|
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. |
On January 27 2017 04:59 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 04:51 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 04:45 Nyxisto wrote:On January 27 2017 04:34 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 04:29 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure. Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Andrew Jackson isn't so sacrosanct that he cannot be replaced. Lets be real, he is a controversial figure at best and guess what? Good Americans who did great things did not stop appearing after that era. There is no reason to keep the people who are on the currency the same forever and ever. This isn't revisionist history lol, if anything you are the one trying to give him extra credit since he wasn't really that involved during the founding of the country as he was too young to fight or be a political person, no one is changing what Jackson did they are just taking him off the 20 because he is among the weaker of the people currently on the currency (hey I'm fine taking Grant off if your so weirdly attached to Jackson). I would say Grant is probably better for that purpose, yes. I'm not convinced that Harriet Tubman over Grant is better though. While her contributions are important and arguably worthy of such an acknowledgment, the way it is done it's an attempt to play identity politics more than an attempt to give credit to an important historical figure. I see no reason to put women or minorities on the money unless they genuinely earned their place there. Please tell me how anybody is supposed to put a black woman on a dollar bill without someone inevitably saying what you just said? You are turning this into identity politics right now. Interesting question indeed. Let's look back to the campaign. http://www.history.com/news/should-harriet-tubman-replace-jackson-on-the-20-billAfter months of collecting votes, an ongoing campaign to remove the wild-haired Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill and replace him with an iconic female American now has a specific woman in mind: Harriet Tubman. According to the advocacy group Women on 20s, more than 600,000 people participated in a recent online poll, with the abolitionist and Underground Railroad conductor emerging as the clear winner. Hmm, perhaps the fact that there was an explicit goal to replace Jackson with a woman should tip you off to the reasons that went into the request? Of course there was an explicit goal, there will always be explicit statements when issues of race or gender are touched. There is no 'vacuum'. This discussion will always come up, that doesn't mean she hasn't done enough to be on that dollar bill. This attitude is essentially the same that has polemically been summed up as "The Germans will never forigve the Jews for the Holocaust." You're using the historical fact of discrimination as an argument against this woman, simply because she reminds everybody of a historical injustice and of the fact that race issues still exist. You can't sanitize this out of the public sphere.
No, I'm saying that she has to earn her spot like anyone else would.
Say we want to put an important figure for the rights of the people. Great. Why her instead of MLK, or Frederick Douglass, if we want civil rights? Or leave Jackson because he was a genuinely important figure for his Jacksonian Democracy principles? Or maybe any number of other people who aren't minorities or aren't female, or just plain are white males, who could be argued to be superior contributors there?
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there.
|
On January 27 2017 05:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure. Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism.
nice godwin's.
|
On January 27 2017 05:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure. Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism.
I think the one's that want a "feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy" are the ones trying to convince folks that not illegally slaughtering and forcibly removing it's rightful inhabitants would have been a bad thing.
It's easy to say it's wrong, because it was wrong. Though I guess not as easy for some.
If people want to say he's a war hero for what he did during the war of 1812 that's on them, but to me it looks more like an invasion, followed by a resistance partially sponsored by another country. Lots of history books will say he "fought the British" but he was mostly fighting indigenous people, you know, the people who were defending themselves against foreign invaders set on destroying their way of life?
But let's say one prefers the rose colored version you mentioned, in that case, they should be advocating for giving back the huge swaths of land in the west they were promised and was subsequently stolen from them.
|
On January 27 2017 05:01 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure. Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism.
You're the one bringing up Hitler all of a sudden.
So since you brought him up, do you think Germany taking Hitler off of government paraphernalia is "revisionism"? One could argue Hitler had many merits in spite of his glaring flaws, and he transformed the country in profound ways.
Propping historical figures that better reflect your country's present values isn't revisionism. It's just a reflection of your current values.
