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.

I would just remind you that a lot of computing, the internet and the WWW was invented by British scientists and engineers, so it is in fact entirely possible that Google would exist even if the USA had never been founded.

If you are not a misogynist, why not prove it by supporting a woman on the bank note? Otherwise it really does look like a big deal to you, the number of specious arguments you have some up with to keep them off.

I'd also like to point out that no one's arguing that anyone should be put on money soley because they are a woman; that would indeed be sexist. We're arguing that, among the people considered worthy of being put on currency, perhaps it's time to choose someone who's female. They still have to have actually done something major to be considered.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd also like to point out that no one's arguing that anyone should be put on money soley because they are a woman; that would indeed be sexist. We're arguing that, among the people considered worthy of being put on currency, perhaps it's time to choose someone who's female. They still have to have actually done something major to be considered.

So we're agreed-Grace Kelly?

Put Madeleine Leander on it. Totally worth it.

 Peregrine wrote:
I think the real problem here is that you're confusing ability to recite meaningless trivia ("who is on our money") with being a functioning adult.

I've noticed this a fair few times. While knowledge is almost always useful in some way, the ability to apply knowledge is much more important. I don't know why it is but there seems to be (from talking with people in general) a huge emphasis in American education about memorising everything about Americaland and less on critical thinking and application.

Personally I would have trouble telling you who more than our last handful of Prime Ministers were, or who exactly stabbed who in the back to become King in X-ty-Y.

As you say, knowledge of trivia in no way makes you a functional adult.

And for the record, I have no idea who anyone is on our money other than El-Queenie; I'm quite happy for anyone suitably august to grace my coins and notes

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If you are not a misogynist, why not prove it by supporting a woman on the bank note?

I will support a women on an entirely new bill, and someone who actually did something of major importance more so than any other viable candidate(including all male candidates)

In that event, I believe MLK would deserve a spot on a bill long before any women. No women's accomplishments match his as of right now.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If you are not a misogynist, why not prove it by supporting a woman on the bank note?

I will support a women on an entirely new bill, and someone who actually did something of major importance more so than any other viable candidate(including all male candidates)

In that event, I believe MLK would deserve a spot on a bill long before any women. No women's accomplishments match his as of right now.

It is an entirely new bill. It's an entirely new $10 bill.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Lastly, why is it bad to fight against change for the sake of change. The old argument of don't fix something if it is not broken springs to mind. Furthermore, I don't care what other countries do with their currency, America hasn't changed the US currency since it was standardized and made into the bill size we currently have. So because another country does something then we to must do it? Well the Brits drive on the other side of the road does that mean we should all switch to that to because ....Balance? French people allow children to drink at 16 and hard booze at 18 should we change our policy to that as well? Just because other countries do something in no way effects how we do things in the United States.

You probably should care what other countries do, because any more, they can affect you.


I guess you don't need the Constitution, because it was based on the Magna Carta, an English Document. I guess you don't need democratic republicanism, because that came from Greece and Rome. Guess you don't need all them guns, because black-powder came from China, and cannons came from Eastern Europe, and later Western Europe. I guess you don't need a car, because that came from Germany.


Here's what really made the US stand out from most countries for a long time: It used to be, if we saw something that worked well, we took that idea, and made it better.

And I'm with Peregrine... I don't know who's on my fething money. I know my debit card is blue, and it has my name, and my bank's name on it. I mean, I do know, but it is not some central thing that I "NEEED" to know who is on my money. A 5 is a 5 and a 10 is a 10, and where I live, I know that if the price tag says $9.99, I'm gonna need a 10 and a 5, or I just need to use my debit card. The last time I really used cash on any sort of regular basis, was when I was stationed in Germany. I honestly can't tell you "who" or "what" was on the Euro, just that each was a different size and color.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

In that event, I believe MLK would deserve a spot on a bill long before any women. No women's accomplishments match his as of right now.

I partially agree with you here.... Only insofar as there were thousands or millions of women fighting for Suffrage, which means there were no true "heroes" that stand out from the rest. And, IMO, women's suffrage is about as close to a "comparable issue" that one can get when it deals with MLK's accomplishments.

