Petition to put Harriet tubman on the 20$ bill delivered to white house.

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.

**Ashiraya**

Ghazkuul wrote:
My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.

What if you determined how suitable someone is to be placed on money based on what they managed to accomplish proportional to what they had backing them and what they faced?

A president does great things, but a president also has a lot of things backing them up. I can't tell for sure because US history is not my speciality, but based on what I can read from wikipedia pages etc., Tubman took an extremely unfavourable starting point and situation and became a hero. Jackson managed some even more spectacular deeds in a vacuum, at least in terms of resulting effect, but he also had less resistance and a better starting point. White male lawyer and black female slave, and it was a fair time ago so the difference in resulting resistance was even more extreme than it is today.

I am not one to judge which of the two come out ahead in that comparison, I'll leave it to those better at history than I am, but it's at least a viewpoint one could consider, and should one conclude that Tubman does come out ahead I think it's obscene to call that conclusion 'sexism'.

**jreilly89**

Swastakowey wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
I am anti feminazi :-) thank you though for trying to paint me as a bigot.

In fact I am an avid supporter of EQUAL rights. The emphasis on the "equal" part. I am against any system or mechanism that unfairly benefits a specific race, gender or ethnicity because people feel they need the boost.

I served in Afghanistan with Women who did an outstanding job. We came under attack on a regular basis and none of them lost their cool. These same women though scoffed at the idea that congress and feminazi's thought that Women should be infantry. In fact I pointed out that some women could cut it and they were the ones trying to shoot down the idea completely.

My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.

I'm not trying to paint you as a bigot, I'm just pointing out you've been fairly hostile to anything remotely involving women's rights. As said before, I understand not wanting to put someone in place of Jackson, but you seem seriously insulted by the fact that it's a poc woman.

I am 100% certain it was the method of selection that annoyed him... not the result. Come on man its pretty obvious. Who cares if its a black chick? Obviously those who care showed their sexist behavior by advocating in the first place. What matters is the achievement, well that's what should matter anyway.

I don't see why. It was taken as a vote and then petitioned. I think it should then go to a regular vote U.S. wide, but it's still pretty democratic. Hell, start a petition if you don't want it to change.

Second, the achievement should matter, but it's pretty clear everyone has a different definition of achievement. I think she did a great job and left a huge social impact, but obviously some view military/political career as more important.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ashiraya wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.

What if you determined how suitable someone is to be placed on money based on what they managed to accomplish proportional to what they had backing them and what they faced?

A president does great things, but a president also has a lot of things backing them up. I can't tell for sure because US history is not my speciality, but based on what I can read from wikipedia pages etc., Tubman took an extremely unfavourable starting point and situation and became a hero. Jackson managed some even more spectacular deeds in a vacuum, at least in terms of resulting effect, but he also had less resistance and a better starting point. White male lawyer and black female slave, and it was a fair time ago so the difference in resulting resistance was even more extreme than it is today.

I am not one to judge which of the two come out ahead in that comparison, I'll leave it to those better at history than I am, but it's at least a viewpoint one could consider, and should one conclude that Tubman does come out ahead I think it's obscene to call that conclusion 'sexism'.

Good post, Ash. I think a lot of people refuse to take historical context into effect when looking back on history and I feel that is rather sad.

**Ustrello**

I look at it this way, tubman who saved hundreds of people and was involved in womens suffrage all great things. Or jackson who faced down probably the best army in the world at the time out numbered and outgunned. He won a battle in a war that is sometimes called the second war of independence in which we did not do so well.

**Swastakowey**

Ashiraya wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.

What if you determined how suitable someone is to be placed on money based on what they managed to accomplish proportional to what they had backing them and what they faced?

A president does great things, but a president also has a lot of things backing them up. I can't tell for sure because US history is not my speciality, but based on what I can read from wikipedia pages etc., Tubman took an extremely unfavourable starting point and situation and became a hero. Jackson managed some even more spectacular deeds in a vacuum, at least in terms of resulting effect, but he also had less resistance and a better starting point. White male lawyer and black female slave, and it was a fair time ago so the difference in resulting resistance was even more extreme than it is today.