For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/stalinist-nostalgia-in-vladimir-putins-russia.html?_r=0
|
I just hope the Trump admin has the foresight to have a surge of security to handle the surge of immigrants before the wall is started.
|
On January 27 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:01 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure. Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism. I think the one's that want a "feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy" are the ones trying to convince folks that not illegally slaughtering and forcibly removing it's rightful inhabitants would have been a bad thing. It's easy to say it's wrong, because it was wrong. Though I guess not as easy for some. If people want to say he's a war hero for what he did during the war of 1812 that's on them, but to me it looks more like an invasion, followed by a resistance partially sponsored by another country. Lots of history books will say he "fought the British" but he was mostly fighting indigenous people, you know, the people who were defending themselves against foreign invaders set on destroying their way of life? But let's say one prefers the rose colored version you mentioned, in that case, they should be advocating for giving back the huge swaths of land in the west they were promised and was subsequently stolen from them.
What he did was little more than imperialism. A fight that needed to be fought for the benefit of all mankind. Do you agree that if he had not removed the Indians, that the US as a whole would have suffered? It seems almost ubiquitous at this point. Call it bad if you wish. From what I read I'd have justified it about the same way he ultimately did so there is no point in repeating it.
And no, they're not getting their land back. Obviously, but I guess this is one of those "might makes right" scenarios.
On January 27 2017 05:13 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:01 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure. Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism. You're the one bringing up Hitler all of a sudden. So since you brought him up, do you think Germany taking Hitler off of government paraphernalia is "revisionism"? One could argue Hitler had many merits in spite of his glaring flaws, and he transformed the country in profound ways.
I dunno, maybe? I don't know German history well enough to gauge whether or not his positive contributions to Germany are worthy of acknowledgement, but I would be willing to listen if someone wanted to make the case.
|
On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there.
Which is exactly what I'm saying, you're putting an additional burden of proof on her simply because she cannot be viewed outside of the context of being a black woman.
Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination.
To use this as a kind of general suspicion that they are not qualified is just fucked up, and btw an age old intentional tactic to question the competence of someone belonging to a minority.
"Is she just here because she is a woman? I have nothing against women, I'm just asking!"
|
On January 27 2017 05:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:01 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure. Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism. I think the one's that want a "feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy" are the ones trying to convince folks that not illegally slaughtering and forcibly removing it's rightful inhabitants would have been a bad thing. It's easy to say it's wrong, because it was wrong. Though I guess not as easy for some. If people want to say he's a war hero for what he did during the war of 1812 that's on them, but to me it looks more like an invasion, followed by a resistance partially sponsored by another country. Lots of history books will say he "fought the British" but he was mostly fighting indigenous people, you know, the people who were defending themselves against foreign invaders set on destroying their way of life? But let's say one prefers the rose colored version you mentioned, in that case, they should be advocating for giving back the huge swaths of land in the west they were promised and was subsequently stolen from them. What he did was little more than imperialism. A fight that needed to be fought for the benefit of all mankind. Do you agree that if he had not removed the Indians, that the US as a whole would have suffered? It seems almost ubiquitous at this point. Call it bad if you wish. From what I read I'd have justified it about the same way he ultimately did so there is no point in repeating it. And no, they're not getting their land back. Obviously, but I guess this is one of those "might makes right" scenarios. Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:13 Leporello wrote:On January 27 2017 05:01 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure. Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism. You're the one bringing up Hitler all of a sudden. So since you brought him up, do you think Germany taking Hitler off of government paraphernalia is "revisionism"? One could argue Hitler had many merits in spite of his glaring flaws, and he transformed the country in profound ways. I dunno, maybe? I don't know German history well enough to gauge whether or not his positive contributions to Germany are worthy of acknowledgement, but I would be willing to listen if someone wanted to make the case.
I don't know what you're basing the "if he wouldn't have done it, the US would have suffered greatly" on, let alone that it made the world better?
