What the fuck is this shit? Hamilton laid the foundation for the federal treasury and you replace him instead of Andrew Jackson who flouted the Supreme Court and carried out ethnic cleansing! :ultra: :ultra::ultra:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/treasury-put-woman-10-bill-n377311
QuoteBut the Treasury said it chose the $10 bill instead because it's overdue for a redesign, attributable in part to the ease with which it can be counterfeited.
Woman on the $10, MLK on the $20 :cool:
This is unfair to the Federalists! I demand they remove Jefferson from the nickel!
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 17, 2015, 10:37:06 PM
Woman on the $10, MLK on the $20 :cool:
We will only be allowed to have Presidents on money in the future. The woman will be Hillary Clinton :P
I say we get rid of humans from the bills and celebrate America's other fauna. Buffalo, coyotes, eagles, turkeys, cougars, etc.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 17, 2015, 10:20:40 PM
What the fuck is this shit? Hamilton laid the foundation for the federal treasury and you replace him instead of Andrew Jackson who flouted the Supreme Court and carried out ethnic cleansing! :ultra: :ultra: :ultra:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/treasury-put-woman-10-bill-n377311 (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/treasury-put-woman-10-bill-n377311)
if you lack female figures, I can suggest one:
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FuVZkOai-3b0%2Fmaxresdefault.jpg&f=1)
See Canadians have no problem finding important female figure that truly contributed to Canada's history to put on their money. And by 2020, that requirement about living person might not be a problem.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 17, 2015, 10:58:14 PM
I say we get rid of humans from the bills and celebrate America's other fauna. Buffalo, coyotes, eagles, turkeys, cougars, etc.
Better yet, do what Hong Kong does. Outsource the whole note printing operation to private banks. They bear all the costs, and get free advertisement. They can put their stuff on the money.
Oh how I would love to see Citi and Bank of America logos all over our money.
There is probably a secret Treasury rule that the irony of Jackson's mug on a Federal Reserve note must be maintained.
I wholeheartedly recommend putting Liz II on American currency. :menace:
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2015, 12:45:37 AM
I wholeheartedly recommend putting Liz II on American currency. :menace:
I'm fine with it as long we're forming a North American superstate. ^_^
If Canada annexed the U.S., that might be one way to keep NDP from winning!
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 18, 2015, 12:51:07 AM
If Canada annexed the U.S., that might be one way to keep NDP from winning!
I'm listening...
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 11:39:14 PM
Oh how I would love to see Citi and Bank of America logos all over our money.
HSBC logos have been on our money for over a century :contract:
Quote from: Monoriu on June 17, 2015, 11:21:26 PM
Better yet, do what Hong Kong does. Outsource the whole note printing operation to private banks. They bear all the costs, and get free advertisement. They can put their stuff on the money.
This kind of parsimony leads to 1-ply toilet paper in public buildings. No thanks.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lrkrhkjN8z1qj6sk2o1_500.png&hash=c2adb6c4156086c3dbf790ec68f08d11ac5cdae9)
We're getting some real rearded choices on our new bills. Random opera singers and movie directors and shit. Heaven forbid you put a giant like Anders Chydenius on a bill! :rolleyes:
Quote from: viper37 on June 17, 2015, 11:16:33 PM
See Canadians have no problem finding important female figure that truly contributed to Canada's history to put on their money. And by 2020, that requirement about living person might not be a problem.
What exactly did Elizabeth II contribute to Canada's history?
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2015, 04:15:42 AM
We're getting some real rearded choices on our new bills. Random opera singers and movie directors and shit. Heaven forbid you put a giant like Anders Chydenius on a bill! :rolleyes:
NO Ingmar Bergman on a Swedish banknote?! Absolutely appalling!
Quote from: chipwich on June 18, 2015, 06:02:15 AM
What exactly did Elizabeth II contribute to Canada's history?
She has been the head of state for over sixty years. :contract:
So nothing at all really.
A woman who campaigned to get Jane Austen on British banknotes received 50 rape and death threats a day over social media. Feminism still has a long way to go.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/24/two-jailed-twitter-abuse-feminist-campaigner (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/24/two-jailed-twitter-abuse-feminist-campaigner)
I've made my peace with a woman being on paper money at some point. The irony of removing Hamilton is pretty galling, though. And if they move forward with that Harriet Tubman proposal I swear that will give kids nightmares. Don't get me wrong, she was an awesome lady and deserving of the recognition but Lord she had a face for radio.
Quote from: Brazen on June 18, 2015, 08:29:48 AM
A woman who campaigned to get Jane Austen on British banknotes received 50 rape and death threats a day over social media. Feminism still has a long way to go.
Only 50? Social media is horrible.
And Feminism will never make people non-shitty. Hobbes was right.
#hobbeswasright
It's all about ethics in money printing.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2015, 12:48:55 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2015, 12:45:37 AM
I wholeheartedly recommend putting Liz II on American currency. :menace:
I'm fine with it as long we're forming a North American superstate. ^_^
one nation under God's representative? Could work.
Quote from: chipwich on June 18, 2015, 06:02:15 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 17, 2015, 11:16:33 PM
See Canadians have no problem finding important female figure that truly contributed to Canada's history to put on their money. And by 2020, that requirement about living person might not be a problem.
What exactly did Elizabeth II contribute to Canada's history?
that was sarcasm :)
there are many Canadian historical figures we could have put on our money, but our anglo friends absolutely want to see the Queen everywhere :(
Oh Chipwich so innocent you are.
Quote from: viper37 on June 18, 2015, 09:15:18 AM
Quote from: chipwich on June 18, 2015, 06:02:15 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 17, 2015, 11:16:33 PM
See Canadians have no problem finding important female figure that truly contributed to Canada's history to put on their money. And by 2020, that requirement about living person might not be a problem.
What exactly did Elizabeth II contribute to Canada's history?
that was sarcasm :)
there are many Canadian historical figures we could have put on our money, but our anglo friends absolutely want to see the Queen everywhere :(
Just consider yourself lucky we don't want to see her naked. :P
Bills featuring Hamilton — the nation's first treasury secretary and creator of its monetary system — will remain in circulation, and an unspecified proportion of new $10 bills will continue to feature him, Lew said.
He'll still be on some of the bills anyway, whatever percentage they come up with. In this article it didn't suggest who the woman might be. I wonder who will get the nod?
Wow what an admirably logical move by the Treasuring department. Better than having the Chase Manhattan CEO on them in any case :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2015, 09:32:54 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 18, 2015, 09:15:18 AM
Quote from: chipwich on June 18, 2015, 06:02:15 AM
Quote from: viper37 on June 17, 2015, 11:16:33 PM
See Canadians have no problem finding important female figure that truly contributed to Canada's history to put on their money. And by 2020, that requirement about living person might not be a problem.
