Alexander Hamilton to be replaced by a woman on $10 bill

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.

**motyak**

Anyone who touches that, remain polite

**jasper76**

This issue caused me to wonder why I don't know who the first female US Senator was. You'd think that'd be a houshold name.

Now I know why not (all from Wikipdeia disclaimer):

Rebecca Felton
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Latimer_Felton)

Under the heading "Racial Views":

Felton owned slaves before the Civil War, and was the last member of either house of Congress to have been a slave owner.

Felton was a white supremacist. She claimed, for instance, that the more money that Georgia spent on black education, the more crimes blacks committed. For the 1893 World's Columbian Exhibition, she "proposed a southern exhibit 'illustrating the slave period,' with a cabin and 'real colored folks making mats, shuck collars, and baskets—a woman to spin and card cotton—and another to play banjo and show the actual life of [the] slave—not the Uncle Tom sort.'" She wanted to display "the ignorant contented darky—as distinguished from [Harriet Beecher] Stowe's monstrosities."

Felton considered "young blacks" who sought equal treatment "half-civilized gorillas," and ascribed to them a "brutal lust" for white women. While seeking suffrage for women, she decried voting rights for blacks, arguing that it led directly to the rape of white women.

In 1899, a massive crowd of white Georgians tortured, mutilated, and burned a black man, Sam Hose, who purportedly had killed a white man in self-defense but had not committed the rape of the white woman whites accused him of. The crowd divided and sold his physical remains as souvenirs, Felton said that any "true-hearted husband or father" would have killed "the beast" and that Hose was due less sympathy than a rabid dog.

Felton also advocated more lynchings of black men, saying that such was "elysian" compared to the rape of white women. On at least one occasion, she stated that white Southerners should "lynch a thousand [black men] a week if it becomes necessary" to "protect woman's dearest possession."

**d-usa**

My hometown is preparing to celebrate our 900th anniversary next year. People who think that a bill that has featured various versions of a portrait for the last 86 years, after featuring 15 other faces, and which was last changed 9 years ago is some sort of untouchable historical relics are simply adorable.

**Iron_Captain**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
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.

"German" is actually not a German word at all. The Germans (all varieties) have always called themselves "Deutsch" (or some local variety of it), which translates to "Dutch" in English (The Dutch used to identify themselves as Germans)

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.

There is little to no native American history from before the European invasion, because the native Americans had no written language (only past events that are actually recorded are history). History before invention of written language is called prehistory.
In any case, I don't think the modern US has much claim to native American legacy. For that there would have need to been continuity.

Also, most current European states are direct continuations from previous states (there is a direct continuity between Kievan Rus' - Vladimir-Suzdal' - Muscovy - Russian Tsardom - Russian Empire - Soviet Union - Russian Federation for example.) And besides that, continuity of the nation is very different from the continuity of the state. For example, the recorded ethnogenesis for the Russian people was in the 9th Century, whereas a seperate 'American' nation did not form until the 18th Century.

Regarding the money, I think it would be awesome to see Amelia Earhart on a dollar bill, if only because she was so cool.

**timetowaste85**

I'll put it a bit less bluntly, to delicately do my best to satisfy a Mod's request:

Saying that other user's opinions are invalid due to their nationality is not acceptable on an international forum. If you don't want to see people from other countries commenting then don't open threads. motyak

**Iron_Captain**

Just cleaning up the above, motyak

You get to chat about Russia all you want, I get to chat about the US. Fair deal?

**jasper76**

I, for one, welcome the opinions of all our fellow citizens in the United Federation of Planets, regardless of national origin or circumstance.

Chillax dude, its just a piece of paper. Noone's trying to make us put Caligula on it or anything.

**d-usa**

jasper76 wrote:
I, for one, welcome the opinions of all our fellow citizens in the United Federation of Planets, regardless of national origin or circumstance.

Chillax dude, its just a piece of paper. Noone's trying to make us put Caligula on it or anything.

The federation has gone to far when they put a person that is only dead in one of the alternate timelines on currency:

**timetowaste85**

Iron Captain, that post was definitely not directed at you, it was something meaning to go out pages ago due to people in other countries talking about those of us wanting to preserve what is currently on our currency should be open to change because they (other countries) change their currency from time to time. Who cares? What others do doesn't dictate what we do. And also because I'm tired of being called a mysogonist just because I want to preserve and honor a founding father without having him be forced to share the honor. Regardless of whom he'd share it with. Unfortunately, most of these statements have come from posters in other countries. As such, it comes down to "they don't get it, they aren't american, their opinion means Jack-all in American domestic decisions such as currency appearance".