Also Jacksonian Democracy has less of a shine for those who it didn't/wouldn't have included (like myself and the millions of other Americans who's constitutional rights still aren't adequately protected).
|
On January 27 2017 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there. Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination.
And they should win or lose independent of whether they are black or not. The criticisms of "you're voting for him because he's black" and "you're only voting against him because he's black" should have no place here.
In a similar vein, Harriet Tubman shouldn't get preferential treatment on consideration because people specifically sought to put a woman there. Make the argument, separate of her race or gender, why she belongs there above Jackson.
|
There's other choices I'd prefer to tubman in general, though in terms of black women in particular I can't think of any.
One general question I'd say is how often do we want to change who's on currency; right now who's on the main currency is VERY stable, (commemorative coins and some of the $1 coins of course cover a whole bunch of other people, but are little used).
on the plus side this makes currency easier to use/recognize, especially for those less familiar with the US (and US currency is used some internationally), and there's a lot of slang for various bills which wouldn't make much sense if who's on what was changed.
on the down side, we don't get to cover a variety as much, with higher turnover we could afford to give a bunch of people some time on a bill, without it being as big an issue.
|
On January 27 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there. Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination. And they should win or lose independent of whether they are black or not. The criticisms of "you're voting for him because he's black" and "you're only voting against him because he's black" should have no place here. In a similar vein, Harriet Tubman shouldn't get preferential treatment on consideration because people specifically sought to put a woman there. Make the argument, separate of her race or gender, why she belongs there above Jackson.
Are you kidding roflmao? Ignore that she was a black woman when discussing what she accomplished? Like you can't be serious...
|
On January 27 2017 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there. Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination. And they should win or lose independent of whether they are black or not. The criticisms of "you're voting for him because he's black" and "you're only voting against him because he's black" should have no place here. In a similar vein, Harriet Tubman shouldn't get preferential treatment on consideration because people specifically sought to put a woman there. Make the argument, separate of her race or gender, why she belongs there above Jackson. Are you kidding roflmao? Ignore that she was a black woman when discussing what she accomplished? Like you can't be serious...
Ignoring that she was a black woman for the purpose of discussing whether or not her accomplishments as a whole trump those of another possible candidate - say, some other white male of certain merit.
Being a black woman has relevance to what she accomplished - but not to whether or not we should value her contributions as a whole relative to those of someone else.
|
On January 27 2017 05:42 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there. Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination. And they should win or lose independent of whether they are black or not. The criticisms of "you're voting for him because he's black" and "you're only voting against him because he's black" should have no place here. In a similar vein, Harriet Tubman shouldn't get preferential treatment on consideration because people specifically sought to put a woman there. Make the argument, separate of her race or gender, why she belongs there above Jackson. Are you kidding roflmao? Ignore that she was a black woman when discussing what she accomplished? Like you can't be serious... Ignoring that she was a black woman for the purpose of discussing whether or not her accomplishments as a whole trump those of another possible candidate - say, some other white male of certain merit. Being a black woman has relevance to what she accomplished - but not to whether or not we should value her contributions as a whole relative to those of someone else.
It's relevant to what she accomplished and to how we should value her contributions. In a country that didn't see her as human she accomplished something great, you can't just compare her accomplishments without consideration for the context.
|
On January 27 2017 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:22 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:01 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure. Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism. I think the one's that want a "feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy" are the ones trying to convince folks that not illegally slaughtering and forcibly removing it's rightful inhabitants would have been a bad thing. It's easy to say it's wrong, because it was wrong. Though I guess not as easy for some. If people want to say he's a war hero for what he did during the war of 1812 that's on them, but to me it looks more like an invasion, followed by a resistance partially sponsored by another country. Lots of history books will say he "fought the British" but he was mostly fighting indigenous people, you know, the people who were defending themselves against foreign invaders set on destroying their way of life? But let's say one prefers the rose colored version you mentioned, in that case, they should be advocating for giving back the huge swaths of land in the west they were promised and was subsequently stolen from them. What he did was little more than imperialism. A fight that needed to be fought for the benefit of all mankind. Do you agree that if he had not removed the Indians, that the US as a whole would have suffered? It seems almost ubiquitous at this point. Call it bad if you wish. From what I read I'd have justified it about the same way he ultimately did so there is no point in repeating it. And no, they're not getting their land back. Obviously, but I guess this is one of those "might makes right" scenarios. On January 27 2017 05:13 Leporello wrote:On January 27 2017 05:01 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 04:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 26 2017 22:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 15:56 Slaughter wrote:On January 26 2017 14:18 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of Andrew Jackson, I wonder if Trump is going to reverse that absurd idea to remove him from the $20.
