Treasury Sec. to announce Harriet Tubman will replace Jackson on the $20 bill
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:14:12 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Treasury Sec. to announce Harriet Tubman will replace Jackson on the $20 bill
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Treasury Sec. to announce Harriet Tubman will replace Jackson on the $20 bill  (Read 5641 times)
beaver2.0
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,769


Political Matrix
E: -2.45, S: -0.52

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: April 25, 2016, 12:56:36 PM »

I just wish he'd stayed in the race or actually campaigned from the start.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: April 25, 2016, 07:24:27 PM »

How do you celebrate Hariet Tubman without disparaging Jackson? Seems to me that celebrating Hariet Tubman in and of itself is disparaging Jackson in the same way that celebrating the White Rose would be inherently disparaging to Hitler.
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: April 25, 2016, 08:31:03 PM »

How do you celebrate Hariet Tubman without disparaging Jackson? Seems to me that celebrating Hariet Tubman in and of itself is disparaging Jackson in the same way that celebrating the White Rose would be inherently disparaging to Hitler.
I agree, celebrating Tubman's life by putting her on the $20 to replace Jackson is somewhat disparaging to Jackson in itself. Webb's point was about more than who is on the bill, though. I can live with Tubman replacing Jackson on the $20 - she's worthy of such a high honor - what bothers me is the public and the media unceremoniously tossing out one of America's most important historical leaders and stomping on his legacy. Jackson led the way in making America a unique, dare I say exceptional, country - a democracy ruled from the bottom-up. Instead of viewing Jackson through the lens of white resentment and anachronistic moral standards, we should look at the big picture and remember him as an imperfect, but brave leader who made an enduring impact on this country.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: April 26, 2016, 07:02:48 PM »

I agree, celebrating Tubman's life by putting her on the $20 to replace Jackson is somewhat disparaging to Jackson in itself. Webb's point was about more than who is on the bill, though. I can live with Tubman replacing Jackson on the $20 - she's worthy of such a high honor - what bothers me is the public and the media unceremoniously tossing out one of America's most important historical leaders and stomping on his legacy.


Nobody is disputing that Jackson was an important figure - in fact, if they didn't think he mattered, why waste the time trying to slander him? The issue is that Jackson's legacy was extremely harmful and should not be celebrated. Was Joseph Stalin not an extremely important historical figure? Does that mean we should honor him? Obviously not.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


This claim is absurd. Jackson very much was not in favor of the people at the bottom having any sort of power, otherwise he wouldn't have owned so many of them. Even ignoring that, what exactly did Jackson do for democracy? Supporting universal white male suffrage? A pretty empty gesture given most states already had that by the time he was sworn in, and, as MOP already mentioned, basing suffrage on race is hardly a step up from basing it on property ownership. I'd argue it's actually a step backwards, and served to divide the lower classes, further empowering aristocrats like Jackson. Now, you have two groups who should have similar interests, poor whites and poor blacks, at each other throats instead of against the people who are actually oppressing them. Not to mention, the policies he did pursue very much made life worse for the "common man" he claimed to represent. Killing the bank? Great symbolic gesture! Or at least, it would have been if it didn't plunge the economy into a depression and led the masses to starve. Oops. And of course, there was his commitment to upholding the institution of slavery, killing social mobility and keeping the poor white class poor. But hey, at least he let them vote for him!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's hardly "anachronistic." Jackson had these criticisms thrown at him when he was alive. Turns out the idea that genocide is morally wrong isn't as novel as most people seem to think.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: April 26, 2016, 11:15:03 PM »

I view Jackson as more of a sympton than as some Great Agent of Change TM. The Washington based establishment was awful and elitist and disconnected from the people, and so they suffered years of being led by a repellent guy they hated. Kind of reminds me of Thaksin Shinawatra actually.
Logged
Lyin' Steve
SteveMcQueen
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,310


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: April 27, 2016, 01:37:11 AM »
« Edited: April 27, 2016, 01:39:23 AM by Lyin' Steve »

Yeah, too many in the left-wing and even mainstream media have turned this into a Tubman vs. Jackson issue and said, Republicans (who are all racist) don't like Tubman replacing Jackson (because Tubman is black and they are racist).  The fight is on!  Let's write about why Obama and Tubman and an interesting future currency are right and the Republicans and Jackson and the boring status quo are wrong.

