US Treasury To Feature Harriet Tubman On $20 Bill (reuters.com) 581
An anonymous reader writes: Harriet Tubman will become the first African-American woman to be featured on the face of U.S. paper currency in more than a century. Tubman was born a slave and went on to become an anti-slavery crusader. Ironically, she will be replacing Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the U.S. and a slave owner. According to Wikipedia, "Jackson held as many as 44 [slaves] by 1820, and later held up to 150 slaves, making him among planter elite. Throughout his lifetime Jackson may have owned as many as 300 slaves." The decision to feature a woman on a bill started in part from a young girl's letter to President Obama about the lack of women on U.S. currency. A social media campaign "Women on 20s" then began pushing for a woman to replace Jackson on the currency early last year. Originally, the department announced it would feature a woman on the $10 bill instead of Alexander Hamilton. Now it's being reported Hamilton will stay on the front of the bill with a group of women on the back of it. Civil rights era leaders will reportedly be depicted in the new $5 bill.
Laudable, but not without potential consequences (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Laudable, but not without potential consequence (Score:5, Interesting)
Talking about demographics and limiting it to skin color seems to miss the point. America was a country founded on the ideas of freedom and liberty for all, even though it took quite a while to attain that in fact, and in some ways still isn't there. A strive for equality before the law seems to be an embodiment of American values and something that should constitute large majority demographically. Thinking that I (or anyone else) can't identify with someone like Tubman or the leaders of the civil rights movements because of sex or skin color seems rather misguided. You wouldn't tell a little black girl that she couldn't look up to Ben Franklin because he was an old white dude and doesn't reflect her demographics would you?
I wouldn't mind mixing a few other bills up as well. I'm of the opinion that we could boot Grant from the $50 for Teddy Roosevelt who in addition to being a general badass also exhibited many other traits or characteristics that I feel symbolize the idea of America and the values for which we as a country should strive.
Really the only reason to care is that a person is more concerned with the people doing this for the wrong reason (i.e. so that they can act like they're so great because diversity, etc.) instead of because Tubman and others (Dr. King obviously comes to mind) epitomize some of the ideals on which this country was founded and that make it great. Opposing a reasonable solution just because the people pushing for it are doing so for the wrong reasons doesn't make anyone a better person and smacks of being a moral crusade of its own.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone have such a connection to Jackson or Hamilton to care about their ouster?
Amusingly, yes. The next bill due for a change was the $10 bill, but there's currently a Broadway musical about the life of Alexander Hamilton. The producer of that show wrote the treasury and asked them to postpone changing the $10 bill, and apparently they agreed to it.
Deeper ties (Score:3)
You forgot to mention the musical is wildly popular (sold out nearly a year in advance now) so it's not just New Yorkers raising a fuss about Hamilton - also it should be noted that complicating matters as far as racial politics go, is that Hamilton is all black actors only so in essence getting rid of Hamilton now is like tossing out a black man from the currency.
Re:Laudable, but not without potential consequence (Score:5, Interesting)
(Yes, Ben Franklin was never technically a president but only because he was too old. He might as well have been one.)
Re: (Score:2)
Pinky-beige is also a colour.
Re: (Score:2)
Black? No, that's also racist and denigrating, since black is sometimes poetically associated with evil.
Negro? No, that's too close to that other word.
Afro-American? Definitely not. It's lazy, and assumes a particular hair style.
African American? Maybe, but aren't we then excluding Haitians and Jamaicans, among others?
Nubian? Ok, sounds cool, but WTF does that even mean?
Colored? NO! Hearkens back to the fifties with segregated drinking fountains and toilets.
People of Color? Don
Re:Laudable, but not without potential consequence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Laudable, but not without potential consequence (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a cop out answer. So do I. But, answer the question. Say you and I are having a conversation about a common acquaintance named Jason Jones. And, suppose that we have two friends named Jason Jones, one of whom is what I would refer to as "black."
If you said, "Hey, I saw Jason at the theater", meaning the "black" Jason.
And, I said, "Oh yeah? Which Jason."
What would you say?
Re: (Score:2)
What would you say?
If ...
He doesn't already have a nickname, catchphrase, favorite hat, or other distinguishing element that we already
We don't know what either car they drives.
We don't know where either works.
We don't know who either's girlfriend is etc...
Then sure I'll eventually end up at 'black Jason' or 'white Jason'.
