Started By
Message
re: Who would you rather see on the $20 bill?
Posted on 4/19/16 at 1:13 pm to Patton
Posted on 4/19/16 at 1:13 pm to Patton
I am just glad we are talking about replacing Jackson instead of Hamilton. Not having the guy who created our financial system on our money would have been a disgrace. But if they want to replace the Donald Trump of the 19th century with a black woman I don't mind one bit.
1
Posted on 4/19/16 at 1:19 pm to Funky Tide 8
AAAAARGGGGGGG.
Look, read all of my comments. I just think that we have normal criteria for putting people on money. It is being a major statesman in American history.
People want to take Jackson off the $20. Fine, he did some pretty heinous crap and was even called out for it by people of his time. People who act like it was just the way things were back then are wrong. Many people opposed Jackson and the States actions against the "5 Civilized Tribes" at the time but were ignored. The good is not outweighed by the bad.
The part that I have a problem with is the kneejerk reaction listing ladies without digging into history. Most Americans do not bother to learn about important states-people so they just default to folk heroes and popular icons. Why did they choose Sacagawea instead of the numerous important Native leaders? Because she is a folk hero that Americans learn about it junior high. Was she more important than numerous Native leaders to American history, absolutely not.
All I am saying is I wish people would dig deeper into American history and look for some important stateswomen and include them in the conversation.
Look, read all of my comments. I just think that we have normal criteria for putting people on money. It is being a major statesman in American history.
People want to take Jackson off the $20. Fine, he did some pretty heinous crap and was even called out for it by people of his time. People who act like it was just the way things were back then are wrong. Many people opposed Jackson and the States actions against the "5 Civilized Tribes" at the time but were ignored. The good is not outweighed by the bad.
The part that I have a problem with is the kneejerk reaction listing ladies without digging into history. Most Americans do not bother to learn about important states-people so they just default to folk heroes and popular icons. Why did they choose Sacagawea instead of the numerous important Native leaders? Because she is a folk hero that Americans learn about it junior high. Was she more important than numerous Native leaders to American history, absolutely not.
All I am saying is I wish people would dig deeper into American history and look for some important stateswomen and include them in the conversation.
This post was edited on 4/19/16 at 1:20 pm
Posted on 4/19/16 at 1:28 pm to GnashRebel
quote:
Why did they choose Sacagawea instead of the numerous important Native leaders? Because she is a folk hero that Americans learn about it junior high. Was she more important than numerous Native leaders to American history, absolutely not.
Yeah sure, totally has nothing to do with her helping facilitate the exploration of a large portion of the United States, thus allowing for colonization.
I think that a lot of people disagree with you about A. that there should be some kind of antiquated criteria of who goes on money and B. trivilizing people like Tubman's and Sacagawea's contributions to the United States to the point of calling them just some "folk heroes."
This post was edited on 4/19/16 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 4/19/16 at 1:30 pm to GnashRebel
quote:
she is not the same kind of figure that we normally put on money
Irrelevant.
quote:
not really a stateswoman.
Irrelevant.
quote:
Franklin Roosevelt was not taking hills in WWII but he was an important statesman.
Irrelevant.
quote:
Am I wrong?
Yes, if you consider the above to be valid reasons for excluding someone from being depicted on US currency.
Unless you can produce some directive that says only statesmen are eligible for such, then you really haven't a leg to stand on other than "that's not what we normally do."
Posted on 4/19/16 at 1:34 pm to GnashRebel
quote:
The part that I have a problem with is the kneejerk reaction listing ladies without digging into history.
You make it seem like Tubman was just some random lady with no historical significance
No matter when/how one learned about her, there's no denying the inherent valor of her actions. quote:
Why did they choose Sacagawea instead of the numerous important Native leaders? Because she is a folk hero that Americans learn about it junior high.
Or maybe because of her significant contributions to the exploration of the West?