Exalted Peregrine's post. Well said. A bit blunt perhaps, but entirely correct.

There's little question in my mind who its gonna end up being:

 jasper76 wrote:
There's little question in my mind who its gonna end up being:

I'd be down with that.

<sorry, joke in bad taste>

Not seeing why Oprah would generate a backlash.

She's a great American and great success story.

 whembly wrote:
Not seeing why Oprah would generate a backlash.

She's a great American and great success story.

Didn't expect that! She's certainly a great success story. Whether she's a great American is a debate for another time...

Anyways, I was just trying to be funny.

If they put it up for a vote, my vote would go to Earhart.

Eleanor Roosevelt for me, although I am quite biased in them regard.

I am saddened at the lack of support for Grace Kelly. How about Ginger Rogers? She did everything Fred Astaire did but backwards and in heels.

If we're going on dancing skills, I'm changing my vote to Elaine Benis!

 jasper76 wrote:
If we're going on dancing skills, I'm changing my vote to Elaine Benis!

Please, we all know that if we're honouring dancers then there's only one choice, though it is a man...

Yikes! Touche, indeed.

This is pathetic, we have a bunch of people who think the invention of google, not the internet or something like that is more important to AMERICAN history/culture then the founding fathers.

Furthermore the 2 arguments against keeping Hamilton on the bill are "Your a sexist" and "Im ignorant and I have a debit card so who cares". Im glad you lads like to live that way

And about what other countries do, 1: Not every country changes currency like that, 2: IF it works for them great, but our system works just as well 3: comparing currency to the invention of gunpowder and the bill of rights is about the biggest stretch you could possibly make. Nowhere did i say we should never adopt practices from other countries, but if our system works as well as everyone elses Dont Feth with it.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

and "Im ignorant and I have a debit card so who cares".

No... it's "I don't care about this bit of trivia" That's honestly what it fething is. Fething trivia!


No one, and mean NO ONE should really care who the feth is on a fething piece of paper money, so long as that money spends equally. So long as a 10 dollar bill equals 10 dollars in value, who the feth cares!?



And tell me, do you really, honestly believe that the US currency works equally well for everyone?

 Ghazkuul wrote:
This is pathetic, we have a bunch of people who think the invention of google, not the internet or something like that is more important to AMERICAN history/culture then the founding fathers.

Google has had a massive impact on the world (you may be surprised to know that America is part of the world; you might want to google it ); more so than the invention of the internet, google tied together all the information that was out there in a way that made it possible for the average person to get access to it.

This in turn has revolutionised the development of so much of our culture and society.

As to the rest of your post... yeah... good luck with that theory.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
This is pathetic, we have a bunch of people who think the invention of google, not the internet or something like that is more important to AMERICAN history/culture then the founding fathers.

Furthermore the 2 arguments against keeping Hamilton on the bill are "Your a sexist" and "Im ignorant and I have a debit card so who cares". Im glad you lads like to live that way

And about what other countries do, 1: Not every country changes currency like that, 2: IF it works for them great, but our system works just as well 3: comparing currency to the invention of gunpowder and the bill of rights is about the biggest stretch you could possibly make. Nowhere did i say we should never adopt practices from other countries, but if our system works as well as everyone elses Dont Feth with it.

Well, most countries have outhouses with longer history than America. We have a very strong national identity, but very, very little history. Even if you count us as a colony as part of our history, we're hardly 400 years old.

This is akin to being upset when they changed the mascot to Cookie Crisp from a dog to a burglar, or whatever the kids need to tell them what to eat nowadays. We are Americans. We can change our minds, and be proud of any history we choose. We don't have the weight of aeons of traditions that we need to live up to. It is neat.

One thing to remember is that for the longest period of time if you wanted to make historical achievements for the USA, you had to be a white male. If you were anything else, you weren't allowed to. How many women were allowed to be one of the founding fathers?

Historically, if a woman and a man had equal achievements, the woman's achievements dwarf the man's by an order of magnitude more simply because of all the resistance that she had to fight in addition to actually making the achievement.