But honestly, It'll probably be "JJ" or "Honda Jason" or "Jason and Monica Jason" or "Passed-out-at-your-stag Jason"... "Jason from Highschool" or "not Jason from Highschool" or "not Jason and Monica Jason"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Going back to my original, hypothetic situation, what if you instead saw "white" Jason at the theater? I say, "Which Jason?" Is it so wrong to reply, "White Jason"? Would this cause us all to pucker and wince the sam
Re: (Score:2)
No. Color is a descriptor that tags various attributes. I suppose your dr is racist and sexist for using those descriptors to customize your healthcare?
Re:Laudable, but not without potential consequence (Score:5, Insightful)
Because appearance is the FUNDAMENTAL point of personal knowledge. Before you know someone's name, personality, preferences or anything else about them, you know their appearance.
Re: (Score:3)
While I appreciate your good intentions, the problem with ignoring things like race is that it ignores the very real differences and challenges that different groups have. It reminds me of those bogus intelligence test results that claimed black people were just genetically dumber, without accounting for the fact that the tests were biased towards western white culture.
We can acknowledge race and gender and sexual orientation without discriminating against them.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point. The newspeak redefinitions are meant to make it difficult to describe concepts deemed politically incorrect.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole "people of color" thing has always seemed odd. Black is the absence of color [wikipedia.org] where as white is the combined spectrum [wikipedia.org], and the presence of all colors. Logically speaking, white people are actually the "people of color."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're applying logic to 'social justice'? There's your problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Hi, I'm a white person from South Africa. I'm African American.
Reminds me of my Egyptian coworker who applied for and won a scholarship for African Americans. They weren't happy when they discovered this, but couldn't do anything to overturn it.
Re: (Score:2)
have a look at europe's bills. No people on it. much better! (although I am a bit envious of the pound notes with james watt and charles darwin.)
In all likelihood that choice was made because the various EU countries couldn't agree on anything - so they hired Milton Bradley as an outside design consultant.
I kid, I kid...
Re: (Score:2)
German money, pre-Euro, used to have Carl Gauss (and his curve), Paul Ehrlich and the Brothers Grimm among others.
This Isn't Real Money! (Score:5, Insightful)
Waiting for the Youtube videos of store clerks looking wide-eyed at these new bills and proclaiming they're not legitimate currency. It'll be like $2 bills and golden dollars all over again *grabs popcorn*.
the War on Cash just got REAL (Score:2)
oh, good, unending controversy (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's ancient tradition and all, but it seems to me like people are probably one of the worst things you can put on your currency. No matter who you choose, it's going to piss off at least a third of the population immediately, and there's a good chance that in fifteen to a hundred years you'll figure out that, by modern standards, the subject committed multiple atrocities.
A few years ago, if you had asked the average citizen to decide who was the least controversial person in American history, someone that would never ever be considered a villain, they might easily have suggested Bill Cosby. Him, or the Stay-Puft Marshmallow man.
After Harriet's had her day, I say we switch over to a big "20" on there instead of a portrait. Or maybe "XX" if people want something a little sexier.
Re: (Score:2)
The portrait is partially for anti counterfeiting reasons so it would need to be a very complex "20".
Even the lines the portraits are made from are anti-counterfeiting.
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's ancient tradition and all, but it seems to me like people are probably one of the worst things you can put on your currency. No matter who you choose, it's going to piss off at least a third of the population immediately,
If you're offended by Harriet Tubman than you're pretty much digging for things to get offended by.
and there's a good chance that in fifteen to a hundred years you'll figure out that, by modern standards, the subject committed multiple atrocities.
Not really, in some cases there are sketchy episodes where we might find out more details, or there are terrible known things that the general public isn't really aware of (ie, all the stuff with Andrew Jackson). But even if Harriet Tubman was a cannibalistic serial killer who tortured puppies that's not something we're going to discover at this point.
A few years ago, if you had asked the average citizen to decide who was the least controversial person in American history, someone that would never ever be considered a villain, they might easily have suggested Bill Cosby.
Which is why you try to avoid naming things after people un
Democratic process??? (Score:4, Funny)
While Tubman is a good choice (I personally would have preferred Dr. King, but I know they were going for a woman); why wasn't this done via a popular vote?
Were they afraid the American public would vote for Boaty McBoatface?
Re:Democratic process??? (Score:5, Funny)
While Tubman is a good choice (I personally would have preferred Dr. King, but I know they were going for a woman); why wasn't this done via a popular vote?
It wouldn't matter, Tubman has enough super delegates that she was already a lock for the spot.