Being a folk hero doesn't make her some random Native American or diminish her actions because a lot of people know about them.Posted on 4/19/16 at 3:05 pm to TbirdSpur2010
You can say that everything is irrelevant if you want. That means basically we can put anyone on money for any reason. That is true but clearly has not been irrelevant in the past as we have traditionally put statespeople on our money. It may be irrelevant IN YOUR OPINION but has not been irrelevant to the US Congress and Department of Treasury.
Where did I say they couldn't do it? I gave my OPINION that they should at least consider figures who fit into the traditional criteria rather than just say Tubman or Parks as some, including the OP have suggested.
Your contribution was to include anyone for any reason. That is your opinion but not more relevant than anyone else's.
quote:
Unless you can produce some directive that says only statesmen are eligible for such, then you really haven't a leg to stand on other than "that's not what we normally do."
Where did I say they couldn't do it? I gave my OPINION that they should at least consider figures who fit into the traditional criteria rather than just say Tubman or Parks as some, including the OP have suggested.
Your contribution was to include anyone for any reason. That is your opinion but not more relevant than anyone else's.
This post was edited on 4/19/16 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 4/19/16 at 3:14 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
You make it seem like Tubman was just some random lady with no historical significance No matter when/how one learned about her, there's no denying the inherent valor of her actions.
I said she was a great woman. Do you disagree?
My point is that her name is one of the only one's even mentioned for a reason. To many Americans she is literally the only black woman born before 1950 that they can name. Therefore she is the only choice they provide. I actually want someone to bother providing important historical figures who are black, female, or both rather than default to the only one they can name off the top of their head. Your default response is, "Yeah, good lady. Put her on the money without further conversation." Your ignorance or your belief that there are no other historically significant black women is your own business.
This post was edited on 4/19/16 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 4/19/16 at 3:36 pm to GnashRebel
quote:
You can say that everything is irrelevant if you want.
I do not wish to say this.
quote:
That means basically we can put anyone on money for any reason.
Pretty much. Unless there are directives otherwise. Not my area of expertise.
quote:
It may be irrelevant IN YOUR OPINION
It is irrelevant in the context of whose visages should and should not be depicted on our currency. Tradition is another matter entirely, and a point which I'll happily cede. Not trying to be obtuse.
quote:
they should at least consider figures who fit into the traditional criteria rather than just say Tubman or Parks as some, including the OP have suggested.
I haven't said anything to imply that others should be excluded from consideration (actually I've bolstered the opposite POV), just that your particular reasons not considering the same are tepid at best.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 3:40 pm to GnashRebel
quote:
I said she was a great woman. Do you disagree?
I do not disagree with your first sentence.
I disagree with the tenor of your posts painting her in a common or less deserving light.
quote:
her name is one of the only one's even mentioned for a reason. To many Americans she is literally the only black woman born before 1950 that they can name.
None of which devalues the merit of Tubman.
quote:
I actually want someone to bother providing important historical figures who are black, female, or both rather than default to the only one they can name off the top of their head.
Admirable to claim, but hardly a reason to discount Tubman.
quote:
Your default response is, "Yeah, good lady. Put her on the money without further conversation."
This has not been my default response in the slightest.
quote:
Your ignorance or your belief that there are no other historically significant black women is your own business.
I assure you my knowledge of historicallysignificant black women is quite sound thanks to my mother who stressed such
Posted on 4/19/16 at 3:44 pm to TbirdSpur2010
What I am saying is the entire conversation strikes a nerve with me. I hate that whenever they talk about women or minorities they feel the need to change the "traditional" criteria to find the person they want. There are plenty of women and minorities who have made huge contributions to government and law in the United States but nobody ever digs in because it isn't "sexy" to the public. If you said the name Thurgood Marshall today, how many young Americans would have the first clue who you were talking about? It sucks.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 4:35 pm to GnashRebel
You seem like a history buff. I respect that 
I would have tossed in Sojourner Truth or Mary Mcleod-Bethune into the mix with Tubman of notable black female figures myself. Thurgood Marshall would be a superb choice. Crispus Attucks as well. The list goes on and on. It does suck that more don't know more about great figures in our nation's history, creed notwithstanding. On that we most certainly agree.