I am not one to judge which of the two come out ahead in that comparison, I'll leave it to those better at history than I am, but it's at least a viewpoint one could consider, and should one conclude that Tubman does come out ahead I think it's obscene to call that conclusion 'sexism'.

Its sexism because she was chosen to be on the note for being a women before considering her achievements. If that is not sexism then your view on sexism is incorrect.

Nobody doubts her achievements. But as far as I can tell, replacing someone and then the having the only replacements select able as women is sexism. Would you not be outraged if the only applicants to a poll for the next face of your 20 dollar bill were men only? Im sure you would. Because that too is sexism.

Thankfully this process is a bunch of random sexists on the internet submitting petition. Hopefully it will not be considered. The next note to be updated should have a face chosen by vote in a pole not aimed at selecting a certain gender/race/whatever.

Anyway, as I said earlier its not even my country. But I found it interesting that such a poll would be considered. Its a very backward way of going about something.

**Ghazkuul**

Swastakowey wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
I am anti feminazi :-) thank you though for trying to paint me as a bigot.

In fact I am an avid supporter of EQUAL rights. The emphasis on the "equal" part. I am against any system or mechanism that unfairly benefits a specific race, gender or ethnicity because people feel they need the boost.

I served in Afghanistan with Women who did an outstanding job. We came under attack on a regular basis and none of them lost their cool. These same women though scoffed at the idea that congress and feminazi's thought that Women should be infantry. In fact I pointed out that some women could cut it and they were the ones trying to shoot down the idea completely.

My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.

I'm not trying to paint you as a bigot, I'm just pointing out you've been fairly hostile to anything remotely involving women's rights. As said before, I understand not wanting to put someone in place of Jackson, but you seem seriously insulted by the fact that it's a poc woman.

I am 100% certain it was the method of selection that annoyed him... not the result. Come on man its pretty obvious. Who cares if its a black chick? Obviously those who care showed their sexist behavior by advocating in the first place. What matters is the achievement, well that's what should matter anyway.

you sir nailed it, im offended that this even got made into a petition, less then 1/2 of a % of the US population participated in the vote, less then 1/2 of that 1/2 of a % chose this person to be the winner. And the selection criteria to even be voted on was they had to be a woman. If you read the website it basically slanders Jackson and says that a woman needs to be on the currency because its the 100 year anniversary of womens suffrage. Im sorry, im a big history buff and I don't see how Tubman made any kind of significant contribution to the US when compared to President Jackson.

**Ashiraya**

Swastakowey wrote:
Its sexism because she was chosen to be on the note for being a women before considering her achievements. If that is not sexism then your view on sexism is incorrect.

Not really.

I mean, she not only saved hundreds of people (which is pretty amazing in itself), but she also did this during the 19th century as a woman where sexism was far more omnipresent than today, and as if that wasn't enough she also did this as a black person where racism was far more omnipresent than today, and she was even a slave to boot!

She is not suitable simply because she was a woman, but the fact that she was a woman made her feats even more impressive because it meant she faced even more resistance.

Calling it sexism just seems like sensationalism to me.

**Swastakowey**

Ashiraya wrote:
Swastakowey wrote:
Its sexism because she was chosen to be on the note for being a women before considering her achievements. If that is not sexism then your view on sexism is incorrect.

Not really.

I mean, she not only saved hundreds of people (which is pretty amazing in itself), but she also did this during the 19th century as a woman where sexism was far more omnipresent than today, and as if that wasn't enough she also did this as a black person where racism was far more omnipresent than today, and she was even a slave to boot!

She is not suitable simply because she was a woman, but the fact that she was a woman made her feats even more impressive because it meant she faced even more resistance.

Calling it sexism just seems like sensationalism to me.

Did you read the first post:

Which women should be on the next bill was the poll. She was chosen for being a women first.

