Posted:
#51
Ah Ha !... Martin Luther King jr... like Harriet Tubman..a black Republican..
Who the F*%ck is Harriet Tubman?
Posted:
#52
Quote Originally Posted by JEFFMARKETCAP:
And now thishttps://www.washingtonexaminer.com/martin-luther-king-to-go-on-5-bill/article/2589082So now Abraham Lincoln will get booted for King? WOWIF anything, Kings should be on the 20. I understand that but this is just nuts
And now thishttps://www.washingtonexaminer.com/martin-luther-king-to-go-on-5-bill/article/2589082So now Abraham Lincoln will get booted for King? WOWIF anything, Kings should be on the 20. I understand that but this is just nuts
It's pure political correctness and laying on guilt on a race which at the time lacked perspective and control of events that led to slavery as an economic necessity (compediency). This is Obama's correcting social wrongs and perspectives.
Posted:
#55
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Watching this thread and the comments certain posters are making is truly sad and quite pathetic.
Watching this thread and the comments certain posters are making is truly sad and quite pathetic.
Why this took so long and that it is even worthy of debate is a joke.
I wouldn't be shocked if a few of those guys still dealt in confederate money
Posted:
#59
“It is unnecessary to diminish Jackson in order to honor Tubman,” Alexander said in a statement.
“Jackson was the first common man to be elected president. He fought to save the Union.”
I think this is the way some of the folks feel. Obviously, their sentiments are taken out of context and seen as bigoted, etc. This may be the case in a minority. But for most it is not. But there really is no way to express your feeling on this and say it without people jumping to that conclusion.
Of course, everyone of all walks respect her and want her to be honored. But is this the correct way is the question is all.
Near as I recall, the only set requirement is that 'In God We Trust' Must appear. I suspect soon there will be a push to get rid of this. So much of this is to be politically correct and to not 'offend' people --- when there is no obvious offense meant or even an unintended slight.
I realize people say we have a bunch of long-dead white guys on the currency. But we can't swerve the fact that those were the founders of the nation and the Chase's and Hamilton's, who weren't even presidents had great contributions as well. Certainly postal stamps are not the thing they once were. But maybe there are other ways of honoring our great ancestors, without making it look as though the ones currently on the bills were somehow not really as honorable as we once thought they were. For example, before the 'play' look at the huge push there was to displace Hamilton.
The suffrage push for the women to get on the bills is a big thing as well. While they are certainly very honorable women, should they displace others just so they can be honored? Hard to say---unless is it to be politically correct.
If this is the only way we can think of to honor our historically relevant figures---then maybe we could have a 5 or 10 year rotation of different figures.
But as currency may go the way of the postal stamp---where will the next push be to honor them?
Posted:
#62
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
“It is unnecessary to diminish Jackson in order to honor Tubman,” Alexander said in a statement.
“Jackson was the first common man to be elected president. He fought to save the Union.”
I think this is the way some of the folks feel. Obviously, their sentiments are taken out of context and seen as bigoted, etc. This may be the case in a minority. But for most it is not. But there really is no way to express your feeling on this and say it without people jumping to that conclusion.
Of course, everyone of all walks respect her and want her to be honored. But is this the correct way is the question is all.
Near as I recall, the only set requirement is that 'In God We Trust' Must appear. I suspect soon there will be a push to get rid of this. So much of this is to be politically correct and to not 'offend' people --- when there is no obvious offense meant or even an unintended slight.
I realize people say we have a bunch of long-dead white guys on the currency. But we can't swerve the fact that those were the founders of the nation and the Chase's and Hamilton's, who weren't even presidents had great contributions as well. Certainly postal stamps are not the thing they once were. But maybe there are other ways of honoring our great ancestors, without making it look as though the ones currently on the bills were somehow not really as honorable as we once thought they were. For example, before the 'play' look at the huge push there was to displace Hamilton.
The suffrage push for the women to get on the bills is a big thing as well. While they are certainly very honorable women, should they displace others just so they can be honored? Hard to say---unless is it to be politically correct.
If this is the only way we can think of to honor our historically relevant figures---then maybe we could have a 5 or 10 year rotation of different figures.
But as currency may go the way of the postal stamp---where will the next push be to honor them?
Actually, pretty well thought out post. Love them or question them in retrospect, most of our founding fathers, writers of the Constitution, were exactly that, racist bigoted male chauvinists. It does not mean we have to abandon the fact that they risked their lives for our country but it also does not mean we have to adopt their outdated way of thinking.