What exactly did Elizabeth II contribute to Canada's history?
that was sarcasm :)
there are many Canadian historical figures we could have put on our money, but our anglo friends absolutely want to see the Queen everywhere :(
Just consider yourself lucky we don't want to see her naked. :P
well, that new princess... :perv:
The only reason she will be getting naked is to have her diaper changed :yuk:
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 03:16:52 PM
The only reason she will be getting naked is to have her diaper changed :yuk:
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2015, 03:16:52 PM
The only reason she will be getting naked is to have her diaper changed :yuk:
Well, shit, I forgot about that one :P
Quote from: Monoriu on June 17, 2015, 11:21:26 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 17, 2015, 10:58:14 PM
I say we get rid of humans from the bills and celebrate America's other fauna. Buffalo, coyotes, eagles, turkeys, cougars, etc.
Better yet, do what Hong Kong does. Outsource the whole note printing operation to private banks. They bear all the costs, and get free advertisement. They can put their stuff on the money.
This was done once. It was a disaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking
Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2015, 12:31:16 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 17, 2015, 11:21:26 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 17, 2015, 10:58:14 PM
I say we get rid of humans from the bills and celebrate America's other fauna. Buffalo, coyotes, eagles, turkeys, cougars, etc.
Better yet, do what Hong Kong does. Outsource the whole note printing operation to private banks. They bear all the costs, and get free advertisement. They can put their stuff on the money.
This was done once. It was a disaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking
Right, because unregulated and outright fraudulent private banks are equivalent to large, well-regulated private banks. :mellow:
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 18, 2015, 12:41:56 AM
There is probably a secret Treasury rule that the irony of Jackson's mug on a Federal Reserve note must be maintained.
He'd be so pissed if he was alive. It's amusing.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 19, 2015, 02:32:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2015, 12:31:16 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 17, 2015, 11:21:26 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 17, 2015, 10:58:14 PM
I say we get rid of humans from the bills and celebrate America's other fauna. Buffalo, coyotes, eagles, turkeys, cougars, etc.
Better yet, do what Hong Kong does. Outsource the whole note printing operation to private banks. They bear all the costs, and get free advertisement. They can put their stuff on the money.
This was done once. It was a disaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking)
Right, because unregulated and outright fraudulent private banks are equivalent to large, well-regulated private banks. :mellow:
How do you find out if a bank is underegulated and outright fraudulent? When there's a disaster. Or is Washington Mutual an example of one of these well-regulated banks?
Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2015, 10:55:48 PM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on June 17, 2015, 10:37:06 PM
Woman on the $10, MLK on the $20 :cool:
We will only be allowed to have Presidents on money in the future. The woman will be Hillary Clinton :P
Not a bad choice. First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, President... quite a resume.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on June 19, 2015, 02:32:20 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2015, 12:31:16 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 17, 2015, 11:21:26 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 17, 2015, 10:58:14 PM
I say we get rid of humans from the bills and celebrate America's other fauna. Buffalo, coyotes, eagles, turkeys, cougars, etc.
Better yet, do what Hong Kong does. Outsource the whole note printing operation to private banks. They bear all the costs, and get free advertisement. They can put their stuff on the money.
This was done once. It was a disaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking
Right, because unregulated and outright fraudulent private banks are equivalent to large, well-regulated private banks. :mellow:
Did you sleep through 2008?
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2015, 08:35:56 AM
I've made my peace with a woman being on paper money at some point. The irony of removing Hamilton is pretty galling, though. And if they move forward with that Harriet Tubman proposal I swear that will give kids nightmares. Don't get me wrong, she was an awesome lady and deserving of the recognition but Lord she had a face for radio.
Hannah Duston was a badass. First American woman to get a statue even.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Duston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Duston)
Quote from: Razgovory on June 19, 2015, 12:31:16 PM
Quote from: Monoriu on June 17, 2015, 11:21:26 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 17, 2015, 10:58:14 PM
I say we get rid of humans from the bills and celebrate America's other fauna. Buffalo, coyotes, eagles, turkeys, cougars, etc.
Better yet, do what Hong Kong does. Outsource the whole note printing operation to private banks. They bear all the costs, and get free advertisement. They can put their stuff on the money.
This was done once. It was a disaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking
That's not what we do. Only the actual design of the notes and printing are left to the private banks. How many notes they can print is heavily regulated.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2Fhk31fx_zpsnaxzvc00.jpg&hash=3a7a0461b8b81001b443969c22b1d61206dcd7a6) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/hk31fx_zpsnaxzvc00.jpg.html)
It says, HSBC promises to pay the bearer on demand at its office here 100 HK dollars, by order of the board of directors.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2015, 06:57:22 PM
Hannah Duston was a badass. First American woman to get a statue even.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Duston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Duston)
The moral of her story is, if you're going to be kidnapped by Indians, it's best to come from a family of psychos.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 21, 2015, 06:57:22 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2015, 08:35:56 AM
I've made my peace with a woman being on paper money at some point. The irony of removing Hamilton is pretty galling, though. And if they move forward with that Harriet Tubman proposal I swear that will give kids nightmares. Don't get me wrong, she was an awesome lady and deserving of the recognition but Lord she had a face for radio.
Hannah Duston was a badass. First American woman to get a statue even.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Duston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Duston)
That statue appears to have been well respected by the local hooligans.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/hillary-clinton-criticizes-treasurys-plan-to-take-123582914681.html
QuoteHillary Clinton criticizes Treasury's plan to take Alexander Hamilton off the $10 bill
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was critical of Treasury Secretary Jack Lew's decision to remove Alexander Hamilton from the $10 bill, suggesting in an interview this week that the better place to put a woman on U.S. currency would be the $20 bill.
"I think that it might be easier to change the 20 than it is to change the 10," Clinton told CNN on Tuesday.
Clinton left herself a little bit of wiggle room on the issue, hedging her criticisms of the Obama administration by saying, "We'll see," two different times. But it was clear that while she is supportive of the move to put a famous woman from American history on one of America's major denominations, she also is not enthusiastic about taking the nation's revered first Treasury secretary off the $10 bill.
The Treasury decision to move Hamilton off the $10 bill during its next redesign came in the wake of a campaign by a group called Women on 20s to put a woman on the $20 bill, and while it satisfied activist demands to diversify the figures featured on American currency, it prompted a new wave of controversy, as those who want to continue honoring Hamilton's legacy pushed back against the government's choice of the bill to alter.
"I am very torn about it. I want a woman on a bill. I don't know why they take the $10 bill. Some people are now agitated for the $20 bill," Clinton said.
Asked a second time, Clinton said, "It may be more appropriate to look at the 20 than the 10. I don't know. We'll see."
A loud chorus of critics greeted Lew's announcement last month that a woman would be placed on the $10 bill, arguing that a woman should be put on the $20 bill and that former President Andrew Jackson should be taken off that denomination rather than stripping Hamilton of his place on U.S. money.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said he was "appalled" at Lew's decision. Even the advocacy group that has sparked a grassroots movement of sorts in favor of putting a woman on U.S. currency has said that the $20 bill is a better choice than the $10. "We targeted the $20 bill because it is a ubiquitous bill bearing the image of Andrew Jackson, known more today for his mistreatment of Native Americans, involvement in the slave trade and hatred of paper currency than any other aspect of his legacy. We had no desire to unseat the exemplary Alexander Hamilton, a visionary Founding Father who designed our monetary system," Women on 20s said in a statement.
