• Women's Poll Wants Harriet Tubman to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 Bill
    148 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;47723052]How about we just replace the presidents with randomly chosen photographs from the U.S. drivers photo database Just imagine how depressing and awkward money would look[/QUOTE] Why not mugshots from criminals in Florida?
[QUOTE=bdd458;47723060]Why not mugshots from criminals in Florida?[/QUOTE] I'd rather not see my cousins on a $20
[QUOTE=Ta16;47722318]Maybe it's just me but I'd rather not have people on it at all. There was a redesign done by an man named Travis Purrington for a Master Thesis, and I have to say I really like it. Instead of having a few people thrown up on a pedestal regardless of how important they are. Instead this redesign focuses on our technological accomplishments as a country and our ingenuity as a people which I think is a much better idea as a currency and is sure as hell pleasing to look at. It'll NEVER happen, as our dollar is highly iconic but it's still a fantastic design.[/QUOTE] Man those are awesome and artistic, but also miss the mark so badly. I'd love to see them in some scifi movie or something though.
Let's just put George Washington on it and call it a day.
The only bill we can't change is the $100 [t]http://www.marshu.com/articles/images-website/articles/presidents-on-us-paper-money/one-hundred-100-dollar-bill.jpg[/t] He's so damn smug
[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;47720762]Put the Queen on it[/QUOTE] Put Queen on it.
[QUOTE=Swiket;47717643]Abolition was the movement to end slavery.[/QUOTE] Exactly, A really bad thing :v:
Put JFK on a bill
How about John Cena?
just put mirrors on each bill you're the man with the money you're the man on the money <3
[QUOTE=TheHydra;47721159]he literally says right here that the native americans are inferior as a justification for what he's doing...[/QUOTE] And this shocks you why? Are people really this uneducated historically about the 19th century? We can debate the ins and outs of it all day, but the fact of the matter is that Jackson was right: they were inferior. At least in the sense that their way of life was no longer feasible in the modern world, and that the technological progress and cultural industrialization of the United States (really, of the entire Western Hemisphere with Europe leading the way) would result in them being destroyed one way or another. His policy however allowed them two choices: they could either assimilate into American society and enjoy the benefits of living as an American citizen, or they could relocate out west past the Mississippi River onto federal territories where they'd be allowed to live alone and practice self-rule. Again, the reason why he did this was because he knew what would happen to them if he did nothing: they would be annihilated entirely by the states and settlers. And he wanted to avoid this. Because guess what, he wasn't a genocidal maniac. [QUOTE=DanRatherman;47721203]How nice to give them the opportunity to fuck off from their homes. You really going for the "but he adopted indians" route to write apologetics for a shit president?[/QUOTE] Yeah actually, it was nice of him, considering how many other people at the time just wanted to exterminate them all and be done with it. It's not even apologetics; this is just how it would have happened. Population transfers saved multiple tribes from being driven to extinction by being brutally murdered by the states and settlers. Which is what would have happened, as the United States started building itself up and advancing and expanding to fuel its growth with more resources. Would you have preferred a full-blown genocide instead? [editline]14 May 2015[/editline] I'm curious to know as well, how many people here believe in the romantic portrayals of the American Indians? I mean as them being peace-loving and just wanting to live a simple existence and reveling in natural freedom? Because the truth of the matter is, they were often just a violent and hateful towards each other as the Europeans were, and I think if more people knew this they'd probably be less inclined to automatically take their side and act like they could do no wrong ever and were better than the United States and the Europeans. I don't understand the sympathy they get is what I'm trying to say. I mean, since Europeans first arrived in the Americas, the Indians were more than willing to work with them when it was convenient to do so in order to kill off rival tribes. Why isn't this brutality talked about? Do they not educate kids on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip's_War]King Philip's War[/url] as an example of this behavior by them? Point I'm making here is that they were just like any other group of people in history, and all things considered, Jackson gave them a good deal: assimilate or leave. I'm inclined to support this ultimatum over genocide, which is what would have happened if he'd done nothing at all, but maybe others here would have preferred it instead if they'd all been killed off. I don't know why else so many people here would be against removal unless they supported genocide. I'm kidding of course. I understand your opposition to removal: it's because you just don't understand what the alternative would have been.