Posted:
#65
Harriet Tubman was an abolitionist. As was many in the underground railroad network. The movement was a great contributor to the Republican movement. But to me it's Pandora's box. What one administration does a precedent is set. The lack of cycling currency is the problem our money is worth face value if it was made today or made by the congenital Congress.. These bills will be legal tender till USA doesn't exist. Now we will have small head Jackson's large head Jackson new Jackson's and tubmans all in current exchanged currency. The next president and treasurer can and will start making changes.
All to begin the vast confusion in currency.
I not sure where it all ends but it will continue till a law is written to suggest this be a cycle for twenty years. Grants 50 will be next do we put Jackson on the fifty to appease the removal from the twenty and the South's hates Grant....
It's heading for continued manipulations of common sense of belief. Do we remove the all seeing eye over the great pyramid for the Masonic exclusion of so many wanna be Masons. They could be considered races. For only allowing good people who believe in a god...what about the atheists belief belief.... But personally I don't really care what is legal tender as long as the bank makes it available for all debts public or private.
Posted:
#66
We are headed to a paperless currency. When that happens we become completely vulnerable to the inevitable crash of computers. Then what.... Nothing hard copied paper to resort to.... The largest security threat the USA faces is cyber AI bots. This targets banking interests daily. It is only a matter of time before it penetrates and disrupts digital currency in....
Posted:
#68
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Actually, pretty well thought out post. Love them or question them in retrospect, most of our founding fathers, writers of the Constitution, were exactly that, racist bigoted male chauvinists. It does not mean we have to abandon the fact that they risked their lives for our country but it also does not mean we have to adopt their outdated way of thinking.
I never liked Jackson for a variety of reasons (1--deliberately ordered the massacre of "savages" including women and children; 2--he did so as a devout Christian who went with a Bible everywhere, including to the toilet)
But no-one can question his loyalty to the nation, nor his bravery. Monuments and legacies are meant to change.
The people who lived during the time were incapable of stopping the racist genocide, nor the spread of slavery. Their own lives were difficult, communication and keeping aware of what was going on was difficult, plus they lacked perspective and insight to know what they were doing.
The founding fathers were near sighted, and could not see the value in the different races, because of xenophobia. They could not live like the savages (Native Americans) or the negroe slaves (African Americans), so instead of merging with them, educating them, dedicating resources to try live in harmony, etc., they killed them or persecuted them as policy. Besides being xenophobic and leading these myopic cultural wars of aggression, they left out women entirely from the founding of the country. As christians, they mistrusted women, as they were "too easily tempted by Satan, just as Eve was easily tempted..."
So for these reasons, they are not the heroes we thought that transcended time.
I think it is appropriate to put both African Americans and Native Americans on our currencies, TOGETHER with these founding greats, as reminders that all peoples contributed.
My intent in starting the post was to create thought, not controversy. Just thought.
Posted:
#69
Quote Originally Posted by Relax_Dude:
I never liked Jackson for a variety of reasons (1--deliberately ordered the massacre of "savages" including women and children; 2--he did so as a devout Christian who went with a Bible everywhere, including to the toilet)
But no-one can question his loyalty to the nation, nor his bravery. Monuments and legacies are meant to change.
The people who lived during the time were incapable of stopping the racist genocide, nor the spread of slavery. Their own lives were difficult, communication and keeping aware of what was going on was difficult, plus they lacked perspective and insight to know what they were doing.
The founding fathers were near sighted, and could not see the value in the different races, because of xenophobia. They could not live like the savages (Native Americans) or the negroe slaves (African Americans), so instead of merging with them, educating them, dedicating resources to try live in harmony, etc., they killed them or persecuted them as policy. Besides being xenophobic and leading these myopic cultural wars of aggression, they left out women entirely from the founding of the country. As christians, they mistrusted women, as they were "too easily tempted by Satan, just as Eve was easily tempted..."
So for these reasons, they are not the heroes we thought that transcended time.
I think it is appropriate to put both African Americans and Native Americans on our currencies, TOGETHER with these founding greats, as reminders that all peoples contributed.
My intent in starting the post was to create thought, not controversy. Just thought.
Great post.
There is a great article (I cannot remember the author) who argued that if we had shown mercy to the Indians or never had slavery, we would not be the America we know today. It similarly argues that if Hitler never rose to power, communism would have spread throughout Europe and eventually, the world.
In other words, many of the evils we have known throughout history have created many of the positives we know today. Its the kind of theories that make you sick when nodding in agreement.
Posted:
#71
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
“It is unnecessary to diminish Jackson in order to honor Tubman,” Alexander said in a statement.
“Jackson was the first common man to be elected president. He fought to save the Union.”
I think this is the way some of the folks feel. Obviously, their sentiments are taken out of context and seen as bigoted, etc. This may be the case in a minority. But for most it is not. But there really is no way to express your feeling on this and say it without people jumping to that conclusion.
