|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The problem I have with the putting women on currency is the arbitrariness of it. Jackson did so much more than Tubman.
Helping slaves escape <<< Winning the Battle of New Orleans, getting Florida, and being the only president in history to pay off the US debt. (Also destroyed the national bank, which could be either a good or bad thing depending on your view).
The problem is that no women has ever done that much to shape America. I agree with the choice of Tubman, because, honestly, who else is there? Early feminists failed, prohibitionists failed, and modern feminists failed. Off the top of my head, those groups are the only major ones that were largely helmed by women. Women were not successful in US history.
|
*I am not aware of any women that should be on our currency, so clearly there shouldn't be any.*
And lets not forget Jackson's true legacy, the Trail of Tears and ignoring the supreme court telling him not to relocate the native Americans. Noting of value was lost, really.
|
On April 21 2016 06:30 Monochromatic wrote:
The problem I have with the putting women on currency is the arbitrariness of it. Jackson did so much more than Tubman.
Yeah like Genocide.
Winning the Battle of New Orleans
After the end of the war yeah? Bro that's some heavy shit.
Also destroyed the national bank, which could be either a good or bad thing depending on your view
150 years of financial instability
|
On April 21 2016 06:30 Monochromatic wrote:
The problem I have with the putting women on currency is the arbitrariness of it. Jackson did so much more than Tubman.
Helping slaves escape <<< Winning the Battle of New Orleans, getting Florida, and being the only president in history to pay off the US debt. (Also destroyed the national bank, which could be either a good or bad thing depending on your view).
The problem is that no women has ever done that much to shape America. I agree with the choice of Tubman, because, honestly, who else is there? Early feminists failed, prohibitionists failed, and modern feminists failed. Off the top of my head, those groups are the only major ones that were largely helmed by women. Women were not successful in US history.
You could make the argument that the reason you can't think of any women who shaped America is because for a long time America was a place where women couldn't succeed on their own. Also given the time period that she lived in and the fact that she was black, what Harriett Tubman accomplished was pretty profound.
Wait, what am I saying. Why does it matter if Andrew Jackson is on the $20? I would understand the uproar if Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln were unceremoniously removed, but Jackson? He has a murky legacy, and if we are interested in making our money more than just white dudes, he seems to be the best to get the axe.
|
On April 21 2016 06:43 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 06:30 Monochromatic wrote:
The problem I have with the putting women on currency is the arbitrariness of it. Jackson did so much more than Tubman.
Helping slaves escape <<< Winning the Battle of New Orleans, getting Florida, and being the only president in history to pay off the US debt. (Also destroyed the national bank, which could be either a good or bad thing depending on your view).
The problem is that no women has ever done that much to shape America. I agree with the choice of Tubman, because, honestly, who else is there? Early feminists failed, prohibitionists failed, and modern feminists failed. Off the top of my head, those groups are the only major ones that were largely helmed by women. Women were not successful in US history.
You could make the argument that the reason you can't think of any women who shaped America is because for a long time America was a place where women couldn't succeed on their own. Also given the time period that she lived in and the fact that she was black, what Harriett Tubman accomplished was pretty profound. Wait, what am I saying. Why does it matter if Andrew Jackson is on the $20? I would understand the uproar if Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln were unceremoniously removed, but Jackson? He has a murky legacy, and if we are interested in making our money more than just white dudes, he seems to be the best to get the axe.
Yep, that summarizes it. Jackson is a stain on US history, nothing to be proud of.
|
On April 17 2016 08:31 oneofthem wrote:
you said something ridiculous and i gave you info on it stop being mad and face reality
Why was the guy banned?
I disagree with every single word he says, but I've never seen him post anything banworthy.
|
On April 21 2016 06:50 DickMcFanny wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2016 08:31 oneofthem wrote:
you said something ridiculous and i gave you info on it stop being mad and face reality Why was the guy banned? I disagree with every single word he says, but I've never seen him post anything banworthy.
He was shitposting repeatedly with low info posts specifically to rile people up, not once providing anything of value or any reasoning whatsoever. :o
|
On April 21 2016 06:38 Plansix wrote:
*I am not aware of any women that should be on our currency, so clearly there shouldn't be any.*
And lets not forget Jackson's true legacy, the Trail of Tears and ignoring the supreme court telling him not to relocate the native Americans. Noting of value was lost, really.
If you have any suggestions for a woman that shaped America more than anyone currently on our currency, please share. I'm sure that there was much thought given to choosing Harriet Tubman, implying that she's the best candidate we have.
Your thoughts on Jackson disturb me. His real "true" legacy is destroying the federalist party, because he was that favorable. Jackson is still considered one of the best presidents in history.
It's easy to say all the bad things a persons done and completely ignore the good:
FDR put the Japanese in camps! Must be an awful president.
Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus! What a terrible person.
etc...
|
Put the statue of liberty on! that'd make more sense.
While I understand the drive to put more women on currency; the level of import just isn't there for (most at least) of the proposed options.
|
I am totally cool with my thoughts on Jackson disturbing you. He is a stain on our history and abused the power of his office to relocate the native Americans because he was racist.
