The treasury has officially announced that the US $10 will have Alexander Hamilton, a founding father of the United States replaced by a female to be voted on by the general public. So what I garnered from that story is that the Treasury is now officially open to taken demands from special interest groups.
pretre wrote: Reading comprehension? He's sharing the bill with a woman.
Your right, but the main picture will be changed and Hamilton will be moved to a less conspicuous place. My guess is that he is going to be turned into one of those images on the bill you can't see unless you look at it in the right way.
Eh. Never liked Hamilton anyway. Guy was a whiny little bitch
Let's put someone badass on there
Options;
Susan B. Anthony (Women's Sufferage seems approps)
Clara Barton (Started the American Red Cross)
Emily Dickenson (One of the most celebrated American authors)
Francis Perkins (First women in the President's cabinet)
Sally Ride (First woman in Space)
Eleanor Roosevelt (first of the modern first ladies)
pretre wrote: Reading comprehension? He's sharing the bill with a woman.
Really? I'm pretty sure the article I read earlier on the BBC didn't mention that. Not that it makes a difference, either I'm wrong, or they'll have edited it by now. Although where would you put two people on the bill? Isn't there only that oval in the middle with the portrait?
pretre wrote: Reading comprehension? He's sharing the bill with a woman.
Really? I'm pretty sure the article I read earlier on the BBC didn't mention that. Not that it makes a difference, either I'm wrong, or they'll have edited it by now. Although where would you put two people on the bill? Isn't there only that oval in the middle with the portrait?
The article linked in the first post not only says that in the text, but actually says it in the URL.
pretre wrote: Reading comprehension? He's sharing the bill with a woman.
Really? I'm pretty sure the article I read earlier on the BBC didn't mention that. Not that it makes a difference, either I'm wrong, or they'll have edited it by now. Although where would you put two people on the bill? Isn't there only that oval in the middle with the portrait?
As I said he is being relegated to a smaller portion of the bill, my guess is hes going to become a fraud detector image or he will be moved onto the back of the bill or to a side and be minimized to fit into the slot. Regardless, the entire notion of putting anyone, not just a female, in the place of Alexander Hamilton is ridiculous. The man literally led part of the Revolution and afterwards became secretary of the treasury where he built the US economy from the ground up. Nobody currently not on a bill deserves his spot, period.
If you put Rosa Parks in there, you kill two birds with one stone and can therefore focus on getting MOAR WHITE MEN on the rest of the bills.
(Well, you could if money was not already saturated…)
Yet, he's far more popular among Conservatives than Liberals (The Dems were pretty conservative back then... And super racist). Even among historians, he's regularly ranked highly in "good presidents" lists, despite absconding presidential responsibilities more than once, committing a straight up ethnic cleansing, and being an all around doucher. He set the tone for the Antebellum period, and that tone was dismal.
Sigvatr wrote: Interesting to see the reasoning for people being on money changed from actual doings and historical importance to a high school prom vote!
Sounds like someone doesn't like democracy!
I mean if they can choose their head of state in that way then why not who is on their money?
Sigvatr wrote: Interesting to see the reasoning for people being on money changed from actual doings and historical importance to a high school prom vote!
Sounds like someone doesn't like democracy!
I mean if they can choose their head of state in that way then why not who is on their money?
This isn't democracy...democracy is a form of government. Democracy isn't "Let's vote on everything and the majority of the populace decides!".
Alexander Hamilton helped create/form this country and was honored for it. Jackson did too. I'm not saying there haven't been influential women. But taking this reward away from these guys after they've earned it is bs.
Just put historic buildings or something like that on the money instead of people. Saves a huge lot of debate and potential issues. Most countries do it that way.
I'll never understand why people feel the need to just make up definitions for words because they don't like what they actually mean (or can't be bothered to understand what they mean).
pretre wrote: Reading comprehension? He's sharing the bill with a woman.
Really? I'm pretty sure the article I read earlier on the BBC didn't mention that. Not that it makes a difference, either I'm wrong, or they'll have edited it by now. Although where would you put two people on the bill? Isn't there only that oval in the middle with the portrait?
The article linked in the first post not only says that in the text, but actually says it in the URL.
Well yes, there is that!
Anyway, the USA is a representative democracy - so sure, go out there and represent, those of you who really care about this sort of thing!
LordofHats wrote: I'll never understand why people feel the need to just make up definitions for words because they don't like what they actually mean (or can't be bothered to understand what they mean).
I should go dig up my post from the first complaint thread about the $20 bill, but I don't feel like it.
The short of it is that all this "tradition" talk is bs if you actually go back and learn about how money has changed over the years (spoiler alert: it's a lot). Get the feth over it.
So wanting to keep tradition is bad, but embracing something that will just make SJWs happy is good? Hell no. Leave my money alone. They've made minor adjustments to the layout of the bill, but the people who have influenced history have been preserved. Until stupid people come along who have no value to society and just want to stir up a riot. If you're in favor of removing a historical figure from the bill, you're anti-American. Please move to Canada. General statement to all who support this act.
Are your country's traditions being challenged for no reason? No? Then what do you care?
And recognizing it is the act of SJWs doesn't mean I oppose it simply because it is an act by them. I oppose it because it destroys our country's heritage. I just also happen to recognize the source of this destruction as being a group of asshats.
timetowaste85 wrote: So wanting to keep tradition is bad, but embracing something that will just make SJWs happy is good? Hell no. Leave my money alone. They've made minor adjustments to the layout of the bill, but the people who have influenced history have been preserved. Until stupid people come along who have no value to society and just want to stir up a riot. If you're in favor of removing a historical figure from the bill, you're anti-American. Please move to Canada. General statement to all who support this act.
You are denouncing people as "anti-American" because they want to change what is on the money? That sounds kinda fascist...
Instead of urging people with a different opinion than yours to go to a different country, maybe you should go? Or maybe, like Sigvatr, you don't know what democracy is?
Democracy is important you know. Being American, you may take it for granted, but many people in the world suffer for lacking it, and many would give their lifes if it would allow their children to discuss trivial matters like who gets to be on the money with each other in a respectful, constructive way.
Of course, the US has no true democracy (the only such country is Switzerland) but representative democracy, even with just two very similar parties is better than having no discussion over government issues at all.
My biggest complaint about this is that it is not in fact a popularity vote as they are trying to make it. If it was a true vote then you would be able to choose different options besides "minor female historical figure" 1-4. Put it to a general vote and have Hamilton as an option and I guarantee you he keeps his seat.
Still spends as $10 USD? Don't care whose face is on it.
Also, I think the reason that Jackson isn't being replaced is pretty obvious: it's already the most counterfeited bill out there. When this change goes through (in like, 5 years I think?), there will be counterfeit bills all over the place.
I'd also guess that Jackson stays because he was an actual sitting president, albeit a rather disgusting one and a distasteful person. You could say "Why not replace Franklin then?", but if we're going to argue over whose contributions to the US were greater, it'd be an uphill battle to argue for Hamilton over Franklin.
In the end, I still really don't care. I'll take the bills from the ATM, put them in my wallet and only look at them again when I pull them out to give them to someone else. Hardly enough time to give two craps about whose face is on it.
And for the record, we have Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea on two different coins. I'd be arguing just as hard to keep them on if people were trying to remove them in favor somebody like Clinton (who I thought was an awesome president). People in history had earned this honor and I find it very distasteful and disgusting to remove them from it because "reasons". If you want to honor somebody else, find something new to honor them. Don't take it away from another deserving individual.
If this does go through, I'll be thoroughly disappointed with society.
LordofHats wrote: I'll never understand why people feel the need to just make up definitions for words because they don't like what they actually mean (or can't be bothered to understand what they mean).
You mean like the term "Liberal" ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
timetowaste85 wrote: And for the record, we have Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea on two different coins. I'd be arguing just as hard to keep them on if people were trying to remove them in favor somebody like Clinton (who I thought was an awesome president). People in history had earned this honor and I find it very distasteful and disgusting to remove them from it because "reasons". If you want to honor somebody else, find something new to honor them. Don't take it away from another deserving individual.
If this does go through, I'll be thoroughly disappointed with society.
Personally, I can't see changing it for "reasons" however, if we were to say, completely revamp our entire monetary appearance from the ground up, I could then see, maybe making a change. And by ground up appearance, I mean, if we were to do something like the Euro, where different denominations of bills are different sizes (as in, the 5 is smaller than the 10, which is smaller than the 20, etc), or went to a plastic polymer note (like Brazil, Australia, New Zealand and Canada have... according to Wiki)
motyak wrote: Your coins are wrong. A big $2 coin? Madness
Hexagon 50 cent coins? Abomination!
They are so Aussie football fans have something extra lethal to throw at referees. The Reserve Bank is thoughtful and considerate (and hates referees like any self respecting Aussie should).
Thing is, I think its a huge mistake to lurch from 'it's about time to change the people on our money' to 'and the new person needs to be a woman'.
The problem is there's a hell of a lot of people in the last couple of hundred years who deserve recognition, and not just on commemorative prints every so often but on the main notes. And when you look at that list, unfortunately it's hard to make a case for any specific woman ahead of a lot of blokes. I mean, how do you make an argument for the first woman in space being put on the $10, ahead of Neil Armstrong? Rosa Parks is awesome, but can anyone honestly claim she deserves recognition above MLK?
timetowaste85 wrote: So wanting to keep tradition is bad, but embracing something that will just make SJWs happy is good? Hell no. Leave my money alone. They've made minor adjustments to the layout of the bill, but the people who have influenced history have been preserved. Until stupid people come along who have no value to society and just want to stir up a riot. If you're in favor of removing a historical figure from the bill, you're anti-American. Please move to Canada. General statement to all who support this act.
Thing is, I'm no fan of SJWs in general, but the reactionary movement against them has always been at least as bad as the SJWs themselves. Not bad as in scary or threatening, more that the core of the anti-SJW movement is a deeply ridiculous thing. And the above post pretty much captures that perfectly. People are being called un-American over money. That they shold move to Canada because they want to change the picture on piece of money. That the current money is somehow a complete list of people who've influence history.
sebster wrote: Thing is, I think its a huge mistake to lurch from 'it's about time to change the people on our money' to 'and the new person needs to be a woman'.
The problem is there's a hell of a lot of people in the last couple of hundred years who deserve recognition, and not just on commemorative prints every so often but on the main notes. And when you look at that list, unfortunately it's hard to make a case for any specific woman ahead of a lot of blokes. I mean, how do you make an argument for the first woman in space being put on the $10, ahead of Neil Armstrong? Rosa Parks is awesome, but can anyone honestly claim she deserves recognition above MLK?
I think that its the nail on the head perfectly. I agree I am anti SJW but not to the extent that you mentioned but I personally feel changing something historic just for the sake of changing something to make another group feel more included is just wrong.
Does everyone remember the photo of the flag raising at ground zero after 9/11? do you remember how they wanted to change the ethnicities of those who actually did the flag raising so that it would be more diverse? When we try to change history to make everyone feel more included we are proving that we aren't as evolved or forward thinking as we all like to believe we are.
Ghazkuul wrote: Does everyone remember the photo of the flag raising at ground zero after 9/11? do you remember how they wanted to change the ethnicities of those who actually did the flag raising so that it would be more diverse? When we try to change history to make everyone feel more included we are proving that we aren't as evolved or forward thinking as we all like to believe we are.
I do remember that. That's what killed the whole project. The insistence to change the people who held the flag to match a Colours of Benetton approach to diversity.
To be honest, I'm surprised the MLK isn't already on one of your notes. Fix that first.
Ghazkuul wrote: I think that its the nail on the head perfectly. I agree I am anti SJW but not to the extent that you mentioned but I personally feel changing something historic just for the sake of changing something to make another group feel more included is just wrong.
Does everyone remember the photo of the flag raising at ground zero after 9/11? do you remember how they wanted to change the ethnicities of those who actually did the flag raising so that it would be more diverse? When we try to change history to make everyone feel more included we are proving that we aren't as evolved or forward thinking as we all like to believe we are.
It’s hard because there’s a strong argument for inclusion. Whoopi Goldberg tells a story of seeing Nichelle Nichols on Star Trek and realising her dream of being an actress was still possible. I think it is important that we continue to show diversity to keep having that effect on minority kids.
So I can see the argument for diversity, I just don’t think that argument is strong enough when it comes to money, where you have just a handful of major notes to recognise hundreds of years of history. There are so many great figures in US history that aren’t on the main notes, deciding that the next figure has to be a woman seems very restrictive.
I am personally for it. Kinda tired of seeing the same 5 people on my bills. More than these 5 worked to build this nation and deserve recognition for their accomplishments.
I mean, how long have these guys been on our currency? How many bills have been made through the years with their faces?
Sigvatr wrote: Interesting to see the reasoning for people being on money changed from actual doings and historical importance to a high school prom vote!
Sounds like someone doesn't like democracy!
I mean if they can choose their head of state in that way then why not who is on their money?
This isn't democracy...democracy is a form of government. Democracy isn't "Let's vote on everything and the majority of the populace decides!".
You mean the money issued by the government that is decided by vote by the citizens of the state can not vote on what is on the money issued by the state voted in by the citizens of the state? That is somehow non-democractic?
timetowaste85 wrote:So, wow, they're talking of replacing two individuals from our money because "reasons"? feth that. Keep the damn traditions.
Which tradition are we refering to exactly? The only tradition I can see for paper money is cherry picked random dead guys from U.S. history.
Edit: For the record I haven't used paper money on the regular for about 5 years now, so they could put Taylor Swift on it for all I care.
timetowaste85 wrote: Alexander Hamilton helped create/form this country and was honored for it. Jackson did too. I'm not saying there haven't been influential women. But taking this reward away from these guys after they've earned it is bs.
It's not about destroying history, it's about looking at other facets of history that are not commonly explored.
We used to have animals on our coins. Birds for 1 and 2p, a bull for the 5p, a Salmon for the 10p, a horse for the 20p, a curlew for the 50p and a stag for the punt. I miss that a bit since changing to the Euro.
pretre wrote: Reading comprehension? He's sharing the bill with a woman.
Really? I'm pretty sure the article I read earlier on the BBC didn't mention that. Not that it makes a difference, either I'm wrong, or they'll have edited it by now. Although where would you put two people on the bill? Isn't there only that oval in the middle with the portrait?
The article linked in the first post not only says that in the text, but actually says it in the URL.
Well yes, there is that!
Anyway, the USA is a representative democracy - so sure, go out there and represent, those of you who really care about this sort of thing!
Alexander Hamilton has headlined the $10 note since 1929
The US Treasury Department says a redesigned $10 note will feature a woman, but who she will be has not been decided.
The new note will debut in 2020 to mark the 100th anniversary of the US Constitution's 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote.
The treasury will seek the public's input in the selection, looking for a "champion for our inclusive democracy".
Former US political leaders - all white men - currently headline US notes.
The woman who the Treasury Department ultimately selects will replace Alexander Hamilton, a key figure in the American Revolution and the first secretary of the US Treasury.
Hamilton began appearing on the $10 note in 1929. He along with diplomat and inventor Ben Franklin are the only non-presidents featured on current US notes.
