And for those who don’t know who Harriet Tubman is:
I see no reason to waste money changing the existing situation.
$20 bills? Do people still use those?
In town.
Andrew Jackson is one this message board’s favorite historical villains. His demotion is entirely proper. I’m wondering about who his constituency is.
I was so hoping they wouldn’t pick a black woman. Not that Tubman wasn’t a hero, but because now they can say “we already have a black person on our money, no need for Obama or MLK” - “we already have a woman on our money - why bother with Sandra Day O’Connor or Eleanor Roosevelt.” “We already have a minority on our money - what are you whining about, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans?” “See, we are diverse” - all in one shot.
Good choice.
I guess Bo and Luke Duke are going to have to rename their car yet again.
Our currency is being changed all the time, primarily to enhance the anti-counter fitting measures in the case of bills. Most of our coins have changed over the last few years for fairly mundane reasons. I think it will be nice to see this important historical figure on the $20. As far as cost, I would guess that a mere picture change costs much less than what is wasted on producing pennies and dollar bills.
Do people use ATMs? Pretty much every ATM I’ve used in the last decade has given out multiples of $20. My bank drive through also give out primarily $20s.
It’s the General Lee.
And the car makes a whooshing sound. The word yet is critical here.
There had been an announcement that a woman was going to appear on some $10 bills along with Hamilton on others. Now it turns out that it will instead be Jackson being removed from the $20 bill. He will be replaced by Harriet Tubman. I think this is a better decision than having two different versions of the $10 bill. Jackson seems like a good choice for removal given his treatment of Native Americans. What do you all think?
Existing thread:
I’d have replaced Jackson with the Cherokee chief John Ross just to piss on his strawberries even more, but that’s just me. Harriet Tubman’s a good choice though.
If I had to guess, I’d say that $20 bills are the most ubiquitous paper currency in the US after $1 bills due to the fact that they are dispensed in every ATM I’ve ever seen.
I live in Andrew Jackson territory. I drive through the towns of Old Hickory (his nickname) and Hermitage (his home) on my way to work every day. Part of that route is also along the Trail of Tears, his most shameful legacy.
In general, I’m not keen about erasing historical figures from places of honor based on 21st century sensibilities. I wouldn’t want to rename those towns, for example, or nearby Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park (aka “Forrest forest”). However – Tubman is an excellent choice for recognition, and the Treasury can’t exactly go around making up new denominations for bills (“Hey everyone! Here’s the new Tubman $25 bill!”). So I think this is a good approach.
I’m a little wary of a whole “set of changes” – let’s not get crazy with changing all our money multiple times. I don’t want the Tubman Twenty changed in five years to someone else. Let’s show a little restraint.
If we’re going with anyone who is not a President or founding father, then I suppose Tubman is as good a choice as any. The problem is that opening up the field this wide is going to devalue being on the currency, to me at least. It’s one thing to pick the best choice out of 100 eligible candidates and something else to pick the best choice out of 100 million. No matter who you pick, they’ll have some flaw or fail to represent some demographic so that no consensus can ever be built around that choice.
Removing Jackson is a non-issue for me. I don’t hold his failings against him, and would tend to prefer keeping him there because I don’t like any change to currency… but even restricting the field to Presidents and founding fathers, there are plenty of unquestionably better choices than Jackson.
They’re the default in ATMs, so yes. I think all and all, this change is a mistake, but it’s probably inevitable, given that Jackson has become the scapegoat for 150 years of US Indian policy.
Oh boy, conservatives are not going to like this. I don’t know why, and I haven’t yet heard any complaining, but it’s got to be coming.
Dude had a fine head of hair, got to give him that.
I’m good with this change. Tubman seems like a good choice, but what’s with keeping Jackson on the back? We don’t put portraits on the back of our money. An underground railroad safehouse would be a better choice, keeping with displaying buildings on the back of bills and the abolitionist theme.