Are you mad about people like MLK and Harriet Tubman being on American currency because they werent Presidents?
No, Hamilton and Franklin were fantastic leaders without ever becoming President. I'm slightly bothered because there are many people who deserve to be there more than Tubman, and at least a few more than MLK. However, Tubman is still an American hero, so I'm not opposed either.
Roosevelt (Teddy at least, maybe Franklin), Wilson, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan. Plenty of great leaders to choose from.
I'd rather have MLK on currency than T.J
What about Hamilton?
What about Benjamin Franklin? He wasn't a president.
I don't care how they decorate our cash as long as we still have cash.
No, not at all.
Ben Franklin wasn't a president but that's beside the point. The main issue is changing for politically correct reasons.
You mean representing the accomplishments of people who did just as much or more for our country? I wouldn't call that political correctness.
I was trying to lay this trap, snoz was too wiley
What annoys me is that the reason they're changing it is to pander to sjw
Oh come on, these people DID things after all. Whatever the reasoning you think it is, don't they deserve to be honored?
I'm just saying, we pander to them too much
Who's we and them
America is we. Sjw is them
No, I will be when they start putting people like obamas and sharptons
I really couldn't care less. I don't remember the last time I've used physical cash.
No, but it would definitely confuse me. I'm used to identifying money by the people on them.
The number in the corner doesn't help any?
What digler said
Not mad, but I stated before that the criteria should be limited to either a Founding Father or US President. Lot less controversy that way.
Y'know, that IS a great way to make sure that we keep women and black people off the money without appearing sexist and racist!
I mean, sure, eventually there'll be more nonwhite presidents and probably a couple women someday, but then we can say it should only be the "classic" presidents. The best ones. You know, from before when women and black people even had the right to run for office!
I agree with keeping it limited to founding fathers and presidents
How did civil rights leaders not help in the creation of the nation? Is all white men really an accurate representation of American history?
No, it isn't.
Presidents and founding fathers is what I'd prefer
Why not just great Americans? Why limit it to just founding fathers and dead presidents (aka all white males)
Because that would be too big a group and anyone could make an argument for anyone, next thing you know Carrot Top is on the 5 to appease all the red-headed comedians who feel under represented
@beth I know. Everything is a grand conspiracy against the leftist feminist affirmative action victimhood social justice warriors. Automatically. It didn't seem to be much of a problem for over 80 years, now everyone's got their panties in a bunch.
The overwhelming majority of Presidents and Founding Fathers have been white males. It's just a fact. And what better way to honor those great men than to print their likeness on notes and coins that we handle every day.
One of the few times I'm with Bethany.
Jack, who said anything about a conspiracy? There's no conspiracy. I'm just pointing out how utterly disingenuous it is to pretend that deciding we will only honor people in category X (where category X *just so happens* to exclude anyone in categories A, B, and C) isn't fundamentally deciding not to honor people in A, B, and C.
Yeah, well pretty much everything you stated was a little paranoid and presumptuous.
Because for the most part, we've only allowed Founding Fathers and Presidents on currency, that means the powers that be are racist, misogynistic hate mongers? And will continue to be for the foreseeable future?
The Founding Fathers were instrumental in creating this country. And by creating, I mean the events prior to (Declaration of Independence) and including the singing of the Constitution.
Presidents hold the highest office in this country. They make sure the country survives through war, conflict and strife. The privilege of a portrait on US currency should only be restricted to these two superlatives. And there's nothing wrong with that.
In your opinion.
Jack, get over yourself. The only one impressed by your sanctimony is you.
Look, do you deny that the United States (like pretty much every western country) has a history of marginalizing and oppressing women and racial minorities (among others)? I assume you don't, because far from your misreading of what I'm saying, I *don't* believe there is some cabal of people twiddling their mustaches and laughing about how they're keeping women and minorities down.
Take a few extra seconds to exercise some thought while reading my comments, please.
What I am SAYING is that by limiting honoraria to those who were already empowered during a time in our history in which empowerment was expressly discriminatory, we are magnifying the import of that discrimination and thereby ratifying it. It isn't because people hate women and minorities. It's because they are being thoughtless and refusing to see the reality right in front of them.
This is what I mean by "victimhood". You see the images on money as a testament to the oppression of minorities and a validation of discrimination in America. I see great men to whom I owe a great deal for creating the country I love.
There is no sanctimony in my statements. And the lawmakers are not being thoughtless.
And by the way, women have had the right to vote since 1920. Black citizens since 1870. Jackson was placed on the $20 bill in 1928. I can't find any literature of protests or petition to put someone else on that bill at that time. That would have been the time to do it.
Here's a crazy thought: maybe those minority groups had no problem with it?
I'm not going to waste my time explaining history to you. You've clearly made up your own mind that no further inquiry is required.
As I said, thoughtless. Meaning without exercise of thought.
Thoughtless? Come on there's a lot of thought put into his comment
And I won't waste any more time trying to talk some sense into you.