But so far the Treasury Department has stood firm, saying that it may opt to have a woman share the $10 bill with Hamilton or that it may print two separate versions of the $10 bill.
Clinton rejected this idea as a bad option.
"I don't like the idea that as a compromise you would basically have two people on the same bill. One would be a woman. That sounds pretty second class to me," Clinton said. "So I think a woman should have her own bill."
Clinton's comments in favor of a woman having her own denomination are sure to play favorably with many voters, but it's also a way for her to subtly distance herself from the Obama administration.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 19, 2015, 09:17:54 PM
Did you sleep through 2008?
Do you seriously think investment banks were well-regulated?
Wanting to take the founder of the Democratic Party off the $20.00 bill eh? Bold move.
My kinda Dem. :wub:
Far be it from me to back Hillary, but she is on the right side of this issue (actually, I might say a bit too waffle-ish on it, though).
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 10, 2015, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 19, 2015, 09:17:54 PM
Did you sleep through 2008?
Do you seriously think investment banks were well-regulated?
How would you know before hand? If you do know, please identify the next banks to go under, that would be a real help for us here.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 10, 2015, 07:25:53 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 10, 2015, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 19, 2015, 09:17:54 PM
Did you sleep through 2008?
Do you seriously think investment banks were well-regulated?
How would you know before hand? If you do know, please identify the next banks to go under, that would be a real help for us here.
The problem was known and ignored. Largely for ideological reasons. In the mid 1990s the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was pushing for better regulation. People like Greenspan believed the market could take care of itself and blocked her efforts. He was wrong of course. Here is a link with more detail if you are interested.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html
It would be more help if you could link me to banks that will go down in the future.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2015, 09:55:00 PM
It would be more help if you could link me to banks that will go down in the future.
:D
Pretty awesome that they changed course - though dumping Jackson wholesale would probably be better. -_-
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-harriet-tubman-20-bill-20160420-story.html
QuoteHarriet Tubman is the next face of the $20 bill; $5 and $10 bills will also change
Harriet Tubman and President Andrew Jackson lived on opposite sides of the American experience.
Tubman, a black woman, escaped slavery to become a conductor on the Underground Railroad, risking her life to lead slaves to freedom. Jackson, the son of Scots-Irish immigrants and owner of slaves, was elected president as a war hero and became known for policies that led to the deaths of countless Native Americans.
Soon, though, the two will share prominent placement on a new $20 bill — with Tubman, the former slave, getting top billing.
On Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew said Tubman would replace Jackson on the front of the $20 bill, becoming the first woman in more than a century and first African American to grace the front of a paper note. Jackson will be featured on the back of the bill alongside an image of the White House.
In another twist, Alexander Hamilton got a reprieve. Initially targeted for replacement by a woman on the $10 bill, Hamilton's reputation was burnished by an unlikely smash Broadway play and his case pressed by outraged historians pointing to his seminal role in creating the nation's first central bank.
Treasury's announcement followed almost a year of heated public debate, shaped by social media and history alike.
Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke weighed in, pressing Hamilton's case on his blog. Bernanke wrote Wednesday that Tubman was an "excellent and deserving choice" while Hamilton had a better claim than any to stay on a bill.
Lew said the final concept designs of new $20, $10 and $5 bills are scheduled to be completed and unveiled by 2020, the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote.
Lew did not give a more specific timetable of when the bills would be released into circulation, saying only that he had directed the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to "work as quickly as possible" while making sure to meet security requirements for the bills that are the "first and foremost responsibility."
The first bill up for a remake is the $10, as part of Treasury's ongoing efforts to incorporate anti-counterfeiting technologies.
With Hamilton's position secure, and with the Obama administration under pressure to add diversity to the currency, Lew's compromise is to replace a picture of the Treasury building on the back of the $10 with leaders of the suffrage movement — Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Lucretia Mott.
The back of the $5 bill will also be redesigned to include opera singer Marian Anderson, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
Some historians believe the flood of new faces on American currency could mark a shift in attitudes toward role models.
"Andrew Jackson is what we used to think of as a great American hero," said Brenda Stevenson, UCLA professor of history and African American studies. "He stood for the white, male political and economic elite, with great military honor associated with him.
"We have this woman who in many ways is just the complete opposite of Andrew Jackson, and it speaks volumes that we can recognize [Tubman] as this great American hero and image of what it means to be American."
Catherine Clinton, who wrote "Harriet Tubman: The Road to Freedom," said she was invited by the Smithsonian to a discussion about putting a woman on the $10 bill and gave a copy of her book to Lew and U.S. Treasurer Rosie Rios.
"I felt that people needed to know how amazing her story was," she said. "She just wasn't a figure from the Underground Railroad, she just wasn't a self-emancipated slave, but she was a brave warrior in the fight against slavery. Harriet Tubman, I found, was such an important figure to so many because she represented the concept of one person making a difference."
The last time a woman was on a paper note was in the late 1800s, when First Lady Martha Washington appeared on the $1 silver certificate. Pocahontas was on the $20 bill from 1865 to 1869.
Lew's original plan to change the $10 — to have Hamilton share the bill with a woman, or release two different bills — met backlash from several directions.
Many said the only woman on the nation's paper currency should be featured alone on the bill, rather than sharing space with a man.
There were 8.6 billion $20 bills in circulation as of Dec. 31, 2015, compared with 1.9 billion $10 bills, according to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.
It helped Hamilton's case that "Hamilton," the play chronicling his life, became a breakout hit. In March, the play's creator and lead actor, Lin-Manuel Miranda, and other cast members met at the White House with Barack Obama.
Earlier this week, "Hamilton" also won a Pulitzer prize for best drama.
"He [Hamilton] launched the financial system, he straightened out the government's finances," said Richard Sylla, financial history professor at the NYU Stern School of Business. "A lot of the good things about American history were due to what Hamilton did as treasury secretary. I think Americans weren't quite aware of that."
In a call with reporters, Lew and Rios credited the outpouring of public response to the original plan and the call for suggestions.
"It was an evolutionary process," Lew said. "For me, personally, there was a kind of an 'aha' moment in July when it became clear that going bigger would give us the ability to tell more stories."
The last time a new portrait image appeared on a bill was between 1914 and 1928.
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2016, 03:54:21 AM
With Hamilton's position secure, and with the Obama administration under pressure to add diversity to the currency, Lew's compromise is to replace a picture of the Treasury building on the back of the $10 with leaders of the suffrage movement — Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Lucretia Mott.
The back of the $5 bill will also be redesigned to include opera singer Marian Anderson, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
So will the 5$/10$ bills have different backs or are they going to group all those characters in a single bill? Sounds messy.
The Euroland bills are so plain with just bridges and arches. And they aren't even real ones.
Yeah it isn't clear from that blurb. I know once they had mentioned that they would have differing bills (when it was just front for 10) but who knows now.
Quote from: celedhring on April 21, 2016, 04:06:23 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2016, 03:54:21 AM
With Hamilton's position secure, and with the Obama administration under pressure to add diversity to the currency, Lew's compromise is to replace a picture of the Treasury building on the back of the $10 with leaders of the suffrage movement — Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul and Lucretia Mott.
