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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Jackson was a decisive and forceful leader. He had lots of good attributes but he was a serious asshole as well. Aside from his position on slavery which was not really an issue at the time there was the way he treated the Native Americans. In particular the horrible way the Cherokee in Georgia were ripped from their land and sent on the Trail of Tears where so many perished. These people were guilty of no violent acts and in fact were in some ways more civilized than their white neighbors. The Cherokee nation had it's own written language and printed newspapers and interacted well with their white neighbors. At least until gold was discovered on their lands. For this and some other actions Jackson is reviled by Native Americans. Every time I drive by the State Capital in Atlanta and see that gold on the dome I feel ashamed.
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.
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
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
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 !
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
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.
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.
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?
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.