I'll argue for it. Sure, sure, the Devil's in the details when one mans happiness comes from harming another, but those are corner cases, not a problem with the principle.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Sherman is a bit contentious but likely so would any other Civil War general except for Grant. I would put Robert E. Lee as probably a bit more acceptable than Sherman.
If you wanted a general I would recommend Matthew Ridgway.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Then tell me, what is the purpose of these words?
Do you have examples of where freedom and the pursuit of what the states considers to be happiness collide?
In Europe freedom means not just freedom from interference, but freedom to prosper and be happy. So for example, everyone has the right to an education because education is considered necessary for prosperity and happiness. I have heard the argument that this right clashes with the desire of parents to not educate their children or to not educate them in the things that society considers covered by that right. To my mind this right increases freedom for the child, because while it is possible to disagree with the core curriculum the practical result of not being taught it tends to be a blighted life and retarded upbringing.
I think that sometimes the American ideal of minimal interference reduced freedom, because people might technically be free but practically can't benefit from it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Because this is such an important issue we have to argue it from a formal logic standpoint? Geez.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
"Listen, doll. That's 'cause they're all about where people come from. The only thing that's important is where someone's going."
Sometimes we look for sense where it isn't there to be found.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
tradition, history, nostalgia
we have pyramid with all-seeing eye of Ra on the money too. he's winking at you
The tradition of religion? You just proved my point.
the language you speak and read is also nothing but a pile of tradition, religion and nostalgia
Language is not religion or nostalgia.
I grew up in Detroit. You know the place with the largest Arab population outside of the Middle East.....I grew up with Arabs of all kinds, both Christian and Muslim. Detroit has a significant cultural communities including Black, Greek (Greektown), Polish (Hamtramack), German, Slavs, Arabs (Royal Oak, Dearborn) and Italian. I hung out with everyone.
Good-bye
See, this is the part I have to question. Historically, blacks aren't the only racial, national, or religious group to be stacked against. Chinese were imported by the tends of thousands as "coolies" to build railroads, working in conditions that made slavery look placid by comparison. Irish immigrants were denied jobs, housing, taken advantage of left and right, and preyed upon by police. Catholics were persecuted nationally for a very long time. The list goes on and on. Blacks do not, have not, and will not get a monopoly on victim status.
Much of what you say is true to some extent, but I think one crucial difference is that black slaves were imported in huge numbers, treated with callous cruelty in many cases, regarded as no more than chattel with a lower rank than some domestic animals. I suppose it added to the problem that when they were freed, the whole situation was grossly mishandled by the winners of the civil war, and the previous, white masters felt severely aggrieved - something that still persists to this day. And, of course, a black person can't simply "fade into the foreground" like most immigrants of European origin; how much of a chance would any white person have given to a black person at that time? Even now the racial tolerance we are proud of is only superficial - it is still all too common to meet attitudes like "I don't mind blacks, but I wouldn't want my daughter to marry one".
Here's a hypothesis: blacks, as a cultural unit, are suffering because they've been given special treatment by government. When someone tells you your problems are not of your own making, that someone else forced them on you, it provides immediate gratification and removes any desire to change your own destructive habits. Instead you become a "hey, it's not my fault I'm out of work, no high school diploma, with a criminal record, and five kids by five different mothers. It's society's fault!" Couple this with a strong anti-achievement bias in the black community -- excelling at school is called "acting white" and gets you treated like a traitor to your race -- and you have a perfect scenario for an entire racial group to achieve and maintain permanent victim status.
Again, some of your observations are not all wrong - when people, as individuals or as a group, are not living up to their objective potential, they need something to motivate them to achieve more, and removing barriers is only one part in that picture. Somebody also has to make reasonable demands of them, because your confidence in yourself and in your place in society grows from overcoming difficulties; this is clearly something we as a society haven't been good enough at. I think the anti-achievement bias is not limited to black communities - it is what Terry Pratchett calls 'the crab bucket': if you observe a bucket full of crabs, you will see that maybe one of them starts climbing out, but then the others grab hold of it and pull it back down. I grew up with that in Denmark, out in the countryside - if you are clever at school, you are met with "you think you are better than us?" and that sort of thing - it is called "The Law of Jante": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... It is something that arises in small communities that are faced with a constant struggle to make a living - your very outlook on life becomes one that relies heavily on never questioning the tradition, because there is no surplus for experimenting with newfangled nonsense.
