Harriet Tubman to be the new face of the $20 bill

[Anonymous]

The Post had this badass portrait of her in today's paper. I think they should go with this image...the 2nd Amendment fans would be appeased

[Anonymous]

Nah this the image they should go with.
Straight gangster.

[Anonymous]

before this announcement, the majority of you werent gazing at your money and thinking of the historical significance of the people on the bill. if you didnt care then, dont care now. keep moving on with your life. the money wont be devalued because tubman is on it. and if your concern that little johnny or jane have to ask you why they put a dark/black woman on money, you dont have to worry about that either since they change will be made in 2030 when your child is an adult and hopefully wont be asking for the good ole days of small bills and white men on money before they were even born.

for others who want to find some significance in this honor, they will do so accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You didn't know either without looking at her wiki page. Did you know she was with the Republican Party and Jackson a democrat?

Very few blacks were Democrats during that time period, as Democrats were the party of the South and slaveholding (hence, Jackson).

That modern day conservatives and Republicans continue to parrot this line, as if it has some relevance to today's politics, is astounding to me. We get it, we all passed 5th grade history. Sean Hannity is the worst at this, ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The Post had this badass portrait of her in today's paper. I think they should go with this image...the 2nd Amendment fans would be appeased

Seriously badass. I love it.

[Anonymous]

I think Tubman is a fine choice and people are trying to play word games by saying that taking somebody off of our money is trying to erase history. I don't believe that intellectually feel that way or that they are being honest. They're just trying to be clever, but failing miserably

But really, I think Europe has it right. Or most of Europe. Put architecture all over the money instead of faces and none of these issues are even relevant then

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny seeing all these people saying yes, yes, yes to this. Most of you haven't heard of her before today. She might have been a great person and all but that fact is this just political correctness because of sex and skin color. Once again everyone's afraid to say it.

Political correctness 100%. I am a minority but I want to see one of the greatest scientists on the bill regardless of skin color and gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny seeing all these people saying yes, yes, yes to this. Most of you haven't heard of her before today. She might have been a great person and all but that fact is this just political correctness because of sex and skin color. Once again everyone's afraid to say it.

Political correctness 100%. I am a minority but I want to see one of the greatest scientists on the bill regardless of skin color and gender.

"The decision to put Harriet Tubman on the new $20 was driven by thousands of responses we received from Americans young and old. I have been particularly struck by the many comments and reactions from children for whom Harriet Tubman is not just a historical figure, but a role model for leadership and participation in our democracy. You shared your thoughts about her life and her works and how they changed our nation and represented our most cherished values."

Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew makes it sound like political correctness didn't have shit to do with it - but instead the feedback of thousands of Americans, particularly children who aren't bigoted stubborn and set in their ways like some people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Obama thinks platitudes like this will raise his popularity. It will - with those who don't think things through and simply react to how it feels.

I think Tubman deserves honoring, but not at the expense of another individual. In fact, re-writing history like this is foolish. As a Jew, I don't want Hitler forgotten - I want his photo everywhere. I want youth to know who he was and what happened, as if they don't, his evil deeds will be minimized and they WILL occur again. Liberals wanting all visual signs of slave-owners purged in the name of feeling good are risking youth not caring that slavery occurred at all. What, you say? They will teach it in the schools? It will mean NOTHING to these kids - they are simply too far away from it.

Being offended is a very, VERY important life-lesson. If you've never been offended or been faced with something offensive, you have no idea how NOT to offend others.

(Also a Jew) But would you really want Hitler to be prominently featured on the most popular bill in the treasury? One you'd get several of every time you go to the ATM? One you'd handle every day of your life? I sure wouldn't. I want the face of my country represented, with people who changed history and laws in our country for the better. Of course that includes our founding fathers. But it also includes many, many women and people of color who aren't taught about as much in school.

FWIW, I'm a raging liberal, and I think the expunging of the names of slave owners and other people who have questionable history (beyond the good they did for our country) is ridiculous. And Alexander Hamilton, who was saved from being taken off of the $10, was a slave owner.

Yes, I do. Why? Because look what happened with September 11th. What happened was not forgotten, but WHY has been whitewashed to the point where it's now OUR fault, according to liberals. WE provoked it. So yes, I want Hitler in everyone's face, ALL THE TIME.

King George III would the be the more appropriate person to put on our currency then...or maybe Benedict Arnold, Jefferson Davis, Osama Bin Laden, and Robert E. Lee (a lot of people would love the latter).

Unfortunately, I think yours is the minority opinion here.

[Anonymous]

It should have been Clara Barton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It should have been Clara Barton.

In March 2015, the organization Women on 20's began asking the public to vote for top female candidates to replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Among the 15 women included in the vote were Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt, Clara Barton, and Harriet Tubman. In May it was revealed that Tubman edged out Roosevelt with almost 34% of the vote.
Sorry...Clara didn't get the votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew makes it sound like political correctness didn't have shit to do with it - but instead the feedback of thousands of Americans, particularly children who aren't bigoted stubborn and set in their ways like some people.

Well one could make the argument that Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew was being politically correct in his announcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew makes it sound like political correctness didn't have shit to do with it - but instead the feedback of thousands of Americans, particularly children who aren't bigoted stubborn and set in their ways like some people.

Well one could make the argument that Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew was being politically correct in his announcement.

Thomas Garrett (1789 – 1871) was a Quaker and abolitionist and leader in the Underground Railroad movement, he said of Harriet Tubman, “If she had been a white woman, she would have been heralded as the greatest woman of her age.”
Was he being politically correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should have been Clara Barton.

In March 2015, the organization Women on 20's began asking the public to vote for top female candidates to replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Among the 15 women included in the vote were Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt, Clara Barton, and Harriet Tubman. In May it was revealed that Tubman edged out Roosevelt with almost 34% of the vote.
Sorry...Clara didn't get the votes.

Harriet Tubman is a much better choice than Rosa Parks. I respect what Rosa Parks did and her courage, but not getting out of a bus seat hardly compares to saving hundreds of people from slavery. I have always found Parks' historical significance to be a little overblown. As for Eleanor Roosevelt and Barton, they would have made fine choices too. Both did a lot to improve the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should have been Clara Barton.

In March 2015, the organization Women on 20's began asking the public to vote for top female candidates to replace President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Among the 15 women included in the vote were Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt, Clara Barton, and Harriet Tubman. In May it was revealed that Tubman edged out Roosevelt with almost 34% of the vote.
Sorry...Clara didn't get the votes.

Harriet Tubman is a much better choice than Rosa Parks. I respect what Rosa Parks did and her courage, but not getting out of a bus seat hardly compares to saving hundreds of people from slavery. I have always found Parks' historical significance to be a little overblown. As for Eleanor Roosevelt and Barton, they would have made fine choices too. Both did a lot to improve the world.

I think you should learn more about Rosa Parks. She did a lot more than just refuse to get out of her seat. Her resistance was very intentional in order to force a court battle. And she did it at a time when she was risking physical harm to herself. Her symbolic image has painted her as just a tired old lady, but she was anything but.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosa_Parks