Poll of the Day > Biden Administration to revisit plan of putting Tubman on $20...

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/News/biden-administration-plans-speed-effort-put-harriet-tubman/story?id=75490001

But some Black 'critics' (besides the White/MAGA ones) are against it...



Would you like to see Tubman replace Jackson on the US $20 Bill? (Poll Question)

I have no feelings either way tbh

---

Paper money is already more or less archaic so it's a purely symbolic move that a lot of people wouldn't even notice. I can't remember the last time I had cash in my wallet.

I have no issue with it symbolically. I just don't think it matters. It'd be like putting a feminist icon on a stamp. Who really cares at the end of the day and what does it change

---

man101 posted...

Paper money is already more or less archaic so it's a purely symbolic move that a lot of people wouldn't even notice. I can't remember the last time I had cash in my wallet.

I have no issue with it symbolically. I just don't think it matters. It'd be like putting a feminist icon on a stamp. Who really cares at the end of the day and what does it change

This is how I feel.

---

Yes, Jackson is the 2nd worst president ever (someone had to go and steal the crown....) and never wanted to be on money anyway.
Tubman is a great choice if you want a woman and/or non-white person chosen, since she's genuinely heroic and risked her life to help free slaves.

rexcrk posted...

I have no feelings either way tbh

This. It would be nice, but I don't feel that it's necessary.

---

They just don't make money like they used to.



---

I dont see any downsides to it

Why not put MLK Jr on our money though?

---

rexcrk posted...

I have no feelings either way tbh

Ugly.

---

Veedrock- posted...

Ugly.

um, have you ever looked at Andrew "living zombie" Jackson?

---

Sure, go for it.

The only change I would NOT be in favor of is altering the $1 bill in any way. There is a reason it is my favorite denomination by far: you can find oldies at a much higher pace because every series sicne 1963 has looked virtually identical outside of the signatures.

You want to put Tubman on a $20? That's great.

So, if Tubman does go on the $20, we will have not only our first bill with two women on it(rather than one), but three.

Treasurer(has been female since 1949 and I don't see this changing now)
Secretary of treasury(Janet Yellen confirmed)
figure(Tubman)

So, this is something kinda neat.

Jackson is the guy who committed genocide against native americans right?

man101 posted...

Paper money is already more or less archaic so it's a purely symbolic move that a lot of people wouldn't even notice.

Tons of people still use cash, even if you don't.

If anything, the people most likely to still be using cash are also the ones most likely to be annoyed by the change.



man101 posted...

It'd be like putting a feminist icon on a stamp.

The difference is, you can always choose which stamp you want.

If you go to the Post Office and ask to buy stamps, they'll usually give you a selection of at least 3-4 different options... the US flag is generally default, they'll often have holiday themed stamps at certain times of year (so maybe a stamp with holly on it around Christmas), sometimes they have "icon" stamps for honoring people (whether feminist icons or political figures or famous musicians or whatever), and sometimes they have other commemorative stamps (like, say, having a stamp with a lunar lander on it to represent the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing).

So if, say, I'm filled with rage about anything involving Christmas, I can ask for something other than Christmas-themed stamps if I buy them. I'm given a choice.

If they officially change who is on the $20, no matter who or what they put on it, people really don't have much choice (other than to not use cash at all) as to which bills they're getting or using. They're stuck taking what they're given.

Personally, I think they should drop the "honor" aspect entirely (because in our current outrage society, no matter WHO they choose to put on a bill, it's going to annoy someone, because literally no politician, public figure, or celebrity we've ever had in this country is completely pure and free from controversy or "problematic" actions). We should just go the Euro route and have the money be mostly symbolism and buildings or eagles or whatever, with no people at all.
---

Bring back the naked angel lady. Make USD great again. (and let plebs actually own precious metals).

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If they officially change who is on the $20, no matter who or what they put on it, people really don't have much choice (other than to not use cash at all) as to which bills they're getting or using. They're stuck taking what they're given.

Its been that way all along and its been ok

---

NeoSioType posted...

Bring back the naked angel lady. Make USD great again. (and let plebs actually own precious metals).

Yeah, I agree.
I'd rather have naked angel lady than some real person's face.
That design was awesome!

Mead posted...

Its been that way all along and its been ok

Yup. If I had a choice to not have Jackson on my money, I would've taken that option long ago.

In Canada they end up changing every 5-10 years. Just roll with it. Maybe Koby will be on a bill in 20 years.

---

streamofthesky posted...

Yes, Jackson is the 2nd worst president ever (someone had to go and steal the crown....) and never wanted to be on money anyway.
Tubman is a great choice if you want a woman and/or non-white person chosen, since she's genuinely heroic and risked her life to help free slaves.

but also this.