The back of the $5 bill will also be redesigned to include opera singer Marian Anderson, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
So will the 5$/10$ bills have different backs or are they going to group all those characters in a single bill? Sounds messy.
The Euroland bills are so plain with just bridges and arches. And they aren't even real ones.
The suffragettes held a famous march that ended at the treasury IIRC, so a group for them.
America 1-0 Britain on this one.
Not looking forward to encountering my first Churchill note in the wild.
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2016, 05:01:24 AM
America 1-0 Britain on this one.
Not looking forward to encountering my first Churchill note in the wild.
There's the Jane Austen note.
I can only recall Rosalía de Castro as the single non-royal female character featured in Spanish bills before we switched over the the euro.
The UK has a woman on every. single. note.
Quote from: celedhring on April 21, 2016, 04:06:23 AM
The Euroland bills are so plain with just bridges and arches. And they aren't even real ones.
probably for the best
It's less the woman issue (I'd place the black issue higher) and rather the more general issue of what they stand for.
Tubman is the positive side of America that they need to push harder to fully embrace. Everyone should be free and equal.
Churchill is the dark side of the UK that we're trying to get away from. Imperialist. Racist. Classist....Not the face 21st century Britain wants at all.
Quote"Andrew Jackson is what we used to think of as a great American hero," said Brenda Stevenson, UCLA professor of history and African American studies. "He stood for the white, male political and economic elite, with great military honor associated with him.
This is the kind of person we have educating our young today.
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2016, 05:27:06 AM
It's less the woman issue (I'd place the black issue higher) and rather the more general issue of what they stand for.
Tubman is the positive side of America that they need to push harder to fully embrace. Everyone should be free and equal.
Churchill is the dark side of the UK that we're trying to get away from. Imperialist. Racist. Classist....Not the face 21st century Britain wants at all.
And without him Western Civilization would have been destroyed. Who cares how many things he was wrong about, what matters is that he was right about the most important political question of his time, perhaps of any time.
To CC's likely shock and horror I also know the date of Churchill's birthday. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2016, 05:49:17 AM
Quote"Andrew Jackson is what we used to think of as a great American hero," said Brenda Stevenson, UCLA professor of history and African American studies. "He stood for the white, male political and economic elite, with great military honor associated with him.
This is the kind of person we have educating our young today.
I'm not sure I understand the issue with that statement.
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2016, 05:49:17 AM
Quote"Andrew Jackson is what we used to think of as a great American hero," said Brenda Stevenson, UCLA professor of history and African American studies. "He stood for the white, male political and economic elite, with great military honor associated with him.
This is the kind of person we have educating our young today.
I'm not sure I understand the issue with that statement.
The people he stood for were white and male, but as disenfranchised poor people they were hardly society's political and economic elite.
He was still a terrible president, and a racist who committed war crimes, so I support dropping him from the twenty.
Whenever something like this happens I like to read the comments on the WSJ site to get the pulse of what real Americans are thinking:
QuoteGee, Andrew Jackson founded the Democratic Party, opened up voting to all citizens, set the stage for the US to expand from the Atlantic to the Pacific and refused to renew the charter of the first National Bank (a.k.a. Federal reserve). So who is Harriett Tubman and what did she do?
---
Just to retain gender balance, the ten dollar bill is being redesigned to have Bruce Jenner on the front, and Caitlyn Jenner on the back. Both men and women can claim the tenner as their own. Yay!
---
This move by the Obama regime is symbolic on many levels.
Like removing Churchill's bust from the White House, declining to prosecute black panthers who blatantly intimidated white voters at the polls, pushing the Deferred Deportation program for illegal aliens and many other such examples, it is designed to convey a message to white people that this is no longer your country, and we reject your white historical icons and the white, Christian European civilization that they represent.
Sadly, it is all true.
---
Put minorities and females on WIC bills and food stamps (providing them a credit card type piece of plastic to maintain dignity is infuriating - and ridiculously exploited). Rest assured this will continue funneling them to the voters booth. Keep the sanctity of our country's history on the notes for those that earn them. The super rich elite Leftists and bottom 20% lowlifes have somehow created a power vacuum that is tearing this country apart.
---
Obama, the Affirmative Action president in many ways, has now extended racial quotas to our currency.
Watch for other oppressed minorities to demand their representation.
Expect Christine Jorgensen to replace that slaveholder George Washington on the dollar bill by the time Obama leaves next January.
---
...some countries evolve, others devolve. We are clearly devolving at this point in time.
Our previous immigrants were Europeans who easily assimilated into our western culture. Too many of today's immigrants are entrenched in "la revolucion" and have more allegiance to Che Guevara than, say, George Washington. Theirs is a Third World culture striving for income redistribution. Hence their immediate affinity to the Democratic Party which promises all sorts of free goodies paid by those rich gringos.
:D
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 21, 2016, 06:43:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2016, 05:49:17 AM
Quote"Andrew Jackson is what we used to think of as a great American hero," said Brenda Stevenson, UCLA professor of history and African American studies. "He stood for the white, male political and economic elite, with great military honor associated with him.
This is the kind of person we have educating our young today.
I'm not sure I understand the issue with that statement.
The people he stood for were white and male, but as disenfranchised poor people they were hardly society's political and economic elite.
He was still a terrible president, and a racist who committed war crimes, so I support dropping him from the twenty.
Seems like a minor quibble if that's what Yi is taking issue with. And yes to the latter.
Quote from: FunkMonk on April 21, 2016, 06:49:29 AM
Whenever something like this happens I like to read the comments on the WSJ site to get the pulse of what real Americans are thinking:
QuoteGee, Andrew Jackson founded the Democratic Party, opened up voting to all citizens, set the stage for the US to expand from the Atlantic to the Pacific and refused to renew the charter of the first National Bank (a.k.a. Federal reserve). So who is Harriett Tubman and what did she do?
---
Just to retain gender balance, the ten dollar bill is being redesigned to have Bruce Jenner on the front, and Caitlyn Jenner on the back. Both men and women can claim the tenner as their own. Yay!
---
This move by the Obama regime is symbolic on many levels.
Like removing Churchill's bust from the White House, declining to prosecute black panthers who blatantly intimidated white voters at the polls, pushing the Deferred Deportation program for illegal aliens and many other such examples, it is designed to convey a message to white people that this is no longer your country, and we reject your white historical icons and the white, Christian European civilization that they represent.
Sadly, it is all true.
---
Put minorities and females on WIC bills and food stamps (providing them a credit card type piece of plastic to maintain dignity is infuriating - and ridiculously exploited). Rest assured this will continue funneling them to the voters booth. Keep the sanctity of our country's history on the notes for those that earn them. The super rich elite Leftists and bottom 20% lowlifes have somehow created a power vacuum that is tearing this country apart.
---
Obama, the Affirmative Action president in many ways, has now extended racial quotas to our currency.
Watch for other oppressed minorities to demand their representation.
Expect Christine Jorgensen to replace that slaveholder George Washington on the dollar bill by the time Obama leaves next January.
---
...some countries evolve, others devolve. We are clearly devolving at this point in time.
Our previous immigrants were Europeans who easily assimilated into our western culture. Too many of today's immigrants are entrenched in "la revolucion" and have more allegiance to Che Guevara than, say, George Washington. Theirs is a Third World culture striving for income redistribution. Hence their immediate affinity to the Democratic Party which promises all sorts of free goodies paid by those rich gringos.
:D
I prefer Yahoo news:
QuoteI done hears theys talk of putting Hillary face on one of the currencies after she is sworn in and during her first term.
Some talking head feminist had mentioned it in a local telecast in chicago.
My dear Americans. Only you can stop this nonsense hoisted on us by the liberal baby boomers. That generation has done more to destroy the normalcy of daily life in this country.
Please vote anyone but Hillary. She is a fraud and demon hoisted on us by the non moral media, corrupt wall street consortium and the Hollywood establishment.
---
Heck, you can add King's mistresses on the back as well. Maybe even Monica qualifies for a spot. I can see her pictured under Bill's desk performing her tasks while the lies and denies continue. .
---
Put a black in the White House ...leaves his mark in history by changing our money to look like third world currency.
---
Imagine how safe our cities would be if blacks had never been brought to America.
---
So we are replacing a president with a nobody and the comments by the gay reporter make it look like Jackson was the worse person on earth, but this is how liberals destroy people to force their agenda on us. The voting was done without allowing the general public a say in it, kind of like everything the GOV wants
---
If the Indians would have played well with others Jackson wouldn't have had to kick their ash, the libs love romanticizing the Indians but let's not forget they would chop up you and your kids and wear your hides as a fashion statement in a New York minute.
---
FACT - Harriet Tubman was an insurgent and terrorist
Go ahead and put her on the $20 bill and give the newly arriving muslim refugees terrorist inspirations.
---
Totally came here to see the swarm of racist and sexist comments. -grabs popcorn- The comments are like a gore movie, it disgusts me yet entertains me at the same time...
Quote from: celedhring on April 21, 2016, 05:05:25 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2016, 05:01:24 AM
America 1-0 Britain on this one.
Not looking forward to encountering my first Churchill note in the wild.
There's the Jane Austen note.
I can only recall Rosalía de Castro as the single non-royal female character featured in Spanish bills before we switched over the the euro.
Elizabeth Fry is on the current £5 note, so I would have said UK 1-0 USA myself, not that it greatly matters.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 18, 2015, 06:04:36 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 18, 2015, 04:15:42 AM
We're getting some real rearded choices on our new bills. Random opera singers and movie directors and shit. Heaven forbid you put a giant like Anders Chydenius on a bill! :rolleyes:
NO Ingmar Bergman on a Swedish banknote?! Absolutely appalling!
Surely they have the Swedish bikini team on a banknote?
Ignoring internet comments, I'm pleasantly surprised that even most right-wing commentators are supportive of replacing Jackson with Tubman.
Of course it can't hurt that Jackson was a Democrat, and Tubman a Republican. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2015, 09:55:00 PM
It would be more help if you could link me to banks that will go down in the future.
How the hell does CC or I or anyone else knowing the "banks that will go down in the future" have anything to do with how well regulated or not they are? :huh:
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2016, 05:27:06 AM
It's less the woman issue (I'd place the black issue higher) and rather the more general issue of what they stand for.
Tubman is the positive side of America that they need to push harder to fully embrace. Everyone should be free and equal.
Churchill is the dark side of the UK that we're trying to get away from. Imperialist. Racist. Classist....Not the face 21st century Britain wants at all.
Let's not forget from the list, he was the most agressive and dedicated fighter for the initial welfare reforms around 1909. The friggin' bastard.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 21, 2016, 10:31:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 16, 2015, 09:55:00 PM
It would be more help if you could link me to banks that will go down in the future.
How the hell does CC or I or anyone else knowing the "banks that will go down in the future" have anything to do with how well regulated or not they are? :huh:
Because the under-regulated banks are the ones that go down.
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2016, 05:27:06 AM
Churchill is the dark side of the UK that we're trying to get away from.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ff.tqn.com%2Fy%2Fnetforbeginners%2F1%2FL%2Fv%2FR%2Ffacepalmbear.PNG&hash=cd7f41bef9db12fc09dab817458b80a5b86af20b)
Tyr is the first person I've ever met who didn't like Churchill. :frusty:
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2016, 12:24:18 PM
Because the under-regulated banks are the ones that go down.
First, individual banks cannot be under-regulated; banking
sectors can be.
Second, under-regulation is not a cause of bank failure, nor is it absolutely necessary for bank failure. It just makes bank failure much more likely. If a bank chooses to conduct itself responsibly without a regulator looking over its shoulder it won't fail, at least not for reasons under its control.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on April 21, 2016, 12:33:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2016, 12:24:18 PM
Because the under-regulated banks are the ones that go down.
First, individual banks cannot be under-regulated; banking sectors can be.
Second, under-regulation is not a cause of bank failure, nor is it absolutely necessary for bank failure. It just makes bank failure much more likely. If a bank chooses to conduct itself responsibly without a regulator looking over its shoulder it won't fail, at least not for reasons under its control.
Okay, how do we know before hand if the banking sector is under-regulated? And if possible tell me which banks are currently acting irresponsibly and will soon go down. That would be big help.
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
I'm not sure I understand the issue with that statement.
Jackson was a self taught populist frontier lawyer who leveraged military fame into the presidency. Not a member of any political or economic elite.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2016, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
I'm not sure I understand the issue with that statement.
Jackson was a self taught populist frontier lawyer who leveraged military fame into the presidency. Not a member of any political or economic elite.
But he was a white cis hetero male, so she was essentially correct. :lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2016, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
I'm not sure I understand the issue with that statement.
Jackson was a self taught populist frontier lawyer who leveraged military fame into the presidency. Not a member of any political or economic elite.
Well she didn't say he was one.
No, she said he *stood for* the elite.
I suppose she could have meant Jackson got out of his chair when a member of the elite entered the room.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2016, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
I'm not sure I understand the issue with that statement.
Jackson was a self taught populist frontier lawyer who leveraged military fame into the presidency. Not a member of any political or economic elite.
He was a very rich planter with over a hundred slaves, and Congressmen and a Senator before becoming President. What else is require to be economic or political elite?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2016, 03:11:53 PM
He was a very rich planter with over a hundred slaves, and Congressmen and a Senator before becoming President. What else is require to be economic or political elite?
I was unaware he was that wealthy.
He is usually considered one of the richest presidents of the USA.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2016, 03:11:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2016, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
I'm not sure I understand the issue with that statement.
Jackson was a self taught populist frontier lawyer who leveraged military fame into the presidency. Not a member of any political or economic elite.
He was a very rich planter with over a hundred slaves, and Congressmen and a Senator before becoming President. What else is require to be economic or political elite?
The Adams Family
Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2016, 03:11:53 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2016, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
I'm not sure I understand the issue with that statement.
Jackson was a self taught populist frontier lawyer who leveraged military fame into the presidency. Not a member of any political or economic elite.
He was a very rich planter with over a hundred slaves, and Congressmen and a Senator before becoming President. What else is require to be economic or political elite?
Jackson was a populist, and the political elites of his day hated that. Trump's wealthy as fuck, and the political elites hate him, too. It's not about the money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 21, 2016, 01:36:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2016, 06:40:12 AM
I'm not sure I understand the issue with that statement.
Jackson was a self taught populist frontier lawyer who leveraged military fame into the presidency. Not a member of any political or economic elite.
The entire reason he was famous was precisely because he set himself up as anti-elite and the candidate of the common man. Even his military stuff, he was a militia officer leading tough frontier militia. He was a rabid populist with an almost pathological dislike for the Founding Fathers-type elites. So it is kind of pathetic that supposed academic was asked to quote on him while clearly having no damn clue who Andrew Jackson was or why he was considered a hero. Completely whiffing entirely is a bit more than a 'minor quibble' :P
After him instead of being like Washington or Jefferson all candidates had to pretend they were common salt who were born in log cabins. It was not just a style change either, the franchise was expanded in most states and things like appointing electors in Presidential Elections died out (except in South Carolina, but that was a silly place). His presidency was nearly a revolutionary moment in American history. He was on the $20 bill for a reason.
Of course he was a horrible human being whose policies were often disastrous...but that is pretty par for the course for populist 'man-of-the-people' types. His fucking with the Native Americans was just part of that. The snobby Supreme Court wanted it done one way, but a man of action does not have time for that namby-pamby shit.
Quote from: Oexmelin on April 21, 2016, 05:28:48 PM
He is usually considered one of the richest presidents of the USA.
Which was something counter to his image so not the reason he was considered a hero at all.
Presumably everyone who ends up on a bill is there for a reason.
Quote from: dps on April 21, 2016, 10:00:41 PM
Jackson was a populist, and the political elites of his day hated that. Trump's wealthy as fuck, and the political elites hate him, too. It's not about the money.
Yeah. Jackson was a Westerner who made shitloads of money as a nouveau riche type through the plantation boom. Exactly the kind of man the elites hated and resented.
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 01:36:59 PM
Presumably everyone who ends up on a bill is there for a reason.
Yes. So stating what that reason was instead of a bunch of stuff that suggests one is completely ignorant is not an impressive thing for an Academic to do.
Actually the Treasury says that they do not have 'the reason' recorded.
By the way I heartily endorse this change. Frankly I would like to see more people, non politicians preferably, put on the bills over time. Presuming we keep using cash that much longer anyway. I preferred the old money with metaphorical images over all these political people anyway.
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 01:44:19 PM
Actually the Treasury says that they do not have 'the reason' recorded.
Ok well it would be more impressive if he had actually described Andrew Jackson and not George Washington when listing the reasons he was previously a hero :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2016, 01:46:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 01:44:19 PM
Actually the Treasury says that they do not have 'the reason' recorded.
Ok well it would be more impressive if he had actually described Andrew Jackson and not George Washington when listing the reasons he was previously a hero :lol:
It isn't clear to me the description was about what people thought in Jackson's time or what people thought in the 20s when he was added to the bill. From my long distance perspective looks like Jackson just heralded one group of white people taking on elite status from a different group.
Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2016, 05:27:06 AM
Churchill is the dark side of the UK that we're trying to get away from. Imperialist. Racist. Classist....Not the face 21st century Britain wants at all.
Kid, I generally like you but sometimes I think you're a loon, and this is one of those times. Churchill was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century. I don't know how anyone can sanely dispute that. I know you've already gotten beaten up a little bit for this, but for a comment like that you totally need to be dogpiled.
Him being one of the greatest ever doesn't make him immune from criticism, though. And Churchill was racist and imperialist, both things that we should be avoiding. That tarnishes his greatness, but doesn't remove it. It strikes me as similar to noting that the Founding Fathers, while great, were still slaveowners at the end of the day.
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 01:52:45 PM
From my long distance perspective looks like Jackson just heralded one group of white people taking on elite status from a different group.
So was the Russian Revolution. So therefore nothing of significance happened in Russia between 1917 and 1922 I guess? :lol:
Quote from: Habbaku on April 22, 2016, 03:40:55 PM
And Churchill was racist and imperialist, both things that we should be avoiding.
Basically their Teddy Roosevelt. Besides history rarely gives us easy labels for people.
Everybody was racist and imperialist then. Relax. If he hadn't been those things, he would have been a weak leader. Of course he couldn't be the same leader now, but he was a product of his era.
Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2016, 03:50:36 PM
Everybody was racist and imperialist then. Relax. If he hadn't been those things, he would have been a weak leader. Of course he couldn't be the same leader now, but he was a product of his era.
Well that is just not true. But those were certainly far more popular positions than they are now :P
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2016, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 01:52:45 PM
From my long distance perspective looks like Jackson just heralded one group of white people taking on elite status from a different group.
So was the Russian Revolution. So therefore nothing of significance happened in Russia between 1917 and 1922 I guess? :lol:
Okay, Marti.
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot about Woodrow Wilson, the non-racist and non-imperialist guy who set Europe up for the Second World War with his retarded self-determination unless you're German shit. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2016, 03:50:36 PM
Everybody was racist and imperialist then. Relax. If he hadn't been those things, he would have been a weak leader. Of course he couldn't be the same leader now, but he was a product of his era.
To be fair, he was big on the Empire well into the 1950s and his second stint as PM, when the idea of the empire had come into serious questioning both internationally and from within the UK. And of course the whole thing was then largely dismantled within the next 10-20 years.
But he was still fucking awesome.
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 01:52:45 PM
From my long distance perspective looks like Jackson just heralded one group of white people taking on elite status from a different group.
Given that white people have managed to built the most prominent and technologically advanced (on a sustained basis) civilisation to date, I'd say that's pretty significant. It's not like, say, black people, who never really accomplished a lot.
OH NO YOU DINT
Quote from: Barrister on April 22, 2016, 04:00:47 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2016, 03:50:36 PM
Everybody was racist and imperialist then. Relax. If he hadn't been those things, he would have been a weak leader. Of course he couldn't be the same leader now, but he was a product of his era.
To be fair, he was big on the Empire well into the 1950s and his second stint as PM, when the idea of the empire had come into serious questioning both internationally and from within the UK. And of course the whole thing was then largely dismantled within the next 10-20 years.
But he was still fucking awesome.
Exactly. We can accept Churchill as a truly great leader while also noting his colossal failures and generally being on the wrong side of history on many subjects. Refusing to accept that he was either great or flawed is a childish position.
Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2016, 03:58:16 PM
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot about Woodrow Wilson, the non-racist and non-imperialist guy who set Europe up for the Second World War with his retarded self-determination unless you're German shit. :blush:
:unsure: Wilson was as racist as they came.
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2016, 03:44:46 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 22, 2016, 03:40:55 PM
And Churchill was racist and imperialist, both things that we should be avoiding.
Basically their Teddy Roosevelt. Besides history rarely gives us easy labels for people.
Churchill is a liminal figure who stand on the line between the British empire and modern Britain. So he represents much of what is good and what is bad of Imperial Britain. In that sense, he was similar to Lincoln or FDR both figures who stood astride eras in American history. However both Lincoln and Roosevelt were agents of change from one era to another, Churchill resisted the change that was coming and ended up on the wrong side of it.
What is the Wilson=racist indictment built on, other than segregating the civil service?
Quote from: Habbaku on April 22, 2016, 04:28:12 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2016, 03:58:16 PM
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot about Woodrow Wilson, the non-racist and non-imperialist guy who set Europe up for the Second World War with his retarded self-determination unless you're German shit. :blush:
:unsure: Wilson was as racist as they came.
:yes:
He was the one who screened
Birth of a Nation at the Whitehouse and loved it, while re-segregating the federal government.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2016, 04:29:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2016, 03:44:46 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 22, 2016, 03:40:55 PM
And Churchill was racist and imperialist, both things that we should be avoiding.
Basically their Teddy Roosevelt. Besides history rarely gives us easy labels for people.
Churchill is a liminal figure who stand on the line between the British empire and modern Britain. So he represents much of what is good and what is bad of Imperial Britain. In that sense, he was similar to Lincoln or FDR both figures who stood astride eras in American history. However both Lincoln and Roosevelt were agents of change from one era to another, Churchill resisted the change that was coming and ended up on the wrong side of it.
Can you give some examples of Churchill's racist opinions?
The racism, or degree of which, has been greatly discussed online. Here's just a couple of hits:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2015/1214/5-surprising-facts-about-Woodrow-Wilson-and-racism
Frankly, considering post-colonial history, I'm not sure Churchill was wrong to want to keep the British Empire intact. Not morally, anyway. Probably not worth the effort to British citizens though.
If God can give people free will then I'm sure John Bull can too.
Quote from: Martinus on April 22, 2016, 04:42:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 22, 2016, 04:29:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2016, 03:44:46 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 22, 2016, 03:40:55 PM
And Churchill was racist and imperialist, both things that we should be avoiding.
Basically their Teddy Roosevelt. Besides history rarely gives us easy labels for people.
Churchill is a liminal figure who stand on the line between the British empire and modern Britain. So he represents much of what is good and what is bad of Imperial Britain. In that sense, he was similar to Lincoln or FDR both figures who stood astride eras in American history. However both Lincoln and Roosevelt were agents of change from one era to another, Churchill resisted the change that was coming and ended up on the wrong side of it.
Can you give some examples of Churchill's racist opinions?
Why the hell did you ask me of all people? I wasn't the one to bring it up. BB posted an article that sums up some racist statements, it's trivially easy to find racist statements from someone living in 1916. I think the Imperialism and classism are more of note. He really wanted to keep the old order when the people of Britain were turning away from it. It says a lot that he was voted out of office in 1945.
Women on the money. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Habbaku on April 22, 2016, 04:28:12 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 22, 2016, 03:58:16 PM
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot about Woodrow Wilson, the non-racist and non-imperialist guy who set Europe up for the Second World War with his retarded self-determination unless you're German shit. :blush:
:unsure: Wilson was as racist as they came.
Yeah I know. I was trying to be ironic there... I mean you read the end of my post right? :sleep:
Quote from: Barrister on April 22, 2016, 04:47:38 PM
The racism, or degree of which, has been greatly discussed online. Here's just a couple of hits:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2015/1214/5-surprising-facts-about-Woodrow-Wilson-and-racism
Ok that's pretty bad.
Quote from: Martinus on April 22, 2016, 04:15:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 01:52:45 PM
From my long distance perspective looks like Jackson just heralded one group of white people taking on elite status from a different group.
Given that white people have managed to built the most prominent and technologically advanced (on a sustained basis) civilisation to date, I'd say that's pretty significant. It's not like, say, black people, who never really accomplished a lot.
:console:
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2016, 01:40:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 22, 2016, 04:15:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 01:52:45 PM
From my long distance perspective looks like Jackson just heralded one group of white people taking on elite status from a different group.
Given that white people have managed to built the most prominent and technologically advanced (on a sustained basis) civilisation to date, I'd say that's pretty significant. It's not like, say, black people, who never really accomplished a lot.
:console:
I just think your anti-white people shtick is getting old, garbo. :P
You are culturally white upper (middle) class. You were raised by a white well-off family, which sent you to a prestigious university and you ended up having a cool job in an international corporation, that sent you off to one of the best cities on Earth. You are way more privileged than most white males on this board, not to mention people like an average white male in rural Alabama, where your privilege differs so greatly, you may just as well be living on different planets.
And on top of that, given your skin colour and sexual orientation, if your employer needs to make people redundant, and has you and another white straight married father of four to choose from, then all other things (including your professional performance) being equal, he and not you is much more likely to get the axe.
So climb down from your plush cross, darling. :hug:
There might a reorganization coming up at work. Do you have any gay coupon?
Churchill veneration in the UK has actually increased in my lifetime. As time goes by he is increasingly remembered for just one thing, that determination back in 1940 that helped stiffen Britain's backbone which in turn led to a better post-WW2 world. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, talking to the old folk, a lot of them didn't like him. Coal miners didn't like because of the troops being sent in at the Rhonda 1911 coal strike. Military men criticised his "soft underbelly of Europe" theories and constant meddling. Others didn't like him simply because he was a Tory. It is notable that in the 1945 election the country rejected him and wanted to make a very different Britain.
Having said all that, if 1940 was the British Empire's "finest hour" it was also his and I'm sure he was aware of that; if Britain had caved in the future for Europe would have been much darker and it was a close-run thing that we didn't.
It's really irritating that people only remember the good things about him.
One that is particularly irksome is the "he was the only one who noticed the nazis were a threat in the 30s and the establishment put him out in the cold for this!"
When in fact the main reason he became such a marginal figure in the 30s was his views on India. He just couldn't see that the history of british rule in India was a history of gradual movement towards self rule and that an independent India was inevitable within a few decades at least. No. To him it was brown people can't rule themselves.
Also the idea that he was the one who won the war...
Attlee deserves just as much credit for making sure the country kept quietly ticking over.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 23, 2016, 03:29:32 AM
Having said all that, if 1940 was the British Empire's "finest hour" it was also his and I'm sure he was aware of that; if Britain had caved in the future for Europe would have been much darker and it was a close-run thing that we didn't.
Really? I imagine the future of Europe would have been much paler, myself.
Quote from: Tyr on April 23, 2016, 04:03:26 AM
It's really irritating that people only remember the good things about him.
One that is particularly irksome is the "he was the only one who noticed the nazis were a threat in the 30s and the establishment put him out in the cold for this!"
When in fact the main reason he became such a marginal figure in the 30s was his views on India. He just couldn't see that the history of british rule in India was a history of gradual movement towards self rule and that an independent India was inevitable within a few decades at least. No. To him it was brown people can't rule themselves.
Also the idea that he was the one who won the war...
Attlee deserves just as much credit for making sure the country kept quietly ticking over.
