Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There were quite a few others, but it appears that the moderator went through and cleaned house.
But, according to you 'no one is trashing the woman'.
Stating the truth is not trashing. She's on the bill because of her gender and skin color. That's sexist and racist! We do not need someone to be on there representing sexism and racism.
The symbolism is that we don't care about your gender, race, or any of those external factors; if you represent American values and/or contribute to American history in a positive way, we value that.
Let's not dance around this fact: it would be weird to pick a white man for that.
If you don't think that the gesture is necessary, that's fine. But do you actually have a problem with the gesture?
Then the selection shouldn't be based on gender and skin color!
Also where are Asian, Latinos, Indian, Arabic and Native Americans?
Of course she has accomplishments, but to state her contribution and role in US history was of such importance and prominence, above everyone else, that she should be on the face of the most globally recognizable US currency? I serious doubt it. Not that Jackson meets the criteria either, but he definitely contributed more to the US than she did.
I wish we would just do away with people on the money, it reeks of aristocracy. We should just put US landmarks on it.
But I don't think the standard is set as being above all else. The standard is frankly just based on a certain ideal we want to portray at any given time.
For example, Charles Darwin is on an English note. His contributions to England were actually pretty small. He made contributions to the field of science, and the world is certainly more knowledgeable than it was before him, but is England specifically better off? Probably not. But he was English and made big contributions in the field of science, and while I don't know the politics of how he was selected or if it was as big of a controversy over there as it would be here, I'm guessing it's to show that England is proud of it's citizens and their contributions to science. And in 2017, he'll be removed and Jane Austen who has her contributions to literature.
As for not having any pictures of people, that's valid. I don't really agree or disagree on that. If that was the decision, then I wouldn't fight. It's not worth it to me. But I don't have a problem with people being on money. Personally, I think the exact people on the money should be switched around more. It makes money more interesting to look at and creates a sense of interest and discovery when you see an older bill with someone else's face on it.
Stating the truth is not trashing. She's on the bill because of her gender and skin color. That's sexist and racist! We do not need someone to be on there representing sexism and racism.
Among all of those quotes in my post, how many do you consider are stating the truth?
She will be on the bill because she is an historical figure.
According to your criteria, ONLY white men should be depicted on money because depicting a woman would be sexist and depicting a Black or other race would be racist.
Among all of those quotes in my post, how many do you consider are stating the truth?
She will be on the bill because she is an historical figure.
According to your criteria, ONLY white men should be depicted on money because depicting a woman would be sexist and depicting a Black or other race would be racist.
Pretty neat!
Also where are Asian, Latinos, Indian, Arabic and Native Americans?
Then the selection shouldn't be based on gender and skin color!
Also where are Asian, Latinos, Indian, Arabic and Native Americans?
I don't know. We can put anyone on our money. I'm sure there are dozens of people who would qualify. And Sacagawea actually has a gold dollar, which is noted by coin collectors as being among the most beautifully minted American coins. Can't say I disagree with that sentiment either.
Stating the truth is not trashing. She's on the bill because of her gender and skin color. That's sexist and racist! We do not need someone to be on there representing sexism and racism.
To people who got at least a halfway decent education and aren't looking to be outraged by every little thing, she represents courage, bravery, honor and dignity as a hero who stood up against the corrupt, heinous establishment of the Confederacy and helped engineer one of the biggest events in this country's history.
If you think her being black and being a woman overshadows all of that ^, then that speaks volumes to you as a person.
I thought some of you were tired of this corrupt establishment you call our government?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
