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.

 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.

What original message is being lost here?

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.

Yes.

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?

And why is it just politicians too, why not scientists, engineers, philosophers. doctors, nurses?

Why does some random woman who hasn't been decided on?

Seriously, that argument you just put forth is terrible.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Why does some random woman who hasn't been decided on?

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.

This is getting more and more silly.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 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).

Seeing how he set up the bank, I'd say his institution is a pretty proper place for him to be remembered in.

He is, he is going to be a security feature protecting money from counterfeiting. That is pretty fitting if you ask me.

"And he is there, ever protecting his creation, into the ages."

Makes it sound cooler than it is, but that's the first thing that poped into my mind.

boyd wrote:
Also, we do have one woman on our currency - Sacagawea (guide for Lewis and Clark).

Technically the US has two. Sacajawea and Susan B. Anthony, but both coins are little more than collector's items.

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.

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'.

 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.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

Maybe because every time something seems ok and fine the way it is

Tons of people don't think the current set-up is okay and fine the way it is.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

Here's the history of the slogan:

http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx

 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.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 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.