If we are going to put rulers on the money, we are no better than those we fought to get away from, where the money is propaganda for the ruling class.
If you have any idea as to why the Colonists fought the Revolution it doesn't seem to inform your position. The Revolution didn't have anything to do with who was on the money. "Ruling class"? Who do you think that is? It must be a pretty broad group if it includes Abraham Lincoln or the sons of nearly penniless immigrants like Ted Cruz.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
This old trope again? Really?
Tell you what... when you can explain the voting record on the 1965 Civil Rights Act, the continued paternalistic racism of most 'progressive' policies on race, and the well-into-the-21st-century presence of KKK Grand Wizard Richard Byrd in the US Senate (D-WV)? Then we can talk about your myth being more than just a myth. ;)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Yea, I just cited one example off of the top of my head. There have been many more in recent history.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
Why the fuck are we demonizing anybody who makes a lot of money?
Occupy was never a single group of people with a single agenda. Nonetheless, one of the key complaints wasn't that there were people who had a lot of money, but the fact that people in that position can buy corrupt influence over democracy. The "99%" bore the brunt of the pain and suffering caused by the financial crisis of 2007-2009. None of the "1%" were prosecuted.
Of course every left-wing organisation with a random thought climbed under the umbrella too. It's an interesting parallel to what happened to the Tea Party, which started with complaints such as that the US government was borrowing money to bail out banks, and ended up as a corporate tool and private power trip for kooky right-wing politicians.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
.... because she got hot sauce in her bag, fo' shizzle.
No, it'll read "had constitution it was never able to live up to, was bought out by special interests and complicit media, turned into oligarchy, hey, how about those Kardashians?"
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
the issue is kind of that it's not just a hassle for us, it's also a hassle for like, half our hemisphere. the USD isn't exactly like every other currency in the world. it's all over the place, it's hoarded, because it's stable and it doesn't change all that much.
you start swapping the pictures around every couple years, and people might start hoarding the yuan, because they'll know it'll look the same in 20 years.
hey look jefferson
https://newrepublic.com/articl...
The currency needs a whole new design, period. More color, translucent holograms, clear windows,etc. American currency is ridiculously old fashioned and the Federalist design style is too stuffy. And any redesign should involve regular refreshes of featured items, whether it's people or natural wonders or engineering achievements.
Using hard currency itself needs change. But if we are to have something material representing value, then it should be disability-friendly. Australia, with a durable material and different sizes, seems to have the best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
(||) Nehmo (||)
Ok, how about: Black? No, that's also racist and denigrating, since black is sometimes poetically associated with evil. Negro? No, that's too close to that other word. Afro-American? Definitely not. It's lazy, and assumes a particular hair style. African American? Maybe, but aren't we then excluding Haitians and Jamaicans, among others? Nubian? Ok, sounds cool, but WTF does that even mean? Colored? NO! Hearkens back to the fifties with segregated drinking fountains and toilets. People of Color? Don't ALL people have color?...
The AA problem never occured to me. Let's say an Australian Aborigine came to the US. What would you call them?
(||) Nehmo (||)
Bullshit. It will be Bono and Al Gore because of the environment and stuff.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Australia was exactly what I have in mind. I have a 5 dollar Australian note that was given to me by a wife's coworker (he lost a joke bet and paid off in 5 "dollars" I can't spend).
The coloration is great and the material feels kind of like Tyvek. I use it as a bookmark since changing it would be a waste of time and money. Currency works well as a bookmark and I'm actually thinking of buying a batch of worthless/obsolete currency for this purpose. I only recently found a place that sells it in bulk.
You'd think that pre-Euro currency or other devalued or obsolete currencies with high levels of circulation would be kind of easy to find, but I could only find one place selling them. It's easier to find collectible rare currency than obsolete currency for some reason.