When you realize that every dissenting opinion from yours is not an affirmation of everything that is wrong with this country, the better off you'll be. (In fact, it may even be correct. Just food for thought).
So, from one intransigent to another, good night.
It's not that it's a dissenting opinion; it's that you are becoming offended at my even having expressed mine and therefore shutting your ears.
Dfish, yes, thoughtless. He's refusing to consider what I'm saying. He's refusing to give it thought. See?
I wasn't offended that you expressed your opinion. What I wasn't thrilled about was the sarcasm and condescending tone in your initial comment.
How do you know what I'm thinking? I heard every word you said, and I understand the argument-this isn't the first poll about this subject I've been in. I just don't agree with it.
I suppose you're being equally "thoughtless" by not considering my point of view?
There was sarcasm in my initial comment, but no condescension - that came from your interpretation only.
Your response was then to assume that I was claiming some kind of grand conspiracy, which was clear evidence that you didn't understand my point. I proceeded to explain my point, which you then rejected out of hand as a "victimhood" mentality, and then to top it off, you proceeded to mansplain to me about how maybe women and minorities are ok with being marginalized and written out of history (guess what: we're not, and I think I would know better than you would).
Your perspective is that we should just take it at face value, right? What am I missing there? Anything? What thought have I failed to engage? Because I'm pretty sure that YOUR ENTIRE POINT was that I shouldn't read into it. Meaning, I shouldn't think about it too hard.
But please, do tell me what hidden message I've failed to consider. Then maybe you can tell me again about how I've said things I haven't!
By the way, THAT was condescension.
Just so you know.
I'm mostly with Bethany however I don't really care what demographic boxes they do or don't check. I would just like to see great Americans honored regardless of the time they lives, their sex, or melanin content.
But hey, what do I know.
Well, let's see. Where to start.
Thinking that keeping a very specific criteria is an ulterior means of purposely keeping blacks and women off currency isn't paranoid? And stating that even though the future would allow for these two groups in this criteria, you stated that "we" would find a way to exclude them anyway. If that isn't thinking there is an active conspiracy against your point of view, I don't know what is.
Then you go on to re-affirm your paranoia by saying only recognizing people in category "x" "*just so happens* to exclude anyone in categories a, b and c", and then you called me disingenuous. Yes, you've found me out, you clever minx! You seem to have found this window into my soul, I cannot hide anything from you!
Again, a, b and c can meet the criteria, it does not exclude them. And with the emphasis on 'just so happens' implies that you again think of an ulterior motive. Amazing this clairvoyance of yours!
And finally, for someone to accuse a point of view of being secretly sexist and racist, then goes on to use a sexist term like "mansplain" is not only disingenuous, but hypocritical as well.
I know I missed a lot, but it would be like beating the proverbial dead horse.
Never said it was an ulterior motive, Jack. Maybe that's what you're missing.
Well, one of the things you're missing.
And it's hilarious and unsurprising that you would find the term "mansplain" sexist. Man, you really are whiny.
I notice that you've dropped that whole "but but YOU didn't give MY perspective enough though" hilarity. Yeah, I've got you pretty well pegged.
Come back if you ever decide to engage the issues with an ounce of intellectual honesty rather than self-righteous defensiveness at the notion that *gasp!* perhaps this is a more complex issue than you're willing to consider for more than half a second.
That's what "implies" means. Maybe what YOU'RE missing is a dictionary.
And when was the last time you used the term "mansplain" when referring to a woman? What's that? Never???
I am sorry about all the whining though, but I needed a means of communication that was easily recognizable by contradictory hypocritical leftist feminists. Glad to see it worked.
Well, I would love to come back, but as my mom once said: "never argue with a crazy mind". Or was that Billy Joel? Either way, it's good advice. Your grasp of history and your authority for speaking on behalf of an entire genre of people is clearly something to be reckoned with.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm a little thirsty.
*sip!* Ahhh... Feminist tears.
There's no arguing with her, she lives in an imaginary hate world where white men are the evil overlords
Huh, you really had quite the little freakout there. Hope you feel better now. Have a good one!
Yes, sweetheart. You too! 😘
Of course not. I'm psyched that they're going to be on the money.
No. I'm upset for different reasons.
Here we go
No, why would I be?
I'm mad because they were both anarchist criminals who violated the social contract by disobeying the laws of the land passed by their duly elected officials.
Man I know, right? Especially Tubman, stealing from her owner like that! Property should stay put where it belongs! Yeesh, lawbreakers.
People violating and fighting against unjust laws should be celebrated
Liberty was being VERY sarcastic
People violating unjust laws like that should not only be remembered but celebrated.
What what about MUH social contract?!?
If you are, you'd better not use $100's. You can just send them to me.
I dont know why people are so upset by this.
I'm not mad about it, period. But if I were, it would be sort of hypocritical, since Benjamin Franklin wasn't a President either.