[QUOTE=Govna;47724646]And this shocks you why? Are people really this uneducated historically about the 19th century? We can debate the ins and outs of it all day, b[B]ut the fact of the matter is that Jackson was right: they were inferior.[/B] At least in the sense that their way of life was no longer feasible in the modern world, and that the technological progress and cultural industrialization of the United States (really, of the entire Western Hemisphere with Europe leading the way) would result in them being destroyed one way or another. His policy however allowed them two choices: they could either assimilate into American society and enjoy the benefits of living as an American citizen, or they could relocate out west past the Mississippi River onto federal territories where they'd be allowed to live alone and practice self-rule. Again, the reason why he did this was because he knew what would happen to them if he did nothing: they would be annihilated entirely by the states and settlers. And he wanted to avoid this. Because guess what, he wasn't a genocidal maniac. Yeah actually, it was nice of him, considering how many other people at the time just wanted to exterminate them all and be done with it. It's not even apologetics; this is just how it would have happened. Population transfers saved multiple tribes from being driven to extinction by being brutally murdered by the states and settlers. Which is what would have happened, as the United States started building itself up and advancing and expanding to fuel its growth with more resources. Would you have preferred a full-blown genocide instead? [editline]14 May 2015[/editline] I'm curious to know as well, how many people here believe in the romantic portrayals of the American Indians? I mean as them being peace-loving and just wanting to live a simple existence and reveling in natural freedom? Because the truth of the matter is, they were often just a violent and hateful towards each other as the Europeans were, and I think if more people knew this they'd probably be less inclined to automatically take their side and act like they could do no wrong ever and were better than the United States and the Europeans. I don't understand the sympathy they get is what I'm trying to say. I mean, since Europeans first arrived in the Americas, the Indians were more than willing to work with them when it was convenient to do so in order to kill off rival tribes. Why isn't this brutality talked about? Do they not educate kids on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip's_War]King Philip's War[/url] as an example of this behavior by them? Point I'm making here is that they were just like any other group of people in history, and all things considered, Jackson gave them a good deal: assimilate or leave. I'm inclined to support this ultimatum over genocide, which is what would have happened if he'd done nothing at all, but maybe others here would have preferred it instead if they'd all been killed off. I don't know why else so many people here would be against removal unless they supported genocide. I'm kidding of course. I understand your opposition to removal: it's because you just don't understand what the alternative would have been.[/QUOTE] i see /pol/ posters are coming out of the woodwork again.
[QUOTE=Ta16;47722318]Maybe it's just me but I'd rather not have people on it at all. There was a redesign done by an man named Travis Purrington for a Master Thesis, and I have to say I really like it. Instead of having a few people thrown up on a pedestal regardless of how important they are. Instead this redesign focuses on our technological accomplishments as a country and our ingenuity as a people which I think is a much better idea as a currency and is sure as hell pleasing to look at. It'll NEVER happen, as our dollar is highly iconic but it's still a fantastic design. [url]http://www.travispurrington.com/211378/2317660/gallery/2014-usd-proposal[/url][/QUOTE] Someone dropped their bag of Illuminati on these designs.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;47725625]i see /pol/ posters are coming out of the woodwork again.[/QUOTE] Why do we discredit people like this? He spent the time to put thought in his post only to get a "all lowercase snide remark about him"
[QUOTE=Sally;47725684]Why do we discredit people like this? He spent the time to put thought in his post only to get a "all lowercase snide remark about him"[/QUOTE] i could write up a 10-page report in perfect latin about how it's actually really smart to eat shit but that doesn't mean i would deserve a lengthy response in kind
[QUOTE=Ta16;47722318]Maybe it's just me but I'd rather not have people on it at all. There was a redesign done by an man named Travis Purrington for a Master Thesis, and I have to say I really like it. Instead of having a few people thrown up on a pedestal regardless of how important they are. Instead this redesign focuses on our technological accomplishments as a country and our ingenuity as a people which I think is a much better idea as a currency and is sure as hell pleasing to look at. It'll NEVER happen, as our dollar is highly iconic but it's still a fantastic design. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/FDtkJ6p.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/RrVUfXq.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/lUTTSA1.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/rvqV9E3.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9z5bSWQ.jpg[/IMG] [url]http://www.travispurrington.com/211378/2317660/gallery/2014-usd-proposal[/url][/QUOTE] that redesign looks like a wannabe euro and lacks any sort of identity. the US dollar is easily identifiable around the and this just looks generic and empty also different sized dollars? please no.
