• Women's Poll Wants Harriet Tubman to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 Bill
    148 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;47717598]most of his attitude towards the banking system[/QUOTE] you mean the attitude that caused one of the worst economic crises of the time? [editline]14th May 2015[/editline] i can't believe people are against a federal bank when we have a perfect historical example of what happens when you don't have a federal bank
[QUOTE=Sally;47726871]Yes this is why I made that post, sorry you couldn't see that[/QUOTE] Can't beat them, join them - gotcha. I'll remember your ironic defeatest shitposts next time I realize I can't defend something
[QUOTE=Govna;47725924]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: 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.[/QUOTE] this post is so bad u managed to bring back ownederd from the dead for a second - so he politely asked me to courier this message to you: i could write a 20 page dissertation about how nazi germany helped to modernize transportation i mean that's their greatest contribution instead of committing en massed genocide right??"
[QUOTE=RaxaHax;47726966]Can't beat them, join them - gotcha. I'll remember your ironic defeatest shitposts next time I realize I can't defend something[/QUOTE] Alright I from what I can tell you couldn't see what I was trying to portray on my post, by assuming that I did a complete 180. Explaining the cant beat em thing But then you say the post was defeatist. I don't understand that at all, and calling them shitposts is just being rude of you.
[QUOTE=Sally;47727072]Alright I from what I can tell you couldn't see what I was trying to portray on my post, by assuming that I did a complete 180. Explaining the cant beat em thing But then you say the post was defeatist. I don't understand that at all, and calling them shitposts is just being rude of you.[/QUOTE] it's like you want to look stupid
I don't get why no one has supported FDR yet. Governed throughout the Great Depression and successfully saw us through the greatest war in human history.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;47717622]Why an abolitionist?[B] I thought the Abolition was, like, a really bad thing for the USA?[/B][/QUOTE] Jesus goatfucking christ.
The problem with talking about "they were inferior/etc" is that it's talking about what is. The Amerindians got driven from their lands, and it was a process that economic, social, and political factors reinforced. No matter what, it would be extremely difficult to work against the rapid population growth of the European population in the New World and its subsequent expansion. However, ought have this to gone that way? Was the trail of tears necessary? Could have it been done differently? From what I can see, the Cherokee managed to modernise quite rapidly in the years before the trail of tears. It's bullshit to say that they were inferior and unable to survive in the new world, because the Cherokee actually did manage to adapt, often integrating into the wider agricultural economy and growing cash crops for export in addition to building modern towns and new political systems. They even independently created their own writing system, complete with the introduction of printing presses and Cherokee newspapers, in addition to a gradual adoption of money and rule of law.
[QUOTE=Deng;47729766]The problem with talking about "they were inferior/etc" is that it's talking about what is. The Amerindians got driven from their lands, and it was a process that economic, social, and political factors reinforced. No matter what, it would be extremely difficult to work against the rapid population growth of the European population in the New World and its subsequent expansion. However, ought have this to gone that way? Was the trail of tears necessary? Could have it been done differently? From what I can see, the Cherokee managed to modernise quite rapidly in the years before the trail of tears. It's bullshit to say that they were inferior and unable to survive in the new world, because the Cherokee actually did manage to adapt, often integrating into the wider agricultural economy and growing cash crops for export in addition to building modern towns and new political systems. They even independently created their own writing system, complete with the introduction of printing presses and Cherokee newspapers, in addition to a gradual adoption of money and rule of law.[/QUOTE] The "inferior" argument is essentially because they never had contact with the rest of the world so they didn't really tap into the wealth of knowledge-sharing that the rest of the world was lucky enough to have. Sure, they might have had a hard time assimilating to American culture, but I don't think genocide was exactly the solution. If they didn't treat them as inferior, the natives would have integrated into a new society more easily.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;47717719]For real if you want an abolitionist why not put Frederick Douglass on it. [img]http://i.imgur.com/LqiGHLg.jpg[/img] Imagine this face staring back at you every time you pull out a twenty.[/QUOTE] Tubman is more well-known. Anyway, I'm going to be honest, I don't see the point in replacing him. Make a $25 bill or something if you want her on a bill.
[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] As someone who lives in a country with money that's a slightly different size for each denomination, I can confirm that the experience of putting it into a wallet is not made any more difficult by it.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;47726623]issues with putting it into a wallet.[/QUOTE] how the hell does that work, i can't imagine the largest bill in that set being much larger than bills are today, and it ain't like they're the exact length of your wallet besides, by the time a bill ever gets to you it's already been folded a bazillion different ways anyway, more folding isn't going to hurt it
[QUOTE=gk99;47732714]Tubman is more well-known. Anyway, I'm going to be honest, I don't see the point in replacing him. Make a $25 bill or something if you want her on a bill.[/QUOTE] Douglas is a lot more known than Tubman from people I've met, but that could be in part because I live in Rochester.
