To put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill would be an insult to her legacy

[Electric Monk]

To African Americans, Harriet Tubman was our Moses, guiding the enslaved to freedom by faith and the light of the North Star. Why cheapen her by putting her on the face on the 20 dollar bill – the very symbol of the racialized capitalism she was fleeing?

When I first heard about Women on $20s, the unofficial contest to get a woman’s face on a $20 bill, I thought it sounded great: dudes have occupied greenbacks for centuries in the US. The female visages of Sacagawea and Susan B Anthony have been relegated to dollar coins no one gives two cents about.

But now that Harriet Tubman has won the unofficial vote for which woman should replace Andrew Jackson, I am less thrilled. I don’t want to see an abolitionist icon as the face of American money. I am quite content with my mental image of her conducting the Underground Railroad, that secret antebellum network of other former slaves and abolitionists who risked their lives to smuggle slaves out of the United States and into Canada.

I don’t want to see Tubman commodified with a price, as she once was as a slave. I don’t need to see hers as the face of the US treasury, being passed in transactions to underpaid retail workers and appearing in print ads for transnational banks.

(snip)

I am getting tired of the whitewashing of racial exploitation with brown faces. Enough with bullshit like McDonald’s slapping MLK’s face on their predatory and poverty creating labor practices. Putting Tubman’s face on the fiscal system which undergirds the likes of Aetna (and its hundreds of millions in annual profits) would be dismaying.

much more
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/15/a-slave-abolitionist-has-no-business-being-on-the-20-bill

[immoderate]

1. Interesting point.

--imm

[MADem]

2. I think it is weird that America has no women on their money, and I don't agree with this guy's

viewpoint.

Harriet Tubman is dead. She doesn't care where her face is plastered. That said, every time a twenty dollar bill crosses a kid's hands, it's a learning opportunity. "Who is this woman? Why was she important and why is she on the money?" If we don't teach history, children don't learn history.

It's also past time that the people on our money start looking a little more like us. It's fine to have dead presidents on the bills, but there's room for more than that. Maybe we need to mix it up a bit. This isn't "McDonalds"--it's US currency.

[Fearless]

3. I agree.

[lovemydog]

5. Yes, I agree very much.

[malthaussen]

8. In that case, we should keep Jackson on the twenty...

... so we can teach our children that our nation reveres war criminals and liars.

-- Mal

[MADem]

15. Naah. Jackson is just one more face in a crowd.

There are slave owners on our currency; why not abolitionists to start to even the score? Notice I said start...but we have to start somewhere.

[malthaussen]

18. I think Jackson's record of genocide in the Southeast...

... makes him a little more than a face in the crowd, but we should have the odd abolitionist on our currency. Or maybe we should just face facts and put famous financiers on them: Morgan, Rockefeller, Dimon...

Although come to think of it, Washington was no slouch when it came to lining his pockets.

-- Mal

[chillfactor]

4. i disagree....

i think it would very suitable....just like the pictures of great presidents I think she should be honored

[Cassidy1]

6. should be contemporary women too

This came up in another thread. Over half the population is women. Why not half on the money? I think Tubman is a good start. But you also have to make is contemporary so that it can be relatable. Michelle has done some good things with her nutrition and exercise program. She is the better half a president who has lifted the economy like we have not seen since the fifties. Now I don't think she should be on there NOW, but it should be considered. Do people have to be out of office or dead to be considered?

What about a young person? People always talk about clueless kids. It would be too soon for a Chelsea Clinton, but what about Amy Carter? She has done a lot of activism and is credited with some of the apartheid change. It could spark a discussion on things like nuclear war. I know that line in Carter's speech is seen as a joke still, but it could be used as a teachable moment.

It's clear there are too many men on money. Washington and Jefferson are on TWO different items, for god's sake.

[Sobax]

7. It's the law

Only dead people are allowed.

[Cassidy1]

14. change?

I think it should be changed.

[Sobax]

16. I don't know, maybe we shouldn't put people on it at all?

We could just use national landmarks instead like a lot of other countries do. Putting people on our coinage was something we inherited from times when monarchs put their faces on everything.