[QUOTE=Derpmeifter;47725750]i could write up a 10-page report in perfect latin about how it's actually really smart to eat shit but that doesn't mean i would deserve a lengthy response in kind[/QUOTE] oh wow look at what this guy brought in [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;47725797]that redesign looks like a wannabe euro and lacks any sort of identity. the US dollar is easily identifiable around the and this just looks generic and empty also different sized dollars? please no.[/QUOTE] It looks like the currency we'll be using in thirty years when the machines take over - and they're all graphic design majors. [editline]14th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Sally;47725833]oh wow look at what this guy brought in[/QUOTE] [quote] only to get a "all lowercase snide remark about him"[/quote]
[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;47725797]that redesign looks like a wannabe euro and lacks any sort of identity. the US dollar is easily identifiable around the and this just looks generic and empty also different sized dollars? please no.[/QUOTE] i think if it didn't look so high tech (the holographic-looking lines and triangles) and grey, they'd be perfect i don't see anything wrong with different sized bills though
[QUOTE=Sally;47725684]Why do we discredit people like this? He spent the time to put thought in his post only to get a "all lowercase snide remark about him"[/QUOTE] Because this is Facepunch, and like everywhere else in the world, people don't like to admit when they're wrong, and they also don't like to take the time necessary to form reasonable, coherent responses to posts that disagree with them. Jumping to conclusions is fun too. I love how he completely ignored the most important part of my paragraph too: [quote]We can debate the ins and outs of it all day, but the fact of the matter is that Jackson was right: [b]they were inferior. [i]At least in the sense that their way of life was no longer feasible in the modern world, and that the technological progress and cultural industrialization of United States (really, the entire Western Hemisphere with Europe the way) would result in them being destroyed one way or another.[/i][/b][/quote] According to FlagDog, he's from Brazil. Maybe he just doesn't understand English well enough to understand what it is I'm saying. I didn't expect a serious debate over this anyway. And hey, I was right not to-- I didn't get one from him, or Zukriuchen, or Derpmeifter, or AnEvilGuy. People get so entrenched in their side's shit that they're not willing to listen. Whatever. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Terrible person, terrible posts" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47725873] i don't see anything wrong with different sized bills though[/QUOTE] Wallets are not so flexible.
[QUOTE=Sally;47725684]Why do we discredit people like this? He spent the time to put thought in his post only to get a "all lowercase snide remark about him"[/QUOTE] Because he's defending the president who's biggest accomplishment involves genocIde. [editline]14th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;47725797]that redesign looks like a wannabe euro and lacks any sort of identity. the US dollar is easily identifiable around the and this just looks generic and empty also different sized dollars? please no.[/QUOTE] Different sizes help the blind. Also it looks cool as shit and would make me feel like I'm living on the future make it happen.
[QUOTE=Govna;47724646]We can debate the ins and outs of it all day, but the fact of the matter is that Jackson was right: they were inferior. At least in the sense that their way of life was no longer feasible in the modern world, and that the technological progress and cultural industrialization of the United States (really, of the entire Western Hemisphere with Europe leading the way) would result in them being destroyed one way or another.[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem[/url]
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;47725873]i think if it didn't look so high tech (the holographic-looking lines and triangles) and grey, they'd be perfect i don't see anything wrong with different sized bills though[/QUOTE] What benefit do different sized bills give you. Most currency has enough discerning marks that blind people can tell them apart and different sizes will just lead to issues with putting it into a wallet. Honestly though, I've got a feeling we'll be seeing a huge drop in paper currency come ten years.
