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.

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.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
My issue with this is more it's a theme. Currently the theme is U.S. presidents. .

Huh? The theme is U.S. Presidents?

Well, we should definitely remove Hamilton and Franklin then, since neither of them were Presidents.

I'm all for it. Hamilton lost a duel. We don't cotton losers in this country. Off my $10 you loser!

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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Not everything is fair in the world and never will be.

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.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 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.

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

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.

If it was debunked then this is the first time i heard of it. I always thought a woman made the first american flag.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 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......


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


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.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 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.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 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!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 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.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 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.

How do you have a problem with that?

 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.