I’d be fine with Tubman, but would prefer Sojourner Truth. Tubman *directly *helped more people, yes, but Truth *convinced *far more souls and was more of a leader.
I’d also rather see Bessie Coleman than Amelia Earhart. She overcame much more, in the same field.
And I’d rather see all the denominations opened to changes, or at least one of them. If there are 50 different quarters, why not 50 different twenties? Jackson does have to go, though, and Jefferson wasn’t really any better despite his gift of rhetoric.
Yes, that’s why I picked Truth. Along the same lines, how about Harriet Beecher Stowe. Isn’t she the one Abraham Lincoln referred to as “the little woman who started this big war”?
Of those 3 only Harriet Tubman can you say would be famous even if she had been a man. Rosa Parks was just an accident in history and E. Roosevelt would be nothing if she hadn’t been married to the president.
Amelia Earhart - she’s only famous because she was a woman making a long flight.
My choice - Maude from the old tv show. Then everyone can pull out a $20 and say “and then theirs Maude”.
Rosa Parks was not just some random person who happened to be arrested on a bus. She was an active member of the civil rights movement prior to her arrest.
I don’t know why you insist on calling Rosa Parks’ arrest an accident of history. She took a stand against oppression, do you think the protester who faced down Chinese tanks at Tianeman Square was just walking across the street when he happened to be photographed? I’ve noticed that a lot of dopers casually dismiss the accomplishments of women, as if being a black woman in the south in the fifties meant Rosa had it easy; she accomplished a lot through bravery and determination despite being a woman in an oppressive society, not because she was a woman.
Harriet Tubman was an incredibly brave woman who risked her life to free 80 people from slavery. However, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by the underground railroad and she is the only name we know. Others such as William Still were more instrumental in the Underground railroad and helped many more than Tubman. Other people on money such as Lincoln and Grant freed millions of slaves. Her popularity would just show how much lower the bar is for a woman.
Rosa Parks showed great bravery in volunteering to be the symbol of the bus boycott. But there were others much more important in the struggle and if she had not volunteered someone else would have and history would be pretty much unchanged.
Eleanor Roosevelt had the great fortune of marrying a great man when she was seventeen. As far as I can tell the most she contributed to his election was not divorcing him for his numerous infidelities. FDR is on the dime for helping to win the war and literally save the world from Hitler, that is an accomplishment. Marrying someone who would do that forty years later is just luck.
Well, Grant and Lincoln had the great fortune to be born white males in the 1800s, in retrospect Tubman probably should have had the forsight to do the same, she probably would have gone farther in poitics. BTW, she also is the first woman to have lead an armed raid during the civil war.
FDR, not only had the good fortune to be born white and male, but also into a prominent political family. So he, more than Eleanor, benefited by his familial ties. I’ll leave aside your assertion that FDR stopped hitler, the Red Army might disagree.
Harriet Tubman had been born with both legs, if she had not we probably would not have heard of her. If I had been born back then and had the powers of Superman, I would have flown around the south and personally ended slavery without the Civil War happening, maybe we should put me on the twenty.
Personally, I think we should honor people who have done great things regardless of whatever identity group they belong to and not treat it like a college application essay where the winner is whoever overcomes the most obstacles. Otherwise maybe we should put General Tom Thumb on the currency.
If the goal is to encourage people with no legs or of small stature to keep raising the bar, holding up the previous bar raisers seems reasonable.
There’s not much to be gained by saying, “Nya nya, you can’t be on the money till you’ve formed a new country with a new system of government and ran it for a few years.” If we demand equal output on the part of the nominees as the current people who are on the money, and further demand that those people are dead, then we won’t be able to put any women on the money for another hundred years. Assuming that people can be encouraged by stories of success, holding off on publishing those encouragements just delays progress. It’s basically a catch-22. We aren’t going to let you succeed until you have a history of success.
Well, we know one poster on this board who doesn’t believe that “behind every great man is a great woman.” You talk like they never interacted after their honeymoon!