**Ghazkuul**

If anyone watches the show (specifically our british friends) Jeremy Clarkson was fired from Top Gear and we made and signed a 1million person petition to have him reinstated. Thats 1 MILLION people signing a document to get a TV presenter back on the air. Tubman received less then 200k votes for a piece of US currency....take that into account :-P

**Ashiraya**

Ghazkuul wrote:
Im sorry, im a big history buff and I don't see how Tubman made any kind of significant contribution to the US when compared to President Jackson.

When you account for how much difficulty an incredibly (trigger warning) privileged white male lawyer, later politician, had in his feats, compared to what a black slave woman had in hers, Jackson's deeds suddenly become much more comparable in my opinion.

Comparing them in a vacuum is not entirely fair. An idiot can do more with a billion dollars than a genius can do with one, that does not make the idiot more worthy of praise. Jackson was not an idiot, but he did have things going for him in a -way- greater degree.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Swastakowey wrote:

Did you read the first post:

Which women should be on the next bill was the poll. She was chosen for being a women first.

I am not talking about if the article is sexist or not, I am talking about if the prospect of Tubman on money would be sexist or not.

**Ghazkuul**

Ashiraya wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
Im sorry, im a big history buff and I don't see how Tubman made any kind of significant contribution to the US when compared to President Jackson.

When you account for how much difficulty an incredibly (trigger warning) privileged white male lawyer, later politician, had in his feats, compared to what a black slave woman had in hers, Jackson's deeds suddenly become much more comparable in my opinion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Swastakowey wrote:

Did you read the first post:

Which women should be on the next bill was the poll. She was chosen for being a women first.

I am not talking about if the article is sexist or not, I am talking about if the prospect of Tubman on money would be sexist or not.

then you are off topic because the entire post is about a petition made my a feminist group to put a female on the US $20.

As far as difficulty in their achievement. Tubman faced danger but so did a large number of other under ground railroad conductors. IF caught she would have become a slave again. Andrew Jackson fought in three wars. Call me biased because i served in the military as well but that seems a bit more dangerous then running around at night with freed slaves. Every US currency note has the face of a person who GREATLY shaped our countries history. Tubman didn't Jackson did. simple as that.

**Swastakowey**

Ashiraya wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
Im sorry, im a big history buff and I don't see how Tubman made any kind of significant contribution to the US when compared to President Jackson.

When you account for how much difficulty an incredibly (trigger warning) privileged white male lawyer, later politician, had in his feats, compared to what a black slave woman had in hers, Jackson's deeds suddenly become much more comparable in my opinion.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Swastakowey wrote:

Did you read the first post:

Which women should be on the next bill was the poll. She was chosen for being a women first.

I am not talking about if the article is sexist or not, I am talking about if the prospect of Tubman on money would be sexist or not.

Then you are not understanding what people are saying is sexist at all... read over the comments again.

A sexist poll will produce a sexist result. What are people annoyed about, that Tubman on the bill campaign was the result of a sexist poll made by sexist people.

No one minds Tubman, or what she did. Heck if she won by fair process then fine. But she was chosen because of her gender which is not ok.

**sebster**

Xenomancers wrote:
It's not troll - FDR confiscated the US entire populations gold in the NEW deal. It is the definition of tyranny.

It is a remarkable thing that people will see issues such as jobs and escape poverty and decide those things are nowhere near as important as people getting to hold on to their gold, so much so that any move to control gold would be called tyranny. Sadly it isn't that uncommon an attitude, but still remarkable every time it appears.

**Ashiraya**

Ghazkuul wrote:
then you are off topic because the entire post is about a petition made my a feminist group to put a female on the US $20.

Not really, no. And I do not see the problem with putting a woman on the $20 either way. Again, I am arguing from an outsider's standpoint as I am not an US citizen myself, but... How many men have you had on money, and how many women? Call me biased because I have never been much of a fan of militaries and their glorification, but I do not think military feats are that much more important than incredible civil heroism carried out despite far worse odds than what most others would face.