Of course, everyone of all walks respect her and want her to be honored. But is this the correct way is the question is all.
Near as I recall, the only set requirement is that 'In God We Trust' Must appear. I suspect soon there will be a push to get rid of this. So much of this is to be politically correct and to not 'offend' people --- when there is no obvious offense meant or even an unintended slight.
I realize people say we have a bunch of long-dead white guys on the currency. But we can't swerve the fact that those were the founders of the nation and the Chase's and Hamilton's, who weren't even presidents had great contributions as well. Certainly postal stamps are not the thing they once were. But maybe there are other ways of honoring our great ancestors, without making it look as though the ones currently on the bills were somehow not really as honorable as we once thought they were. For example, before the 'play' look at the huge push there was to displace Hamilton.
The suffrage push for the women to get on the bills is a big thing as well. While they are certainly very honorable women, should they displace others just so they can be honored? Hard to say---unless is it to be politically correct.
If this is the only way we can think of to honor our historically relevant figures---then maybe we could have a 5 or 10 year rotation of different figures.
But as currency may go the way of the postal stamp---where will the next push be to honor them?
Would you mind doing some research before making such statement ?
Harriet Tubman was an American abolitionist, humanitarian, and an armed scout and spy for the United States Army during the American Civil War.
An escaped slave spying for the Union . Do you have any idea how brave that woman was and how dangerous her job was ?
Jackson was a slave-owner president. Andrew Jackson owned slaves who worked on his farm at the Hermitage and at his plantations in other states. At one time he owned more than 150 people.
Posted:
#73
Quote Originally Posted by ilsp2003:
Would you mind doing some research before making such statement ?
Harriet Tubman was an American abolitionist, humanitarian, and an armed scout and spy for the United States Army during the American Civil War.
An escaped slave spying for the Union . Do you have any idea how brave that woman was and how dangerous her job was ?
Jackson was a slave-owner president. Andrew Jackson owned slaves who worked on his farm at the Hermitage and at his plantations in other states. At one time he owned more than 150 people.
"before making such statement"
should read
"Before posting such statement"
Sorry
Posted:
#74
Quote Originally Posted by ilsp2003:
Would you mind doing some research before making such statement ?
Harriet Tubman was an American abolitionist, humanitarian, and an armed scout and spy for the United States Army during the American Civil War.
An escaped slave spying for the Union . Do you have any idea how brave that woman was and how dangerous her job was ?
Jackson was a slave-owner president. Andrew Jackson owned slaves who worked on his farm at the Hermitage and at his plantations in other states. At one time he owned more than 150 people.
As someone who has spent a lifetime studying history, as well as having taught some --- it always boggles my mind the things people elect to remember about a person or an event from history.
What exactly do you have a problem with in the guy's statement? He didn't state anything that was incorrect. Mostly just his opinion that there was no need to honor Tubman by diminishing Jackson. He didn't say Tubman wasn't relevant historically, he didn't say she didn't deserve to be honored, and he didn't slight the danger and bravery of her acts. He also didn't say there weren't some flaws with Jackson. Obviously, everyone has flaws. Tubman and Jackson both did. That wasn't his point.
Centaur points some of this out about Jackson and Tubman in his response on the other thread.
Find it somewhat amusing here that the Liberals are the ones knocking Jackson and the Right defending him. After all, Jackson was the original Democrat.
But I suggest you study the history of Jackson and understand the perspective of the decisions that he made that you don't seem to agree with now. It is so easy to sit back a couple of hundred years later and critique a person's actions. No president, politician, military officer, or statesman ever makes all the right decisions---especially when being Monday morning quarterbacked from a couple of centuries distance away.
Again, his point is there are ways to honor Tubman (and many, many others) without diminishing other people that are already being honored. Very simple concept.
Posted:
#75
Our country was founded on an act of treason. Our founders were educated mostly Masons business men. As well as a few soldiers.
They were smugglers deemed traitors by the crown of England. Those men that signed the declaration of Independence were signing their death sentences. Jackson stand at battle of new Orleans happened after the war was over byna few days.the war of 1812.
Slavery was here in the United states and if found helping a slave escape was delt as if given a horse thief .the institution was an ugly affair.till a war between the states settled the matter.
Tubman Harriet Beecher stow Derrick Douglass all played a role. In invoking a shameful light to property holders in human flesh. But it was the poor dream to own a slave in the South. Very few citizens actually did. The North did things other ways and the poor man's dream was to own property of real estate. Hence the opportunity to migrate West....we fought the war slaves were freed.but now somehow we can't let it go someway I'm responsible for being white man in America for a southern gentlemen owning slaves 150 years ago.
Hot Forum Topics