**Ghazkuul**

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.

Yes woman who have any kind of historical impact are amazing because of the obstacles placed in front of them. but that doesn't mean we have to change history to glorify them. By your own example you think that the inventors of the Air Plane are less important then Amelia Earhart, a female pilot who eventually got lost in her plane and was never seen from again.

I think a better comparison would have been Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earthart.

**Hordini**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
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.

"German" is actually not a German word at all. The Germans (all varieties) have always called themselves "Deutsch" (or some local variety of it), which translates to "Dutch" in English (The Dutch used to identify themselves as Germans)

Deutsch doesn't translate to Dutch in English, Deutsch translates to German. Earlier Americans often referred to Germans as Dutch due to a misunderstanding and corruption of the word Deutsch, but that's not the same as Deutsch translating to Dutch in English. German might be an English word, but that doesn't really tell the whole story. Germanisch (germanic) is a German adjective, and die Germanen is the term for ancient Germanic peoples. Germanistik is the study of German language, culture, and literature.

Iron_Captain wrote:
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.

There is little to no native American history from before the European invasion, because the native Americans had no written language (only past events that are actually recorded are history). History before invention of written language is called prehistory.
In any case, I don't think the modern US has much claim to native American legacy. For that there would have need to been continuity.

**Iron_Captain**

Hordini wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
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.

"German" is actually not a German word at all. The Germans (all varieties) have always called themselves "Deutsch" (or some local variety of it), which translates to "Dutch" in English (The Dutch used to identify themselves as Germans)

Deutsch doesn't translate to Dutch in English, Deutsch translates to German. Earlier Americans often referred to Germans as Dutch due to a misunderstanding and corruption of the word Deutsch, but that's not the same as Deutsch translating to Dutch in English. German might be an English word, but that doesn't really tell the whole story. Germanisch (germanic) is a German adjective, and die Germanen is the term for ancient Germanic peoples. Germanistik is the study of German language, culture, and literature.

Not in modern English, no. But it did in the past. The whole thing is a bit complicated because the Dutch and Germans only diverged into seperate peoples after the word entered the English language. You can find the whole history of the word on Wiktionary: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Dutch, it is quite interesting.
And german/germaans is an exonym originally of Latin (or possibly Gaulish) origin. In Dutch and German it now means 'germanic'.

Hordini wrote:
There is a lot of Native American history prior to European contact, and I would argue that history doesn't require written language. It can be, and has been, passed down orally as well. But in any case, there are examples of pre-Columbian writing systems in use by Native Americans in North and South America, so to claim that Native Americans had no written language prior to European contact is false. In the US specifically we have large numbers of Native structures, including burial mounds that predate the pyramids by nearly a millennia. To claim that there is no Native American history prior to European contact is far from the truth.

iirc, native American writing systems only developed after contact with Europeans, but I'd love to be corrected on that.
The problem with native American history is that it is mostly unrecorded, apart from some that has been passed down by oral traditions. I don't know if history requires written language, but at the very least it has to be recorded. I am just going of Wikipedia here now (I am not a history scholar after all

) which says that events prior to written language is considered pre-history by historians.

Ghazkuul wrote:
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.

Yes woman who have any kind of historical impact are amazing because of the obstacles placed in front of them. but that doesn't mean we have to change history to glorify them. By your own example you think that the inventors of the Air Plane are less important then Amelia Earhart, a female pilot who eventually got lost in her plane and was never seen from again.

I think a better comparison would have been Charles Lindbergh and Amelia Earthart.

But the Wright brothers were kinda dull. I would be all for putting the most interesting people on money, even if they may not be the most important. (Also, the airplane would have been invented without the Wright brothers too)

**Ensis Ferrae**

Iron_Captain wrote:

The problem with native American history is that it is mostly unrecorded, apart from some that has been passed down by oral traditions. I don't know if history requires written language, but at the very least it has to be recorded. I am just going of Wikipedia here now (I am not a history scholar after all ) which says that events prior to written language is considered pre-history by historians.