**Swastakowey**

Ashiraya wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
then you are off topic because the entire post is about a petition made my a feminist group to put a female on the US $20.

Not really, no. And I do not see the problem with putting a woman on the $20 either way. Again, I am arguing from an outsider's standpoint as I am not an US citizen myself, but... How many men have you had on money, and how many women? Call me biased because I have never been much of a fan of militaries and their glorification, but I do not think military feats are that much more important than incredible civil heroism carried out despite far worse odds than what most others would face.

So then you are sexist. You do not see a problem with a gender exclusive selection process and are happy to exclude people.

Or you simply dont understand what the problem is. Which I suspect is the case.

Nobody minds if a women is on the bill, but she must be chosen like everyone else, men included. Tubman being selected is not a fair process. Its not an us vs them, its about having things as they should be. Which you dont seem to want.

**Ustrello**

Ashiraya wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
then you are off topic because the entire post is about a petition made my a feminist group to put a female on the US $20.

Not really, no. And I do not see the problem with putting a woman on the $20 either way. Again, I am arguing from an outsider's standpoint as I am not an US citizen myself, but... How many men have you had on money, and how many women? Call me biased because I have never been much of a fan of militaries and their glorification, but I do not think military feats are that much more important than incredible civil heroism carried out despite far worse odds than what most others would face.

But you have Charles XI and Gustav Vasa on your money

**Ashiraya**

I could argue your ''''''''''''fair process'''''''''' is sexist to begin with because it selects suitable candidates based on their feats without taking into account the wildly varying difficulties and resistance each person faced, which naturally greatly favours white men since they have always been most privileged and favoured by society for presidents and similar roles that are most likely to get you a spot on the bill.

So defending it like you do is sexist. That's putting it into quite another perspective, now doesn't it? Not saying you are sexist, but consider the above viewpoint for a while and you'll see that it's not nearly as easy as you think to point out who objectively deserves a spot on the money and call everything else sexism.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ustrello wrote:
But you have Charles XI and Gustav Vasa on your money

And Jenny Lind, and Selma Lagerlöf. We have 5 bills, with a 3-2 split. Seems fair to me.

**Ustrello**

Ah but you are not a fan of military glorification and yet you do not complain about those two.

**Bromsy**

Ashiraya wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:
Im sorry, im a big history buff and I don't see how Tubman made any kind of significant contribution to the US when compared to President Jackson.

When you account for how much difficulty an incredibly (trigger warning) privileged white male lawyer, later politician, had in his feats, compared to what a black slave woman had in hers, Jackson's deeds suddenly become much more comparable in my opinion.

Comparing them in a vacuum is not entirely fair. An idiot can do more with a billion dollars than a genius can do with one, that does not make the idiot more worthy of praise. Jackson was not an idiot, but he did have things going for him in a -way- greater degree.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Swastakowey wrote:

Did you read the first post:

Which women should be on the next bill was the poll. She was chosen for being a women first.

I am not talking about if the article is sexist or not, I am talking about if the prospect of Tubman on money would be sexist or not.

You know Andrew Jackson wasn't born a lawyer, right? He was born to a fairly poor scots immigrant family. He was the first 'working class' president America had, those before him generally came from the landed gentry class. His father died before he was born and his two brothers and mother died during the revolutionary war, which he fought in as an irregular - at the age of 13 mind you. He became a lawyer by teaching himself the law out of books, not going to some fancy university.

**Ashiraya**

Ustrello wrote:
Ah but you are not a fan of military glorification and yet you do not complain about those two.

If I do or not has less relevance here because this is not about the Swedish money.

Make a thread about Swedish money if you like, and I'll happily give you my full opinion on what we have on our banknotes and coins there.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:

You know Andrew Jackson wasn't born a lawyer, right? He was born to a fairly poor scots immigrant family. He was the first 'working class' president America had, those before him generally came from the landed gentry class. His father died before he was born and his two brothers and mother died during the revolutionary war, which he fought in as an irregular - at the age of 13 mind you. He became a lawyer by teaching himself the law out of books, not going to some fancy university.

