This forum is for discussions on the noteworthy events, people, places, and circumstances of both the past and the present (note: pop culture etc... is on the back porch).
Apparently the US Treasury has announced plans to replace Andrew Jackson's picture on the $20 bill with one of abolitionist Harriet Tubman.
Personally, I think this is a priceless teachable moment that the dems were stupid enough to give us. The republicans should embrace it, and issue a statement reminding everybody that the democrats are the party of slavery, and that they are proud to have their member Harriet Tubman replacing Jackson, who built his wealth on slave labor, and promoted genocide against the native americans.
Follow it up by proposing to remove KKK supporting democrat Woodrow Wilson from the $100,000 bill, and replace him with somebody like republican Frederick Douglass.
Then watch their heads explode.
I saw the following proposed design for the new bills:
tubman.jpg
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati
"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
You'll start seeing this in 14 years. By that time, you probably won't be seeing it because They're trying to get people away from untraceable cash, and into electronic money, so every transaction you make can come with a service charge by the bank, and a tax by the government.
"Arms are honor; slaves have neither."
"I am Chaos, I am alive...and I tell you that you are free!" -Eris Discordia
I bet it never happens... They are talking about having finalized designs by 2020... Which means 2025 or later... So yea, wont happen.
“I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” - Norman Thomas, a six time candidate for president for the Socialist Party, 1944
By the time this comes out, $20 will be a coin used for buying a gumball; equally likely is that we'll be using gold and silver coins exclusively, and a $20 bill will be used for kindling.
Either way, I'm pretty sure IDGAF at that point.
Personally, I'm holding out for putting Fatass Clinton on a $3 bill, and issuing a note with Obama on it, and no denomination, and using it like a joker, just like the asshole in question himself, that can be whatever it wants and to hell with the laws of the land. Put a holographic image on the back that shifts between an image of the capitol buildings in Hawaii and Kenya, depending on how you twist it.
"There are four types of homicide: felonious, accidental, justifiable, and praiseworthy." -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
When the topic came up at lunch today, I opined that there probably were some traditional Germans who mourned that Kaiser Wilhelm no longer graced the 20 Reichsmark note printed in 1919 and 1920. I asked if anyone remembered who replaced the Kaiser. Of course no one did (it was some German girl with blonde braids IIRC). I said no Germans did either - By 1921, the smallest denomination printed by the German Reichsbank was about 20 million Reichsmarks.
20 Reichsmark notes were relegated to lighting the stove.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
The problem I have with this is, actually, Harriet Tubman. I'm just tired of seeing her constantly treated as some kind of giant of history, of greater stature than those who actually were the giants.
Way back when, a few months before my oldest niece dropped out of high school, (and I didn't blame her), I happened to flip through her American history textbook when she left it at my mother's house. I decided to see what was taught about the civil war, in the single chapter on that. And after a glance through, I went through it slower and counted names. Of all the great men of that time, only one was mentioned by name, Lincoln, and only once. Grant, Lee, Davis, no other white man's name was in that chapter. But I recall that Harriet Tubman was in there by name 13 or so times. That sort of treatment of the Civil War has not gotten better since then and that's pathetic.
Tubman was a heroin, it is true. But she was NOT a major figure of our history. Had she never existed at all, our history would be unchanged and some other woman involved with the underground railroad would be there in her place. General Lee, on the other hand, would have changed things a lot by not being there. And so would Andrew Jackson.
There are women out there of such stature who could have been picked, even black ones. There was a black woman who pretty much created the women's makeup and hair care industry back around 1900. The company she founded, that made her very rich even before she sold it, is now called Loreal I think. And there is of course the woman (white) who pretty much invented the computer and retired from the US Navy as a Vice Admiral. There are women out there who did indeed change the world.
But I think we can trust that Obama and company are never going to pick someone of major stature in history for something like this. They won't pick someone who really did matter in history because any such person when compared to Obama and his crowd shines like the sun compared to their own intelligence, wisdom, ability, merit, and accomplishments.
Johnnyreb wrote:The problem I have with this is, actually, Harriet Tubman. I'm just tired of seeing her constantly treated as some kind of giant of history, of greater stature than those who actually were the giants.
Way back when, a few months before my oldest niece dropped out of high school, (and I didn't blame her), I happened to flip through her American history textbook when she left it at my mother's house. I decided to see what was taught about the civil war, in the single chapter on that. And after a glance through, I went through it slower and counted names. Of all the great men of that time, only one was mentioned by name, Lincoln, and only once. Grant, Lee, Davis, no other white man's name was in that chapter. But I recall that Harriet Tubman was in there by name 13 or so times. That sort of treatment of the Civil War has not gotten better since then and that's pathetic.
Tubman was a heroin, it is true. But she was NOT a major figure of our history. Had she never existed at all, our history would be unchanged and some other woman involved with the underground railroad would be there in her place. General Lee, on the other hand, would have changed things a lot by not being there. And so would Andrew Jackson.
There are women out there of such stature who could have been picked, even black ones. There was a black woman who pretty much created the women's makeup and hair care industry back around 1900. The company she founded, that made her very rich even before she sold it, is now called Loreal I think. And there is of course the woman (white) who pretty much invented the computer and retired from the US Navy as a Vice Admiral. There are women out there who did indeed change the world.
But I think we can trust that Obama and company are never going to pick someone of major stature in history for something like this. They won't pick someone who really did matter in history because any such person when compared to Obama and his crowd shines like the sun compared to their own intelligence, wisdom, ability, merit, and accomplishments.
I suspect you mean Thomas J, aka Stonewall Jackson. at ;east if you're still in the context of the Civil War.
