I thought this was cool..

[Jiren]

You must be registered for see links

Black people rejoice.

WASHINGTON — The Treasury Department will announce on Wednesday afternoon that Harriet Tubman, an African-American who ferried thousands of slaves to freedom, will replace the slaveholding Andrew Jackson on the center of a new $20 note, according to a Treasury official, while newly popular Alexander Hamilton will remain on the face of the $10 bill.

 

[Akаsh]

pretty cool indeed.

 

[Claymantan]

Yeah this is actually pretty awesome. Andrew Jackson didn't belong on there anyways, there were plenty of better presidential candidates even XD

 

[Risuna23]

Pretty awesome

 

[The Great Second Hokage]

Of all the people to be on a dollar bill that racist old man should have been the last candidate they chose....I commend this selection.

 

[Claymantan]

Of all the people to be on a dollar bill that racist old man should have been the last candidate they chose....I commend this selection.

This coming from Tobirama tho XD

 

[Jiren]

Of all the people to be on a dollar bill that racist old man should have been the last candidate they chose....I commend this selection.

On a good note in the article they said other females and civil rights leaders are going to be part of the new currency designs.

 

[Claymantan]

On a good note in the article they said other females and civil rights leaders are going to be part of the new currency designs.

Man in the article it says people wanted it to be AHamilton because of the play being successful XD

 

[Jiren]

Man in the article it says people wanted it to be AHamilton because of the play being successful XD

Americans once again showing off they have their priorities worked out. :bdpf:

 

[Bling Kai]

Eh not that big a deal me.

 

[chopstickchakra]

You people are a bit full of yourselves, just because someone did something that was common place for his time that is looked down upon today you feel all their exploits the good and bad should give way to that. Jackson had slaves, so did most of the influential people of the time, does that make their contributions less significant? It shouldn't. Yes we should shed light on it but most of you are acting like the man should be erased from history except the fact he had slaves. It's not a perfect analogy but saying in retrospect that people well off enough to afford slaves in the time of slavery are evil for following social norms because it's a shitty thing to do is similar to if we got rid of cars because of their effect on the environment in the future those future people saying all of us past drivers were horrible people for ruining the future atmosphere. And I'm sure a few of you will read this and misinterpret it as advocating racism, go ahead there's nothing I can do to stop you from poorly comprehending my point, but the real point is we should stop acting like someone must be forgotten or ignored moving forward for partaking in ideas and practices common in their time, we can all say here and now in our positions of limited power(in comparison to the people being complained about) we wouldn't have done this or that and they shouldn't either but it's easy to look around and see just how much mob mentality and conformism are still in effect in our daily lives.

On the money, I'm for anyone that helped better our nation be represented on currency but why does inclusion always come at the cost of someone or thing else? Why couldn't they have just made new bills specifically for them, wouldn't that have been more of a recognition of honor than giving them someone else's? What sounds better; we like what you did for us here's a new house or we like what you did for us, Jim get out this is Helen's house now? Reinstate the 2, add new denominations; a $30 or a $40 or a $60 etc. You could probably end up reducing the total amount of bills printed by varying the denominations better.

 

[wanderingcactus]

So when will we see Trump's hairpiece put on there?

 

[Claymantan]

You people are a bit full of yourselves, just because someone did something that was common place for his time that is looked down upon today you feel all their exploits the good and bad should give way to that. Jackson had slaves, so did most of the influential people of the time, does that make their contributions less significant? It shouldn't. Yes we should shed light on it but most of you are acting like the man should be erased from history except the fact he had slaves. It's not a perfect analogy but saying in retrospect that people well off enough to afford slaves in the time of slavery are evil for following social norms because it's a shitty thing to do is similar to if we got rid of cars because of their effect on the environment in the future those future people saying all of us past drivers were horrible people for ruining the future atmosphere. And I'm sure a few of you will read this and misinterpret it as advocating racism, go ahead there's nothing I can do to stop you from poorly comprehending my point, but the real point is we should stop acting like someone must be forgotten or ignored moving forward for partaking in ideas and practices common in their time, we can all say here and now in our positions of limited power(in comparison to the people being complained about) we wouldn't have done this or that and they shouldn't either but it's easy to look around and see just how much mob mentality and conformism are still in effect in our daily lives.

On the money, I'm for anyone that helped better our nation be represented on currency but why does inclusion always come at the cost of someone or thing else? Why couldn't they have just made new bills specifically for them, wouldn't that have been more of a recognition of honor than giving them someone else's? What sounds better; we like what you did for us here's a new house or we like what you did for us, Jim get out this is Helen's house now? Reinstate the 2, add new denominations; a $30 or a $40 or a $60 etc. You could probably end up reducing the total amount of bills printed by varying the denominations better.