Aha. Thanks for the info on his background.

It does work a bit in his favour, but not enough to convince to me automatically rule out Tubman in a comparison of the two. I'll let those like you who are better accustomed to US history do that specifically, but I'll continue to point out that you should take into account who they are and what they faced, not just what the results were.

Anyway, I've said mine, and wtf am I not asleep it's 07:29 AM. Good night. o7

**sebster**

Xenomancers wrote:
Ofc it's just my opinion - FDR had a rough situation and he took extremely drastic measures. It just so happens overnight the US government became the richest government in history by taking all it's citizens most valuable property. Theres something unamerican about that. I don't think it's worthy of praise.

They paid a market price for the gold, you know. The price spiked shortly after (due to the US govt becoming such a major new player) and the govt thereby profited greatly, but the price originally set was hardly unfair.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghazkuul wrote:
Anyone else find it amusing that we have a "Mod" trolling so hard?

I think it's a sad reflection of the internet that terms that used to have a real meaning, like trolling, is now used to dismiss anyone who takes moderately aggressive, pithy tone.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Back on topic, if you don't like Tubman for the bank note what other American woman do you think would be suitable?

That's loading the question. Dropping Jackson should be argued purely on Jackson's record, and whether the replacement is a man or woman would be a secondary matter.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghazkuul wrote:
She was a conductor on the Underground railroad, she will be remembered forever in our country....beyond that she did nothing significant. President Jackson fought in our wars, led our country and set a badass example for future generations. So how about you just let it be until some woman comes along and surpasses those achievements. For instance, if a female astronaut becomes the first person (NOT WOMAN) to land on mars. F*CK im all for it! until then lets just let it be.

And this is the perfect example of why framing the question is so powerful. Even one of the people who are opposed to only considering women for equality's sake, has been suckered in to thinking the question can only be considered in terms of either Jackson or a woman.

It's an incredibly powerful political tool.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ashiraya wrote:
What if you determined how suitable someone is to be placed on money based on what they managed to accomplish proportional to what they had backing them and what they faced?

A president does great things, but a president also has a lot of things backing them up.

Because the scale matters, basically. A person in charge of greater resources simply has more scope to advance their nation and shape history.

**Wyzilla**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
TheCustomLime wrote:
I'm all for this. Andrew Jackson isn't really a man to be celebrated in hindsight.

I still say we need a bill for FDR.
And one for JFK

JFK didn't accomplish much at all. His most remarkable action was nearly starting a nuclear war by being a colossal feth up, and then cleaning up. LBJ is far more deserving of getting his face on paper money considering he actually addressed civil rights issues instead of avoiding them. And just in general "getting gak done".

FDR though should definitely be on the $20 in place of Andrew Jackson. Arguably the greatest President we ever had given his social policies paved the road to the America we have today. The only man I would consider putting above FDR is Abraham Lincoln.

**A Town Called Malus**

Ghazkuul wrote:

She was a conductor on the Underground railroad, she will be remembered forever in our country....beyond that she did nothing significant. President Jackson fought in our wars, led our country and set a badass example for future generations. So how about you just let it be until some woman comes along and surpasses those achievements. For instance, if a female astronaut becomes the first person (NOT WOMAN) to land on mars. F*CK im all for it! until then lets just let it be.

It's a lot easier to get "great achievements" if you are a white male, especially when you are looking back to times when black people were basically considered subhuman. Achievements should be examined in that kind of context.

**Blood Hawk**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Ghazkuul wrote:

She was a conductor on the Underground railroad, she will be remembered forever in our country....beyond that she did nothing significant. President Jackson fought in our wars, led our country and set a badass example for future generations. So how about you just let it be until some woman comes along and surpasses those achievements. For instance, if a female astronaut becomes the first person (NOT WOMAN) to land on mars. F*CK im all for it! until then lets just let it be.

