The lady bill
18/6/15 15:42So, seems like the Treasury is now tinkering with the idea of replacing Hamilton's face with that of a woman of historical importance for America, thus revamping the 10 dollar bill. And the debate is only just beginning.

One side argues that it's been about time to do such a thing, since on seven out of seven dollar bills that are currently in circulation, the featured portrait is that of a dead white guy (two of them were never presidents, btw - so the potential argument that it should be a president is moot) - and that, in a country that's less than half male and less than 3/4 Caucasian. It would seem natural that less than 100% of all currency bills would feature white males. Granted, there've been no "Founding Mothers" of the nation, and for a reason: women were considered second-class citizens back then. But this argument might be moot as well, since Lincoln and Grant were nowhere near being Founding Fathers. In fact, there's been no specific condition for placing portraits on the US money. The one condition that sticks out is that it should be a person who's been important to the nation.
And then there's the counter-argument that pandering to diversity just for diversity's sake doesn't truly serve said diversity, but instead is only catering to a group with the impression that they'd feel good about the selection merely because it's a woman. And Hamilton, albeit not having been president, is actually one of the most crucial individuals who've shaped up the God-Chosen Nation. He was a Founding Father, chief staff aide to Washington, one of the most influential promoters of the US Constitution, and founder of the nation's financial system (and of the Federalist Party, the world's first voter-based political party). He was the one who practically breathed life into the financial framework of the new nation. So he probably deserves better than being relegated out of the set of historical figures who are to be honored on the national currency bills.
What I'd like to inquire about is where you guys stand on this issue. Should this swap happen, and why; and are there alternatives, like perhaps finding another bill with a less historically crucial individual to replace with the image of a woman of great importance to the United States, or maybe putting a woman's image on a newly created bill, an alternate bill, or better yet, something more vital than mere currency?
And of course, I can't help asking, if the Treasury should really proceed with this plan, which woman should it be? Harriet Tubman? Eleanor Roosevelt? Jane Addams? Candy Star? Caitlyn Jenner? Rosa Parks? Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Mary Harris Jones, Nellie Bly?... Pocahontas? Monica Lewinski? Miley Cyrus? Kim Kardashian? Or Marge Simpson?

One side argues that it's been about time to do such a thing, since on seven out of seven dollar bills that are currently in circulation, the featured portrait is that of a dead white guy (two of them were never presidents, btw - so the potential argument that it should be a president is moot) - and that, in a country that's less than half male and less than 3/4 Caucasian. It would seem natural that less than 100% of all currency bills would feature white males. Granted, there've been no "Founding Mothers" of the nation, and for a reason: women were considered second-class citizens back then. But this argument might be moot as well, since Lincoln and Grant were nowhere near being Founding Fathers. In fact, there's been no specific condition for placing portraits on the US money. The one condition that sticks out is that it should be a person who's been important to the nation.
And then there's the counter-argument that pandering to diversity just for diversity's sake doesn't truly serve said diversity, but instead is only catering to a group with the impression that they'd feel good about the selection merely because it's a woman. And Hamilton, albeit not having been president, is actually one of the most crucial individuals who've shaped up the God-Chosen Nation. He was a Founding Father, chief staff aide to Washington, one of the most influential promoters of the US Constitution, and founder of the nation's financial system (and of the Federalist Party, the world's first voter-based political party). He was the one who practically breathed life into the financial framework of the new nation. So he probably deserves better than being relegated out of the set of historical figures who are to be honored on the national currency bills.
What I'd like to inquire about is where you guys stand on this issue. Should this swap happen, and why; and are there alternatives, like perhaps finding another bill with a less historically crucial individual to replace with the image of a woman of great importance to the United States, or maybe putting a woman's image on a newly created bill, an alternate bill, or better yet, something more vital than mere currency?
And of course, I can't help asking, if the Treasury should really proceed with this plan, which woman should it be? Harriet Tubman? Eleanor Roosevelt? Jane Addams? Candy Star? Caitlyn Jenner? Rosa Parks? Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Mary Harris Jones, Nellie Bly?... Pocahontas? Monica Lewinski? Miley Cyrus? Kim Kardashian? Or Marge Simpson?
(no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 12:52 (UTC)As for who should replace him, there are so many deserving candidates. I can't even choose.
(no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 15:20 (UTC)http://www.womenon20s.org/
(no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 16:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 10:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 12:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 13:18 (UTC)Unfairly vilified, Margaret Sanger doesn't have a chance, but her fight to overturn laws about contraception has done more to change women's and men's lives in modern America for the better than a whole bucket of dead presidents.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 10:10 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 13:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 14:17 (UTC)2. As to the 3-dollar note candidate - how about Claudette Colvin?
(no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 14:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 14:59 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 14:22 (UTC)"Source of the nation"
(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 14:54 (UTC)Think twice before posting anything like this again.
And read the rules (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/profile), particularly #14.
(no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 17:10 (UTC)LOL LOL LOL
(no subject)
Date: 18/6/15 17:18 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 00:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 05:18 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 02:39 (UTC)(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 05:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 02:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 07:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 10:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 10:44 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 19:29 (UTC)I also think this topic has potential for endless debate that could distract from more important topics.
(no subject)
Date: 19/6/15 19:42 (UTC)And neither do people have such a limited attention span as to only be able to focus on a single topic.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 20/6/15 17:46 (UTC)