Slightly wrong there.... as I am in school for the subject, I'm constantly waste deep in history books. "pre-history" is a period of time, like the "bronze age" or "iron age" it's referring to a time before we have ANY writing going on by humans of this planet, not individual cultures. Otherwise, anything from Scandinavia prior to around 1150 or so would be considered "pre-history" because the Vikings didn't write jack crap down beyond their own names.

**AlmightyWalrus**

timetowaste85 wrote:
As such, it comes down to "they don't get it, they aren't american, their opinion means Jack-all in American domestic decisions such as currency appearance".

Okay, let's run with this idea.

If you accept the premise that one has to be American to understand this issue, why is it that you're allowed to judge whether women are worthy of being on American money or not (assuming that you're male, if not just reverse the situation)?

You've opened the box of Identity Politics, and I don't that leads to where you want it to lead.

**Frazzled**

VorpalBunny74 wrote:
How about we all compromise and replace Alexander Hamilton with Caitlyn Jenner?

Oh you went there. Excelsior!

**Kilkrazy**

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.

Has it ever occurred to you that American History did not cease in 1776 or 1785? Why do you not want to celebrate great Americans who have lived since then?

**kronk**

Rotate the people on the money every 5-10 years using the following rules:

1. Historical Figure
2. Male or Female
3. Born in the U S of fething A!
4. Instrumental in creating or protecting our freedoms and way of life
5. Did something meaningful for America or the whole world
6. fething Dead.

That means Presidents, Famous or Effective military dudes and chicks, Civil Rights champions (both African American and Women's Rights), Medal of Honor winners, Cured fething Polio, Underground Railroad supporters, and JJ Watt (after he dies).

**d-usa**

kronk wrote:
Rotate the people on the money every 5-10 years using the following rules:

3. Born in the U S of fething A!

Why do you hate Hamilton so?

**Frazzled**

He's a loser. We don't cotton to losers.

**kronk**

d-usa wrote:
kronk wrote:
Rotate the people on the money every 5-10 years using the following rules:

3. Born in the U S of fething A!

Why do you hate Hamilton so?

He's a foreigner? feth that guy! Get him off my money!

*Converts all of Kronk's $10 into $1 and heads for the strip joint*

*Mrs. Kronkington drags him out and kicks his ass*

Kronk: "But I'm protesting a foreign national on my money! I'm in the right!"

**reds8n**

kronk wrote:
Rotate the people on the money every 5-10 years using the following rules:

1. Historical Figure
2. Male or Female
3. Born in the U S of fething A!
4. Instrumental in creating or protecting our freedoms and way of life
5. Did something meaningful for America or the whole world
6. fething Dead.
.

.. Jerry Garcia would look pretty boss on a banknote.

**jasper76**

If you ask me, this man should replace every head on every coin and every paper note:

Willis Haviland Carrier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Carrier

Willis Haviland Carrier (November 26, 1876 – October 7, 1950) was an American engineer, best known for inventing modern air conditioning.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Frazzled wrote:
VorpalBunny74 wrote:
How about we all compromise and replace Alexander Hamilton with Caitlyn Jenner?

Oh you went there. Excelsior!

Honestly, IIRC it was already mentioned previously ITT... I could be wrong.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Has it ever occurred to you that American History did not cease in 1776 or 1785? Why do you not want to celebrate great Americans who have lived since then?

Clearly, the moon landings were faked, and, and.... Roswell!!! and Area-51!!! It's all a conspiracy, man!

kronk wrote:
3. Born in the U S of fething A!

So... George Washington is out, so is Franklin, and Tommy Jefferson

Initially, I had thought it'd be cool to have Jimi Hendrix on a bill, but then I for real thought, "no... we really should get BB King onto our money" simply because I thing that BB King had a greater influence on American music, and world music as a whole than Hendrix did (not saying Jimi wasn't influential, but when you're influenced by King, and there's probably more artists across more genres who acclaim inspiration from him, it's easier for me to see it that way)

**kronk**

Elvis!

**A Town Called Malus**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Initially, I had thought it'd be cool to have Jimi Hendrix on a bill, but then I for real thought, "no... we really should get BB King onto our money" simply because I thing that BB King had a greater influence on American music, and world music as a whole than Hendrix did (not saying Jimi wasn't influential, but when you're influenced by King, and there's probably more artists across more genres who acclaim inspiration from him, it's easier for me to see it that way)

That would be pretty cool.

If Buddy Rich also gets his own note.

**jasper76**