[tsites]

9. Maybe we should not put anyone on money

In 1909 there was an uproar when Lincoln appeared on the penny and it wasn't from confederate sympathizers, it was from people who thought no one should ever appear on US coins. Up until that time no depiction of a person, living or dead, had appeared on any official standard issue US coinage. Even later in 1913 when the Indian head or buffalo nickle was produced, great care was taken that the portrait be a composite of several individuals and not a likeness of one single indigenous person. The US mint had strict tradition of never portraying any person living or dead. This had originated because it was viewed as against the egalitarian principles on which the country was founded and smacked of aristocracy and the creation of demigods. But with the Lincoln penny a precedent was set. In 1932 Washington was on the quarter and 1938 Jefferson was on the Nickle. Little objection occurred since these were long dead founding fathers, but controversy again appeared in 1946 when Franklin Roosevelt was placed on the dime. Roosevelt had only been dead a few years and even his supporters thought it a bit too soon to grant him a status equal to a founding father. Controversy arose again when Kennedy was placed on the half dollar only months after his assassination. Suddenly it was now a political issue. Republicans thought they were getting short changed and began demanding a more recent Republican than Lincoln on a coin. Within two years after Eisenhower passed away, Republicans got their wish and had his face was on a newly revised dollar coin. Since then there has been an ongoing battle of people clamoring for this person or that person to be on a US coin and now, on paper bills.

Paper money historically has been different than coinage. Paper money is not controlled by the US mint, but has been issued by private banks, the states and the federal reserve and had no tradition of not depicting real people. Yet still there was a period when the images were not completely dominated by famous people. If one looks at the Educational Series issued in 1896, the Lewis and Clark $10 bill from 1901, the native American $5 bill from 1899 and others, one can see that we can have beautiful and inspiring images.

We only have a few denominations of both coins and paper money, so it's not possible to honor everyone. The issue isn't only about who to put on a coin or bill, but who to take off or how long should anyone be allowed to stay. Did Benjamin Franklin, a real founding father really need to be bumped after only 14 years after waiting 150 to get on. How long should Roosevelt stay on the dime or Jefferson on the nickle (and $2 bill). Will Washington be bumped from the quarter or the $1 bill? Lincoln has been on the penny for 106 years, is it time he was replaced with someone else?

I think we should readopt a no person, living or dead, policy on our coins and paper money. We have a tradition of commemorative coinage. Let people be honored by short run special issues that are minted/printed in addition to, but not in replacement of our coins and bills.

[Hoppy]

10. Maybe the White Rock soda girl? She doesn't offend anyone.

Jackson is there because of the expansion of the vote during his time in office.

My votes?

Eleanor Roosevelt
Peace Pilgrim
Abigail Adams
Ann Hutchinson

[swilton]

11. I'm giving this a rec for

its thought provoking point and alternative narrative.

[Chan790]

12. As someone who voted for Tubman in the Women on $20s poll...

I disagree with this author. I think it's time that the faces on our currency look more like all Americans. Tubman is a singularly-important figure in US history and I can think of nobody more deserving of this honor as the first woman and first racial minority to appear on a unit of US paper currency.

I get their argument against it, I just think it's an unfortunately-negativist worldview by which any deserving minority or woman would be disqualified from consideration. We voted to put Tubman on the $20 because nobody deserves it more; it would be a shame to not do it because it fails to pass some arbitrary purity-test.

[MADem]

17. I think it's strange to be lectured by some 21st Century guy about what Tubman might have wanted.

Who knows how she might feel, given the context not of her time, but these times?

I don't think it's appropriate for him to try to speak for her or control her place in history. She obviously resonates.

Now, more than ever, we need her example.

IMO, anyway.

[Hoppy]

13. I think the argument in support of the o.p. is silly.

Against Tubman because a symbol of capitalism is used to honor her. I guess by that reason, Emma Goldman and Mother Jones are the only women I can think of that would qualify to be on the bill.