And I'm not here to provide you with an education on great America women. I already know how that discussion will go, where I put forth a historically significant woman and you then say "not good enough". Then we repeat that process until the heat death of the universe. But we got a lot of history, I'm pretty sure we can find a couple. We had this women's rights movement, I heard it was productive. Maybe some of those women.
|
On April 21 2016 06:53 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 06:38 Plansix wrote:
*I am not aware of any women that should be on our currency, so clearly there shouldn't be any.*
And lets not forget Jackson's true legacy, the Trail of Tears and ignoring the supreme court telling him not to relocate the native Americans. Noting of value was lost, really. If you have any suggestions for a woman that shaped America more than anyone currently on our currency, please share. I'm sure that there was much thought given to choosing Harriet Tubman, implying that she's the best candidate we have. Your thoughts on Jackson disturb me. His real "true" legacy is destroying the federalist party, because he was that favorable. Jackson is still considered one of the best presidents in history. It's easy to say all the bad things a persons done and completely ignore the good: FDR put the Japanese in camps! Must be an awful president. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus! What a terrible person. etc...
We're talking about literal genocide. Sure you should take the good into account but it doesn't absolve the bad. There are plenty of people who've done great things for the US without committing genocide. =_=
Frankly I'd rather have a woman who saved a couple dozens of people from a cruel death on my currency over a genocidal guy who ignored the supreme court and won a battle for a war that was already won. Nationalism is nice and all but at some point you have to put things into perspective. The currency is not a power ranking of white people either, at least it doesn't have to be.
The road to abolishing slavery if a pretty fucking cool one if you ask me and other people who didn't get raised to think that America #1 and historical politicians are basically superheroes.
|
The notion that the downfall of the Federalist Party can be placed squarely at the feet of Jackson is historically myopic in that it ignores literally every single other development in early US politics relative to the state/federal power divide.
|
I am really hoping that this discussion of "women have never done anything better for america than a genocidal warmonger" stops soon--I'm really really hoping its just trolling.
|
On April 21 2016 07:14 Naracs_Duc wrote:
I am really hoping that this discussion of "women have never done anything better for america than a genocidal warmonger" stops soon--I'm really really hoping its just trolling.
I'm not trolling, I'm legitimately surprised at the total hate I've found for Jackson. I guess he's the new Thomas Edison or Christopher Columbus.
Anyway, I take back almost all of what I said, as none of the news sources reported the story fully.
Jackson is not being removed from the twenty - his portrait is still being kept on the reverse side. I was upset because I thought he was removed entirely.
|
If by "I guess he's the new Thomas Edison or Christopher Columbus" you mean "I guess he's yet another formerly caricatured historical figure cast in the light of a hero who's effect on and place in history has been significantly complicated by both recently discovered information/source material and a changing understanding of how history works and is to be regarded," then yes, I guess so too.
|
On April 21 2016 07:39 farvacola wrote:
If by "I guess he's the new Thomas Edison or Christopher Columbus" you mean "I guess he's yet another formerly caricatured historical figure cast in the light of a hero who's effect on and place in history has been significantly complicated by both recently discovered information/source material and a changing understanding of how history works and is to be regarded," then yes, I guess so too.
I wish I could write in English like you Farva<3.
It's weird to me that many people don't recognize just how romanticized these public figures are.
|
On April 21 2016 06:53 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2016 06:38 Plansix wrote:
*I am not aware of any women that should be on our currency, so clearly there shouldn't be any.*
And lets not forget Jackson's true legacy, the Trail of Tears and ignoring the supreme court telling him not to relocate the native Americans. Noting of value was lost, really. If you have any suggestions for a woman that shaped America more than anyone currently on our currency, please share. I'm sure that there was much thought given to choosing Harriet Tubman, implying that she's the best candidate we have. Your thoughts on Jackson disturb me. His real "true" legacy is destroying the federalist party, because he was that favorable. Jackson is still considered one of the best presidents in history. It's easy to say all the bad things a persons done and completely ignore the good: FDR put the Japanese in camps! Must be an awful president. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus! What a terrible person. etc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper is pretty important figure for modern computers and the US dominance in the field today. Probably too modern and non-political.
I think the natural choice would actually be Susan B. Anthony but Tubman makes sense and gets 2 diversity first for the price of 1 bill.
|
As much as I am in support of Tubman being on the money as opposed to Jackson, the lack of historical knowledge in this thread is disappointing.
Andrew Jackson is indeed considered one of the better presidents in U.S. history (almost always in the top 10). Yea, he did some bad things, but pretty much every major historical figure has, just like Monochromatic pointed out. It's pretty lazy historical revisionism to just say, "He's a racist! Horrible person! Bad president!". That kind of shit would get you laughed out of any serious discussion about historical scholarship.
|
On April 21 2016 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
As much as I am in support of Tubman being on the money as opposed to Jackson, the lack of historical knowledge in this thread is disappointing.
Andrew Jackson is indeed considered one of the better presidents in U.S. history (almost always in the top 10). Yea, he did some bad things, but pretty much every major historical figure has, just like Monochromatic pointed out. It's pretty lazy historical revisionism to just say, "He's a racist! Horrible person! Bad president!". That kind of shit would get you laughed out of any serious discussion about historical scholarship.
There's a lot of issues with him, yes. But, for the most part, when we are talking about symbols of american identity (and not whether you pass fail a knowledge test) then having someone who is representative of the importance we place on equality and civil rights trumps the person who was responsible for genocide. In the future, when America doesn't mind genocide anymore, we can put him back on a pedestal. But this makes sense as a narrative of american identity way more than what you're saying.
|
On April 21 2016 08:20 Stratos_speAr wrote:
That kind of shit would get you laughed out of any serious discussion about historical scholarship.
Not really. Especially not at my uni. If it's pushed to an absurd point maybe, because it's fair to say that the term genocide didn't exist in the 1800's and the standards of morality of that time were not the same as today's. But still, we're talking about 2016 money and symbols.
That being said if you get laughed out of a serious discussion about historical leadership because you say you value social progress brought forward by other actors of US history outside of government, maybe you're hanging out with old washed out people. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