Native American Sacagawea was briefly featured on US dollar coins
Women have been featured on US money before, but the notes and coins were not widely used. Most recently women's rights activist Susan B Anthony and Native American Sacagawea appeared on dollar coins, but both coins quickly went out circulation.
The primary goal of the redesign is to add measures to thwart counterfeiters, the Treasury Department said. But women's groups have recently pressed for more representation on US notes.
"We have only made changes to the faces on our currency a few times since bills were first put into circulation, and I'm proud that the new 10 will be the first bill in more than a century to feature the portrait of a woman," said Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew.
In March, an independent group held a contest to select a woman to headline the $20 note, replacing former President Andrew Jackson.
Abolitionist Harriet Tubman was the public's top choice, beating out finalists, former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, civil rights activist Rosa Parks and leader of the Cherokee nation Wilma Mankiller.
Tubman was known as the "conductor" of the Underground Railroad that allowed many slaves to escape to freedom in the 1850s.
Mr Lew will make a decision about the selected woman by the end of year.
It genuinely doesn't say anything about sharing the bill. Which, given that it's in the URL of the source you posted, might be a bit of an oversight.
timetowaste85 wrote: Are your country's traditions being challenged for no reason?
Here is my take on traditions. They are great… as long as you keep them around because you like them. When they become restrictive, when they are more like laws that you abide to because you have to rather than habit that you keep because you enjoy them, that is when you need to get rid of them.
Are you not a big over-reacting here? When ISIS blow up some ancient Buddha statue, that is destroying a country's heritage. When the U.S. government decide to change what is on their bills, that is not destroying anything. Collectors will certainly keep the old bill, that anyone who actually wants to will still be able to see.
I should know about it, I remember when my country changed every bill we had to something else. You know, when we went from Franc to Euros. I certainly do not feel like my country's heritage was destroyed. You could say I am partial, but I guess Siegvatr, who is more on your side of the issue, can confirm that neither was Germany's heritage destroyed when the bills were changed, regardless of whether the change was economically a good one.
Actually, I am not sure who was on the bills before, and I am not sure who is on the bills now. I am pretty sure we must have a Marianne somewhere.
I guess we do not care about our historical figures nearly as much as U.S. people, likely because we have a way longer history. Which means that for examples, we do not have founding fathers. Because we do not have a founding. There is no event where you can say “Before that there was no France, after this there was a France”. It is so much more nuanced than this.
timetowaste85 wrote: Are your country's traditions being challenged for no reason?
Here is my take on traditions. They are great… as long as you keep them around because you like them. When they become restrictive, when they are more like laws that you abide to because you have to rather than habit that you keep because you enjoy them, that is when you need to get rid of them.
I like the tradition of honoring men who changed our nation's history and created the building blocks of the nation we would become. I'm fully supportive of honoring anyone who made a difference. I'd support an MLK $5 coin, or a Rosa Parks $25 dollar bill, if it was discussed to put them into production. Hell, why not? They did a lot for racial equality and made serious changes to this country where it was needed. But Hamilton was a founding father and set up our bank system. Now we're supposed to remove his memory from that same banking system? Um...no. To me, it's all about honor and respect. I'm happy to honor people everyone who has had an impact on my country. I'm less than happy to remove an honor from one person to give it to someone else; which is what's being suggested here. That's the part I take issue with.
Well first off, nothing is being removed. He is being given the honor of sharing his bill with another person. They are not going to round up all of the old bills and burn them. So his place still stays the same.
Second, Hamilton has more than just money to honor him. In fact I hear he is written about quite extensively in history books. They even teach that stuff in schools!
The part you take issue with is kind of ridiculous when you look at it. We have a man who has been on currency for a very very long time and they are making the suggestion that he share that bill with another person. He will not be erased, like you keep implying. But instead they are bestowing an honor on another person also. Seems fine to me. A lot more than our founding fathers have done great things for this country and they deserve recognition.
But, since I think other Americans should also be honored and I disagree with your view, I am off to look at places in Canada.
- Abraham Lincoln
- Samuel P. Chase
- Daniel Webster
- Pocahontas
- "Liberty"
- Benjamin Franklin
- Robert Morris
- Thomas A. Hendricks
- Philip Sheridan
- Lewis & Clark
- a bison
- Michael Hillegas
- Andrew Jackson
- Alexander Hamilton
d-usa wrote: People that have been featured on the $10:
- Abraham Lincoln
- Samuel P. Chase
- Daniel Webster
- Pocahontas
- "Liberty"
- Benjamin Franklin
- Robert Morris
- Thomas A. Hendricks
- Philip Sheridan
- Lewis & Clark
- a bison
- Michael Hillegas
- Andrew Jackson
- Alexander Hamilton
We have such a proud history of changing who is on the $10 bill! How dare anyone suggest we stop changing it!
timetowaste85 wrote: Now we're supposed to remove his memory from that same banking system?
Think of it as more of a turn-over thing. He has been honored by being part of the turnover. See d-usa's post for more people that are part of the turnover.
And, unless I am mistaken, he will still be learn about in schools, right? That seems much more important to his memory than being on the bill.
timetowaste85 wrote: So, wow, they're talking of replacing two individuals from our money because "reasons"? feth that. Keep the damn traditions.
Meh.
There have been lots of changes to our currency over the years. It's just that we haven't done it in a while.
Slavery was a tradition, after all. So was beating your wife with a rod so long as it was no thicker than your thumb (Rule of Thumb). So was a woman's place is in the home.
Sometimes traditions are dumb.
Embrace change! Embrace it like you would a bag of Cheetos and then chase that change with hope in the form of Mountain Dew!
Why the 10$ bill? Is it because that's how much a good sammich cost?
Secondly, and seriously, how come we don't just cycle through a bunch of historical figures? Seems to me that it could make everyone happy AND make it harder to counterfit... know what I mean?
timetowaste85 wrote: So, wow, they're talking of replacing two individuals from our money because "reasons"? feth that. Keep the damn traditions.
Meh.
There have been lots of changes to our currency over the years. It's just that we haven't done it in a while.
Slavery was a tradition, after all. So was beating your wife with a rod so long as it was no thicker than your thumb (Rule of Thumb). So was a woman's place is in the home.
Sometimes traditions are dumb.
Embrace change! Embrace it like you would a bag of Cheetos and then chase that change with hope in the form of Mountain Dew!
timetowaste85 wrote: So, wow, they're talking of replacing two individuals from our money because "reasons"? feth that. Keep the damn traditions.
Meh.
There have been lots of changes to our currency over the years. It's just that we haven't done it in a while.
Slavery was a tradition, after all. So was beating your wife with a rod so long as it was no thicker than your thumb (Rule of Thumb). So was a woman's place is in the home.
Sometimes traditions are dumb.
Embrace change! Embrace it like you would a bag of Cheetos and then chase that change with hope in the form of Mountain Dew!
"can't do much damage with that now, can ya? Perhaps it shoulda been the rule of wrist?"
Sorry, couldn't resist the boondock saints reference
Perhaps we should redo all of our money... I think the $5 bill should have the Jackson 5 on it, to help people remember that it's worth 5 bucks. I don't know who would go on the 10 though...
timetowaste85 wrote: So, wow, they're talking of replacing two individuals from our money because "reasons"? feth that. Keep the damn traditions.
Meh.
There have been lots of changes to our currency over the years. It's just that we haven't done it in a while.
Slavery was a tradition, after all. So was beating your wife with a rod so long as it was no thicker than your thumb (Rule of Thumb). So was a woman's place is in the home.
Sometimes traditions are dumb.
Embrace change! Embrace it like you would a bag of Cheetos and then chase that change with hope in the form of Mountain Dew!
It looks like it originated as a carpenter's term.
Origin of the phrase
The exact origin of the phrase is uncertain. The earliest known citation comes from J. Durham’s Heaven upon Earth, 1685, ii. 217: "Many profest Christians are like to foolish builders, who build by guess, and by rule of thumb."[1] The phrase also exists in other languages, for example Italian "Regola del pollice", Swedish tumregel, Norwegian and Danish tommelfingerregel, sometimes in the variant "rule of fist", for example Finnish nyrkkisääntö, Estonian rusikareegel, German Faustregel and Pi mal Daumen, Hungarian ökölszabály or Dutch vuistregel, as well as in Turkish parmak hesabı, and in Hebrew "כלל אצבע" (rule of finger) and in Persian "قاعده سرانگشتی," which is translated as finger tip's rule. This suggests that it has some antiquity, and does not originate in specifically Germanic language culture.[citation needed]
Thumb as measurement device
The term is thought to originate with carpenters who used the width of their thumbs (i.e., inches) rather than rulers for measuring things, cementing its modern use as an imprecise yet reliable and convenient standard.[2] This sense of thumb as a unit of measure also appears in Dutch, in which the word for thumb, duim, also means inch.[3] The use of a single word or cognate for "inch" and "thumb" is common in many Indo-European languages, for example, French: pouce inch/thumb; Italian: pollice inch/thumb; Spanish: pulgada inch, pulgar thumb; Portuguese: polegada inch, polegar thumb; Swedish: tum inch, tumme thumb; Sanskrit: angulam inch, anguli finger; Slovak: palec, Slovene: palec inch/thumb, Czech: palec inch/thumb. Also in some other languages such as Thai: nîw inch/finger, Hungarian: hüvelyk inch/thumb.
Another possible origin of the phrase comes from measurement, in particular in agricultural fields. The plants need a fairly precise depth to seed properly, whether planted from seed or being replanted, but the depth can sometimes be estimated using the thumb. That is, a "rule (measurement) of thumb". According to Gary Martin, "The origin of the phrase remains unknown. It is likely that it refers to one of the numerous ways that thumbs have been used to estimate things—judging the alignment or distance of an object by holding the thumb in one's eye-line, the temperature of brews of beer, measurement of an inch from the joint to the nail to the tip, or across the thumb, etc. The phrase joins the whole nine yards as one that probably derives from some form of measurement but which is unlikely ever to be definitively pinned down."[4]
Can we move on a moment from the discussion of whether or not to change who is on the bill to who we think should be on the $10 bill? Keeping with the Treasury's intent of putting a woman on the bill and the general tradition that the person being honored must be deceased who is on your short list of who should go on the bill? Mine is;
Molly Pitcher
Abigail Adams
Sacajawea
Susan B. Anthony
Harriet Tubman
Clara Barton
Eleanor Roosevelt
Having given that list, I think Martin Luther King Jr. is much more deserving of being on a dollar bill before any of the ladies listed especially given the historical legacy and positions held by those currently depicted on the dollar bills (listed below).
US$ 1: George Washington
US$ 2: Thomas Jefferson
US$ 5: Abraham Lincoln
US$ 10: Alexander Hamilton
US$ 20: Andrew Jackson
US$ 50: Ulysses S. Grant
US$ 100: Benjamin Franklin
US$ 500: William McKinley
US$ 1000: Grover Cleveland
US$ 5000: James Madison
US$ 10 000: Salmon P. Chase
US$ 100 000: Woodrow Wilson
Ultimately, this all just smacks of tokenism and consequently might serve to do a disservice to the memory of the person selected instead of elevating that person to the level of regard that the other individuals shown on the bills in common circulation are held in.
Why the 10$ bill? Is it because that's how much a good sammich cost?
Secondly, and seriously, how come we don't just cycle through a bunch of historical figures? Seems to me that it could make everyone happy AND make it harder to counterfit... know what I mean?
That would actually make it easier to counterfeit.
Because there would be potentially dozens of possible variations for legal bills of a particular denomination it would be tough to catch them. You need a scanner for each variant of each bill.
Lord of Deeds wrote: Can we move on a moment from the discussion of whether or not to change who is on the bill to who we think should be on the $10 bill? Keeping with the Treasury's intent of putting a woman on the bill and the general tradition that the person being honored must be deceased who is on your short list of who should go on the bill? Mine is;
Molly Pitcher
Abigail Adams
Sacajawea
Susan B. Anthony
Harriet Tubman
Clara Barton
Eleanor Roosevelt
Having given that list, I think Martin Luther King Jr. is much more deserving of being on a dollar bill before any of the ladies listed especially given the historical legacy and positions held by those currently depicted on the dollar bills (listed below).
US$ 1: George Washington
US$ 2: Thomas Jefferson
US$ 5: Abraham Lincoln
US$ 10: Alexander Hamilton
US$ 20: Andrew Jackson
US$ 50: Ulysses S. Grant
US$ 100: Benjamin Franklin
US$ 500: William McKinley
US$ 1000: Grover Cleveland
US$ 5000: James Madison
US$ 10 000: Salmon P. Chase
US$ 100 000: Woodrow Wilson
Ultimately, this all just smacks of tokenism and consequently might serve to do a disservice to the memory of the person selected instead of elevating that person to the level of regard that the other individuals shown on the bills in common circulation are held in.
Looks like all people on the dollar are either presidents or founders of the US?
Would be strange to break that up. IMO, rather than just change one single bill, they should change all of them so they can introduce an entire new series. Otherwise you end up with a single bill feeling out of place in the series.
Damn... Leave it to Kronk to solve all of the worlds problems. Call up Alan Greenspan, or whoever is in charge of that gak show now, and get this done asap.
When we say that something is the best thing since sliced bread, we mean that it's the greatest thing to happen for a very long time. We'd love to say that Betty White is the best thing since sliced bread, but really sliced bread might've been the best thing since Betty White. White was born in 1922, and bread wasn't sliced until 1928.
I would grudgingly accept giving up my preservation of history for Whembly's suggestion. Boobs on money seems an appropriate thing given how much money is spent on boobs.
Yah paper money just doesn't do it for me anymore lol.
You know we could also just go with animals and monuments/landmarks on money. Like the turkey on the $50 to make ole Benjamin's ghost happy.
In all seriousness if people are removed then nobody has a legitimate complaint about gender equality on money. Plus the net gain is our money could have even more overt American symbolism that could annoy the rest of the world everytime they are forced to use the U.S. dollar. If you want to talk about an American tradition, annoying the world with displays of American "radness" is probably #1 haha.
Then we could put little micro chips and microphones on money. So when ever you touch them you hear a country song or the sound of a bud being cracked open or even the sound of an A-10 doing a gun run....you know, America stuff.
Mount Rushmore, Washington Monument, White House, Grand Canyon, a Crackhouse, Statue of Liberty, Gateway Arch, Golden Gate Bridge, a Bald Eagle, the Hollywood sign, Bourbon Street, the Superdome, an American Bison, a Longhorn Steer, Old Faithful, a Jail Cell, Superman, used scratch-Off tickets, long lines at the DMV, Apple Pie, and the God Damn Flag of the United States of America in a hologram or foil so that the mother fether waves when you turn the money just right!
I wonder, since we apparently have the qualification that a person must be dead in order to put onto our money... What would happen if we put Keith Richards onto a bill?
One of the reasons why we don't rotate historical figures and more often is because the cost of printing the money costs more then the money you print is worth.....kind of counter productive right? As far as changing them on a rotating basis when the bill is actually do for an update? yeah go for it, But allow the citizens to vote on persons based on historical significance not based on their gender.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't honoring someone specifically because of their race/gender basically racism/sexism?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I wonder, since we apparently have the qualification that a person must be dead in order to put onto our money... What would happen if we put Keith Richards onto a bill?
feth that guy! He's British!
