Dear liberal Americans, walk with me here for a bit. And don't swallow that gum. In this post i will try to make the case that not only is the depiction of Ms. Tubman on the new 20$ bill not enough, not only may it not even be the best direction to go but most crucially it is not going to the root of the problem. The case here is that US physical currency has to be redesigned and replaced in its entirety and that it must be completely divorced from the so-called "founding fathers" in the end state that is to be achieved. I have tried to make the former parts of this case to American liberals on Fiftychat a couple of times, mostly focussing on changing the gender ratio of who's represented on the bills (rather than coins), since this was my primary interest at the time and focus of US media attention regarding the renewal of - originally - the 10$ bill. In these repeated conversations i made reference to Sweden purposefully adopting gender-equal paper currency in 2015 as well as the FRG doing so in 1992. Obviously, since my conversation partners were largely of such liberal persuasions there was little resistance regarding the basic premise. However, in every case, obstacles - surprisingly tenacious ones - quickly surfaced. For one, i had significant trouble to make people fully aware of how unusual the American set of Presidents on paper money actually is, and in multiple ways: I had trouble to properly communicate how it was normal for other countries to have representatives of theretofore disadvantaged classes (say women or minorities) on money for achievements other than advocacy or activisim in favor of such a group's rights, heck, usually even achievements to which their class membership was irrelevant. I.e. artists or scientists who merely happened to be, say, women. Then i usually struggled to establish how exclusively having political leaders/authorities on money is something that usually countries in either of the following categories do: Constitutional monarchies (think UK), banana republics, totalitarian dictatorships. In line with these two problems i couldn't help but show my amazement at how one Mr. Oliver apparently finds the notion of putting a female aviator on money ridiculous - obviously i can't help but find that... rather British. Thirdly i encountered remarkable resistance to change, that, considering the politics of my audience, quite surprised me. There was significant attachment to even Grant to such a degree that apparently the only way to achieve what i was going for was to have 12 bills (most agreed with ditching Jackson). I usually advocated for employing either Mr. Douglass or Mr. Owens to feature on a bill while being black and suggested a variety of women for selection (this latter portion of my suggestions can very easily be greatly improved upon, as i must admit). Of course i couldn't help but bring up the curious case of the Canadian 50 dollar bill (in use ca. '01 to '12) featuring the Famous Five, and the fact that scientifically measured the Famous Five count for roughly five mysogynists, roughly seven misandrist, roughly eleven viscious classists, roughly four racists and roughly two accessories to racist democide. Which in my view was par for "first wave feminists" and a prime example of how not to do this women on money thing. Luckyly Harper in an uncharacteristic fit of good sense got them off the the new 50 dollar bill. This was relevant before things settled on Tubman because American "feminists" were making all sorts of proposals to put quite horrible women (by virtue of being equally typical "first wave feminists") on the 10$/20$ bill. Anywho. Over the course of these interactions the latter problem - attachment to the current set of faces, became increasingly more prominent in my thoughts on the subject and on the reactions that i got. I tried to make the case that this is important, for money - because it's mundane - arguably being more of a "doormat" of a country than flags or anthems. And i tried to emphasize this doormat effect in citing not a visitor but rather a first time user of another kind - the stereotypically least advantaged first time user among a country's own citizenry. Alas the mental image of some inner city African American girl from generational poverty making the first purchase of her life with the face of a slaveholder president seemed to not impress people - liberals at that - much at all. To be honest by late '15 i had sort of given up on making any headway with this whole argument. But somewhere between the debate on Confederate monuments and the debate on the Hollywood Casting Couch this year i'm getting a second wind on this. And i suppose i was approaching the whole thing backwards to begin with. Maybe what i thought of merely as an incidental good that would come about by necessity should be a primary objective in the first place. Since this has in its generality not been evocative enough (apparently), let me try to quickly assemble a high-octane McCase here: [McCase] Data point #1: This spring i got into tiff with some political allies (let's be generous) over BLM related language. Subsequently i felt it was a good idea to fetch the list and cite the last person on it as evidence for a certain urgency arguably outweighing disputes over social justice language. Most of the people on the list are white men, despite minorities being overrepresented. By pure chance the last person on the list with a photograph to their name was - morbidly somewhat conveniencing me - not just African American but also female, young and summarily innocent. This was No. 273 a.k.a. Alteria Woods: This was also Alteria Woods: And this was Alteria Woods as well: Excuse the boredom i may be causing you here, but as usual it is required to show these images, cause on the news she looked like this: Since spring things have gotten slightly "clearer". Apparently Ms. Woods hasn't been pregnant after all. Apparently her boyfriend didn't use her as a human shield - at all. Apparently the cops turned her into a sieve largely incidentally. In case you are wondering: The grand jury has allready completely cleared the cops; the boyfriend will face a felony murder charge corresponding to her death in addition to his various other charges. Anyway, since we are allready familiar with Ms. Woods she may act as a user of your money for the purposes of this argument. Former user. Of course. Data point #2: Donald L. Hollowell didn't "listen and believe". He casually waved Betty Jo Bishop's underwear about. In court. In front of the all-white jury. He won. That was in 1954. Until then, and in parts after then, this was normal; white women did this all the time. The reverse was worse, much worse. Many a progressive white-mans-burdening their way to the South heard the complaint in the same breath as labor injustices and police brutality: "Our women have no rights. White boys hunt them for sport." Data point #3: Sally Hemings didn't even have to run. She was in Paris, which legally made her a free person. She went home anyway. "Home". Some media called her Jefferson's "mistress". She was 15, and his property. She was her "half-black" mother's former owner's daughter. I have to insist that you reread that last sentence. We know little about George Washington's sexuality with any certainty. All manner of theories about him being gay, him being impotent, him being sterile etc. And we have heard a lot about his "principles" vis a vis slavery. Actually we've heard annoyingly much on the subject. Allmost enough to obfuscate that he approved of various relationships with huge power distance on Mount Vernon. Allmost enough to obfuscate that he and his dudebros were running among other things, brutal sex slavery. Never mind the teeth. So, in summation: Ms. Woods was born, presumably in '96. As a child she bought, like, gum or whatever with nickels and quarters and dollars. Later thoughts like "Cleveland or rape", "Detroit or rape" would have appeared non-obvious to her by virtue of her late birth. Despite Florida. And even later her government sieved her. Emmentalered her. Pick a term of your choice. What Trump said on this point is not an outrageous exaggeration. You should "come after them" next. You actually should. I leave you with a piece of stock footage for the appropriate after-taste. [/McCase] Point being: Maybe we can all agree to tolerate atrocities like white women wearing hoop earings and instead decide that having rapey slaveowners on currency is Hate not Heritage. Thoughts? PS: Feel free to search for the Dollar Redesign Project, and for that matter various other suggestions people have come up with. PPS: On that other matter: You're at 1044 and it's not even December... PPPS: I have no idea how good of a human being Grant was. Please don't make find out. I'm sure it can't end well. Remember: The question is: "Can you not find an artist or scientist who's less problematic?"