Re: (Score:2)
They were afraid it would be Hillary Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
why wasn't this done via a popular vote?
It was. Tubman won [cbslocal.com].
Anything else you want me to Google for you, while I have it up?
Maybe they'll start teaching her now too (Score:5, Informative)
Tubman was born a slave and went on to become an anti-slavery crusader
This is about the most boring summary of her life possible.
Try this:
Short version - She was America's Joan of Arc.
Long version - She was beaten nearly to death as a teenage slave, and heard voices the rest of her life, which she believed to be God. Often did what God (the voice) told her to. Listening to God she
Personally, I hope they use her Civil War woodcut portrait [wikimedia.org], which shows her holding a rifle.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I hope they use her Civil War woodcut portrait [wikimedia.org], which shows her holding a rifle.
I'd never seen that before - it's great!
Re: (Score:2)
which shows her holding a rifle.
And the supporters of SJW movement, which supports abolishing the 2nd amendment, will implode.
And firearms instructors like me will cringe at the way she has the muzzle covered with her hand and pointed at her face. Don't do that.
Re: (Score:2)
And firearms instructors like me will cringe at the way she has the muzzle covered with her hand and pointed at her face. Don't do that.
I suspect there's a long history of portraits available to you for good "don't" illustrations. You could probably teach your whole class off of this one [turner.com] (although they were at least all pointed in the general vicinity of the ground).
Re: (Score:2)
And firearms instructors like me will cringe at the way she has the muzzle covered with her hand and pointed at her face. Don't do that.
I suspect there's a long history of portraits available to you for good "don't" illustrations.
Oh, definitely.
You could probably teach your whole class off of this one [turner.com] (although they were at least all pointed in the general vicinity of the ground).
Actually, they're doing pretty well. All of the guns are pointed in safe directions and they all have their fingers off the triggers. I don't think I'd take a family Christmas photo like that, but it looks like they're all following the safety rules.
I like this one even better (Score:5, Interesting)
You can see a great image of her holding a pistol, and an actual pistol she owned (and probably shot several people with I imagine), here [llnwd.net].
I personally think she is a great choice, she is kind of canonical American - a little bit wild, independent, and she made things happen rather than just letting a bad system break her.
I kind of like a motto for the second amendment of "Tubman knew what guns were for, you should too".
Re: (Score:2)
You win. That one's awesome. Probably more stylized than representational, but this is a tiny picture on a $20, not a history document.
I personally think she is a great choice, she is kind of canonical American - a little bit wild, independent, and she made things happen rather than just letting a bad system break her. I kind of like a motto for the second amendment of "Tubman knew what guns were for, you should too
And this kind of thing is why I think Southerners, particularly those in my Scotts-Irish "highland" border state part of the country, rather than being upset as some here have implied, are likely to embrace her. She had the kind of fighting spirit they admire, and was always packing heat.
Don't worry about the whole slavery thing. White southerners forgave themselves for tha
Are we gonna take these guys off our money too? (Score:3)
$1, quarter - George Washington
$2, nickel - Thomas Jefferson (though I'd probably give him a pass since he apparently loved one of them, and couldn't free them because of debt)
$50 - Ulysses S. Grant (he gets a pass for freeing them despite being in debt, and the whole kicked the South's butt in the Civil War thing)
$100 - Benjamin Franklin
Or can we skip the made-up rationale, and just say we felt it was about time to put a black / staunch abolitionist / whatever on our money, and we liked Andrew Jackson the least so he's voted off the island? That explanation would be sufficient for most of us. (Out of curiosity, I looked it up - Martha Washington [wikipedia.org] was the first woman on U.S. paper currency - 1886 $1 silver certificate.)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Political correctness lives on. (Score:5, Funny)
I'll never accept one. They are only worth 70% of what a bill with a man on is worth.
Yup, just another absurd move of political correctness. And one that will not be accepted by the public when they see how ugly the money is becoming.
Re: Political correctness lives on. (Score:2, Funny)
I would have gone with 3/5.
I'd pay a dollar for that (Score:2)
I often wish we'd gone in the direction some of the Bahamanian currency did. [mts.net]
Oh well.
Re: (Score:2)
I want the Sacajawea Dollar back. At least she didn't look constipated the way Susan B. Anthony did.
I'll take Tubman. It could have been MLK, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Since when do rules matter when it comes to the federal government? Obama could just make an executive order.