If foreigners want to use 'Merican money, they have to look at a fething foil American Flag waving at them.
Ghazkuul wrote: One of the reasons why we don't rotate historical figures and more often is because the cost of printing the money costs more then the money you print is worth.....kind of counter productive right? As far as changing them on a rotating basis when the bill is actually do for an update? yeah go for it, But allow the citizens to vote on persons based on historical significance not based on their gender.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't honoring someone specifically because of their race/gender basically racism/sexism?
Ghazkuul wrote: One of the reasons why we don't rotate historical figures and more often is because the cost of printing the money costs more then the money you print is worth.....kind of counter productive right? As far as changing them on a rotating basis when the bill is actually do for an update? yeah go for it, But allow the citizens to vote on persons based on historical significance not based on their gender.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't honoring someone specifically because of their race/gender basically racism/sexism?
Yes, of course, but those are not the reasons that the people proposed for the new $10 bill have been nominated, even though a lot of them happen to be women and/or black.
Ghazkuul wrote: One of the reasons why we don't rotate historical figures and more often is because the cost of printing the money costs more then the money you print is worth.....kind of counter productive right? As far as changing them on a rotating basis when the bill is actually do for an update? yeah go for it, But allow the citizens to vote on persons based on historical significance not based on their gender.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't honoring someone specifically because of their race/gender basically racism/sexism?
Yes, of course, but those are not the reasons that the people proposed for the new $10 bill have been nominated, even though a lot of them happen to be women and/or black.
So what criteria was used to choose these nominees? Because it apparently has to be a woman who has some sort of historical significance. so if were basing the nomination on the equipment between your legs wouldn't that be sexism?
Ghazkuul wrote: One of the reasons why we don't rotate historical figures and more often is because the cost of printing the money costs more then the money you print is worth.....kind of counter productive right? As far as changing them on a rotating basis when the bill is actually do for an update? yeah go for it, But allow the citizens to vote on persons based on historical significance not based on their gender.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't honoring someone specifically because of their race/gender basically racism/sexism?
Yes, of course, but those are not the reasons that the people proposed for the new $10 bill have been nominated, even though a lot of them happen to be women and/or black.
So what criteria was used to choose these nominees? Because it apparently has to be a woman who has some sort of historical significance. so if were basing the nomination on the equipment between your legs wouldn't that be sexism?
That is the very definition of sexism yes.
The article states that is will be a women put on the bill and you Americans must decide on which women.
HOWEVER if every bill had a male and a female on there, it would just be like the Olympics. The Genders will be judged and competing among themselves so this means that the women selected aren't chosen over people who had bigger impact on the past.
Since the bill has both a man and a women on there I would say that it isn't really sexist. Just like having a female running record and male running record isn't sexist. Because I am very certain that based on qualifications alone it would all be men on those bills.
Ghazkuul wrote: better make everything equal regardless of facts then, that way everyone can have a warm fuzzy right?
I agree with you, thats what my post was about.
But having both genders on the bill gives women a chance to be selected to appear on there based on qualifications. It's the same with the Olympic records etc, if we just had one record then women wouldn't have a chance, same with money. I suppose they are doing the same thing with your notes.
Ghazkuul wrote: so if were basing the nomination on the equipment between your legs wouldn't that be sexism?
No, because calling it sexism is based on the assumption that the current situation isn't sexist. Pointing out that women are under-represented* in US money and trying to do something about the problem is only sexist if it crosses the line into over-representing women. Right now the argument is that women are X% of the people who are worthy of being put on our money, so we should give them at least Y% of the slots where X > Y. We know that if we can't even manage Y% it's because the selection process is biased against women and "pick them by merit alone without looking at gender" actually means "pick men". And if that's the case then we have to make a deliberate effort to remove that bias if we want to honestly claim that we aren't sexist.
*Unless you want to make the obviously absurd claim that there are no important women that could legitimately go on the money.
Ghazkuul wrote: so if were basing the nomination on the equipment between your legs wouldn't that be sexism?
No, because calling it sexism is based on the assumption that the current situation isn't sexist. Pointing out that women are under-represented* in US money and trying to do something about the problem is only sexist if it crosses the line into over-representing women. Right now the argument is that women are X% of the people who are worthy of being put on our money, so we should give them at least Y% of the slots where X > Y. We know that if we can't even manage Y% it's because the selection process is biased against women and "pick them by merit alone without looking at gender" actually means "pick men". And if that's the case then we have to make a deliberate effort to remove that bias if we want to honestly claim that we aren't sexist.
*Unless you want to make the obviously absurd claim that there are no important women that could legitimately go on the money.
Its sexist to put a women on a bill because she's a women, just like its sexist to put a man on a bill because he's a man.
Nobody got put on any of our currency because of their gender, and it should stay that way. People with the biggest influence should get put on bills, and not because of their sex.
Ghazkuul wrote: so if were basing the nomination on the equipment between your legs wouldn't that be sexism?
No, because calling it sexism is based on the assumption that the current situation isn't sexist. Pointing out that women are under-represented* in US money and trying to do something about the problem is only sexist if it crosses the line into over-representing women. Right now the argument is that women are X% of the people who are worthy of being put on our money, so we should give them at least Y% of the slots where X > Y. We know that if we can't even manage Y% it's because the selection process is biased against women and "pick them by merit alone without looking at gender" actually means "pick men". And if that's the case then we have to make a deliberate effort to remove that bias if we want to honestly claim that we aren't sexist.
*Unless you want to make the obviously absurd claim that there are no important women that could legitimately go on the money.
Its sexist to put a women on a bill because she's a women, just like its sexist to put a man on a bill because he's a man.
Nobody got put on any of our currency because of their gender, and it should stay that way. People with the biggest influence should get put on bills, and not because of their sex.
Yes they did. They absolutely got put on their because of their gender. How many women were allowed to help draft our constitution. How many founding mothers did we have and why exactly are there none?
Ghazkuul wrote: so if were basing the nomination on the equipment between your legs wouldn't that be sexism?
No, because calling it sexism is based on the assumption that the current situation isn't sexist. Pointing out that women are under-represented* in US money and trying to do something about the problem is only sexist if it crosses the line into over-representing women. Right now the argument is that women are X% of the people who are worthy of being put on our money, so we should give them at least Y% of the slots where X > Y. We know that if we can't even manage Y% it's because the selection process is biased against women and "pick them by merit alone without looking at gender" actually means "pick men". And if that's the case then we have to make a deliberate effort to remove that bias if we want to honestly claim that we aren't sexist.
*Unless you want to make the obviously absurd claim that there are no important women that could legitimately go on the money.
Its sexist to put a women on a bill because she's a women, just like its sexist to put a man on a bill because he's a man.
Nobody got put on any of our currency because of their gender, and it should stay that way. People with the biggest influence should get put on bills, and not because of their sex.
Yes they did. They absolutely got put on their because of their gender. How many women were allowed to help draft our constitution. How many founding mothers did we have and why exactly are there none?
How many women wanted to help draft the Constitution? You can't force modern values onto people that lived hundreds of years ago and say they were sexist because they didn't invite women to help draft it. It would have been sexist if they had invited women to have an input just for being women.
They got put on the bills because they were the founders, they just so happened to all be men because politics at that time was a male centered profession. Its not sexist to want to honor what they did and not take that away. And it is most definitely sexist to demand women get anything just because they are women. Everyone has to be treated equally, which means you have to perform equally worthy deeds to be worth putting on the bill.
Nobody is taking it away. I know we are having issues grasping this, but Hamilton will still be on the bills. There will just be two different bills.
Also, it is not sexist to ask a woman to help just because she is a woman. Different perspectives are very important when doing pretty much anything and an educated woman would have brought a new perspective to the table. Maybe she would have suggested giving equal rights to women. A little representation would have been nice.
Women have had equal achievements, you just refuse to admit it. Remember when they fought for nearly 100 years to have the right to vote and finally got it?
Dreadwinter wrote: Nobody is taking it away. I know we are having issues grasping this, but Hamilton will still be on the bills. There will just be two different bills.
Also, it is not sexist to ask a woman to help just because she is a woman. Different perspectives are very important when doing pretty much anything and an educated woman would have brought a new perspective to the table. Maybe she would have suggested giving equal rights to women. A little representation would have been nice.
Women have had equal achievements, you just refuse to admit it. Remember when they fought for nearly 100 years to have the right to vote and finally got it?
You are projecting 21st Century culture and values on 18th Century people. That is one of the biggest mistakes an historian can make. There is a huge difference between American culture and values of the late 18th Century and American culture of the early 21st Century. Even if they had invited a woman to help draft the constitution there would have been no "equal rights for women" because the people of that time (women included) viewed men and women as meant for different roles in society and therefore needing different rights.
Dreadwinter wrote: Nobody is taking it away. I know we are having issues grasping this, but Hamilton will still be on the bills. There will just be two different bills.
Also, it is not sexist to ask a woman to help just because she is a woman. Different perspectives are very important when doing pretty much anything and an educated woman would have brought a new perspective to the table. Maybe she would have suggested giving equal rights to women. A little representation would have been nice.
Women have had equal achievements, you just refuse to admit it. Remember when they fought for nearly 100 years to have the right to vote and finally got it?
You are projecting 21st Century culture and values on 18th Century people. That is one of the biggest mistakes an historian can make. There is a huge difference between American culture and values of the late 18th Century and American culture of the early 21st Century. Even if they had invited a woman to help draft the constitution there would have been no "equal rights for women" because the people of that time (women included) viewed men and women as meant for different roles in society and therefore needing different rights.
I didn't, i just pointed out that it is not sexist to ask a woman for her perspective given her different role in the world at the time. I also never said there would have been equal rights if a woman had been present, I said it may have been suggested.
Now, since we have no founding mothers, we have to look to other areas where women have made an impact. A major achievement in this country was suffrage, it was spearheaded by fearless women who faced opposition at every turn and bravely fought on despite it. Maybe one of these brave souls deserves recognition. Probably a little more than a May who wanted to make the President in to a lifetime appointment.
Grey Templar wrote: Everyone has to be treated equally, which means you have to perform equally worthy deeds to be worth putting on the bill.
The point is that women have done worthy things, so the absence of women on US money is a sign of bias in the selection process. And if you have a biased system denying the problem and continuing to do what you've been doing is not the answer.
Its not sexist to want to honor what they did and not take that away.
It's only "taking it away" if you make the absurd assumption that once you're put on a bill you're entitled to be there forever.
To tell the truth, I don't have money in my wallet that often enough to care whose face is on a bill. Hell, even a picture of Obama staring at himself in a mirror could be on one and I wouldn't care.
Grey Templar wrote: I tink once on a bill you do have the right to remain there forever. Its far from absurd.
Except, as listed before, many people have been removed from money and other people put on to take their place.
Yeah, seriously. Our money changes all the time (speaking in relative terms of course). Saying "we should keep him on because he was there" is not, and never has been, an argument.
There are actual arguments you can use, just not that one.
Grey Templar wrote: I tink once on a bill you do have the right to remain there forever. Its far from absurd.
So, you believe in a right that the US government doesn't agree with? Even if you ignore all of the other countries that regularly change who is on their money the US has made its own changes in the past. This "right" simply does not exist in the real world.
You know they could drop Grant, if you think about it. He was a general on the winning side but in no way implemented a strategy that was inventive or even good to be honest. It was just feeds bodies in grinder, collect victory. As a president he was even worse, possibly even a failure as a president. His presidency was plagued by ineffectual nepotism.
So if you want to go with replacing somebody with equal achievements then Grant shouldn't be too hard. As the monetary value of the bill isn't relative to importance to America history, then reasonably a woman could be placed there. An individual not really worth their position on money would be replaced and everybody could be happy.
Most countries renew their coinage and bank notes fairly regularly for various reasons, including security. The new designs normally include different pictures for renewal of security.
You folks who want to live in the good old days where white men had no fear of what women might be on your money had your day. It is completely irrelevant who or what you want on your paper bills. The question is, who will VISA put on their card next? Mine has a nice neutral blue design with some shiney bits.
And yeah Grant was a pretty crappy person to pick to put on a bill. He was a drunk who could follow a straight line. A fascinating man for both his circumstances and his ability to evade them, but not exactly a paragon of heroism or valor or ingenuity or somebody one would want their son or daughter to look up to. Hell, the turncoat Lee would be a be a better pick. But damn if he didn't have a great heroic name. "Ulysses S. Grant" sounds like a space marine name.
My issue with this is more it's a theme. Currently the theme is U.S. presidents. If we can change it to important figures in history you may as well have the woman that made the first U.S. flag design or something similar.
Oh and no doubt andrew jackson was still an ***. No two ways about that part. I still feel like he was one of the more terrible U.S. presidents as far as deeds go.
Anyway if we're going for important historical figures we could do what we've been doing with the quarters for each state. North carolina gets the Wright brothers and their first plane so maybe they're on a dollar bill.
Personally if we do historical figures a woman or two is fine but i don't see the need to replace them all with women unless you want to throw out some false image of being progressive when you're totally just going sexist in the other direction.
I have always liked Grant for his civil war performance. Lincoln said on one occasion if Grant was a drunk Lincoln would like to send a barrel of whiskey to all the other generals. On another occasion when Grant's dismissal was called for, I think it was after Shiloh, Lincoln said, "I can't spare this general. He fights." Compare that with Lincoln's request to McClellan that if the general did not have any plans to use the army (of the Potomac), he would like to borrow it.
Back on topic, no-one has suggested replacing all of them with women but I think it will take another 50 years for there to be enough notable women to do it. That is a natural consequence of the subordinate position that society allocated to women until fairly recently.
The nonsense that the $10 has changed a lot and recently is wrong btw it has changed a lot, except that the $10 note didn't exist until around 1861. In 1928 Alexander Hamilton was added to the bill.
So a piece of currency that is 154 years old has had a single person on it for 87 years or about 1/2 the time it has been around. I would say that at this point we can say that it hasn't changed recently
Ghazkuul wrote: The nonsense that the $10 has changed a lot and recently is wrong btw it has changed a lot, except that the $10 note didn't exist until around 1861. In 1928 Alexander Hamilton was added to the bill.
So a piece of currency that is 154 years old has had a single person on it for 87 years or about 1/2 the time it has been around. I would say that at this point we can say that it hasn't changed recently
Yeah, it hasn't been changed in awhile. Now seems like a good time to keep up the tradition of changing our currency.
Ghazkuul wrote: The nonsense that the $10 has changed a lot and recently is wrong btw it has changed a lot, except that the $10 note didn't exist until around 1861. In 1928 Alexander Hamilton was added to the bill.
So a piece of currency that is 154 years old has had a single person on it for 87 years or about 1/2 the time it has been around. I would say that at this point we can say that it hasn't changed recently
Yeah, it hasn't been changed in awhile. Now seems like a good time to keep up the tradition of changing our currency.
or we can stop being wingnuts who think we have to change everything to make everyone equal and just say "hamilton did a lot for our country and deserves to be the main picture on the $10" but that won't happen because we have to many people who see everything in this world as demeaning and take every comment offensively. PC sucks and it is ruining our country.
Ghazkuul wrote: The nonsense that the $10 has changed a lot and recently is wrong btw it has changed a lot, except that the $10 note didn't exist until around 1861. In 1928 Alexander Hamilton was added to the bill.