It's a lot easier to get "great achievements" if you are a white male, especially when you are looking back to times when black people were basically considered subhuman. Achievements should be examined in that kind of context.

No offense but what you just said is dismissing to all the great accomplishments of great men in USA history. It suggests that somehow that it was "easy" for Lincoln lead the country through the civil war or end slavery, which is absurd. Tubman didn't have as large of an impact as Jackson on shaping US history. That is just a fact.

Besides by pushing guys like Jackson into the background in the favor of less important people that align more with 21st century values is essentially whitewashing US history. Every president up until this one was a white guy, we should own that not hide from it.

**Kilkrazy**

There's already plenty of upper-class WASP men on the currency. It wouldn't do any harm to give someone else a chance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghazkuul wrote:
My point is that nobody should receive a benefit based upon their color, sex, religion or ethnicity, as soon as someone does it becomes a problem.

By this rule all the current personalities will have to be removed since they are all white men elected president when it was only possible to be elected president if you were a white man.

**Blood Hawk**

Kilkrazy wrote:
There's already plenty of upper-class WASP men on the currency. It wouldn't do any harm to give someone else a chance.

The thing is I could see that argument if we making up a new bill that didn't exist before and were deciding who to put on there but we aren't. People want to remove a great US president from the bill to replace him with another person. If you really think jackson doesn't deserve to be on the 20 please go ahead and state your case.

**Kilkrazy**

Make a new bill and put someone new on it.

**Hulksmash**

I'm all for a new bill or coin with someone else on it.

Removing Jackson annoys me. Honestly, you'd be hard pressed to point to any of our presidents not on a bill that did as much for this country in and out of office. Let alone individuals in this country that weren't presidents. MLK obviously being one of the standouts for the non-presidentials. Also no Rosa Parks. I'd be pissed if a figure head was put on a bill. She was selected by the movement because the person who it happened to first wasn't as appealing aesthetically to the cause.

**cincydooley**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Make a new bill and put someone new on it.

Are you even paying attention to this thread at all?

Multiple people have suggested multiple times that they create a new coin for situations just like this. It is, in fact, for what they were intended.

**Xenomancers**

Swastakowey wrote:
feeder wrote:
Swastakowey wrote:

Choosing a women to go on a bank note is sexist. Why not simply chose based on achievement?

The point is, Tubman achieved a heck of a lot. She was a pivotal resistor of the Slave Trade, a Civil War Hero and an early Suffragette. She is an outstanding example of overcoming great obstacles and long odds to make a lasting mark for the betterment of society. She beat the fething game of Life on the hardest difficulty setting! (Black, Female, Slave).

I seriously suspect the true motivations behind people who are against this.

True, but as the poll suggests she has not been selected on the basis of her achievements. Rather they chose people based on their gender AND THEN looked at their achievements. I have no doubt she did some amazing things. I have never heard of her personally. I guess the motives dont seem very correct behind her as a choice. Imagine how she, as a fighter of rights etc (quick google search) would feel if she was chosen to be on the 20 dollar bill... because she was a women. I think that would not go down so well.

There was an example on her wikipedia. She was paid in rations for her job as a nurse. The other Negroes however did not get paid. So what does she do? She CHOOSES to no longer be compensated for her work. She doesnt sound like the kind of person who would be happy to get special treatment. ESpecially if the motives for this special treatment go against one of the things she fought for.

Dunno, just my two cents I guess. Im never gonna see an american bill so it doesnt effect me. I actually didnt know they had faces on them.... (only the white house I have ever seen on US cash).

Well it's impossible for an American public school child to not learn a little something about Tubman. We have mandatory black history month (though no white, asian, middle eastern/hispanic history month). I even think I had to write a report on her when I was in 3rd grade.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Ghazkuul wrote:
I am anti feminazi :-) thank you though for trying to paint me as a bigot.

Well, you are doing a fine job at this yourself. I mean, even using the word feminazi non-ironically paints you as a bigot…