Re: (Score:2)
An 1866 act of congress forbids a living person to be on currency. The reasoning behind this is that historically the monarch/emperor would have their face upon the currency of their country - we do not have monarchs. Even having someone on currency only because they were a president seems too close to that, where as having them because they are a founding father seems more appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
why did they put Obama?
Why did they not put Obama? Probably because there's no way that Congress is going to pass a law saying that Obama doesn't need to be bound by the federal law which says that only dead individuals can appear on US currency.
Re: (Score:3)
Ben Franklin is on the $100, and he was never President.
We always need heroes (Score:4, Informative)
The Republicans have exchanged ideologies with the Democrats since then, so while this replaced a Democrat in name, what it actually did was emplace a person with something more related to current Republican ideology with a person holding something more related to current Democrat ideology.
History is full of funny gotchas like that. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Correct - we have two corporatist parties, where one is for abortion and the other is not.
Re:We always need heroes (Score:5, Insightful)
Well look at the progress. Now, to the elite in this country, we are all niggers.
Re: (Score:3)
America's Eulogy will read:
Democrat, Republican, Divided they fell.
Re: (Score:3)
How can you not see the exchange of ideology? Jefferson's Democrat-Republican party (now the Democrats, today's Republican party came about ~40 years later with Abraham Lincoln) was a party of mostly farmers, who were opposed to a powerful central government authority. They opposed a party (the Federalists) that was mostly populated from cities in the Northeast, who wanted the Federal government to be the answer to most questions.
Today, the farmers who are opposed to a powerful central government authorit
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
(Plus, we're replacing a Democrat with a Republican, so there's that.)
Between then and now, the parties have switched with the Republicans going from the liberal party to the conservative party, so putting any weight in a party label doesn't make much sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats like to tell themselves that, to be sure, but progressives are not liberals.
Re: (Score:2)
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Two people have obviously never heard of the Mafia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Smoke a little less ganja, and study a little bit more of your nation's history. (Alexander Hamilton wasn't President either.)
Re: (Score:2)
now some other group is going to complain that XYZ is not represented, this opens a whole can of worms and for what? what honest benefit is there to it? it costs money to retool (something we really dont have)
Re: (Score:2)
My point was MOST money has dead presidents on it
Then you should have written that instead of specifically mentioning Benjamin.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Treasurer would make even more sense, their signature is even on the bills. Or the director of the Federal Reserve. Maybe we should live up to our national motto and put God on our currency. Better yet, Muhammad. It'd be worth it just to see the middle east's reaction, with all the dollars they possess.
Our stamps have a wide variety of things on them, various scientists, inventors, and other influential people, dollars could have the same.
My vote is for the bill of rights to be on the currency. The $
Re:cant we stick to presidents? (Score:4, Interesting)
Rulers on Money (Score:3, Insightful)
An actual ruler (length scale) would indeed be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
We kinda have one: a dollar bill is six inches long, within about 1%.
Re: (Score:2)
yes I know Ben Franklin wasnt a president but come on, presidents on money is just logical.
Franklin was the 6th President of Pennsylvania.
Re: (Score:3)
There's never been a time when only presidents were on money. Before 1900 nearly all coins had "Lady Liberty". Lincoln was the first president to appear on money, in the early 1900s, and it was meant to be just a commemorative penny for his 100th birthday. Paper currency has had people such as Chief Onepapa, Daniel Webster, Lewis & Clark, a VP, a US treasurer, a Chief Justice, and others. Back when the $10,000 note was still in circulation, it also did not have a president on it. Right now Sacajawe
Re: (Score:2)
No. Andrew Jackson is much more of a divisive figure and a bigger jackass than anyone else on our currency. That's a big part of the SJW campaign to get him replaced.
Any "irony" here is entirely intended.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if you were trolling (in which case you got me), but you seem to have confused Andrew Jackson with Andrew Johnson
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ironically? (Score:5, Interesting)
Jackson was a decisive and forceful leader. He had lots of good attributes but he was a serious asshole as well. Aside from his position on slavery which was not really an issue at the time there was the way he treated the Native Americans. In particular the horrible way the Cherokee in Georgia were ripped from their land and sent on the Trail of Tears where so many perished. These people were guilty of no violent acts and in fact were in some ways more civilized than their white neighbors. The Cherokee nation had it's own written language and printed newspapers and interacted well with their white neighbors. At least until gold was discovered on their lands. For this and some other actions Jackson is reviled by Native Americans. Every time I drive by the State Capital in Atlanta and see that gold on the dome I feel ashamed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 'divisiveness' is constantly being redefined by sjws who have applied this moniker to him.