Would be one of the places he could do some good, that's for sure. Why is it absurd? Jackson was a prick and he also hated paper money anyway. He is a good candidate as any if you want to change things up and put a new person on a bill. He is a war hero and an important figure in the founding of the US. That in hindsight, in a more peaceful world, we find some of his actions to be less than fashionable, doesn't change that fact. Let's not play that game of revisionist history and pretend that all the historical figures of controversy that are also among the most important in the nation's history, didn't exist and that their contributions should be buried. That entire push to remove him is just that: historical revisionism. I have no respect for people who want to whitewash history to repaint themselves as heroes of history and haters of everything controversial that had to happen to get there. Nope. What's revisionist history is how people try to excuse the past as if it "wasn't that bad then". Happens with slavery all the time, and this one about Jackson has been more popular recently. Jackson's plans (and Van B's actions) were considered horrific at the time, you may be familiar with one of his opponents, a man by the name "Davy Crockett" (Who was a scout for Jackson and who's grandparents were killed by Creeks and Cherokees)? Also it was illegal according to the constitution at the time. It's just part of America's never ending list of illegal and racist crap this country did to get here. It was bad enough at the time and certainly bad enough now that lionizing him makes people look foolish (or just like an asshole). What's revisionist is to look at the historical contributions of Jackson as a whole in the context of modern sensibilities, and to conclude, "oh he's Hitler now." If you have a problem with what he did with ignoring the Supreme Court and killing Native Americans, that is absolutely a good thing to dispute. I won't seek to justify if it was right or not - it's easy to say it was wrong, but at the same time we can look at an alternate history where Jackson never removed the Indians and see that the US would have probably suffered greatly for it. And he is a war hero and the man of Jacksonian Democracy ("of the people, by the people, for the people"). Let's not bury his legacy simply because we want a very simple and feel-good narrative of the US's historical legacy, because that is historical revisionism. You're the one bringing up Hitler all of a sudden. So since you brought him up, do you think Germany taking Hitler off of government paraphernalia is "revisionism"? One could argue Hitler had many merits in spite of his glaring flaws, and he transformed the country in profound ways. I dunno, maybe? I don't know German history well enough to gauge whether or not his positive contributions to Germany are worthy of acknowledgement, but I would be willing to listen if someone wanted to make the case. I don't know what you're basing the "if he wouldn't have done it, the US would have suffered greatly" on, let alone that it made the world better? Also Jacksonian Democracy has less of a shine for those who it didn't/wouldn't have included (like myself and the millions of other Americans who's constitutional rights still aren't adequately protected).
Well the country would likely be a lot smaller or at least deprived of many key resources.
Fair enough on the criticisms of Jacksonian Democracy - but it certainly was an important step worthy of being well-acknowledged in history. Even if you think it wasn't far enough, you could admit it was one large step forward from its predecessors.
|
On January 27 2017 05:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:42 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 27 2017 05:33 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 05:26 Nyxisto wrote:On January 27 2017 05:09 LegalLord wrote:
No, the explicit goal was to put a woman there, and being black probably helped. Damn right I'm going to question the identitarian motives there. Every time a black person in the US will run for an office there will be people who hate them because they are black and people who want to see them succeed because they are black. This is a fact of life in a country that has a history of race discrimination. And they should win or lose independent of whether they are black or not. The criticisms of "you're voting for him because he's black" and "you're only voting against him because he's black" should have no place here. In a similar vein, Harriet Tubman shouldn't get preferential treatment on consideration because people specifically sought to put a woman there. Make the argument, separate of her race or gender, why she belongs there above Jackson. Are you kidding roflmao? Ignore that she was a black woman when discussing what she accomplished? Like you can't be serious... Ignoring that she was a black woman for the purpose of discussing whether or not her accomplishments as a whole trump those of another possible candidate - say, some other white male of certain merit. Being a black woman has relevance to what she accomplished - but not to whether or not we should value her contributions as a whole relative to those of someone else. It's relevant to what she accomplished and to how we should value her contributions. In a country that didn't see her as human she accomplished something great, you can't just compare her accomplishments without consideration for the context.
But we shouldn't see it as, "we should put a woman on currency" or "we should put a black person on our currency." That shouldn't factor into who wins overall.
|
Honestly the picture that you put on a piece of money matters so little that I think you can loosen that standard. So what if Harriet Tubman is chosen because shes black and a woman and she accomplished a lot, ONE of those things is pretty relevant and again, its a picture on money, who gives a shit?
|
On January 27 2017 05:55 Zambrah wrote:
Honestly the picture that you put on a piece of money matters so little that I think you can loosen that standard. So what if Harriet Tubman is chosen because shes black and a woman and she accomplished a lot, ONE of those things is pretty relevant and again, its a picture on money, who gives a shit?
Who and what a country chooses to acknowledge as its most important historical figures is a pretty important matter.
On a side note, here's a pretty good level-headed recount of the events of the trail of tears: http://www.historynet.com/indian-removal-act
|
On January 27 2017 05:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 05:55 Zambrah wrote:
Honestly the picture that you put on a piece of money matters so little that I think you can loosen that standard. So what if Harriet Tubman is chosen because shes black and a woman and she accomplished a lot, ONE of those things is pretty relevant and again, its a picture on money, who gives a shit? Who and what a country chooses to acknowledge as its most important historical figures is a pretty important matter.
We had mainhly Artists/Famous Scientists on them. On the next series (rolling out atm step by step) there are no persons at all.
Its not important at all.
|
I'd rather our money just not have anyone printed on it. Signifying someone's importance by putting them on a piece of currency seems...strange. I could not tell you a single person on any dollar bill. Except Benjamin. I know there is some currency with someone named Benjamin because of rap songs saying something about that.
But if we *are* going to have people on currency, there needs to be a bit of diversity there for something as broad in application as our currency.
|
Right, and we'll have plenty of opportunities to acknowledge all of our most important historical figures in the future. If Harriet Tubman appears on money that doesn't mean that noone else in US History is important, it just means she is important to US history and she gets to spend time on our money til the next time someone wants to change up who is on our money.
Again, the level of scrutiny you're putting on this confuses me, if this was a member of state, a president, or something with real immediate and significant ramifications I might agree with your concerns, but lets be real here this is a picture on money it is not worthy of this level of attention. One day MLK could be on the 1 dollar bill for a while, one day FDR might appear on the 100, maybe Rosa Parks will appear on the 50 in the future. We have plenty of time to cycle through the important people in the US' history. If Harriet Tubman appears on the 20 its not like we're doomed to spend the next eternity with Harriet Tubman on the 20 dollar bill.
I'll note that its impossible to separate the fact that shes a woman and shes black from her anyways, just like if Obama was put on a bill it'd be impossible to separate from the fact that hes a black man. There will never be a point where your argument stops applying, she will always be a black lady and nothing is gonna change that. Harriet Tubman is an important part of US history, theres no point ranking people in terms of historical importance other than fun because in this scenario it really super doesn't matter.
Its money, you spend it, shit I havent even had paper money in a while since I just pay with card everywhere, this reaaaally isnt that big a deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