re-instate the 2 dollar bill or make a 25 dollar bill and put tubman on that
[QUOTE=Ta16;47722318]Maybe it's just me but I'd rather not have people on it at all. There was a redesign done by an man named Travis Purrington for a Master Thesis, and I have to say I really like it. Instead of having a few people thrown up on a pedestal regardless of how important they are. Instead this redesign focuses on our technological accomplishments as a country and our ingenuity as a people which I think is a much better idea as a currency and is sure as hell pleasing to look at. It'll NEVER happen, as our dollar is highly iconic but it's still a fantastic design. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/FDtkJ6p.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/RrVUfXq.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/lUTTSA1.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/rvqV9E3.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/9z5bSWQ.jpg[/IMG] [url]http://www.travispurrington.com/211378/2317660/gallery/2014-usd-proposal[/url][/QUOTE] Hell no, I can't draw stuff on peoples' faces with these bills.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;47726623]What benefit do different sized bills give you. Most currency has enough discerning marks that blind people can tell them apart and different sizes will just lead to issues with putting it into a wallet. Honestly though, I've got a feeling we'll be seeing a huge drop in paper currency come ten years.[/QUOTE] they make it even easier to discern them, and i don't think storing them is a problem. seriously, the difference between the biggest and the smallest one wouldn't be that big, brazil has been using different sized bills for a while now and i've never heard anyone complain
[QUOTE=Govna;47724646]And this shocks you why? Are people really this uneducated historically about the 19th century? We can debate the ins and outs of it all day, but the fact of the matter is that Jackson was right: they were inferior. At least in the sense that their way of life was no longer feasible in the modern world, and that the technological progress and cultural industrialization of the United States (really, of the entire Western Hemisphere with Europe leading the way) would result in them being destroyed one way or another. His policy however allowed them two choices: they could either assimilate into American society and enjoy the benefits of living as an American citizen, or they could relocate out west past the Mississippi River onto federal territories where they'd be allowed to live alone and practice self-rule. Again, the reason why he did this was because he knew what would happen to them if he did nothing: they would be annihilated entirely by the states and settlers. And he wanted to avoid this. Because guess what, he wasn't a genocidal maniac. Yeah actually, it was nice of him, considering how many other people at the time just wanted to exterminate them all and be done with it. It's not even apologetics; this is just how it would have happened. Population transfers saved multiple tribes from being driven to extinction by being brutally murdered by the states and settlers. Which is what would have happened, as the United States started building itself up and advancing and expanding to fuel its growth with more resources. Would you have preferred a full-blown genocide instead? [editline]14 May 2015[/editline] I'm curious to know as well, how many people here believe in the romantic portrayals of the American Indians? I mean as them being peace-loving and just wanting to live a simple existence and reveling in natural freedom? Because the truth of the matter is, they were often just a violent and hateful towards each other as the Europeans were, and I think if more people knew this they'd probably be less inclined to automatically take their side and act like they could do no wrong ever and were better than the United States and the Europeans. I don't understand the sympathy they get is what I'm trying to say. I mean, since Europeans first arrived in the Americas, the Indians were more than willing to work with them when it was convenient to do so in order to kill off rival tribes. Why isn't this brutality talked about? Do they not educate kids on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip's_War]King Philip's War[/url] as an example of this behavior by them? Point I'm making here is that they were just like any other group of people in history, and all things considered, Jackson gave them a good deal: assimilate or leave. I'm inclined to support this ultimatum over genocide, which is what would have happened if he'd done nothing at all, but maybe others here would have preferred it instead if they'd all been killed off. I don't know why else so many people here would be against removal unless they supported genocide. I'm kidding of course. I understand your opposition to removal: it's because you just don't understand what the alternative would have been.[/QUOTE] Also other than the small part where he calls Native Americans inferior can anyone actually explain to me what is so wrong with this post?
[QUOTE=matt000024;47726758]Also other than the small part where he calls Native Americans inferior can anyone actually explain to me what is so wrong with this post?[/QUOTE] He's not calling native americans inferior, he's saying that in that time, in their mentality, they were, which is true. I re-read this, and it appears to not convey what I meant to say. In the minds of people such as Jackson, at that time, the Native American way of life was inferior to the new country. It is true that this was their mentality, not necessarily that the Native American way of life was inferior. I apologize if this came off the wrong way.
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;47725841] [QUOTE]oh wow look at what this guy brought in [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]only to get a "all lowercase snide remark about him"[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] Yes this is why I made that post, sorry you couldn't see that
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.