How about we put the statue of liberty on the currency? That gets rid of the drama. We shouldn't deify people on the currency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Parent is attempting to state carefully parsed statistical structures to counter widely available statistics that show that Blacks commit crimes at a rate greater than their proportion in the population. The goal is to refuse these statistics and to demonstrate that the criminal justice system is inherently biased and that this bias actually is the primary explanation for statistics which show Blacks committing crimes at a rate greater than their proportion of the population.
Personally, I'm willing to acce
Re: (Score:3)
Personally, I'm willing to accept the idea that there is a greater level of criminality among Black populations but that it's a complex mix of sociological problems and economic distress that drives it, not race or racism. I think the criminal justice system is hard on anybody who isn't able to afford expensive legal representation.
That, plus systemic bias in the law enforcement and criminal justice systems, and the fact that said systemic and institutional bias has been in place for a century (and was really, really bad during the early 20th century. Hell, in many ways it was actually worse than outright slavery -- read "Slavery by another name") has led predictably and almost inevitably to a culture that distrusts and disdains the system. The only thing that should surprise anyone about the emergence of "thug culture" is that it to
That is a terribly misleading statistic (Score:5, Informative)
A Black man at 30 years old with no criminal convictions offends at a rate below that of a white man of 30 years of age with no criminal convictions.
I'm quite sure that is the case - because anyone with even a small tendency to crime has ALREADY been filtered out of your cherry-picked subset by the also-fact that quite a larger percentage of young black males will have a conviction than young white males. That may be because of profiling or poverty or whatever, but that is irrelevant in terms of your "fact" being bullshit and terribly misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In less polite circles, we'd refer to what he's doing as "lying (through improperly compared statistics)", but there's race involved so shame on us.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you using rates in some places and raw numbers in other places?
I didn't. They are all rates. You are trying too hard to object.
There are actual sociological issues in mainstream black culture that lead to them committing more crime.
Nope. The facts say no. The facts say that when everyone (including the Blacks) believe that, then reality will reflect it, even when not true.
Re: (Score:2)
And you will always be butthurt.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the left wing version of original sin, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ingenious Americans
That word.. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re:Divisive and offensive (Score:5, Insightful)
As for why replace Jackson- there was a push to get a woman on currency, so they'd have to replace somebody. Jackson isn't quite a founding father, and while he's made many great accomplishments for the nation, he comes with a lot baggage from owning slaves, personally killing several people, and arguably engaging in genocide against the native americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Proposed change is divisive. And offensive to people of color. If you really want to put a woman of color, a historic personality, I would recommend to put Madam C.J.Walker. Rather than celebrating stubborn personas such as Rosa Parks, or a busybody Harriet Tubman, I would recommend putting C.J.Walker, who was black, former slave, however managed to be inspiration to others, create business and wealth. I guess it is too late, as it is already decided.
I don't understand why you think it is offensive to celebrate black people who fought for civil rights. Your idea of a black role model frankly sounds much more offensive, nothing against C.J. Walker who sounds inspirational, but to make her the centrepiece you're creating a distinction between "uppity blacks" and "good blacks". Not only does that imply that discrimination doesn't exist and black people just need to stop complaining and play by the rules, but you're actually applying that thinking to the 19
Re: (Score:3)
I would recommend to put Madam C.J.Walker.
I'd recommend JJ Walker - it'd be Dy-No-Mite!
Re: (Score:2)
Andrew Jackson was primarily an asshole, who coincidentally owned slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a world of difference between "conscription practices, naval military recruiting practices, and industrial labor practices" (all of which also inflicted on the descendants of slaves) and actual laws on the books based explicitly on race and ancestry.
Were the descendants of serf banned from voting? Were the descendants of serfs banned from buying property? Did the descendants of serfs have to use separate drinking fountains? Were the descend
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They're spelled differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Blame Canada, that's where she grew up and became popular. Possibly Germany as well depending on how you think early childhood shaped her music career.
I can't understand the sheer hatred for White Men (Score:3, Insightful)
I am an ethnic Chinese, from China
To me, racial background of a person is not important - what is important is the content inside - the personality
That is why, till this day I cannot understand the sheer hatreds towards the 'White Men' as espoused by the Democrats and the 'liberals'
Is a non-White Man automagically 'better' than a White man?