I'm just saying that because Tubman's story is more well-known, it doesn't make her a less valid candidate for such a spotlight, is all such a choice would need to resonate more than a relatively obscure name would.
I would have tossed in Sojourner Truth or Mary Mcleod-Bethune into the mix with Tubman of notable black female figures myself. Thurgood Marshall would be a superb choice. Crispus Attucks as well. The list goes on and on. It does suck that more don't know more about great figures in our nation's history, creed notwithstanding. On that we most certainly agree.
I'm just saying that because Tubman's story is more well-known, it doesn't make her a less valid candidate for such a spotlight, is all
such a choice would need to resonate more than a relatively obscure name would.This post was edited on 4/19/16 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 4/19/16 at 11:06 pm to Patton
Neither, keep the hero from the Battle of New Orleans, and US President.
Posted on 4/20/16 at 7:55 am to Tiger Live2
quote:
Neither, keep the hero from the Battle of New Orleans, and US President
I understand the desire to keep Jackson on the $20 and generally oppose efforts to go back and beat up on historic figures. Jackson is one example that I have trouble with though. Boy did he mistreat indigenous people. And normally I acknowledge that both sides in that conflict were after each other but the "5 civilized tribes" were basically doing everything they were asked, we signed agreements, and the states plus Jackson just betrayed the heck out of them. And people knew it. Many congressmen opposed it. Read some of Davy Crockett's thoughts on the subject. Really a bad way to act.
Posted on 4/20/16 at 7:56 am to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 4/20/16 at 10:01 am to GnashRebel
This is who it should be 
Posted on 4/20/16 at 10:31 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
Andrew Jackson
This ^^^^^
Posted on 4/20/16 at 10:37 am to Patton
Dwight Eisenhower. Everyone likes Eisenhower
Posted on 4/20/16 at 10:41 am to TbirdSpur2010
Gnash and Tbird both have good points. But the entire conversation will soon be moot.
People are arguing about faces on cash... cash that will not be around in 20 more years.
When I started working at my family business 28 years ago our receivables were about 60% cash, 30% checks and about 10% credit cards. Today it is about 80% credit\debit cards, 10% cash and 10% checks. I am sure that trend will continue. Many college age people dont even know how to write out a check.
I would rather we build more monuments or name buildings in DC to these great people than put them on a piece of paper. Heck, most of them are not ever mentioned in high school history classes. I just texted my son (16) and asked him if he knew who Thurgood Marshall was. He did not. He is taking AP History and he is not even mentioned in the book.
It is really a shame...
(Disclaimer I am a white, heterosexual, Christian, male. I know I have a privilege and someone reading this will be triggered by my comments).
People are arguing about faces on cash... cash that will not be around in 20 more years.
When I started working at my family business 28 years ago our receivables were about 60% cash, 30% checks and about 10% credit cards. Today it is about 80% credit\debit cards, 10% cash and 10% checks. I am sure that trend will continue. Many college age people dont even know how to write out a check.
I would rather we build more monuments or name buildings in DC to these great people than put them on a piece of paper. Heck, most of them are not ever mentioned in high school history classes. I just texted my son (16) and asked him if he knew who Thurgood Marshall was. He did not. He is taking AP History and he is not even mentioned in the book.
It is really a shame...
(Disclaimer I am a white, heterosexual, Christian, male. I know I have a privilege and someone reading this will be triggered by my comments).
Posted on 4/20/16 at 10:58 am to alphaandomega
I would like to see JFK/Ronald Reagan. My favorite Presidents of my lifetime. But Chuck Norris =)
Posted on 4/20/16 at 11:04 am to Funky Tide 8
I say put Trump on there
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News