Cite? I’d be very surprised if you could actually come up with a genuinely pro-Nazi comment by Gandhi.
Here’s a replacement Achilles’ heel for him, though (a new breakthrough in moral orthopedics :)). For much of his life, Gandhi subscribed to racist and “caste-ist” theories about how certain groups of people were just naturally more advanced and qualified for civilized existence. It wasn’t until his middle years that he renounced these ideas and became committed to radical egalitarianism and the abolition of all hereditary privileges.
I sometimes see $20 bills with INDIAN KILLER written across Jackson’s forehead. That seems fitting, though of course it’s totally illegal. He certainly did royally screw over the Cherokee, among many other tribes as part of his policy of “Indian removal,” and that alone makes me not want to see him on my currency.
Not necessarily. It’s only illegal to write on U.S. currency in a way that will render it “unfit for circulation”. So, for example, it would be illegal to use a magic marker to black out the serial numbers and denomination. Writing “Indian Killer” or “Happy Birthday, Billy” is probably allowed.
But Aeschines, none of Gandhi’s remarks quoted on your linked page actually have anything to do with Nazism per se, as they all date from before 1915 (except for the Autobiography quotes that express different views).
They are strongly racist, though. As I wrote above, during his early years Gandhi still subscribed to popular European theories about superior and inferior races. And he was quite a bit more uncritical about the British Empire and its role in the world than he later became.
The author of the linked page is simply using “Nazism” to equate to “racist oppression” in general, particularly that of the colonial British against the Africans. And the author seems to have some racism issues of his/her own to deal with:
:dubious:
Nah, I don’t buy it. He certainly could be wrong at times, though. But we still haven’t seen any actual evidence that he made any statements in support of the Nazis.
The Ukrainian 5-note has Bogdan Khmielnycki on it. His Cossack uprising against Poland in the 17th century slaughtered more than 50,000 Jews (who had been posted in Ukraine as employees of the Polish crown and were highly resented.)
Was this massacre wrong? Yes, I’d say. That didn’t stop Ukraine from putting its leader on their currency. He was a folk hero of the Ukrainian people. Even though they traded their Polish oppressors for Russian oppressors, they were free for a few glorious moments - so, predictably, they were willing to overlook the deaths of “a few Jews.”
Us overlooking the deaths of a “few Indians” is basically the same phenomenon.
“Southern Democrats” hadn’t even had time to become a faction yet since the Democratic Party was just forming. Jackson was a national hero, but probably a little less popular with Southerners than with citizens in the North. Jackson and the Yanks supported high tariffs and the Southerners didn’t. He was still considered the best option though. He was a very popular President. (In his second election he had 56 percent of the popular vote and five times as many electoral votes as his closest opponent.)
I’ve lived in Nashville for over forty years and have refused to visit his residence which is open to the public.
We look back at the way that Jackson was responsible for the deaths and mistreatment of so many American Indians and we are horrified that Jefferson and Washington had slaves. We think that we would never have a frame of mind that would allow us to treat anyone as less than fully human. But as I watched the President step from the plane here in Nashville yesterday, I was struck by the long line of men (white, I think) waiting to greet him at the foot of the steps. There must have been twelve or fifteen. The only woman was kept separate. She was selected to be there to receive an award for her volunteer work.
Until that airport line reflects the makeup of my community, I don’t think we have expanded our consciousness much beyond that of what Jefferson and Jackson accepted as normal.
I noticed that many countries put scientists, authors, poets, composers and artists on their currency, changing them every so often. Is a concept like that too wimpy for the United States?
I once went to Spain with a Mexican friend. His face fell when he saw whom the Spanish had put on the 100 peseta note (not sure that was the denomination): Hernan Cortez (a.k.a. Cortes). For most Mexicans, especially those of a leftist political bent or who are sympathetic toward the indigenous face of the nation, this was almost like putting Hitler on a currency. In any case, a real slap in the face on the part of the Spanish.
But Jackson’s “major impact on banking” was entirely negative. The Bank of the U.S. was later revived in the form of the Federal Reserve, which issues the notes in question.
Everyone in this thread is thinking too much in the twentieth century.
Jackson was put on US currency in the 1860’s. Grant appeared in 1886.
Jackson was almost certainly used because of his connection to the banking system. Other than some early presidents, the banknotes in the late 1800’s had portraits of Secretaries of the Treasury and people associated with the US monetary/banking system: Robert Morris, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Gallatin, Alexander Hamilton, etc.
Try NOT to put too much significance into what you think was political.
:eek: Why would anyone connected with the banking system want to put Jackson’s portrait on a note?! That’s like naming a synagogue after Hitler because of the important role he played in Jewish history!
Because when Jackson’s face first got on the bill, the economic orthodoxy was for hard money and for state banks. Bankers and economists at the time thought Jackson was good for American banking.
But Jackson’s “major impact on banking” was entirely negative. The Bank of the U.S. was later revived in the form of the Federal Reserve, which issues the notes in question.