---

Does Tubman want to be on 20 dollars. Seems offensive to Arv

---

ArvTheGreat posted...

Does Tubman want to be on 20 dollars. Seems offensive to Arv

I think it is more to f over Jackson if anything. Not only are we going to take you off the twenty because you are not usd material, but we are going to replace you with this hideous looking black lady to add insult to injury. Take that you vile racist.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Tons of people still use cash, even if you don't.

If anything, the people most likely to still be using cash are also the ones most likely to be annoyed by the change.

The difference is, you can always choose which stamp you want.

If you go to the Post Office and ask to buy stamps, they'll usually give you a selection of at least 3-4 different options... the US flag is generally default, they'll often have holiday themed stamps at certain times of year (so maybe a stamp with holly on it around Christmas), sometimes they have "icon" stamps for honoring people (whether feminist icons or political figures or famous musicians or whatever), and sometimes they have other commemorative stamps (like, say, having a stamp with a lunar lander on it to represent the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing).

So if, say, I'm filled with rage about anything involving Christmas, I can ask for something other than Christmas-themed stamps if I buy them. I'm given a choice.

If they officially change who is on the $20, no matter who or what they put on it, people really don't have much choice (other than to not use cash at all) as to which bills they're getting or using. They're stuck taking what they're given.

Personally, I think they should drop the "honor" aspect entirely (because in our current outrage society, no matter WHO they choose to put on a bill, it's going to annoy someone, because literally no politician, public figure, or celebrity we've ever had in this country is completely pure and free from controversy or "problematic" actions). We should just go the Euro route and have the money be mostly symbolism and buildings or eagles or whatever, with no people at all.

I don't disagree with any of this either.

Money is numbers. Make the physical representation of money also have numbers. We don't need people on money.

---

They should add faces to digital transactions as well, so as to make capitalism a more patriotic activity.

Like every time you spend $20 on Amazon your PC automatically downloads a picture of Harriet Tubman and emails it to all your friends.

---

Mead posted...

Its been that way all along and its been ok

"ok" is kind of a misleading statement, considering the whole reason we're talking about replacing Jackson on the $20 in the first place is because people are annoyed by it.

The main reason why there hasn't been a stronger push against it is mostly just because social inertia works to support it (ie, he's been on the money for our entire lifetime, so we're used to it and it seems like "tradition"). But the moment you change it - no matter who you put on the new bill - that's the point where social inertia starts working against you instead of supporting the status quo.

Sure, we probably won't have anyone inciting violent protest over it (though considering the last year as a whole, who knows?), but it doesn't mean people won't have issues with it.

Basically, it kind of comes down to the fact that we shouldn't be politicizing money in the first place.
---

It's a shitty virtue-signal that was a terrible idea then, and a terrible idea now. I can understand putting founders and past presidents on currency, but Harriet Tubman gets to the point of just putting anybody on money.

If people are somehow triggered by Andrew Jackson, I'm not opposed to putting somebody else on the bill, but it should be somebody of significance to our nation, like James Madison or James Monroe. Or if you want to be trendy, Teddy Roosevelt.

streamofthesky posted...

Yes, Jackson is the 2nd worst president ever (someone had to go and steal the crown....) and never wanted to be on money anyway.

I'm not sure he'd crack the bottom five, considering you have the likes of LBJ, Carter, there. It's also pretty hilarious that you somehow put Trump as worse than either Obama or GWB, unless you're referencing either Obama or GWB where I'm still not sure they'd crack the bottom five either.

man101 posted...

Paper money is already more or less archaic so it's a purely symbolic move that a lot of people wouldn't even notice. I can't remember the last time I had cash in my wallet.

lolwut? Imagine claiming that something used by 71% of the population on a weekly basis is archaic.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/12/more-americans-are-making-no-weekly-purchases-with-cash/

man101 posted...

It'd be like putting a feminist icon on a stamp. Who really cares at the end of the day and what does it change

It's nothing like putting a feminist icon on a stamp. Consider the fact that even Mickey Mouse is on a stamp:
https://www.disneydreamer.com/u-s-postal-service-honors-mickey-mouse-and-friends-on-stamps/

Stamps don't carry the significance or weight of fiat currency.

streamofthesky posted...

Tubman is a great choice if you want a woman and/or non-white person chosen, since she's genuinely heroic and risked her life to help free slaves.

She's a mediocre choice because you're simply looking at good deeds rather than political significance. Currency should be reserved for America's founders and leaders. I know that historically the US hasn't had much in the way of minority representation in positions of leadership, but that doesn't justify abandoning reasonable criteria simply for representation.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

If anything, the people most likely to still be using cash are also the ones most likely to be annoyed by the change.