For instance, Amelia Earhart is much more deserving of historical recognition than the Wright Brothers.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
This is pathetic, we have a bunch of people who think the invention of google, not the internet or something like that is more important to AMERICAN history/culture then the founding fathers.

Furthermore the 2 arguments against keeping Hamilton on the bill are "Your a sexist" and "Im ignorant and I have a debit card so who cares". Im glad you lads like to live that way

And about what other countries do, 1: Not every country changes currency like that, 2: IF it works for them great, but our system works just as well 3: comparing currency to the invention of gunpowder and the bill of rights is about the biggest stretch you could possibly make. Nowhere did i say we should never adopt practices from other countries, but if our system works as well as everyone elses Dont Feth with it.

Well, most countries have outhouses with longer history than America. We have a very strong national identity, but very, very little history. Even if you count us as a colony as part of our history, we're hardly 400 years old.

That's only if you don't consider Native American history to be part of American history. If you do, it's just as long as the history of many European countries, if not longer. And if you're just going by age of a country based on its existence as a political entity, a lot of European countries in their current form are younger than the US, including Germany and Italy.

 Hordini wrote:

That's only if you don't consider Native American history to be part of American history. If you do, it's just as long as the history of many European countries, if not longer. And if you're just going by age of a country based on its existence as a political entity, a lot of European countries in their current form are younger than the US, including Germany and Italy.

That's a tricky one, because we have many first hand sources (mostly founding fathers who wrote a whole lot) of "Europeans living in the region of what would become known as the US" referring to themselves as Americans by the early to mid 1750s. Really, the Seven Years' War aka, French and Indian War is one prime example of a number of instances where there is a distinction made, simply by the fact that there are at that time, a number of colonists who were born in America, not England and by this point, they are beginning to feel, "Not English" (they aren't quite feeling American yet) and so they do begin to refer to themselves as Americans more often.


So, I think it may be better to consider the history as a number of stories, not give hard dates. Afterall, for many German people, the history of Germany stretches back a lot farther than 1871, because there is that shared language, and shared nationalistic identity.

 skyth wrote:
One thing to remember is that for the longest period of time if you wanted to make historical achievements for the USA, you had to be a white male. If you were anything else, you weren't allowed to. How many women were allowed to be one of the founding fathers?

Historically, if a woman and a man had equal achievements, the woman's achievements dwarf the man's by an order of magnitude more simply because of all the resistance that she had to fight in addition to actually making the achievement.

For instance, Amelia Earhart is much more deserving of historical recognition than the Wright Brothers.

Yeah, people don't seem to get this. If women haven't had as much impact on the world, it's only because they haven't had the oppertunities us white men have had throughout history.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So, I think it may be better to consider the history as a number of stories, not give hard dates. Afterall, for many German people, the history of Germany stretches back a lot farther than 1871, because there is that shared language, and shared nationalistic identity.

Actually, depending on how far back you go, the German language wasn't always as unified as you might think, and there are still a variety of dialects in existence. And a national "German identity" is something that is relatively new.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So, I think it may be better to consider the history as a number of stories, not give hard dates. Afterall, for many German people, the history of Germany stretches back a lot farther than 1871, because there is that shared language, and shared nationalistic identity.

Actually, depending on how far back you go, the German language wasn't always as unified as you might think, and there are still a variety of dialects in existence. And a national "German identity" is something that is relatively new.

The point is though, if you're walking around Germany, the majority of the cities have a history that extends well back beyond the time when Germany was unified. Heck, we have Roman historians referring to the Germanic tribal languages collectively as German, and the people themselves, "The Germans"

They shared enough of a common language, or rather, their various languages sounded close enough, that commerce and governmental treaties were able to happen on a regular basis. Bavaria didn't go to war with Wurttemburg or Saxony over petty land squabbles or the various reasons France and England have fought, because they both viewed themselves as being "German"

Really, the one big historical event that I can think of that actually divided German loyalties, was the 30 Years' War, but even in that instance, it's a bit tough to call it that simply, because it was more of a Protestant vs. Catholic thing than it was any nationalist thing.

How about we all compromise and replace Alexander Hamilton with Caitlyn Jenner?