But it's not so much that people are mad that Tubman is replacing Jackson specifically.  It's more two things.  A: Harriet Tubman isn't an important or influential enough historical figure to deserve a spot on our currency next to our founding fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton) and the men who won the Civil War, thus freeing the slaves (Lincoln, Grant).  B:  Andrew Jackson is one of our greatest presidents and a historical figure who does deserve that place of honor.  Jim Webb is solely arguing B.  The left ignores the distinction between the two arguments, turns any attempt to engage in this discussion into taking sides in an imaginary Tubman vs. Jackson fight and, since Tubman is black, Jackson owned slaves, and calling someone racist is easy and gets a lot of clicks, every argument becomes "Jackson was a racist and so are you."  So in addition to defending point B, Webb also tries to say, look knock it off you fools, Jackson was hardly a racist.

So was Jackson a racist?  The man owned slaves, but so did most of our founding fathers and virtually every wealthy landowner at the time.  Most people point to his attitude towards native americans as evidence of his racism.  But it's easy to stand on the sidelines today and say, oh you racist.  It's easy to forget that many native american groups were basically the al-Qaeda of their day, rampaging pioneer communities, committing mass killings and atrocities, and scaring the living daylights out of Americans.  We had spent years fighting on and off wars against them.  The Census bureau estimated that 19,000 Americans were murdered by Indians.  If you are capable of empathy and can put yourselves in the shoes of an American in the early 19th century, and realize that Indians probably came second only to disease as your greatest fear, perhaps you would have not be so quick to just shout "racist!  he's a RACIST!  and you're a racist too!"
That aside, as Jim Webb points out, Andrew Jackson adopted and raised two Native American children.  If we use the convenient left-wing definition of racism as "doing things that disproportionately negatively affect a particular race" then that's a moot point.  But using the actual definition of racism -- hating a group purely for their race regardless of all other factors -- it's clear that Andrew Jackson was not a racist.  At the very least, it would be nice if we could at least stop calling the trail of tears a genocide, since it's pretty obvious that it was motivated by, at worst, an antagonistic view of the tribes as cultural units, and not a hatred of his children's people for their skin color or race.

Unfortunately, this is America, and most people will never take the time to think about this or understand it; instead, everyone is just mocking Jim Webb for being a racist old fool and defaulting to "Andrew Jackson was a racist, genocidal maniac, how did he ever make it on our currency in the first place?  We should punish him more, take down statues of him and stuff, rename Jacksonville.  Thank god we have come to our tolerant senses and replaced him with a minor African American folk hero."
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: April 27, 2016, 02:02:31 AM »

So was Jackson a racist?  The man owned slaves, but so did most of our founding fathers and virtually every wealthy landowner at the time.  Most people point to his attitude towards native americans as evidence of his racism.  But it's easy to stand on the sidelines today and say, oh you racist.  It's easy to forget that many native american groups were basically the al-Qaeda of their day, rampaging pioneer communities, committing mass killings and atrocities, and scaring the living daylights out of Americans.  We had spent years fighting on and off wars against them.  The Census bureau estimated that 19,000 Americans were murdered by Indians.  If you are capable of empathy and can put yourselves in the shoes of an American in the early 19th century, and realize that Indians probably came second only to disease as your greatest fear, perhaps you would have not be so quick to just shout "racist!  he's a RACIST!  and you're a racist too!"

I'm capable of empathy. We have Al-Quaeda today and yet a forced removal/ death march of all Muslims would obviously be racist. Plus, as many have pointed out, the trail of tears was already considered by many to be an atrocity in Jackson's time. The Supreme Court told him as much.

That aside, as Jim Webb points out, Andrew Jackson adopted and raised two Native American children.  If we use the convenient left-wing definition of racism as "doing things that disproportionately negatively affect a particular race" then that's a moot point.  But using the actual definition of racism -- hating a group purely for their race regardless of all other factors -- it's clear that Andrew Jackson was not a racist.  At the very least, it would be nice if we could at least stop calling the trail of tears a genocide, since it's pretty obvious that it was motivated by, at worst, an antagonistic view of the tribes as cultural units, and not a hatred of his children's people for their skin color or race.

Or you could use the actual actual definition of racism:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism?s=t
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't actually have to express hatred or anger at an entire group of people because of their skin color in order to be a racist. It is sufficient to believe that a group is inferior to your own race in some way or somehow subhuman or otherwise undeserving of the same basic rights and protections that your race gets because of their skin color. Obviously Jackson didn't believe Native Americans deserved the same basic human rights as white folk.

