[RD] US physical currency should be completely redesigned.

[Lexicus]

Definitely should ditch Jackson and Grant.

My only strong opposition to anything you've said is that I want Grant kept on something, though I would be willing to compromise and replace him with Sherman.

 

[Traitorfish]

You should probably ditch FDR, given the whole Boncentration Bamps thing.

 

[luiz]

Well...

Washington and Jefferson had slaves, Franklin was extremely racist (he considered even Swedes to be racially inferior to Anglo-Saxon ubermensch, making him more particular than the Nazis), I see here that Jackson and Grant and FDR aren't kosher anymore... This leaves who? Lincoln? Well by modern standards he was racist too, plus he abolished habeas corpus.

Clearly wee need to burn all money, destroy all monuments and rename all cities and streets giving them numbers as names. Washington DC can be City 1 (assuming the number 1 is not considered a phallic symbol and thus an offensive reminder of the patriarchy.

 

[Traitorfish]

Luiz is right, we either have to continuing celebrating a bunch of dead racists, or go full Year Zero and delete all of human history until this point.

There are literally no other options.

 

[W|M]

Clearly wee need to burn all money, destroy all monuments and rename all cities and streets

This but unironically

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Clearly wee need to burn all money, destroy all monuments and rename all cities and streets giving them numbers as names. Washington DC can be City 1 (assuming the number 1 is not considered a phallic symbol and thus an offensive reminder of the patriarchy.

Luiz is right, we either have to continuing celebrating a bunch of dead racists, or go full Year Zero and delete all of human history until this point.

There are literally no other options.

For some reason, this reminds me of the recent news articles here in Canada, where the various aboriginal peoples here in Alberta are having a "WE were here first!" squabble over who gets to rename Calgary (they've actually applied to do that).

I get that apologies and compensation are due for the residential schools and the Sixties Scoop, and whatever other racist programs and policies the government had that meant basically kidnapping aboriginal kids from their families and taking them hundreds, even thousands of miles away from home, to be raised by white strangers.

But there comes a time when things are just getting ridiculous. Some of them are throwing around "You're appropriating MY CULTURE!" in some really over-the-top ways now, and I don't recall reading that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's list of required actions included renaming all the cities.

 

[W|M]

At least rename the places that are named after horrible people

 

[Zkribbler]

Well...

Washington and Jefferson had slaves,.

...More smoke from the far right.

At a time when white supremacists are making inroads into our country, even so far as taking over the AG's Office and gaining sympathy from the President. the far right smears champions of liberty. Yes, Washington and Jefferson had slaves...at a time when it was illegal to free slaves.

Washington fought for liberty, Jefferson wrote the Declaration on Independence.

The far right with its white supremacist vanguard are for racism, authoritarianism, and tyranny. There's a difference.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

At least rename the places that are named after horrible people

Define "horrible people."

I'm not excusing Sir John A. Macdonald's part in the residential schools. That was horrible. But without him, our country would never have existed.

 

[W|M]

People responsible for slavery, torture and death of innocent people

...More smoke from the far right.

At a time when white supremacists are making inroads into our country, even so far as taking over the AG's Office and gaining sympathy from the President. the far right smears champions of liberty. Yes, Washington and Jefferson had slaves...at a time when it was illegal to free slaves.

Washington fought for liberty, Jefferson wrote the Declaration on Independence.

The far right with its white supremacist vanguard are for racism, authoritarianism, and tyranny. There's a difference.

Dude I'm the furthest from ''far right'' as you can get and I know this post is nonsense. Washington and Jefferson weren't semi-mythical ''champions of liberty'', freeing slaves wasn't illegal throughout the Union, and they were two of the most powerful men in the country, which would make them at the very least partially responsible for having such a law on the books in the first place.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Here is my favorite Tubman design.

View attachment 481116

How about a compromise where Tubman and Jackson both remain on the bill, and Harriet is pointing her pistol directly as Andrew's head?

 

[luiz]

Luiz is right, we either have to continuing celebrating a bunch of dead racists, or go full Year Zero and delete all of human history until this point.

There are literally no other options.

Your heroes were horrible people too.

 

[Zkribbler]

Washington and Jefferson weren't semi-mythical ''champions of liberty'', freeing slaves wasn't illegal throughout the Union,

It was in Virginia, which is where they were from.

and they were two of the most powerful men in the country,

Country, country? There was no country. There were 13 colonies, which were barely holding together.
In jefferson's draft of the Declaration, he submitted England's imposition on slavery on the colonies as one of the justifications.for rebellion. North Carolina, South Carolina & Georgia threatened to walk out unless it was removed.

which would make them at the very least partially responsible for having such a law on the books in the first place.

The reasn for the law was because, when it wasn't there, slaveholders would "free" the old and the sick and leave them to die.

 

[Traitorfish]

Your heroes were horrible people too.

Quite possibly. But how many cities are named for Durruti or Makhno? It's a frivolous comparison.

For some reason, this reminds me of the recent news articles here in Canada, where the various aboriginal peoples here in Alberta are having a "WE were here first!" squabble over who gets to rename Calgary (they've actually applied to do that).

That probably has more to do with the internal dynamics of Native politics than Native-white relations. There's a complicated dynamic, in a lot of Native and First Nations groups, between traditional elders and chiefs, state-appointed intermediaries, and activist leaders outside of formal tribal structures. These three groups compete for influence and legitimacy, and when political circumstances are such that they find it difficult to offer tangible results, in terms of economic support or land-rights, they are pushed to seek symbolic reparations instead- and that leads to slightly bizarre situations like the one you've outlined.

When we see an example of "political correctness gone mad", we're often if not usually looking at a territory-dispute within the managerial class, rather than something that any actual person believes.