He was put out in the cold because of Gallipoli. His warnings about Germany in the 30s were issued from the fringes of power.
It wasn't self-evident in the 30s that India was capable of self rule. It wasn't self evident during partition and independence, for that matter.
Quote from: Martinus on April 23, 2016, 03:16:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2016, 01:40:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 22, 2016, 04:15:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 01:52:45 PM
From my long distance perspective looks like Jackson just heralded one group of white people taking on elite status from a different group.
Given that white people have managed to built the most prominent and technologically advanced (on a sustained basis) civilisation to date, I'd say that's pretty significant. It's not like, say, black people, who never really accomplished a lot.
:console:
I just think your anti-white people shtick is getting old, garbo. :P
You are culturally white upper (middle) class. You were raised by a white well-off family, which sent you to a prestigious university and you ended up having a cool job in an international corporation, that sent you off to one of the best cities on Earth. You are way more privileged than most white males on this board, not to mention people like an average white male in rural Alabama, where your privilege differs so greatly, you may just as well be living on different planets.
And on top of that, given your skin colour and sexual orientation, if your employer needs to make people redundant, and has you and another white straight married father of four to choose from, then all other things (including your professional performance) being equal, he and not you is much more likely to get the axe.
So climb down from your plush cross, darling. :hug:
I'm not against white people. :o
I would like to meet my well off white family though. :hmm:
Did we miss some sort of antebellum South movement recently sweeping Poland or something?
Bunch of people that don't use vowels suddenly appearing in white suits with jelly jars full of lemonade or something?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2016, 07:52:58 AM
Did we miss some sort of antebellum South movement recently sweeping Poland or something?
Bunch of people that don't use vowels suddenly appearing in white suits with jelly jars full of lemonade or something?
:D
It's gays, they can be very fractious* amongst themselves, so any meme to hand is a useful cudgel. :)
* This is what old age does to you, I originally wrote "divisive", but couldn't believe I'd typed it correctly, so googled and grudgingly accepted I was right, but then decided it was definitely the wrong word to use, even though I know it's meaning and on-line definitions suggest I could have gotten away with using it... anyway, back on topic, getting older sucks. <_<
Just curious as to when Marti transformed himself into a South Carolina plantation owner circa 1856.
Didn't know that kind of virulent racism was the "in" look this year with the Eastern European pillowbiting scene.
Quote from: mongers on April 23, 2016, 08:06:29 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2016, 07:52:58 AM
Did we miss some sort of antebellum South movement recently sweeping Poland or something?
Bunch of people that don't use vowels suddenly appearing in white suits with jelly jars full of lemonade or something?
:D
It's gays, they can be very fractious* amongst themselves, so any meme to hand is a useful cudgel. :)
* This is what old age does to you, I originally wrote "divisive", but couldn't believe I'd typed it correctly, so googled and grudgingly accepted I was right, but then decided it was definitely the wrong word to use, even though I know it's meaning and on-line definitions suggest I could have gotten away with using it... anyway, back on topic, getting older sucks. <_<
What does that description have to do specifically with guys? :rolleyes:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2016, 08:14:01 AM
Just curious as to when Marti transformed himself into a South Carolina plantation owner circa 1856.
Didn't know that kind of virulent racism was the "in" look this year with the Eastern European pillowbiting scene.
I'm surprised he didn't mention I was an oreo.
Quote from: garbon on April 23, 2016, 08:16:25 AM
I'm surprised he didn't mention I was an oreo.
Too many vowels.
:lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2016, 08:14:01 AM
Just curious as to when Marti transformed himself into a South Carolina plantation owner circa 1856.
Didn't know that kind of virulent racism was the "in" look this year with the Eastern European pillowbiting scene.
Blame his fascination with Milo Yiannopoulos.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on April 23, 2016, 12:47:06 PM
Blame his fascination with Milo Yiannopoulos.
What is that, gay porn?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2016, 02:41:52 PM
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on April 23, 2016, 12:47:06 PM
Blame his fascination with Milo Yiannopoulos.
What is that, gay porn?
The gay version of Clayton Bigsby from The Chappelle Show.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4HHhG7P.png&hash=be91201226533fec847a7bc8306abc96e81245d0)
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 03:57:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2016, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 01:52:45 PM
From my long distance perspective looks like Jackson just heralded one group of white people taking on elite status from a different group.
So was the Russian Revolution. So therefore nothing of significance happened in Russia between 1917 and 1922 I guess? :lol:
Okay, Marti.
Hey you were the racebaiter here not me. You want to explain how a dramatic expansion of the franchise and a redefinition of citizenship in this country is what you described? I mean if you claim that nothing matters unless it involves a transfer of power between different races or ethnicities then most of the history of the world is not important...
So care to explain why you decided to attempt to shut me up by doing the 'blah blah white people' thing to me? Because that kind of pisses me off.
Quote from: Valmy on April 23, 2016, 04:09:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 03:57:59 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 22, 2016, 03:42:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 22, 2016, 01:52:45 PM
From my long distance perspective looks like Jackson just heralded one group of white people taking on elite status from a different group.
So was the Russian Revolution. So therefore nothing of significance happened in Russia between 1917 and 1922 I guess? :lol:
Okay, Marti.
Hey you were the racebaiter here not me. You want to explain how a dramatic expansion of the franchise and a redefinition of citizenship in this country is what you described? I mean if you claim that nothing matters unless it involves a transfer of power between different races or ethnicities then most of the history of the world is not important...
So care to explain why you decided to attempt to shut me up by doing the 'blah blah white people' thing to me? Because that kind of pisses me off.
<garbon>
Check your white privilege!
</garbon>
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 23, 2016, 07:52:58 AM
Did we miss some sort of antebellum South movement recently sweeping Poland or something?
Bunch of people that don't use vowels suddenly appearing in white suits with jelly jars full of lemonade or something?
I'd ask "what crawled up his ass", but that might a little too on the nose.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 23, 2016, 04:13:38 AM
Quote from: Tyr on April 23, 2016, 04:03:26 AM
It's really irritating that people only remember the good things about him.
One that is particularly irksome is the "he was the only one who noticed the nazis were a threat in the 30s and the establishment put him out in the cold for this!"
When in fact the main reason he became such a marginal figure in the 30s was his views on India. He just couldn't see that the history of british rule in India was a history of gradual movement towards self rule and that an independent India was inevitable within a few decades at least. No. To him it was brown people can't rule themselves.
Also the idea that he was the one who won the war...
Attlee deserves just as much credit for making sure the country kept quietly ticking over.
He was put out in the cold because of Gallipoli. His warnings about Germany in the 30s were issued from the fringes of power.
It wasn't self-evident in the 30s that India was capable of self rule. It wasn't self evident during partition and independence, for that matter.
What makes you say this?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2016, 04:33:38 PM
What makes you say this?
All the Hindus and Muslims killing each other, perhaps.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 23, 2016, 04:33:38 PM
What makes you say this?
This is a discussion board. Discussing is what we do here.
I am unimpressed.
I'll keep this on file next time you accuse me of bait and switch.