This.

---

Malcolm X or MLK would be better. Nobody wants Harriet Tubman on the fucking 20$. This is just another tactic from the left to piss off the centrist and conservative people.

streamofthesky posted...

Yes, Jackson is the 2nd worst president ever (someone had to go and steal the crown....) and never wanted to be on money anyway.
Tubman is a great choice if you want a woman and/or non-white person chosen, since she's genuinely heroic and risked her life to help free slaves.

This.

---

Should be JFK or Teddy tbh

---

Pretty sure its all a PR stunt. I'd rather MLK be on there if they wanna do that though.

---

DANTE20XX posted...

Pretty sure its all a PR stunt.

meaning what exactly

---

My question is; why the 20? The 1 and 5 are pretty obvious as to why they're not being changed but why not the $10 (Hamilton)? What about the $2 or the $50? I mean I guess Jefferson and Grant might be a bit disrespectful... But it seems weird that they went right for the $20.

Also, you're only partially correct about the design thing. They do offer bills with things like Santa on them that do pass as being real tender; but they're rare and you generally have to specifically ASK for them/buy them instead of just getting them from a bank.

---

Unbridled9 posted...

My question is; why the 20? The 1 and 5 are pretty obvious as to why they're not being changed but why not the $10 (Hamilton)? What about the $2 or the $50? I mean I guess Jefferson and Grant might be a bit disrespectful... But it seems weird that they went right for the $20.

Also, you're only partially correct about the design thing. They do offer bills with things like Santa on them that do pass as being real tender; but they're rare and you generally have to specifically ASK for them/buy them instead of just getting them from a bank.

Because the trail of tears

---

Unbridled9 posted...

My question is; why the 20? The 1 and 5 are pretty obvious as to why they're not being changed but why not the $10 (Hamilton)? What about the $2 or the $50? I mean I guess Jefferson and Grant might be a bit disrespectful... But it seems weird that they went right for the $20.

$10 bills arent used nearly as much

and Andrew Jackson was a piece of shit so

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

They should add faces to digital transactions as well, so as to make capitalism a more patriotic activity.

Like every time you spend $20 on Amazon your PC automatically downloads a picture of Harriet Tubman and emails it to all your friends.

I think it should print off a picture as receipt that you need to sign.

This administration is perfectly capable of addressing multiple issues in parallel.

This is cool. Happy.

---

Yeah but who owns a printer except the bourgeoisie

---

AC_Dragonfire posted...

Malcolm X or MLK would be better. Nobody wants Harriet Tubman on the fucking 20$. This is just another tactic from the left to piss off the centrist and conservative people.

Plenty of people would not be ok with Malcom X on their money, including some people on the left. And why would the left want to piss off centrists? They literally cant do anything without their support

Its hard to know where to even focus on how dumb of a post you made

---

Zeus posted...

She's a mediocre choice because you're simply looking at good deeds rather than political significance.

Oh yes her being a symbol and HEROIC driving force for freedom from slavery is just "good deeds" and not at all significant wtf.

---

grimhilde00 posted...

Oh yes her being a symbol and HEROIC driving force for freedom from slavery is just "good deeds" and not at all significant wtf.

He prefers to celebrate the trail of tears. It's Zeus.

The thing is, for a lot of currency history we've just had generic "lady liberty" figures on money, we've also had Susan B Anthony and Sacagawea on dollar coins and other things.

People say it can't be done or shouldn't be done but it's already been done, sooooooo

MLK deserves it more.

---

tubman is rolling over in her grave

---

Kanye West needs to be on the $100.


---

They complained and got Aunt Jemima taken off the syrup brand but theyre okay with Tubman on the 20.

---

FarmDog posted...

They complained and got Aunt Jemima taken off the syrup brand but theyre okay with Tubman on the 20.

Who?

---

NeoSioType posted...

and let plebs actually own precious metals

...there's not one single thing stopping you from buying silver/gold

---

FarmDog posted...

They complained and got Aunt Jemima taken off the syrup brand but theyre okay with Tubman on the 20.

trying to compare the aunt jemima situation with harriet tubman is ridiculous.

one was a mascot with racist undertones, the other is a real person who was a legitimate hero against racism.

grimhilde00 posted...

Oh yes her being a symbol and HEROIC driving force for freedom from slavery is just "good deeds" and not at all significant wtf.

she wasn't a politician though, and only those people are allowed to be on anything, didn't you know?

---

FarmDog posted...

They complained and got Aunt Jemima taken off the syrup brand but theyre okay with Tubman on the 20.

---

I guess that was a bad joke lol

---