So a piece of currency that is 154 years old has had a single person on it for 87 years or about 1/2 the time it has been around. I would say that at this point we can say that it hasn't changed recently
Yeah, it hasn't been changed in awhile. Now seems like a good time to keep up the tradition of changing our currency.
or we can stop being wingnuts who think we have to change everything to make everyone equal and just say "hamilton did a lot for our country and deserves to be the main picture on the $10" but that won't happen because we have to many people who see everything in this world as demeaning and take every comment offensively. PC sucks and it is ruining our country.
Except he has been and there are many, many other people who also did a lot and haven't been on money.
What if someone in the future comes along and does something even greater than Hamilton or even Washington? Would they still not be able to get on money because these men did other things and also happened to have been born before them?
Ghazkuul wrote: The nonsense that the $10 has changed a lot and recently is wrong btw it has changed a lot, except that the $10 note didn't exist until around 1861. In 1928 Alexander Hamilton was added to the bill.
So a piece of currency that is 154 years old has had a single person on it for 87 years or about 1/2 the time it has been around. I would say that at this point we can say that it hasn't changed recently
Yeah, it hasn't been changed in awhile. Now seems like a good time to keep up the tradition of changing our currency.
or we can stop being wingnuts who think we have to change everything to make everyone equal and just say "hamilton did a lot for our country and deserves to be the main picture on the $10" but that won't happen because we have to many people who see everything in this world as demeaning and take every comment offensively. PC sucks and it is ruining our country.
No, what is ruining our country are knee jerk reactions any time a person hears pc or thinks sjws are involved. Hamilton is not the only person who has done something great for this country so he should not be the only person recognized.
You are so committed to going against the grain of political correctness that you are seeing it in places it is not and are now blaming others. Get ahold of yourself and start seeing reason.
Ghazkuul wrote: So a piece of currency that is 154 years old has had a single person on it for 87 years or about 1/2 the time it has been around. I would say that at this point we can say that it hasn't changed recently
But it has still changed, and the $10 bill is hardly the kind of unifying cultural icon where "it's tradition" is a legitimate argument.
The best thing would be if there never were any changes to US currency for the next 3,000 years. That would be in accordance with tradition and best of all it would keep women and black people and especially black women off the banknotes where they don't deserve to be seen. Anything else is just PC and ruining America.
I don't care if that sounds like SIW speech, it's the truth.
Kilkrazy wrote: The best thing would be if there never were any changes to US currency for the next 3,000 years. That would be in accordance with tradition and best of all it would keep women and black people and especially black women off the banknotes where they don't deserve to be seen. Anything else is just PC and ruining America.
I don't care if that sounds like SIW speech, it's the truth.
Nah, the very best idea would be to change all US currency to landmark buildings or animals and end this silly issue for once and for all.
Not that I mind it though. Seeing people getting this worked up about trivial stuff is 1st class entertainment.
Yeah, it hasn't been changed in awhile. Now seems like a good time to keep up the tradition of changing our currency.
or we can stop being wingnuts who think we have to change everything to make everyone equal and just say "hamilton did a lot for our country and deserves to be the main picture on the $10" but that won't happen because we have to many people who see everything in this world as demeaning and take every comment offensively. PC sucks and it is ruining our country.
And this is why you are awesome. I really wish people wouldn't get offended by everything. Not everything is fair in the world and never will be. Sometimes you just gotta deal with that fact. Also trying to replace them all with women would be just as bad as having all men.
@dreadwinter: Yeah i forgot about benjamin franklin for a bit. Well it was mostly U.S. presidents.
If you guys want to be so unoffensive you could always throw obama on a bill and it'd mostly fit with the presidents idea (some higher bill). I'm sure people would still complain as he hasn't been popular with everybody though. We do have kennedy and FDR on money so seeing obama on some wouldn't be too hard to believe.
If you put guns on your bank notes then technically everyone will be exercising their right to bear arms. Plus there is nothing more American than guns
So we shouldn't do what we can to fix unfair situations? Do you honestly think that this is a good argument?
Sometimes you just gotta deal with that fact.
Why? Let's not forget that this is a situation where the $10 bill is being redesigned anyway, so putting a different person on it requires a trivial amount of effort. The only argument for "dealing with it" here is that some people don't want to change. And I think it should be obvious why "STFU and deal with it, I don't like change" is a bad argument.
Also trying to replace them all with women would be just as bad as having all men.
Nobody is suggesting this. Please don't create straw man arguments to oppose.
If you guys want to be so unoffensive you could always throw obama on a bill and it'd mostly fit with the presidents idea (some higher bill). I'm sure people would still complain as he hasn't been popular with everybody though. We do have kennedy and FDR on money so seeing obama on some wouldn't be too hard to believe.
Sigh. Aside from the absurdity of putting Obama, a mediocre president whose greatest accomplishment so far has been keeping even worse alternatives from getting the job, in such a prestigious position long-established tradition prevents living people from going on our money.
Kilkrazy wrote: The best thing would be if there never were any changes to US currency for the next 3,000 years. That would be in accordance with tradition and best of all it would keep women and black people and especially black women off the banknotes where they don't deserve to be seen. Anything else is just PC and ruining America.
I don't care if that sounds like SIW speech, it's the truth.
Nah, the very best idea would be to change all US currency to landmark buildings or animals and end this silly issue for once and for all.
Not that I mind it though. Seeing people getting this worked up about trivial stuff is 1st class entertainment.
I am inclined to agree. I mean what else do these presidents want apart from world wide fame they already cling to. I mean if you ask anyone who george washington is they will usually say the first american, Thomas Jefferson writer of the decleartion of independence.
Putting landmarks onto the bill would be preferable as those are often seen as symbols of american power. And money equating to power would be a great way to show how great the US is in terms of power. Though to really screw with people they should go more with less of the easier copied design that it currently is.
Personally i wouldn't mind if they got rid of 'under god' but that's mostly because on the pledge of allegiance it was never always on it.
For 'in god we trust' i also don't but that's more because i am not into religion.
At the end of the day all this is less about deeds and more about dealing with people that like to whine. Like i said if it was history you could just have the events displayed or perhaps stuff like the lewis and clark expeditions.
There are plenty of events in history worth nothing. America just didn't have too many with women so far.
------
@Peregrine: Oh and i'm not super thrilled with obama either but i'm betting not every president was considered good during the time of their office. It was probably decades after people thought they were so great after history was written in their favor.
Fixing some things is fine as long as you don't fix it in a way that causes more and different problems than before. Of course considering your views you would change everything to not be offensive in any insignificant way if you could. Basically at that point any original message of something is then lost.
If you want women on a bill i'm ok with it if it's andrew jackson since he was a jerk. Throw on somebody else that was a big deal back then like the woman to make the first american flag.
-------
@asherian command: I wouldn't mind here either. Monuments would at least get people to shut up. Alternatively rotating who's on the money might be ok provided you put all kinds of people on the bills.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Personally i wouldn't mind if they got rid of 'under god' but that's mostly because on the pledge of allegiance it was never always on it.
For 'in god we trust' i also don't but that's more because i am not into religion.
At the end of the day all this is less about deeds and more about dealing with people that like to whine. Like i said if it was history you could just have the events displayed or perhaps stuff like the lewis and clark expeditions.
There are plenty of events in history worth nothing. America just didn't have too many with women so far.
------
@Peregrine: Oh and i'm not super thrilled with obama either but i'm betting not every president was considered good during the time of their office. It was probably decades after people thought they were so great after history was written in their favor.
Fixing some things is fine as long as you don't fix it in a way that causes more and different problems than before. Of course considering your views you would change everything to not be offensive in any insignificant way if you could. Basically at that point any original message of something is then lost.
If you want women on a bill i'm ok with it if it's andrew jackson since he was a jerk. Throw on somebody else that was a big deal back then like the woman to make the first american flag.
-------
@asherian command: I wouldn't mind here either. Monuments would at least get people to shut up. Alternatively rotating who's on the money might be ok provided you put all kinds of people on the bills.
The woman who made the American flag? I thought that was debunked. We could of course take Hamilton off of it. A man who attempted to make the presidency a lifetime term because he believed a monarchy was one of the best forms of government. We could replace him with somebody who fought for the rights of people against great adversity, much like our founding fathers. Susan B Anthony comes to mind.
Ghazkuul wrote: The nonsense that the $10 has changed a lot and recently is wrong btw it has changed a lot, except that the $10 note didn't exist until around 1861. In 1928 Alexander Hamilton was added to the bill.
So a piece of currency that is 154 years old has had a single person on it for 87 years or about 1/2 the time it has been around. I would say that at this point we can say that it hasn't changed recently
Yeah, it hasn't been changed in awhile. Now seems like a good time to keep up the tradition of changing our currency.
or we can stop being wingnuts who think we have to change everything to make everyone equal and just say "hamilton did a lot for our country and deserves to be the main picture on the $10" but that won't happen because we have to many people who see everything in this world as demeaning and take every comment offensively. PC sucks and it is ruining our country.
No, what is ruining our country are knee jerk reactions any time a person hears pc or thinks sjws are involved. Hamilton is not the only person who has done something great for this country so he should not be the only person recognized. You are so committed to going against the grain of political correctness that you are seeing it in places it is not and are now blaming others. Get ahold of yourself and start seeing reason.
Knee jerk reaction would be a group of feminists signing a petition to have Jackson removed from the $20 and the US Treasury department jumps hold of the idea and wants to change the first bill up for renewal to a woman. My reaction is based on historical significance. You are correct that Hamilton is not the only person to do something historically significant for our country, but he did do a lot more then any of the woman who were nominated for the honor of replacing a figure on the currency. SO what that is saying is that we want to remove someone very significant in US history for someone significantly less significant so that woman feel more represented on money......
Except he has been and there are many, many other people who also did a lot and haven't been on money.
What if someone in the future comes along and does something even greater than Hamilton or even Washington? Would they still not be able to get on money because these men did other things and also happened to have been born before them?
If someone in the future does MORE or even AS MUCH as Hamilton or even Washington then YES by all means put them on our currency, forever honoring their contribution to our country. But none of the woman nominated can hold a candle to what Hamilton did for our country. So therefore DONT change it just because a bunch of feminists demand more representation on currency.
Well, we are not talking about the $20, we are talking about Hamilton and the $10. So please stop trying to change to the conversation to a completely different situation in order to prove your point. They are not the same.
With that being said, the $10 is being changed no matter how much steam you blow. Not because they want to put a woman on money, but because they need to change it. It is time. They decided to put a woman on the bill. We get to vote on who it is. You keep screaming about feminists, sjws, and political correctness. But none of that is happening here.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, we are not talking about the $20, we are talking about Hamilton and the $10. So please stop trying to change to the conversation to a completely different situation in order to prove your point. They are not the same.
With that being said, the $10 is being changed no matter how much steam you blow. Not because they want to put a woman on money, but because they need to change it. It is time. They decided to put a woman on the bill. We get to vote on who it is. You keep screaming about feminists, sjws, and political correctness. But none of that is happening here.
SJW's and FEminists are not the issue i think its people replacing the wrong guy because they don't know their history at all. Andrew Jackson was an arsehole and not someone that anyone should like he did terrible terrible things and yet he isn't getting replaced. That is more of a sign of idiocy than a sign of radicalism. Though I can get the confusion.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, we are not talking about the $20, we are talking about Hamilton and the $10. So please stop trying to change to the conversation to a completely different situation in order to prove your point. They are not the same.
With that being said, the $10 is being changed no matter how much steam you blow. Not because they want to put a woman on money, but because they need to change it. It is time. They decided to put a woman on the bill. We get to vote on who it is. You keep screaming about feminists, sjws, and political correctness. But none of that is happening here.
and with that post you just showed that your ignorant of what we are talking about. The $20 petition and the $10 change are one and the same. In fact if you had bothered to read the article it specifically says that the $20 petition was the catalyst behind the decision to change the bill to a woman. So please, if your here just to be a SJW then at least read the article first
Tradition for the sake of tradition is meaningless.
The argument seems to be that Hamilton has done more than the woman he is being replaced with? Why is that relevant? Haven't the people on the bills being changed numerous times? Has each exchange always been to an equally or more historically significant person? If it hasn't, then there is no problem whatsoever, now is there?
Hell, haven't you had animals on the bills as well?
In my opinion, at least many of the female candidates mentioned ITT have done enough to enter the process (or 'rotation'?). Whether they manage to be more significant than who they are replacing is irrelevant as long as they make it above the threshold necessary to enter the 'rotation' at all, which I argue they have.
Back on topic, no-one has suggested replacing all of them with women but I think it will take another 50 years for there to be enough notable women to do it. That is a natural consequence of the subordinate position that society allocated to women until fairly recently.
Truth. Of course, there's still some women that have managed to carve themselves enough of a mark to fit the bill, despite the resistance.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, we are not talking about the $20, we are talking about Hamilton and the $10. So please stop trying to change to the conversation to a completely different situation in order to prove your point. They are not the same.
With that being said, the $10 is being changed no matter how much steam you blow. Not because they want to put a woman on money, but because they need to change it. It is time. They decided to put a woman on the bill. We get to vote on who it is. You keep screaming about feminists, sjws, and political correctness. But none of that is happening here.
SJW's and FEminists are not the issue i think its people replacing the wrong guy because they don't know their history at all. Andrew Jackson was an arsehole and not someone that anyone should like he did terrible terrible things and yet he isn't getting replaced. That is more of a sign of idiocy than a sign of radicalism. Though I can get the confusion.
Huh? I know Andrew Jackson was not the greatest person, but that is not what this is about. The bill was next up for change. This has been a decision two years in the making, he will be replaced, just not yet. I really am confused on how you think this is a sign of idiocy.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, we are not talking about the $20, we are talking about Hamilton and the $10. So please stop trying to change to the conversation to a completely different situation in order to prove your point. They are not the same.
With that being said, the $10 is being changed no matter how much steam you blow. Not because they want to put a woman on money, but because they need to change it. It is time. They decided to put a woman on the bill. We get to vote on who it is. You keep screaming about feminists, sjws, and political correctness. But none of that is happening here.
and with that post you just showed that your ignorant of what we are talking about. The $20 petition and the $10 change are one and the same. In fact if you had bothered to read the article it specifically says that the $20 petition was the catalyst behind the decision to change the bill to a woman. So please, if your here just to be a SJW then at least read the article first
I really do not think that you read the article. It states a couple times why the bill is being changed and gives dates. Did you know that petition was sent last month? Did you know that the decision to change the $10 was made in 2013? Did you also know that a woman is being put on to the bill to celebrate the 100th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote?
Get out of here with calling me a SJW if you cannot even read the article and put together what it means.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, we are not talking about the $20, we are talking about Hamilton and the $10. So please stop trying to change to the conversation to a completely different situation in order to prove your point. They are not the same.
With that being said, the $10 is being changed no matter how much steam you blow. Not because they want to put a woman on money, but because they need to change it. It is time. They decided to put a woman on the bill. We get to vote on who it is. You keep screaming about feminists, sjws, and political correctness. But none of that is happening here.
SJW's and FEminists are not the issue i think its people replacing the wrong guy because they don't know their history at all. Andrew Jackson was an arsehole and not someone that anyone should like he did terrible terrible things and yet he isn't getting replaced. That is more of a sign of idiocy than a sign of radicalism. Though I can get the confusion.
Huh? I know Andrew Jackson was not the greatest person, but that is not what this is about. The bill was next up for change. This has been a decision two years in the making, he will be replaced, just not yet. I really am confused on how you think this is a sign of idiocy.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, we are not talking about the $20, we are talking about Hamilton and the $10. So please stop trying to change to the conversation to a completely different situation in order to prove your point. They are not the same.
With that being said, the $10 is being changed no matter how much steam you blow. Not because they want to put a woman on money, but because they need to change it. It is time. They decided to put a woman on the bill. We get to vote on who it is. You keep screaming about feminists, sjws, and political correctness. But none of that is happening here.
and with that post you just showed that your ignorant of what we are talking about. The $20 petition and the $10 change are one and the same. In fact if you had bothered to read the article it specifically says that the $20 petition was the catalyst behind the decision to change the bill to a woman. So please, if your here just to be a SJW then at least read the article first
I really do not think that you read the article. It states a couple times why the bill is being changed and gives dates. Did you know that petition was sent last month? Did you know that the decision to change the $10 was made in 2013? Did you also know that a woman is being put on to the bill to celebrate the 100th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote?
Get out of here with calling me a SJW if you cannot even read the article and put together what it means.
Reading Comprehension FTW!
Did you know the petition was sent last month..yes yes I did, did you know the treasury knew about the change back in 2013...yes yes I did, did you know that I didnt read the article....Yes Yes I did.
The treasury has a rotation in place where the bills are Changed, not the person on them just the bill itself, this keeps counterfeiters on the back foot as much as possible.
"The Treasury said that currency is primarily redesigned to prevent counterfeiting. The $10 bill was recommended by the Advanced Counterfeit Deterrence Steering Committee for redesign in June, 2013."
They announced the need for the bill to be updated in 2013, not the adding of a woman to the bill.
Andrew Jackson was a great man. He was an arsehole, but he was an arsehole for America. He fought in the revolution, kicked ass in the war of 1812, stole us Florida and was directly preserved by the beneficent hand of some divine power.
That is wrong. Bills have had the person on them changed many times to prevent counterfeiting. Just because they do not do it every time does not mean it is not done.
Now the treasury, who has almost complete control of designing the bill, has decided to put a woman on it to celebrate a very great event in our nations history.
Dreadwinter wrote: That is wrong. Bills have had the person on them changed many times to prevent counterfeiting. Just because they do not do it every time does not mean it is not done.
Now the treasury, who has almost complete control of designing the bill, has decided to put a woman on it to celebrate a very great event in our nations history.
How do you have a problem with that?
So its just a coincidence that the petition was put forward just recently, just a coincidence that President Obama made a big deal out of it? huh?
And the bills haven't changed people on them in a very long time. Im not denying the greatness of womans suffrage, im pointing out that nobody so far, male or female has surpassed Hamilton's contribution to our country and until they do I feel he shouldn't be relegated to a security feature on the $10.
flamingkillamajig wrote: @Peregrine: Oh and i'm not super thrilled with obama either but i'm betting not every president was considered good during the time of their office. It was probably decades after people thought they were so great after history was written in their favor.
And this is why you don't get to be on US money until after you're dead.
Fixing some things is fine as long as you don't fix it in a way that causes more and different problems than before.
Exactly what problems are created by changing who is on the $10 bill? Are you aware that other countries frequently change who is on their bills without any problems?
Of course considering your views you would change everything to not be offensive in any insignificant way if you could. Basically at that point any original message of something is then lost.
Lots of people have suprpassed Hamilton's contributions to the country
Hamilton is by far the most overblown of the famous founding fathers. He did some good writing, but all of his policy decisions ultimately became disasters.
Also, Susan B. Anthony's fight for women's right to vote surpasses Hamilton and his contributions with the banking system. But that is just my opinion. Kinda like your opinion of Hamilton.
What's really funny here is that I bet very few of the people who are outraged about changing the $10 bill could have told you who is currently on it and why before this "controversy". But suddenly when the evil SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS want to change something it's a beloved tradition.
Because they're adding a woman "just to add a woman". "It's the 100 year anniversary of women voting, so add a woman to share a bill with a founding father!" The bill may need to be updated to prevent counterfeiter , but that doesn't mean this guy needs his honor yanked. Make a new damn bill and put the woman on it. I'll agree, Susan B. Anthony should be on it: she's been the biggest figurehead for women's rights and that would be a proper reflection. Again, a $25 bill would be awesome, fairly useful, and as it would be a new recognition, it would be better utilized for her, instead of stealing the position of respect for a FOUNDING FATHER OF THE DAMN COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN!!
*This post is for DW, started before Pere posted. From the end of the previous page. Should have used quotes*
What's so important about the 'founding fathers' anyway?
The Swedish bills are getting replaced this year, and our 'founding father' Gustav Vasa is getting replaced by Dag Hammarskjöld, who has had significantly less impact on our country's old history (though arguably far more important in the last century)
And that's okay, because Gustav Vasa had his time. Being a 'founding father' did not include a ticket to always be present on a bill.
It's called "national pride" and "proud to be an American". Our founding fathers had the greatest impact on our nation being what it is. Even if some people in this thread seem to think they've gotten stale.
timetowaste85 wrote: It's called "national pride" and "proud to be an American". Our founding fathers had the greatest impact on our nation being what it is. Even if some people in this thread seem to think they've gotten stale.
But they are just people. Historical people. They are not America.
You can acknowledge and respect their heritage, but having them on the bill is not necessary to do this.
timetowaste85 wrote: Because they're adding a woman "just to add a woman". "It's the 100 year anniversary of women voting, so add a woman to share a bill with a founding father!" The bill may need to be updated to prevent counterfeiter , but that doesn't mean this guy needs his honor yanked. Make a new damn bill and put the woman on it. I'll agree, Susan B. Anthony should be on it: she's been the biggest figurehead for women's rights and that would be a proper reflection. Again, a $25 bill would be awesome, fairly useful, and as it would be a new recognition, it would be better utilized for her, instead of stealing the position of respect for a FOUNDING FATHER OF THE DAMN COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN!!
*This post is for DW, started before Pere posted. From the end of the previous page. Should have used quotes*
Actually, I think a $25 bill would be absolutely awful. Why add another bill when paper money is slowly being phased out? Why do that?
At this point, you are arguing anything just so Hamilton is not taken off of the bill. Do you really think Hamilton needs to be printed on a piece of paper as a position of respect? He is a Founding Father, he is one of the first things you learn about in school. Why does he need to be on a piece of paper so badly?
Seriously, that argument you just put forth is terrible.
Random woman? I know who I am voting on when I can/if she is available. They are going to give us a list to choose from. It's not a lottery where any American woman who has ever lived can be picked.
Dreadwinter wrote: That is wrong. Bills have had the person on them changed many times to prevent counterfeiting. Just because they do not do it every time does not mean it is not done.
Now the treasury, who has almost complete control of designing the bill, has decided to put a woman on it to celebrate a very great event in our nations history.
How do you have a problem with that?
So its just a coincidence that the petition was put forward just recently, just a coincidence that President Obama made a big deal out of it? huh?
And the bills haven't changed people on them in a very long time. Im not denying the greatness of womans suffrage, im pointing out that nobody so far, male or female has surpassed Hamilton's contribution to our country and until they do I feel he shouldn't be relegated to a security feature on the $10.
If his contribution is so great then he won't need his face on a piece of linen to be remembered for it. He loses nothing, in return for more representation for those who are less remembered.
Ashiraya wrote: Tradition for the sake of tradition is meaningless.
The argument seems to be that Hamilton has done more than the woman he is being replaced with? Why is that relevant? Haven't the people on the bills being changed numerous times? Has each exchange always been to an equally or more historically significant person? If it hasn't, then there is no problem whatsoever, now is there?
Hell, haven't you had animals on the bills as well?
In my opinion, at least many of the female candidates mentioned ITT have done enough to enter the process (or 'rotation'?). Whether they manage to be more significant than who they are replacing is irrelevant as long as they make it above the threshold necessary to enter the 'rotation' at all, which I argue they have.
The US has had the same individuals on their bills since 1928/29 when they were made uniform. Prior to that, there really wasn't consistency in the US notes. Most of the US currency laws came from financing the civil war and stopping counterfeiters. Prior to that, most currency was coins (it's where the phrase, "not worth a continental", comes from). On our bills, we never used animals as the main portrait. On coins, yes we have had owls and other animals (pigs, cows, elephants, if you count currency pre 1776). The thing is, we don't have a rotation of individuals for currency. In fact, when they took Grover Cleveland off the $20, their notes only said it was to commemorate the 100th year since Andrew Jackson took office (prior to that, Jackson was on the $10?). Jackson has remained ever since then. I'm not a fan of the change only because I think Hamilton did a lot for our country as a Founding Father and for our national currency. He started the first US Bank and was instrumental in our Country's trade and finance laws. That is why I believe he should remain on the currency. I'm not discounting the works these women have made because they have had a significant impact on our country. Personally, I feel there should be other individuals removed prior to Hamilton. Also, we do have one woman on our currency - Sacagawea (guide for Lewis and Clark).
I think adding a women just for the sake of adding a woman i believe is called tokenism. Doing it for representation to add people who are notable and deserve to be on it is a different story.
I mean you can replace any of those dollar bills with new faces or objects for pete sake and then counterfieting world would be destroyed in a single sweep.
timetowaste85 wrote: Our founding fathers had the greatest impact on our nation being what it is.
Not really. War, banks and corporations have had the greatest impact on our nation being what it is today. One could argue that Google's impact on American society rivals Hamilton's achievements, and is one of the greatest contributions the United States has ever made to the World in general- something tells me you'd be loathe to put Larry Page on the dollar though.
Peregrine wrote: What's really funny here is that I bet very few of the people who are outraged about changing the $10 bill could have told you who is currently on it and why before this "controversy". But suddenly when the evil SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS want to change something it's a beloved tradition.
Maybe because every time something seems ok and fine the way it is they demand something to be changed to fit whatever offended angle they currently have. It might not even be what they think it is (i.e. 'pillars of eternity' and it's one line from one fan that didn't even talk about transgender but somebody that was a man and was believed to be a woman which could be a very feminine gay guy for all we know or perhaps anybody that has sex with somebody under false pretenses but hey we don't know so let's make our position the only position and then be offended by it).
I could complain i'm offended the way you insult christians and then suddenly when women are attacked oh boy oh boy does peregrine flip out. I mean it would only make you sort of a hypocrite. I say this fully being not into religion myself. Notice i give zero craps about both things whereas you seem to take each very personally even when it isn't.
A Town Called Malus wrote: While you're at it you should probably get rid of that whole "In god we trust" thing.
I mean sure, creating the world is great and all but it's not running a modern economy
And while I know those words were added to the pledge of allegiance and other Government things during the 1950s, I'm not sure that this was the case with money.... But I would be inclined to think it was also added to money during that time.
And I fully agree, we should completely be rid of any mentions of any deity. I personally think that E Pluribus Unum is good for most things when it comes to currency and the like.
A Town Called Malus wrote: While you're at it you should probably get rid of that whole "In god we trust" thing.
I mean sure, creating the world is great and all but it's not running a modern economy
And while I know those words were added to the pledge of allegiance and other Government things during the 1950s, I'm not sure that this was the case with money.... But I would be inclined to think it was also added to money during that time.
And I fully agree, we should completely be rid of any mentions of any deity. I personally think that E Pluribus Unum is good for most things when it comes to currency and the like.
Only downside is Rich Halls joke about how you'd never get Darwin on american money wouldn't work
I never said i wanted no woman to ever be on a bill. I'm more having issue with alexander hamilton being taken off. I had some slight issue with andrew jackson until a friend reminded me he was a jerk to which i lost any care i may have had.
Oh and if you want to change any more then change the quarter and/or the 1 dollar bill. The penny is significant for the story about how lincoln returned a penny he wasn't owed (probably a made up story but it's significant) and washington just needs to be on something. I think having each on a bill and a coin is a bit much.
Ashiraya wrote: That is not a very good way to look at it. Peregrine could easily argue you guys seem offended by the idea of removing a 'founding father'.
We were never even possibly offended until you guys decided to change everything for the claims of being offended. Once again note i'm not saying i don't think women should be on money. You just need ones that are worthy of it and won't completely erase some other people that are deserving (for other countries queens and kings are deserving for figureheads if nothing else). Which is why i couldn't give a crap about jackson being replaced.
Let's see. Thread drifting into feminism, religion and other land mine issues.
You know who else wanted to change their currency? Hitler!
Seriously though, I'm not sure about what message we send about our commitment to security by using a man that died losing a duel to the Vice President. Perhaps one of the more successful defenders of our country, such as President James K Polk would be a better choice.
It definitely seems fine for a review of our currency, and as it is updated I see no reason it should not reflect some of the more diverse contributions to our country than a handful of dead white dudes. Switching them up every few years, the way they've done with quarters, would be awesome. Imagine if each bill was devoted to a certain group, and went through various important contributors over a cycle.
A Town Called Malus wrote: While you're at it you should probably get rid of that whole "In god we trust" thing.
I mean sure, creating the world is great and all but it's not running a modern economy
And while I know those words were added to the pledge of allegiance and other Government things during the 1950s, I'm not sure that this was the case with money.... But I would be inclined to think it was also added to money during that time.
And I fully agree, we should completely be rid of any mentions of any deity. I personally think that E Pluribus Unum is good for most things when it comes to currency and the like.
Gitzbitah wrote: Let's see. Thread drifting into feminism, religion and other land mine issues.
You know who else wanted to change their currency? Hitler!
Seriously though, I'm not sure about what message we send about our commitment to security by using a man that died losing a duel to the Vice President. Perhaps one of the more successful defenders of our country, such as President James K Polk would be a better choice.
It definitely seems fine for a review of our currency, and as it is updated I see no reason it should not reflect some of the more diverse contributions to our country than a handful of dead white dudes. Switching them up every few years, the way they've done with quarters, would be awesome. Imagine if each bill was devoted to a certain group, and went through various important contributors over a cycle.
I might be ok with that actually. I suggested the Wright brothers.
If we continue with presidents you could always go for teddy roosevelt. People considered him crazy and awesome.
timetowaste85 wrote: Our founding fathers had the greatest impact on our nation being what it is.
Not really. War, banks and corporations have had the greatest impact on our nation being what it is today. One could argue that Google's impact on American society rivals Hamilton's achievements, and is one of the greatest contributions the United States has ever made to the World in general- something tells me you'd be loathe to put Larry Page on the dollar though.
That is possibly one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. You think that google is more influential to the way America is then our founding fathers.....so many things wrong with this im just going to have to ignore as many as possible. Im sure pop culture is that way, but not America as a whole. Unless you think that pop culture is america in which case i have a very interesting debate ahead.
Regardless, people are now commenting that the only reason we are upset about this is because we want to fight against feminists/feminazi and SJW's. But on the flip side why are they so hell bent on changing random aspects of our society that have worked perfectly for close to 100 years? Why do we need a woman on a bill to commemorate the 100 year anniversary of womans suffrage? If we really need to add a woman to a bill to commemorate that can we then get a bill to commemorate the 100 year anniversary of the end of prohibition? How about a Keg?
What if for the 100 year anniversary of the civil war we put Lincoln on another bill to because ....reasons, or lets commemorate the 100 year anniversary of everything with putting a new person on currency....
If any of that seems reasonable to you please speak up so I can throw you on the ignore list because you are not worth my time.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Maybe because every time something seems ok and fine the way it is they demand something to be changed to fit whatever offended angle they currently have.
And, as hard as it might be to believe, there are actually a lot of problems in society that need to be fixed. It really says a lot that the biggest argument against being "offended" is usually some kind of absurd quota on how many times you can be offended, not a legitimate defense of the thing being criticized.
I could complain i'm offended the way you insult christians
You could, but you wouldn't change anything. Nor is it really a very relevant comparison when Christians are a privileged majority in this country. You're really desperately reaching with this one, perhaps you should just concede defeat?
and then suddenly when women are attacked oh boy oh boy does peregrine flip out.
Err, lol? Pointing out that women are currently under-represented on US money and approving of a change is "flipping out"? Seriously?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: You think that google is more influential to the way America is then our founding fathers.....
Honestly, it kind of is. The founding fathers got some things right and got some things spectacularly wrong, but much of what they did was borrowed from elsewhere and we haven't really ended up any better off than the other former British colonies. It's quite likely that US history wouldn't be all that different if those founding fathers had never existed. Google (and the internet in general), on the other hand, represents a massive change in how society works. Having easily available information sharing changes everything, and google is a big part of transforming the internet from a silly thing for geeks to world-changing infrastructure.
Regardless, people are now commenting that the only reason we are upset about this is because we want to fight against feminists/feminazi and SJW's.
Yep, that's exactly accurate: this isn't about the merits of the person on the $10 bill, it's about opposing SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS. If the US government quietly replaced Hamilton with Reagan many, if not most, of the people opposing the current change would praise the government for finally granting appropriate recognition to a true American hero.
But on the flip side why are they so hell bent on changing random aspects of our society that have worked perfectly for close to 100 years?
Because things haven't worked perfectly for close to 100 years?
Ghazkuul wrote: You think that google is more influential to the way America is then our founding fathers
By a wide margin yes. Google, along with PC's and the internet are some of the greatest technological inventions we've ever made, effecting not just America (though we've benefited from them more than just about anybody else) but the entire world.
That your only appreciation for it comes from looking up porn and pop culture says more about you than me. It's equivalent to me saying that the invention of cars wasn't a big deal because the only thing I use mine for is picking up chicks at the bar two blocks away.
Ghazkuul wrote: peregrine if your going to pick and choose parts of posts then I don't see a point in debating you on this.
If your best argument is that I didn't quote every single word of your post then I think that's a pretty clear concession of defeat.
Or your picking parts that make zero sense when combined with what your saying. But hey keep cherry picking im sure nobody bothers to read the entire thread.
Ghazkuul wrote: You think that google is more influential to the way America is then our founding fathers.....
Honestly, it kind of is. The founding fathers got some things right and got some things spectacularly wrong, but much of what they did was borrowed from elsewhere and we haven't really ended up any better off than the other former British colonies. It's quite likely that US history wouldn't be all that different if those founding fathers had never existed. Google (and the internet in general), on the other hand, represents a massive change in how society works. Having easily available information sharing changes everything, and google is a big part of transforming the internet from a silly thing for geeks to world-changing infrastructure.
Indeed. New research is coming out showing that everyone, from prestigious bodies like the Wall Street Journal on down to rags like "Teen Weekly" (or whatever one of those is called) have been forced to change their entire writing structure because of google. Reading retention has plummeted in recent academic testing (where questions are based on something mentioned days or weeks ago). While some of what I'm talking about is more directly resulting from social media such as Twitter taking off, basically speaking, none of the social media would have come about if it hadn't been for google.
I know many professors in colleges love to use the term "global economy", it's gotten to the point where it's almost a buzzword, or a bingo card term. But with google, the interconnectedness of everything and everyone has become that much tighter. Personally, I'm not going to sit here and argue that google is MORE influential than say, Thomas Jefferson, because that little document that Mr. J wrote basically laid the groundwork for google to take off. Of course, I would be terrible if I didn't mention that the course of 20th century technology would look vastly different if it weren't for two men: Alan Turing, and Nikola Tesla. Sure, we'd have electricity, and radios and some form of computerization. But we wouldn't be as "advanced" as we are today without those two men.
Let's put the two of them on there, even though Turing isn't American, and Tesla was such a germaphobe that putting a him on a bill would be a great irony.
While i like tesla he wasn't american born and i don't think that totally counts. He's from what country originally....Romania maybe?
@Peregrine: Just convince yourself you're the winner of everything and never understand that maybe just for a second you might be wrong. I mean even if it'd develop you more as a person to understand that you might just be wrong sometimes or seeing things in another way might help you see the other side by god just try to blot it out with all your might because that's what winners do.
I'm not even being unfair here. If you want women on money go ahead. I just don't want alexander hamilton to be shut up because you decide "He's a white guy screw him!" Oh and just for your information i've known plenty of white people from very unfortunate backgrounds if you're going into that. Somebody at my work used to live in russia when it was still a part of the soviet union and though he's the nicest guy ever and you couldn't understand him he's glad to work a lower class job and he's happy for what the usa has done for him because in the soviet union things often sucked and going outside of what society told you to do put you in a very bad position but we all know that already.
flamingkillamajig wrote: @Peregrine: Just convince yourself you're the winner of everything and never understand that maybe just for a second you might be wrong. I mean even if it'd develop you more as a person to understand that you might just be wrong sometimes or seeing things in another way might help you see the other side by god just try to blot it out with all your might because that's what winners do.
So do you actually have anything constructive to offer, or are you just going to complain about how "narrow-minded" I am because I won't admit that you're right?
I just don't want alexander hamilton to be shut up because you decide "He's a white guy screw him!"
Why is Hamilton so important to you? Before this controversy happened could you have even told me who is on the $10 bill? If you can honestly say "yes" then you're part of a small minority.
And apparently it needs mentioning again, but other countries change who is on their money without a big controversy over how the previous person is entitled to be there forever. It's just the normal process, not some kind of horrible insult to the person whose time on the bill has ended. I suspect it would have been the same here if the government just quietly put Reagan on the $10 bill, and most of the people complaining about the current change wouldn't care nearly as much when they can't complain about SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS ruining everything.
Before this controversy happened could you have even told me who is on the $10 bill? If you can honestly say "yes" then you're part of a small minority.
I think that's a bit of a stretch
Of course, I agree. Seriously people. Of all the things in the world to be upset about, why the feth has this of all things, gone on for 7 pages?
I just don't want alexander hamilton to be shut up because you decide "He's a white guy screw him!"
Why is Hamilton so important to you? Before this controversy happened could you have even told me who is on the $10 bill? If you can honestly say "yes" then you're part of a small minority.
And apparently it needs mentioning again, but other countries change who is on their money without a big controversy over how the previous person is entitled to be there forever. It's just the normal process, not some kind of horrible insult to the person whose time on the bill has ended. I suspect it would have been the same here if the government just quietly put Reagan on the $10 bill, and most of the people complaining about the current change wouldn't care nearly as much when they can't complain about SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS ruining everything.
Yes i knew he was on the 10 dollar bill. It only says his name right under his picture.
If i remember he did try setting up the banks and thomas jefferson's vice president aaron burr shot him (i remember even an oreo commercial or another commercial mentioned this way back).
I know more about andrew jackson which is why i'd rather him be replaced. I know about his destruction of the bank, his 'trail of tears' for all native americans (once again dude was a jerk), his generalship during the war of 1812 and the fact he lost a lot of family in the revolutionary war and gained a hatred of all foreigners and indians. I even know about his adopted son of native american descent which was part of a massacre he incurred while a general in the war of 1812. I also know his adopted son later died of some illness and his wife (which was divorced and that was a big deal at the time) which died partly in his view because of his political opponent running for president. I also know he was a lawyer and judge i think and he dueled a crap ton of people.
So yeah i know a decent amount. I know this because of an american history class i took a couple years ago that lasted up till 1870 or 1876 or so.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Yes i knew he was on the 10 dollar bill. It only says his name right under his picture.
I mean without looking at it. If, out of nowhere, I asked you to name the person on each bill would you have been able to do it without looking it up or getting out your wallet to check?
If i remember he did try setting up the banks and thomas jefferson's vice president aaron burr shot him (i remember even an oreo commercial or another commercial mentioned this way back).
IOW, you know very little about him but you're really sure that he needs to be on the $10 bill and all the SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS need to shut up and stop trying to remove him. Perhaps if you barely know more than the first sentence of a wikipedia article about Hamilton it's a sign that you don't really care much about him and your entire "keep him on the $10" argument is based on reflexive opposition to people you don't like?
flamingkillamajig wrote: Yes i knew he was on the 10 dollar bill. It only says his name right under his picture.
I mean without looking at it. If, out of nowhere, I asked you to name the person on each bill would you have been able to do it without looking it up or getting out your wallet to check?
If i remember he did try setting up the banks and thomas jefferson's vice president aaron burr shot him (i remember even an oreo commercial or another commercial mentioned this way back).
IOW, you know very little about him but you're really sure that he needs to be on the $10 bill and all the SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS need to shut up and stop trying to remove him. Perhaps if you barely know more than the first sentence of a wikipedia article about Hamilton it's a sign that you don't really care much about him and your entire "keep him on the $10" argument is based on reflexive opposition to people you don't like?
1 dollar bill: washington, 5 dollar bill: lincoln, 10 dollar bill alexander hamilton, 20 dollar bill andrew jackson, 50 dollar bill ullyses s. grant (spelling?), 100 dollar bill ben franklin.
What more do you want? Oh but i guess i just keep all that handy in case an argument pops up.
You know what? I think i'm gonna put you on the ignore list. I swear you must track me down in every thread in off-topic just to counter-point me. Go right ahead buddy. Continue to cut out the fact i knew a good amount about jackson or the fact i'm totally willing to have some women on money because you need a 100% completionist victory. Enjoy your imagined victory and you can do so with an imaginary crowd of spectators cheering when nobody really cares.
flamingkillamajig wrote: 1 dollar bill: washington, 5 dollar bill: lincoln, 10 dollar bill alexander hamilton, 20 dollar bill andrew jackson, 50 dollar bill ullyses s. grant (spelling?), 100 dollar bill ben franklin.
And if you honestly knew that before this discussion came up then I bet you're in a small minority. I certainly couldn't have told you who is on the $10 bill before now, and once this "controversy" disappears I'll probably forget again until I see a new bill for the first time (and then immediately go back to not caring). And TBH your minority is probably only going to get smaller and smaller as cash becomes even more irrelevant than it already is and fewer people encounter physical money anymore.
You know what? I think i'm gonna put you on the ignore list.
There you go with the ultimate concession of defeat. You can't win the argument, so you'll just tell everyone how superior you are and how I'm not worth your time.
I swear you must track me down in every thread in off-topic just to counter-point me. Go right ahead buddy.
I don't, but feel free to be paranoid. I don't even know who you are, beyond your posts in this thread.
Continue to cut out the fact i knew a good amount about jackson
I cut it out because it's irrelevant. Jackson isn't on the $20 and isn't going to be replaced in the immediate future. Meanwhile I did address the relevant fact that you know pretty much nothing about Hamilton, but you care very strongly about keeping him on the $10.
or the fact i'm totally willing to have some women on money
Then why are you protesting about putting one on the $10, and complaining about how people shouldn't object to the lack of women on US money and should just accept that life isn't fair?
timetowaste85 wrote: It's called "national pride" and "proud to be an American". Our founding fathers had the greatest impact on our nation being what it is. Even if some people in this thread seem to think they've gotten stale.
Your founding fathers didn't stop slavery or give the vote to women.
Fundamentally the objection to having a woman or a black person on a bank note is an SIW problem.
Your founding fathers didn't stop slavery or give the vote to women.
All* men** are created*** equal****.
*Black men only count as 3/5s of a man.
**Get back in the kitchen woman. I got equality work to do.
***By god obviously. Murica.
****The old boys will be fine. Good luck everybody else.
If you join my time machine project, once I have repopulated Europe with descendants of Kilkrazy, let's replace Alexander Hamilton with Grace Kelly! That will solve all the arguments.
Tesla should only be currency if it builds a static charge and does a cool arc of electricity when you take it out. Come on people, we need some currency pizzazz!
Sure he was smart, but at the same time he was really really stupid. His ideas were wildly impractical.
He was an idealist, yes... But if you really take a look at what he was doing, you will see that he was anything but stupid. I have a copy of the book that collected his writings, experiments, etc. such as the remains are, and the dude really was a genius. Nearly every one of his experiments/inventions, if they start off impractical, would end up being practical in some way down the road (he just hadn't invented that "thing" yet)
His AC generator is still basically the industry standard for how power is generated. If you listen to a radio in the car, you're listening to a Tesla invention.
Truth be told, I'm not really suggesting putting him on money, I was illustrating the level of impact the guy had on the modern world.... As well as pointing out that if we DID put him on money, the irony would be extremely thick, because he was such a phobic person in life.
Sure he was smart, but at the same time he was really really stupid. His ideas were wildly impractical.
He was an idealist, yes... But if you really take a look at what he was doing, you will see that he was anything but stupid. I have a copy of the book that collected his writings, experiments, etc. such as the remains are, and the dude really was a genius. Nearly every one of his experiments/inventions, if they start off impractical, would end up being practical in some way down the road (he just hadn't invented that "thing" yet)
His AC generator is still basically the industry standard for how power is generated. If you listen to a radio in the car, you're listening to a Tesla invention.
Truth be told, I'm not really suggesting putting him on money, I was illustrating the level of impact the guy had on the modern world.... As well as pointing out that if we DID put him on money, the irony would be extremely thick, because he was such a phobic person in life.
He had some great ideas and some wacky ideas. Some ideas we are finding out are really capable of working. Take for instance his wireless electricity. Everybody thought he was all sorts of nutty for thinking it could be done. Turns out, we can power devices with wifi now.
flamingkillamajig wrote: @Peregrine: Just convince yourself you're the winner of everything and never understand that maybe just for a second you might be wrong. I mean even if it'd develop you more as a person to understand that you might just be wrong sometimes or seeing things in another way might help you see the other side by god just try to blot it out with all your might because that's what winners do.
So do you actually have anything constructive to offer, or are you just going to complain about how "narrow-minded" I am because I won't admit that you're right?
I just don't want alexander hamilton to be shut up because you decide "He's a white guy screw him!"
Why is Hamilton so important to you? Before this controversy happened could you have even told me who is on the $10 bill? If you can honestly say "yes" then you're part of a small minority.
And apparently it needs mentioning again, but other countries change who is on their money without a big controversy over how the previous person is entitled to be there forever. It's just the normal process, not some kind of horrible insult to the person whose time on the bill has ended. I suspect it would have been the same here if the government just quietly put Reagan on the $10 bill, and most of the people complaining about the current change wouldn't care nearly as much when they can't complain about SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZIS ruining everything.