Abolitionism existed, people knew better, those in wealth had options, and they chose a specific one, not everyone did, we can call them out on it

Cultural relativism is a bad argument

The loss of Andrew Jackson is not a great loss for mankind, and complaining about losing complete and total dominance of representation on dollar bills is sad

 

[Punk Hazard]

You people are a bit full of yourselves, just because someone did something that was common place for his time that is looked down upon today you feel all their exploits the good and bad should give way to that. Jackson had slaves, so did most of the influential people of the time, does that make their contributions less significant? It shouldn't. Yes we should shed light on it but most of you are acting like the man should be erased from history except the fact he had slaves. It's not a perfect analogy but saying in retrospect that people well off enough to afford slaves in the time of slavery are evil for following social norms because it's a shitty thing to do is similar to if we got rid of cars because of their effect on the environment in the future those future people saying all of us past drivers were horrible people for ruining the future atmosphere. And I'm sure a few of you will read this and misinterpret it as advocating racism, go ahead there's nothing I can do to stop you from poorly comprehending my point, but the real point is we should stop acting like someone must be forgotten or ignored moving forward for partaking in ideas and practices common in their time, we can all say here and now in our positions of limited power(in comparison to the people being complained about) we wouldn't have done this or that and they shouldn't either but it's easy to look around and see just how much mob mentality and conformism are still in effect in our daily lives.

On the money, I'm for anyone that helped better our nation be represented on currency but why does inclusion always come at the cost of someone or thing else? Why couldn't they have just made new bills specifically for them, wouldn't that have been more of a recognition of honor than giving them someone else's? What sounds better; we like what you did for us here's a new house or we like what you did for us, Jim get out this is Helen's house now? Reinstate the 2, add new denominations; a $30 or a $40 or a $60 etc. You could probably end up reducing the total amount of bills printed by varying the denominations better.

Nah, **** him.

 

[Claymantan]

Nah, **** him.

This is also a good argument XD

 

[Jiren]

You people are a bit full of yourselves, just because someone did something that was common place for his time that is looked down upon today you feel all their exploits the good and bad should give way to that. Jackson had slaves, so did most of the influential people of the time, does that make their contributions less significant? It shouldn't. Yes we should shed light on it but most of you are acting like the man should be erased from history except the fact he had slaves. It's not a perfect analogy but saying in retrospect that people well off enough to afford slaves in the time of slavery are evil for following social norms because it's a shitty thing to do is similar to if we got rid of cars because of their effect on the environment in the future those future people saying all of us past drivers were horrible people for ruining the future atmosphere. And I'm sure a few of you will read this and misinterpret it as advocating racism, go ahead there's nothing I can do to stop you from poorly comprehending my point, but the real point is we should stop acting like someone must be forgotten or ignored moving forward for partaking in ideas and practices common in their time, we can all say here and now in our positions of limited power(in comparison to the people being complained about) we wouldn't have done this or that and they shouldn't either but it's easy to look around and see just how much mob mentality and conformism are still in effect in our daily lives.

On the money, I'm for anyone that helped better our nation be represented on currency but why does inclusion always come at the cost of someone or thing else? Why couldn't they have just made new bills specifically for them, wouldn't that have been more of a recognition of honor than giving them someone else's? What sounds better; we like what you did for us here's a new house or we like what you did for us, Jim get out this is Helen's house now? Reinstate the 2, add new denominations; a $30 or a $40 or a $60 etc. You could probably end up reducing the total amount of bills printed by varying the denominations better.

Because he advocated a social norm to dehumanization yes he deserves to be erased from the dollar bill imo. JLook at it likes just because he's not on the dollar bill anymore doesn't mean hes no longer appreciated or his contribution is erased from text books, I'm just glad our civil rights leaders that did some moral good in this country is on the dollar bill. Finally the white man is letting black people sit at the same table sort of speak. I'm also pretty sure there would be new problems introducing a new form of currency bills outside of the 5,10,20,100s. Although its beyond my knowledge

 

[Claymantan]

BI'm just glad our civil rights leaders that did some moral good in this country is on the dollar bill. Finally the white man is letting black people sit at the same table sort of speak.

Inb4 people trying to bribe black people with $10 instead of $20

Bribery inequality

 

[SSStylish]

Literally going back to using black people as currency.
Slavery is BACK baby!

Spoiler

:Sparks: