• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Harriet Tubman to replace Jackson on $20 bill

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
My opinion, it's total bullshit that they want to put Tubman on the 20. Not that she doesn't deserve it, but why is it necessary to make the change? It's not. And why is it necessary to make the change to her? It's not. If you are going to use the qualifications that she has in order to justify the change, then you could justify changing it for a thousand other people as well. There really is no reason to change - it's all just political correctness bullshit. Like someone decided that women are owed a place on our currency, doesn't matter that there were no women presidents, they were going to make it happen anyways. Political correctness at its finest.
 
Last edited:
Vaux said:
My opinion, it's total bullshit that they want to put Tubman on the 20. Not that she doesn't deserve it, but why is it necessary to make the change? It's not. And why is it necessary to make the change to her? It's not. If you are going to use the qualifications that she has in order to justify the change, then you could justify changing it for a thousand other people as well. There really is no reason to change
Click to expand...

The third post on this thread gave a pretty good reason, and tends to be the main reason why paper money is issued with a new design from time to time.

Out of curiosity, who are the thousand other people who deserve it as much as she does, in your opinion?
 
Last edited:
Vaux said:
My opinion, it's total bullshit that they want to put Tubman on the 20. Not that she doesn't deserve it, but why is it necessary to make the change? It's not. And why is it necessary to make the change to her? It's not. If you are going to use the qualifications that she has in order to justify the change, then you could justify changing it for a thousand other people as well. There really is no reason to change - it's all just political correctness bullshit. Like someone decided that women are owed a place on our currency, doesn't matter that there were no women presidents, they were going to make it happen anyways. Political correctness at its finest.
Click to expand...

To be fair Hamilton and Franklin weren't presidents either. Not everyone on our currency is or was a president.
 
"They should put Prince on the $20 bill and call it $19.99."

ukryy2j.jpg


"Its the bill formerly known as a Twenty"

http://imgur.com/gallery/ukryy2j
 
boomerang said:
What good would that do? All the old ones are still legal tender.
Click to expand...

Of course they wouldn't stop being legal tender, but they eventually go out of circulation and are destroyed once fully replaced by new designs.

You ask this question as if you have never seen designs change on US currency--or any currency--in your lifetime?

And that's just a design. If this seems impossible to you, then maybe living in Italy or France on January 1, 2002 when the Euro suddenly appeared out of an ATM instead of your Lira or Franc must seem like fantasy! 😀
 
zinfamous said:
Of course they wouldn't stop being legal tender, but they eventually go out of circulation and are destroyed once fully replaced by new designs.
Click to expand...
The current currency eventually is pulled from circulation and is destroyed. Is it better to have newer more expensive currency pulled from circulation to be destroyed?

zinfamous said:
You ask this question as if you have never seen designs change on US currency--or any currency--in your lifetime?
Click to expand...
You're projecting something on me but I will leave it to you to determine what that is. Your inference has meaning for you but not for me.

zinfamous said:
And that's just a design. If this seems impossible to you, then maybe living in Italy or France on January 1, 2002 when the Euro suddenly appeared out of an ATM instead of your Lira or Franc must seem like fantasy! 😀
Click to expand...
Impossible to me? Once again, projection for no reason that is relevant.

Use your brain and tell me what is to be gained from redesigning currency when the old version will still be legal tender. It's just bureaucracy sustaining itself for the sake of bureaucracy. But only do that if you can keep your projections on what you believe I feel and think out of it. My assertion, my question if you will, can be taken entirely at face value. There is no hidden agenda, no hidden meaning.

Redesigning currency to deal with counterfeiting has no value unless the previous design is no longer accepted as legal tender. Argue why that statement is wrong.
 
People need to find real problems to be upset about. IMO, we should change everyone on our bills - they've gone stale. Other countries put all sorts of people, animals, buildings, etc on their notes and they look great.

Someone jokingly (?) posted the Prince $20 bill but I would be totally fine with that. Put him on for a few years, then rotate to another great American.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top