If you are an American citizen and you have graduated at least high school and you can't tell me who is on the $1, $5, $10 or $20 then you have issues that supersede a lot of other problems in your little world. Also if you really think that the invention of google has had a more profound impact on the United States then our founding fathers then you need to go back to elementary school and start over. The internet is wonderful and google is a spectacular search engine, but at the end of the day google wouldn't even exist if it weren't for our founding fathers and the documents/laws and institutions that they made/invented and wrote.
As far as the Feminazi TUMBLR SJW nonsense your spouting off about, it wouldn't have mattered WHO came up with this idiotic idea I would have opposed it. If the Republican party and democrat party had gotten together and both decided this was a stellar idea I still would have argued against it. So you can keep your less then vague/tactful insinuation that I am a Misogynist or racist/sexist to yourself.
Lastly, why is it bad to fight against change for the sake of change. The old argument of don't fix something if it is not broken springs to mind. Furthermore, I don't care what other countries do with their currency, America hasn't changed the US currency since it was standardized and made into the bill size we currently have. So because another country does something then we to must do it? Well the Brits drive on the other side of the road does that mean we should all switch to that to because ....Balance? French people allow children to drink at 16 and hard booze at 18 should we change our policy to that as well? Just because other countries do something in no way effects how we do things in the United States.
Ghazkuul wrote: If you are an American citizen and you have graduated at least high school and you can't tell me who is on the $1, $5, $10 or $20 then you have issues that supersede a lot of other problems in your little world.
And just what issues would those be? It's 2015 and debit cards exist, I use cash maybe once a month at most and I don't really care whose picture is on it. I think the real problem here is that you're confusing ability to recite meaningless trivia ("who is on our money") with being a functioning adult.
Also if you really think that the invention of google has had a more profound impact on the United States then our founding fathers then you need to go back to elementary school and start over. The internet is wonderful and google is a spectacular search engine, but at the end of the day google wouldn't even exist if it weren't for our founding fathers and the documents/laws and institutions that they made/invented and wrote.
This is just hilariously wrong. Are you aware that other countries also have freedom, capitalism, technology research, etc? Are you familiar with a British guy named Turing who contributed just a tiny bit of computer design? The founding fathers contributed essentially nothing to the development of the internet (and technology in general), and we'd probably be exactly where we are right now technology-wise if they'd never existed.
But I think, like the issue of knowing who is on the money, you're comparing blind patriotism and founding father worship with actual historical significance. You're hardly alone in suffering from this problem, but it doesn't mean you're right.
As far as the Feminazi TUMBLR SJW nonsense your spouting off about, it wouldn't have mattered WHO came up with this idiotic idea I would have opposed it. If the Republican party and democrat party had gotten together and both decided this was a stellar idea I still would have argued against it. So you can keep your less then vague/tactful insinuation that I am a Misogynist or racist/sexist to yourself.
You personally? Maybe not. But I bet a solid majority of the people who are outraged about the proposed change would have praised the government for finally giving proper respect to a true American hero if they'd decided to put Reagan on the $10 bill instead.
Also, you'll note that the main target of the SJW TUMBLR FEMINAZI bit is flamingkillamajig, who doesn't even know who Hamilton is and why he is important but is very sure that removing him would be a horrible idea. It's pretty clear that his entire objection to changing who is on the $10 bill is based on opposition to people he doesn't like, not an informed opinion about the relative historical merits of various candidates.
Lastly, why is it bad to fight against change for the sake of change.
Because it isn't change for the sake of change. There's a reason for the proposed change.
Furthermore, I don't care what other countries do with their currency, America hasn't changed the US currency since it was standardized and made into the bill size we currently have. So because another country does something then we to must do it?
The point is that you (and other people) are acting like removing a person from a bill is some kind of horrible insult when other countries do it all the time without any controversy. We don't have to frequently change our currency designs just because other countries do it, but if you're going to claim that there's something inherently wrong with making changes then you need to deal with the fact that other countries do it.
I would just remind you that a lot of computing, the internet and the WWW was invented by British scientists and engineers, so it is in fact entirely possible that Google would exist even if the USA had never been founded.
If you are not a misogynist, why not prove it by supporting a woman on the bank note? Otherwise it really does look like a big deal to you, the number of specious arguments you have some up with to keep them off.
I'd also like to point out that no one's arguing that anyone should be put on money soley because they are a woman; that would indeed be sexist. We're arguing that, among the people considered worthy of being put on currency, perhaps it's time to choose someone who's female. They still have to have actually done something major to be considered.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I'd also like to point out that no one's arguing that anyone should be put on money soley because they are a woman; that would indeed be sexist. We're arguing that, among the people considered worthy of being put on currency, perhaps it's time to choose someone who's female. They still have to have actually done something major to be considered.
Peregrine wrote: I think the real problem here is that you're confusing ability to recite meaningless trivia ("who is on our money") with being a functioning adult.
I've noticed this a fair few times. While knowledge is almost always useful in some way, the ability to apply knowledge is much more important. I don't know why it is but there seems to be (from talking with people in general) a huge emphasis in American education about memorising everything about Americaland and less on critical thinking and application.
Personally I would have trouble telling you who more than our last handful of Prime Ministers were, or who exactly stabbed who in the back to become King in X-ty-Y.
As you say, knowledge of trivia in no way makes you a functional adult.
And for the record, I have no idea who anyone is on our money other than El-Queenie; I'm quite happy for anyone suitably august to grace my coins and notes
If you are not a misogynist, why not prove it by supporting a woman on the bank note?
I will support a women on an entirely new bill, and someone who actually did something of major importance more so than any other viable candidate(including all male candidates)
In that event, I believe MLK would deserve a spot on a bill long before any women. No women's accomplishments match his as of right now.
If you are not a misogynist, why not prove it by supporting a woman on the bank note?
I will support a women on an entirely new bill, and someone who actually did something of major importance more so than any other viable candidate(including all male candidates)
In that event, I believe MLK would deserve a spot on a bill long before any women. No women's accomplishments match his as of right now.
It is an entirely new bill. It's an entirely new $10 bill.
Lastly, why is it bad to fight against change for the sake of change. The old argument of don't fix something if it is not broken springs to mind. Furthermore, I don't care what other countries do with their currency, America hasn't changed the US currency since it was standardized and made into the bill size we currently have. So because another country does something then we to must do it? Well the Brits drive on the other side of the road does that mean we should all switch to that to because ....Balance? French people allow children to drink at 16 and hard booze at 18 should we change our policy to that as well? Just because other countries do something in no way effects how we do things in the United States.
You probably should care what other countries do, because any more, they can affect you.
I guess you don't need the Constitution, because it was based on the Magna Carta, an English Document. I guess you don't need democratic republicanism, because that came from Greece and Rome. Guess you don't need all them guns, because black-powder came from China, and cannons came from Eastern Europe, and later Western Europe. I guess you don't need a car, because that came from Germany.
Here's what really made the US stand out from most countries for a long time: It used to be, if we saw something that worked well, we took that idea, and made it better.
And I'm with Peregrine... I don't know who's on my fething money. I know my debit card is blue, and it has my name, and my bank's name on it. I mean, I do know, but it is not some central thing that I "NEEED" to know who is on my money. A 5 is a 5 and a 10 is a 10, and where I live, I know that if the price tag says $9.99, I'm gonna need a 10 and a 5, or I just need to use my debit card. The last time I really used cash on any sort of regular basis, was when I was stationed in Germany. I honestly can't tell you "who" or "what" was on the Euro, just that each was a different size and color.
In that event, I believe MLK would deserve a spot on a bill long before any women. No women's accomplishments match his as of right now.
I partially agree with you here.... Only insofar as there were thousands or millions of women fighting for Suffrage, which means there were no true "heroes" that stand out from the rest. And, IMO, women's suffrage is about as close to a "comparable issue" that one can get when it deals with MLK's accomplishments.
This is pathetic, we have a bunch of people who think the invention of google, not the internet or something like that is more important to AMERICAN history/culture then the founding fathers.
Furthermore the 2 arguments against keeping Hamilton on the bill are "Your a sexist" and "Im ignorant and I have a debit card so who cares". Im glad you lads like to live that way
And about what other countries do, 1: Not every country changes currency like that, 2: IF it works for them great, but our system works just as well 3: comparing currency to the invention of gunpowder and the bill of rights is about the biggest stretch you could possibly make. Nowhere did i say we should never adopt practices from other countries, but if our system works as well as everyone elses Dont Feth with it.
and "Im ignorant and I have a debit card so who cares".
No... it's "I don't care about this bit of trivia" That's honestly what it fething is. Fething trivia!
No one, and mean NO ONE should really care who the feth is on a fething piece of paper money, so long as that money spends equally. So long as a 10 dollar bill equals 10 dollars in value, who the feth cares!?
And tell me, do you really, honestly believe that the US currency works equally well for everyone?
Ghazkuul wrote: This is pathetic, we have a bunch of people who think the invention of google, not the internet or something like that is more important to AMERICAN history/culture then the founding fathers.
Google has had a massive impact on the world (you may be surprised to know that America is part of the world; you might want to google it ); more so than the invention of the internet, google tied together all the information that was out there in a way that made it possible for the average person to get access to it.
This in turn has revolutionised the development of so much of our culture and society.
As to the rest of your post... yeah... good luck with that theory.
Ghazkuul wrote: This is pathetic, we have a bunch of people who think the invention of google, not the internet or something like that is more important to AMERICAN history/culture then the founding fathers.
Furthermore the 2 arguments against keeping Hamilton on the bill are "Your a sexist" and "Im ignorant and I have a debit card so who cares". Im glad you lads like to live that way
And about what other countries do, 1: Not every country changes currency like that, 2: IF it works for them great, but our system works just as well 3: comparing currency to the invention of gunpowder and the bill of rights is about the biggest stretch you could possibly make. Nowhere did i say we should never adopt practices from other countries, but if our system works as well as everyone elses Dont Feth with it.
Well, most countries have outhouses with longer history than America. We have a very strong national identity, but very, very little history. Even if you count us as a colony as part of our history, we're hardly 400 years old.
This is akin to being upset when they changed the mascot to Cookie Crisp from a dog to a burglar, or whatever the kids need to tell them what to eat nowadays. We are Americans. We can change our minds, and be proud of any history we choose. We don't have the weight of aeons of traditions that we need to live up to. It is neat.
One thing to remember is that for the longest period of time if you wanted to make historical achievements for the USA, you had to be a white male. If you were anything else, you weren't allowed to. How many women were allowed to be one of the founding fathers?
Historically, if a woman and a man had equal achievements, the woman's achievements dwarf the man's by an order of magnitude more simply because of all the resistance that she had to fight in addition to actually making the achievement.
For instance, Amelia Earhart is much more deserving of historical recognition than the Wright Brothers.
Ghazkuul wrote: This is pathetic, we have a bunch of people who think the invention of google, not the internet or something like that is more important to AMERICAN history/culture then the founding fathers.
Furthermore the 2 arguments against keeping Hamilton on the bill are "Your a sexist" and "Im ignorant and I have a debit card so who cares". Im glad you lads like to live that way
And about what other countries do, 1: Not every country changes currency like that, 2: IF it works for them great, but our system works just as well 3: comparing currency to the invention of gunpowder and the bill of rights is about the biggest stretch you could possibly make. Nowhere did i say we should never adopt practices from other countries, but if our system works as well as everyone elses Dont Feth with it.
Well, most countries have outhouses with longer history than America. We have a very strong national identity, but very, very little history. Even if you count us as a colony as part of our history, we're hardly 400 years old.
That's only if you don't consider Native American history to be part of American history. If you do, it's just as long as the history of many European countries, if not longer. And if you're just going by age of a country based on its existence as a political entity, a lot of European countries in their current form are younger than the US, including Germany and Italy.
That's only if you don't consider Native American history to be part of American history. If you do, it's just as long as the history of many European countries, if not longer. And if you're just going by age of a country based on its existence as a political entity, a lot of European countries in their current form are younger than the US, including Germany and Italy.
That's a tricky one, because we have many first hand sources (mostly founding fathers who wrote a whole lot) of "Europeans living in the region of what would become known as the US" referring to themselves as Americans by the early to mid 1750s. Really, the Seven Years' War aka, French and Indian War is one prime example of a number of instances where there is a distinction made, simply by the fact that there are at that time, a number of colonists who were born in America, not England and by this point, they are beginning to feel, "Not English" (they aren't quite feeling American yet) and so they do begin to refer to themselves as Americans more often.
So, I think it may be better to consider the history as a number of stories, not give hard dates. Afterall, for many German people, the history of Germany stretches back a lot farther than 1871, because there is that shared language, and shared nationalistic identity.
skyth wrote: One thing to remember is that for the longest period of time if you wanted to make historical achievements for the USA, you had to be a white male. If you were anything else, you weren't allowed to. How many women were allowed to be one of the founding fathers?
Historically, if a woman and a man had equal achievements, the woman's achievements dwarf the man's by an order of magnitude more simply because of all the resistance that she had to fight in addition to actually making the achievement.
For instance, Amelia Earhart is much more deserving of historical recognition than the Wright Brothers.
Yeah, people don't seem to get this. If women haven't had as much impact on the world, it's only because they haven't had the oppertunities us white men have had throughout history.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So, I think it may be better to consider the history as a number of stories, not give hard dates. Afterall, for many German people, the history of Germany stretches back a lot farther than 1871, because there is that shared language, and shared nationalistic identity.
Actually, depending on how far back you go, the German language wasn't always as unified as you might think, and there are still a variety of dialects in existence. And a national "German identity" is something that is relatively new.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So, I think it may be better to consider the history as a number of stories, not give hard dates. Afterall, for many German people, the history of Germany stretches back a lot farther than 1871, because there is that shared language, and shared nationalistic identity.
Actually, depending on how far back you go, the German language wasn't always as unified as you might think, and there are still a variety of dialects in existence. And a national "German identity" is something that is relatively new.
The point is though, if you're walking around Germany, the majority of the cities have a history that extends well back beyond the time when Germany was unified. Heck, we have Roman historians referring to the Germanic tribal languages collectively as German, and the people themselves, "The Germans"
They shared enough of a common language, or rather, their various languages sounded close enough, that commerce and governmental treaties were able to happen on a regular basis. Bavaria didn't go to war with Wurttemburg or Saxony over petty land squabbles or the various reasons France and England have fought, because they both viewed themselves as being "German"
Really, the one big historical event that I can think of that actually divided German loyalties, was the 30 Years' War, but even in that instance, it's a bit tough to call it that simply, because it was more of a Protestant vs. Catholic thing than it was any nationalist thing.
Felton owned slaves before the Civil War, and was the last member of either house of Congress to have been a slave owner.
Felton was a white supremacist. She claimed, for instance, that the more money that Georgia spent on black education, the more crimes blacks committed. For the 1893 World's Columbian Exhibition, she "proposed a southern exhibit 'illustrating the slave period,' with a cabin and 'real colored folks making mats, shuck collars, and baskets—a woman to spin and card cotton—and another to play banjo and show the actual life of [the] slave—not the Uncle Tom sort.'" She wanted to display "the ignorant contented darky—as distinguished from [Harriet Beecher] Stowe's monstrosities."