Country, country? There was no country. There were 13 colonies, which were barely holding together.
In jefferson's draft of the Declaration, he submitted England's imposition on slavery on the colonies as one of the justifications.for rebellion. North Carolina, South Carolina & Georgia threatened to walk out unless it was removed.

It's true that the revolutionaries who took a dim view were constrained by circumstance, but surely we now have the distance now to recognise a devil's bargain for what it was? The revolutionaries didn't merely fail to prioritise the rights of the enslaved, but actively neglected them, and the excuse of a necessary evil falls apart the moment the Treaty of Paris was committed to paper and the liberty of white Americans was no longer under debate.

We can acknowledged the complexity of historical figures like Washington and Jefferson without sliding into apology for slave-owners. They could, if they had set their mind to it, freed their slaves- it may have meant the loss of home, wealth and status, but that is entirely the point, that they weighed their own convenience against other men's liberty, and found in favour of themselves. Whether that negates their status as "champions of liberty", it surely forces us to qualify it.

 

[Zkribbler]

...
We can acknowledged the complexity of historical figures like Washington and Jefferson without sliding into apology for slave-owners. They could, if they had set their mind to it, freed their slaves- it may have meant the loss of home, wealth and status, but that is entirely the point, that they weighed their own convenience against other men's liberty, and found in favour of themselves. Whether that negates their status as "champions of liberty", it surely forces us to qualify it.

A quote from Wikipediea's article on abolitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#United_States

The first attempts to end slavery in the British/American colonies came from Thomas Jefferson and some of his contemporaries. Despite the fact that Jefferson was a lifelong slaveholder, he included strong anti-slavery language in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, but other delegates took it out.[45] Benjamin Franklin, also a slaveholder for much of his life, became a leading member of the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, the first recognized organization for abolitionists in the United States.[46] Following the American Revolutionary War, Northern states abolished slavery, beginning with the 1777 constitution of Vermont, followed by Pennsylvania's gradual emancipation act in 1780. Other states with more of an economic interest in slaves, such as New York and New Jersey, also passed gradual emancipation laws, and by 1804, all the northern states had abolished it. Some slaves continued to live in servitude for two more decades but most were freed.

Also in the postwar years, individual slaveholders, particularly in the Upper South, manumitted slaves, sometimes in their wills. Many noted that they had been moved by the revolutionary ideals of the equality of men. The number of free blacks as a proportion of the black population increased from less than one percent to nearly ten percent from 1790 to 1810 in the Upper South as a result of these actions.

As President, on 2 March 1807, Jefferson signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves and it took effect in 1808, which was the earliest allowed under the Constitution. In 1820 he privately supported the Missouri Compromise, believing it would help to end slavery.[45][47] He left the anti-slavery struggle to younger men after that.[48]

 

[luiz]

Quite possibly. But how many cities are named for Durruti or Makhno? It's a frivolous comparison.

That's 'cause they lost. We don't celebrate losers that much. Had they won, there would most certainly be lots of cities and avenues named after them. And they were certainly worse people than Washington or Jefferson.

I think we can commemorate the people who shaped our nations without deifying them. Indeed I think most countries do this well enough. There's no need to fix what isn't broken. Washington was the freaking father of the American republic, he should stay in the Dollar bill even if he was much worse than he actually was.

 

[W|M]

Durruti and Makhno didn't own slaves, which already puts them at least a few places above Washington and Jefferson in goodness

 

[luiz]

Durruti and Makhno didn't own slaves, which already puts them at least a few places above Washington and Jefferson in goodness

No, but one was a terrorist murderer and the other promoted what can only be described as ethnic cleansing against Ukrainian Mennonites, whom he hated with demented passion. They were both apostles of hatred and death. I don't see how that makes them better than 18th Century slave-owners. Indeed I think it makes them much worse.

 

[Zkribbler]

Durruti and Makhno didn't own slaves, which already puts them at least a few places above Washington and Jefferson in goodness

In the end, Durruti and Makhno freed absolutely no one.
In comparison, Washington secured independence for 3 million Americans, and Jefferson and Madison created the modern democratic federal republic.

 

[Traitorfish]

A quote from Wikipediea's article on abolitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism#United_States

Despite the fact that Jefferson was a lifelong slaveholder, he included strong anti-slavery language in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, but other delegates took it out.

Fine words and noble sentiments mean little if the speaker is unwilling to stake even a fraction of his wealth or status on it.

I don't disagree that Jefferson had some impact on early abolition. He was, for example, fairly influential in guaranteeing that slavery was prohibited in the Northwest Territory- indeed, he'd wanted to extent it to the Southwest Territory- and that, as a result, it was mostly populated by Northerners (and some anti-slavery Southerners), and so maintained the prohibition when broken up into states. But Ohio was a long way from Monticello, and it cost him little to frustrate the ambitions of a few Kentucky gentlemen.

In the end, Durruti and Makhno freed absolutely no one.
In comparison, Washington secured independence for 3 million Americans, and Jefferson and Madison created the modern democratic federal republic.

What bearing does this have on their ownership of slaves? Do you imagine that morality is a tally, that if you pile up enough in one column, it erases the other?

I will readily grant, this also applies in the reverse, that the personal moral failings of Washington and Jefferson- and they were colossal, let's not make any mistake about that- does not erase whatever good did for the United States. I am prepared to accept the complexity of historical figures. But statues and boulevards have a habit of erasing complexity.

Slavery was an absolute evil; there's no qualifying that, not without treating the humanity of black Americans- let alone their citizenship, their status as Americans- as negotiable.

That's 'cause they lost. We don't celebrate losers that much. Had they won, there would most certainly be lots of cities and avenues named after them.

Quite possibly. But they didn't, and we don't, so it remains besides the point.