And why should we ever stop calling the trail of tears a genocide? It doesn't matter what the motivation was. An "antagonistic view" of a "cultural unit" does not give you the right to consign an entire people to death because of their skin color.
Logged
MK
Mike Keller
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,432
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: April 27, 2016, 04:25:42 AM »

Harriet Tubman should be on a coin possibly,but not replace Andrew Jackson on the 20$.   maybe even run a "limited" time only bill or something.   Another example of the left doing everything to dismantle American traditions.  Heck give it 50 years and Obama will be replacing Washington on the one dollar bill.
Logged
Higgs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,581


Political Matrix
E: 6.14, S: -4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: April 28, 2016, 05:08:36 PM »

Harriet Tubman should be on a coin possibly,but not replace Andrew Jackson on the 20$.   maybe even run a "limited" time only bill or something.   Another example of the left doing everything to dismantle American traditions.  Heck give it 50 years and Obama will be replacing Washington on the one dollar bill.

Changing whose face is on a bill is not "dismantling American traditions". Pull your head out of your a**.
Logged
This account no longer in use.
cxs018
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,282


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: April 28, 2016, 05:28:12 PM »

Harriet Tubman should be on a coin possibly,but not replace Andrew Jackson on the 20$.   maybe even run a "limited" time only bill or something.   Another example of the left doing everything to dismantle American traditions.  Heck give it 50 years and Obama will be replacing Washington on the one dollar bill.

I feel like, had you lived in the 1860s, you would have been angry at Lincoln for freeing the slaves and 'dismantling the status quo'.
Logged
dax00
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,422


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: April 29, 2016, 08:22:41 PM »

I'm with Lyin' Steve on this one.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: April 30, 2016, 12:43:01 AM »

Some pretty horrific views are being revealed in this thread, I see.
Logged
Rules for me, but not for thee
Dabeav
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,785
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.19, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: May 04, 2016, 01:06:40 AM »

Jackson hated central banking, so he never belonged on FRNs in the first place.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: May 04, 2016, 01:24:18 AM »

Harriet Tubman should be on a coin possibly,but not replace Andrew Jackson on the 20$.   maybe even run a "limited" time only bill or something.   Another example of the left doing everything to dismantle American traditions.  Heck give it 50 years and Obama will be replacing Washington on the one dollar bill.

Changing whose face is on a bill is not "dismantling American traditions". Pull your head out of your a**.

The real 'tradition' for American currency is of course allegorical and archetypal representations and ancient Roman gods. Using dead political figures at all is kind of crass if you really think about it.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: May 04, 2016, 03:11:57 AM »

Harriet Tubman should be on a coin possibly,but not replace Andrew Jackson on the 20$.   maybe even run a "limited" time only bill or something.   Another example of the left doing everything to dismantle American traditions.  Heck give it 50 years and Obama will be replacing Washington on the one dollar bill.

Man I wish Obama could be president 50 years from now.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: May 04, 2016, 08:55:58 AM »

That's not entirely accurate.  What I heard is that Jackson isn't being removed, but rather moved to the back of the bill.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: May 04, 2016, 10:02:45 AM »

Jackson hated central banking, so he never belonged on FRNs in the first place.

It's more important to look at WHY Jackson hated what he did rather than the specific things he hated.  In other words, Jackson did not have this principled attachment to small government that we for some reason attach to him.  It is pure coincidence (based on how developed our economy was/is, the global competition, etc.) that a centralized government/economy benefited American businesses back then and does not today.  Jackson was much more tied to his hatred of what was in essence the ancestor of trickle down economics than he was to his supposed love of states' rights and small government, and he'd be hootin' and hollerin' about saving the social safety net, rejecting free trade (an ideologically consistent yet "opposite" view from his actual stance in the 1800s), redistributing wealth and all that jazz today.

I digress.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: May 09, 2016, 07:56:48 PM »

You think Andrew Jackson caused that? I'm dying laughing...

Obviously not, although reading comprehension has never been a strong suit of yours so I see how you'd get that impression.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Suggesting something that had literally happened is possible is a "total misunderstanding of history?" Then I guess literally everything I knew about history has been wrong. Huh. TIL.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

See, I disagree, but that's only because I am not a white supremacist.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
You're not incorrect that these ideas have been pushed by the elite long before Jackson came around, and they were extraordinarily effective

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Well no sh**t
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: May 10, 2016, 05:34:28 AM »

That was such a weak response I'm not even doing the quote by quote thing. The working class can be horrible. Just get over it. Racism from America is often bottom up. Communism is a joke. All noble truths.
One of the most common rationalizations for members of the lower class to defend slavery was that it meant that someone was always ranked below them. For similar reasons, I enjoy having you on the forum.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: May 10, 2016, 05:33:41 PM »

?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.055 seconds with 12 queries.