Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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).

Was that directed at me?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Keep the damn traditions.

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.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So wanting to keep tradition is bad, but embracing something that will just make SJWs happy is good?

So the only reason you oppose this is because it was proposed by “SJW”? How comes I am not even surprised.

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.

If we could leave the whole "if you aren't (insert nationality here) then feth off" attitude at the door? That'd be great. And not a question.

 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)

 whembly wrote:
Frederick Douglas need to make an appearance.

And why is fething Andrew Jackson not being talked of being replaced?

It says in the article

Mr. Lew, however, said the $10 bill already was the next up for a redesign, making it the most practical vehicle for the symbolic portrait change.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
One group did want to replace Jackson with Obama though...

Well as long as she's being added because of who she is and not what she is then it won't be a problem.

I vote for KIng George, without King George there would be no United States.

 Bullockist wrote:
I vote for KIng George, without King George there would be no United States.

*Puts on cunning fake moustache*

Can't argue with that. He's obviously the real founding father and we owe our loyalty to England.

NZ is much better at changing bank notes.

In fact I just happen to stumble across this news today. We modernize it without changing the people who deserve to be there.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/notes_and_coins/banknote_upgrade/

Finally we will have better notes than Australia (and our coins are already much nicer). So thats a huge plus.

Your coins are wrong. A big $2 coin? Madness

 motyak wrote:
Your coins are wrong. A big $2 coin? Madness

Hexagon 50 cent coins? Abomination!

motyak, motyak motyak, Aussie coins are all logical

5, 10, 20, 50 in increasing size then $1, $2 in decreasing size. HOW can you NOT see the logic in that??

I do like the green martian like feisty queen on the NZ $20 note. She looks like she's about to crownbutt the next person who picks her up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 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.

Deeply ridiculous.

 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.

 Bullockist wrote:
The Reserve Bank is thoughtful and considerate (and hates referees like any self respecting Aussie should).

We hate them even more when they're called umpires, as God commanded.

 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.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
They are just paving the way for Clinton to go on a future bill.

I dearly hope no one wants to ever see Hillary on Bill.

 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.

Wow, so much anger over whose face is on money.

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:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 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.

If Mr Hamilton is that upset about it he can sue.

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.