Am I, a Chinese, better than any White man out there, just because I am a Chinese?
Is a Black woman better than a White man, just because she is a Black, and she is a woma
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree, and I'm a pale blue-eyed dude.
Besides, I find it hilarious that ideological leftists would lobby so hard to replace a dead Democrat president with a Republican who happened to have a strong love for the Second Amendment... Me, I'm good with that.
Re: I can't understand the sheer hatred for White (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually liberals (and everyone else) should hate wealthy, powerful people. That is the narrowest description for the group of people who have wreaked the most havoc, been the most cruel to the most people, etcetera. However, for some reason (I suspect because the winners write history) that has been deflected upon the much larger group called "white men." This is incredibly convenient for the wealthy because now everyone's hate is directed at a huge group of people who, mostly, had nothing to do with, and did not really profit from the sins of the wealthy. Were/are a lot of white men racist? Yes. Did a lot of white men actually own slaves? No. But those slave owners were able, through their power, to control the conversation and convince a lot of white people that Africans were subhuman, and thus it was OK for the wealthy to enslave Africans rather than pay those non-wealthy white people to work on the plantations.
Is racism bad? Yes. Do I think racists are assholes? Most vehemently! But i still understand that their racism is the result of a massive, multi-generational propaganda campaign instituted by the wealthy slave owners to rationalize their crimes against humanity: Not just against the slaves, but also against the poor white people who the wealthy put out of work and replaced with slaves.
Similar interpretations can be applied across the board. All these situations boil down to nothing but a massive campaign to both divide and conquer, and to serve as a distraction to keep us all from coming after the wealthy with pitchforks in our hands.
Re:I can't understand the sheer hatred for White M (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, racial background of a person is not important - what is important is the content inside - the personality
That is why, till this day I cannot understand the sheer hatreds towards the 'White Men' as espoused by the Democrats and the 'liberals'
It is a noble sentiment, and it would be a better world if everybody shared it. However, I think you misrepresent the situation to some extent; these initiatives are not born of hate to white people, but are attempts at rebalancing a society that is still institutionally stacked against certain groups of people. In this case, the lady in question has a background that represents the struggle against racism and slavery in America in a particularly poignant way, and I think it is a very sympathetic gesture with great symbolic value to put her on a bank note. I think many people will look at it and feel a little bit better in some way.
What kind of crap is this? I don't understand!
No, it is hard to understand, I suppose; especially if you are young and haven't grown up in Europe or America. In my lifetime I have seen the race race riots in the US on television, the anti-war movement in the 60es and the ground-in suspicion against the Germans, the USSR and China. And I have seen these things and many others change for the better in most cases. I can recall how we all were casually racist - we would laugh at jokes about black people, people would talk about the scandal of somebody marrying a black person and so on; our ignorance perhaps made this innocent in a sense, but the thing is, what is done, is done, and looking back, I wish it hadn't been like that. The injustices we took part in sholdn't have been, and the problem with systematic injustice like this is that it sticks around for generations; when a group of people is pushed out to the poorest end of society, they don't get education, and even if society changes and don't keep them out because of skin colour, they now keep them out because they don't have the right education, and so it keeps rolling on. That's why the job still is not done - we may be getting in the right direction, and I think we are, but there is some way to go, and it is right that we keep going.
Re:I can't understand the sheer hatred for White M (Score:4, Insightful)
Odd, given that it was white men who ended slavery, forcefully, across the world. Odd also given that white men and women were victims of slavery by the millions, at the hands of slave masters of all races.
Re: I can't understand the sheer hatred for White (Score:5, Insightful)
If you punch me in the face for an hour, should your grandchildren apologize to my grandchildren for you being an idiot?
Re: (Score:3)
My grandfather didn't "punch anybody in the face". He wasn't even in the US. Being neither British nor American by birth, I am totally unrelated to American slave owners. Yet because my skin is light and the skin of British colonial slave owners is white, you lump us together. That makes you a stinkin
Re:I can't understand the sheer hatred for White M (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no such hatred. You and others have made it up entirely. It's a US-only phenomenon, part of a delusion that was fostered by conservative US citizens when they realized that they cannot portray their country as the land of the good and free in light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary (Abu Ghraib, Iraq War, kidnapping, drone strikes, torture, etc.). It's a normal defensive reaction to find some cause and enemy in 'the others', no big deal and no need to bother as long as you keep your irrational feelings about 'liberals' halfway in check and remain reasonable.