I suggest twoface on the bills, with one face on each side. [editline]16th May 2015[/editline] Batman villains on all the money would be rad.
[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] For somebody who so frequently and vehemently argues about the evils of immigrants coming to Western nations and not immediately adapting to Western standards and ideals, you're pretty quick to tout what a stand-up thing it is to [I]actually[/I] invade somebody's homeland and drive them out with military force for not assimilating to their invaders' culture. Your position has never been about what is right or fair. It is simply ethnocentrism. In your eyes, Non-Westerners deserve what's coming to them, and damn whatever hypocrisy might evolve from that rhetoric. What we did to the Native Americans is just another stone in the wall that is the horrifying history of our country.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;47717723]They should alternate the women on the 20 like they did with states on the quarter. Then I could have a "binders full of women" $20 bill collection[/QUOTE] Oh, and further society's views on objectifying women by turning them into a collector's item? NO THANKS
i think booker t. washington has a perfect face for a dollar bill [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Booker_T_Washington_retouched_flattened-crop.jpg[/img_thumb]
[QUOTE=joes33431;47742604]i think booker t. washington has a perfect face for a dollar bill [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Booker_T_Washington_retouched_flattened-crop.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Really, there's so many much more positive politicians in our history then AJ. I like the idea of Tubman but we have a lot of material to work with I just plain don't agree with having a genocidal maniac commemorated on our money
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47743174]Really, there's so many much more positive politicians in our history then AJ. I like the idea of Tubman but we have a lot of material to work with I just plain don't agree with having a genocidal maniac commemorated on our money[/QUOTE] who says it even has to be a politician one of the European countries has Darwin on their money.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;47719451]I'm voting for a freedom eagle crying a tear[/QUOTE] I'm for a bear shitting out a giant pine cone on back of the five. Just so the saying "the bear shits on Friday" every pay day comes in to vogue.
[QUOTE=unrezt;47719733]It's also weird that they would jump from none to putting someone that no one has ever heard of on the most commonly used and circulated note.[/QUOTE] I didn't pay attention in school so nobody must have lol what tf is the Boston tea party lmao
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;47742319]For somebody who so frequently and vehemently argues about the evils of immigrants coming to Western nations and not immediately adapting to Western standards and ideals, you're pretty quick to tout what a stand-up thing it is to [I]actually[/I] invade somebody's homeland and drive them out with military force for not assimilating to their invaders' culture. Your position has never been about what is right or fair. It is simply ethnocentrism. In your eyes, Non-Westerners deserve what's coming to them, and damn whatever hypocrisy might evolve from that rhetoric. What we did to the Native Americans is just another stone in the wall that is the horrifying history of our country.[/QUOTE] It's a huge stretch to call it ethnocentrism. What he effectively advocating was that the Native Americans lost not because of any ethnic or racial reasons, but rather their form of society wasn't capable of coping with the strength and cohesiveness of a relatively more developed, federal society. For that reason, the USA was capable of displacing the natives, which frankly was going to happen at some point anyway. Additionally, it's rather odd to apply that same rule-set to this case and immigration to Europe, because it's history in the making rather than history itself. He is pushing for societal reform in Europe so that there isn't displacement, like the Native Americans suffered; that isn't ethnocentrism, that's just realizing what can and can't be affected, the past vs the present. Would it be ethnocentrism for a Native American during the 19th century to argue for extremist measures had they known what happened to the Central American natives during the 15th and 16th century? Of course not! It would be simple common sense. Of course, that's a rather extreme example, but it's the same idea. I don't see the Middle East telling Europe "Assimilate or die" nor did the Americans send extreme numbers of settlers West without the backing of the army, nor is the situation as dire in Europe as it was with the Native Americans, so from that point alone, it's an invalid comparison.
doug dimmadome owner of the dimmsdale dimmadome on the $20 bill please
[QUOTE=mac338;47735000]I suggest twoface on the bills, with one face on each side. [editline]16th May 2015[/editline] Batman villains on all the money would be rad.[/QUOTE] Obligatory: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrp8aHruuQM[/media]
[QUOTE=JXZ;47746652]doug dimmadome owner of the dimmsdale dimmadome on the $20 bill please[/QUOTE] The Doug Dimmadome Dimmadollar
[QUOTE=BigJoeyLemons;47747035]The Doug Dimmadome Dimmadollar[/QUOTE] I'll take a Dimmadozen
Put 20 one dollar bills on the 20 dollar bill please
[QUOTE=Ta16;47722318][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/rvqV9E3.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] I want spaceman money.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.