Felton considered "young blacks" who sought equal treatment "half-civilized gorillas," and ascribed to them a "brutal lust" for white women. While seeking suffrage for women, she decried voting rights for blacks, arguing that it led directly to the rape of white women.
In 1899, a massive crowd of white Georgians tortured, mutilated, and burned a black man, Sam Hose, who purportedly had killed a white man in self-defense but had not committed the rape of the white woman whites accused him of. The crowd divided and sold his physical remains as souvenirs, Felton said that any "true-hearted husband or father" would have killed "the beast" and that Hose was due less sympathy than a rabid dog.
Felton also advocated more lynchings of black men, saying that such was "elysian" compared to the rape of white women. On at least one occasion, she stated that white Southerners should "lynch a thousand [black men] a week if it becomes necessary" to "protect woman's dearest possession."
My hometown is preparing to celebrate our 900th anniversary next year. People who think that a bill that has featured various versions of a portrait for the last 86 years, after featuring 15 other faces, and which was last changed 9 years ago is some sort of untouchable historical relics are simply adorable.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So, I think it may be better to consider the history as a number of stories, not give hard dates. Afterall, for many German people, the history of Germany stretches back a lot farther than 1871, because there is that shared language, and shared nationalistic identity.
Actually, depending on how far back you go, the German language wasn't always as unified as you might think, and there are still a variety of dialects in existence. And a national "German identity" is something that is relatively new.
The point is though, if you're walking around Germany, the majority of the cities have a history that extends well back beyond the time when Germany was unified. Heck, we have Roman historians referring to the Germanic tribal languages collectively as German, and the people themselves, "The Germans"
They shared enough of a common language, or rather, their various languages sounded close enough, that commerce and governmental treaties were able to happen on a regular basis. Bavaria didn't go to war with Wurttemburg or Saxony over petty land squabbles or the various reasons France and England have fought, because they both viewed themselves as being "German"
Really, the one big historical event that I can think of that actually divided German loyalties, was the 30 Years' War, but even in that instance, it's a bit tough to call it that simply, because it was more of a Protestant vs. Catholic thing than it was any nationalist thing.
"German" is actually not a German word at all. The Germans (all varieties) have always called themselves "Deutsch" (or some local variety of it), which translates to "Dutch" in English (The Dutch used to identify themselves as Germans)
That's only if you don't consider Native American history to be part of American history. If you do, it's just as long as the history of many European countries, if not longer. And if you're just going by age of a country based on its existence as a political entity, a lot of European countries in their current form are younger than the US, including Germany and Italy.
There is little to no native American history from before the European invasion, because the native Americans had no written language (only past events that are actually recorded are history). History before invention of written language is called prehistory. In any case, I don't think the modern US has much claim to native American legacy. For that there would have need to been continuity.
Also, most current European states are direct continuations from previous states (there is a direct continuity between Kievan Rus' - Vladimir-Suzdal' - Muscovy - Russian Tsardom - Russian Empire - Soviet Union - Russian Federation for example.) And besides that, continuity of the nation is very different from the continuity of the state. For example, the recorded ethnogenesis for the Russian people was in the 9th Century, whereas a seperate 'American' nation did not form until the 18th Century.
Regarding the money, I think it would be awesome to see Amelia Earhart on a dollar bill, if only because she was so cool.
I'll put it a bit less bluntly, to delicately do my best to satisfy a Mod's request:
Saying that other user's opinions are invalid due to their nationality is not acceptable on an international forum. If you don't want to see people from other countries commenting then don't open threads. motyak
jasper76 wrote: I, for one, welcome the opinions of all our fellow citizens in the United Federation of Planets, regardless of national origin or circumstance.
Chillax dude, its just a piece of paper. Noone's trying to make us put Caligula on it or anything.
The federation has gone to far when they put a person that is only dead in one of the alternate timelines on currency:
Iron Captain, that post was definitely not directed at you, it was something meaning to go out pages ago due to people in other countries talking about those of us wanting to preserve what is currently on our currency should be open to change because they (other countries) change their currency from time to time. Who cares? What others do doesn't dictate what we do. And also because I'm tired of being called a mysogonist just because I want to preserve and honor a founding father without having him be forced to share the honor. Regardless of whom he'd share it with. Unfortunately, most of these statements have come from posters in other countries. As such, it comes down to "they don't get it, they aren't american, their opinion means Jack-all in American domestic decisions such as currency appearance".
skyth wrote: One thing to remember is that for the longest period of time if you wanted to make historical achievements for the USA, you had to be a white male. If you were anything else, you weren't allowed to. How many women were allowed to be one of the founding fathers?
Historically, if a woman and a man had equal achievements, the woman's achievements dwarf the man's by an order of magnitude more simply because of all the resistance that she had to fight in addition to actually making the achievement.
For instance, Amelia Earhart is much more deserving of historical recognition than the Wright Brothers.
Yes woman who have any kind of historical impact are amazing because of the obstacles placed in front of them. but that doesn't mean we have to change history to glorify them. By your own example you think that the inventors of the Air Plane are less important then Amelia Earhart, a female pilot who eventually got lost in her plane and was never seen from again.
I think a better comparison would have been Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earthart.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So, I think it may be better to consider the history as a number of stories, not give hard dates. Afterall, for many German people, the history of Germany stretches back a lot farther than 1871, because there is that shared language, and shared nationalistic identity.
Actually, depending on how far back you go, the German language wasn't always as unified as you might think, and there are still a variety of dialects in existence. And a national "German identity" is something that is relatively new.
The point is though, if you're walking around Germany, the majority of the cities have a history that extends well back beyond the time when Germany was unified. Heck, we have Roman historians referring to the Germanic tribal languages collectively as German, and the people themselves, "The Germans"
They shared enough of a common language, or rather, their various languages sounded close enough, that commerce and governmental treaties were able to happen on a regular basis. Bavaria didn't go to war with Wurttemburg or Saxony over petty land squabbles or the various reasons France and England have fought, because they both viewed themselves as being "German"
Really, the one big historical event that I can think of that actually divided German loyalties, was the 30 Years' War, but even in that instance, it's a bit tough to call it that simply, because it was more of a Protestant vs. Catholic thing than it was any nationalist thing.
"German" is actually not a German word at all. The Germans (all varieties) have always called themselves "Deutsch" (or some local variety of it), which translates to "Dutch" in English (The Dutch used to identify themselves as Germans)
Deutsch doesn't translate to Dutch in English, Deutsch translates to German. Earlier Americans often referred to Germans as Dutch due to a misunderstanding and corruption of the word Deutsch, but that's not the same as Deutsch translating to Dutch in English. German might be an English word, but that doesn't really tell the whole story. Germanisch (germanic) is a German adjective, and die Germanen is the term for ancient Germanic peoples. Germanistik is the study of German language, culture, and literature.
That's only if you don't consider Native American history to be part of American history. If you do, it's just as long as the history of many European countries, if not longer. And if you're just going by age of a country based on its existence as a political entity, a lot of European countries in their current form are younger than the US, including Germany and Italy.
There is little to no native American history from before the European invasion, because the native Americans had no written language (only past events that are actually recorded are history). History before invention of written language is called prehistory.
In any case, I don't think the modern US has much claim to native American legacy. For that there would have need to been continuity.
There is a lot of Native American history prior to European contact, and I would argue that history doesn't require written language. It can be, and has been, passed down orally as well. But in any case, there are examples of pre-Columbian writing systems in use by Native Americans in North and South America, so to claim that Native Americans had no written language prior to European contact is false. In the US specifically we have large numbers of Native structures, including burial mounds that predate the pyramids by nearly a millennia. To claim that there is no Native American history prior to European contact is far from the truth.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: So, I think it may be better to consider the history as a number of stories, not give hard dates. Afterall, for many German people, the history of Germany stretches back a lot farther than 1871, because there is that shared language, and shared nationalistic identity.
Actually, depending on how far back you go, the German language wasn't always as unified as you might think, and there are still a variety of dialects in existence. And a national "German identity" is something that is relatively new.
The point is though, if you're walking around Germany, the majority of the cities have a history that extends well back beyond the time when Germany was unified. Heck, we have Roman historians referring to the Germanic tribal languages collectively as German, and the people themselves, "The Germans"
They shared enough of a common language, or rather, their various languages sounded close enough, that commerce and governmental treaties were able to happen on a regular basis. Bavaria didn't go to war with Wurttemburg or Saxony over petty land squabbles or the various reasons France and England have fought, because they both viewed themselves as being "German"
Really, the one big historical event that I can think of that actually divided German loyalties, was the 30 Years' War, but even in that instance, it's a bit tough to call it that simply, because it was more of a Protestant vs. Catholic thing than it was any nationalist thing.
"German" is actually not a German word at all. The Germans (all varieties) have always called themselves "Deutsch" (or some local variety of it), which translates to "Dutch" in English (The Dutch used to identify themselves as Germans)
Deutsch doesn't translate to Dutch in English, Deutsch translates to German. Earlier Americans often referred to Germans as Dutch due to a misunderstanding and corruption of the word Deutsch, but that's not the same as Deutsch translating to Dutch in English. German might be an English word, but that doesn't really tell the whole story. Germanisch (germanic) is a German adjective, and die Germanen is the term for ancient Germanic peoples. Germanistik is the study of German language, culture, and literature.
Not in modern English, no. But it did in the past. The whole thing is a bit complicated because the Dutch and Germans only diverged into seperate peoples after the word entered the English language. You can find the whole history of the word on Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dutch, it is quite interesting. And german/germaans is an exonym originally of Latin (or possibly Gaulish) origin. In Dutch and German it now means 'germanic'.
Hordini wrote: There is a lot of Native American history prior to European contact, and I would argue that history doesn't require written language. It can be, and has been, passed down orally as well. But in any case, there are examples of pre-Columbian writing systems in use by Native Americans in North and South America, so to claim that Native Americans had no written language prior to European contact is false. In the US specifically we have large numbers of Native structures, including burial mounds that predate the pyramids by nearly a millennia. To claim that there is no Native American history prior to European contact is far from the truth.
iirc, native American writing systems only developed after contact with Europeans, but I'd love to be corrected on that. The problem with native American history is that it is mostly unrecorded, apart from some that has been passed down by oral traditions. I don't know if history requires written language, but at the very least it has to be recorded. I am just going of Wikipedia here now (I am not a history scholar after all ) which says that events prior to written language is considered pre-history by historians.
skyth wrote: One thing to remember is that for the longest period of time if you wanted to make historical achievements for the USA, you had to be a white male. If you were anything else, you weren't allowed to. How many women were allowed to be one of the founding fathers?
Historically, if a woman and a man had equal achievements, the woman's achievements dwarf the man's by an order of magnitude more simply because of all the resistance that she had to fight in addition to actually making the achievement.
For instance, Amelia Earhart is much more deserving of historical recognition than the Wright Brothers.
Yes woman who have any kind of historical impact are amazing because of the obstacles placed in front of them. but that doesn't mean we have to change history to glorify them. By your own example you think that the inventors of the Air Plane are less important then Amelia Earhart, a female pilot who eventually got lost in her plane and was never seen from again.
I think a better comparison would have been Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earthart.
But the Wright brothers were kinda dull. I would be all for putting the most interesting people on money, even if they may not be the most important. (Also, the airplane would have been invented without the Wright brothers too)
The problem with native American history is that it is mostly unrecorded, apart from some that has been passed down by oral traditions. I don't know if history requires written language, but at the very least it has to be recorded. I am just going of Wikipedia here now (I am not a history scholar after all ) which says that events prior to written language is considered pre-history by historians.
Slightly wrong there.... as I am in school for the subject, I'm constantly waste deep in history books. "pre-history" is a period of time, like the "bronze age" or "iron age" it's referring to a time before we have ANY writing going on by humans of this planet, not individual cultures. Otherwise, anything from Scandinavia prior to around 1150 or so would be considered "pre-history" because the Vikings didn't write jack crap down beyond their own names.
timetowaste85 wrote: As such, it comes down to "they don't get it, they aren't american, their opinion means Jack-all in American domestic decisions such as currency appearance".
Okay, let's run with this idea.
If you accept the premise that one has to be American to understand this issue, why is it that you're allowed to judge whether women are worthy of being on American money or not (assuming that you're male, if not just reverse the situation)?
You've opened the box of Identity Politics, and I don't that leads to where you want it to lead.
Ghazkuul wrote: This is pathetic, we have a bunch of people who think the invention of google, not the internet or something like that is more important to AMERICAN history/culture then the founding fathers.
Furthermore the 2 arguments against keeping Hamilton on the bill are "Your a sexist" and "Im ignorant and I have a debit card so who cares". Im glad you lads like to live that way
And about what other countries do, 1: Not every country changes currency like that, 2: IF it works for them great, but our system works just as well 3: comparing currency to the invention of gunpowder and the bill of rights is about the biggest stretch you could possibly make. Nowhere did i say we should never adopt practices from other countries, but if our system works as well as everyone elses Dont Feth with it.
Has it ever occurred to you that American History did not cease in 1776 or 1785? Why do you not want to celebrate great Americans who have lived since then?
Rotate the people on the money every 5-10 years using the following rules:
1. Historical Figure 2. Male or Female 3. Born in the U S of fething A! 4. Instrumental in creating or protecting our freedoms and way of life 5. Did something meaningful for America or the whole world 6. fething Dead.
That means Presidents, Famous or Effective military dudes and chicks, Civil Rights champions (both African American and Women's Rights), Medal of Honor winners, Cured fething Polio, Underground Railroad supporters, and JJ Watt (after he dies).
kronk wrote: Rotate the people on the money every 5-10 years using the following rules:
1. Historical Figure
2. Male or Female
3. Born in the U S of fething A!
4. Instrumental in creating or protecting our freedoms and way of life
5. Did something meaningful for America or the whole world
6. fething Dead.
.
.. Jerry Garcia would look pretty boss on a banknote.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: How about we all compromise and replace Alexander Hamilton with Caitlyn Jenner?
Oh you went there. Excelsior!
Honestly, IIRC it was already mentioned previously ITT... I could be wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Has it ever occurred to you that American History did not cease in 1776 or 1785? Why do you not want to celebrate great Americans who have lived since then?
Clearly, the moon landings were faked, and, and.... Roswell!!! and Area-51!!! It's all a conspiracy, man!
kronk wrote:
3. Born in the U S of fething A!
So... George Washington is out, so is Franklin, and Tommy Jefferson
Initially, I had thought it'd be cool to have Jimi Hendrix on a bill, but then I for real thought, "no... we really should get BB King onto our money" simply because I thing that BB King had a greater influence on American music, and world music as a whole than Hendrix did (not saying Jimi wasn't influential, but when you're influenced by King, and there's probably more artists across more genres who acclaim inspiration from him, it's easier for me to see it that way)
Initially, I had thought it'd be cool to have Jimi Hendrix on a bill, but then I for real thought, "no... we really should get BB King onto our money" simply because I thing that BB King had a greater influence on American music, and world music as a whole than Hendrix did (not saying Jimi wasn't influential, but when you're influenced by King, and there's probably more artists across more genres who acclaim inspiration from him, it's easier for me to see it that way)
