Who the F*%ck is Harriet Tubman?

“It is unnecessary to diminish Jackson in order to honor Tubman,” Alexander said in a statement.

“Jackson was the first common man to be elected president. He fought to save the Union.”

I think this is the way some of the folks feel. Obviously, their sentiments are taken out of context and seen as bigoted, etc. This may be the case in a minority.  But for most it is not. But there really is no way to express your feeling on this and say it without people jumping to that conclusion. 

Of course, everyone of all walks respect her and want her to be honored. But is this the correct way is the question is all. 

Near as I recall, the only set requirement is that  'In God We Trust'   Must appear.  I suspect soon there will be a push to get rid of this.  So much of this is to be politically correct and to not 'offend' people --- when there is no obvious offense meant or even an unintended slight. 

I realize people say we have a bunch of long-dead white guys on the currency. But we can't swerve the fact that those were the founders of the nation and the Chase's and Hamilton's, who weren't even presidents had great contributions as well. Certainly postal stamps are not the thing they once were. But maybe there are other ways of honoring our great ancestors, without making it look as though the ones currently on the bills were somehow not really as honorable as we once thought they were.  For example, before the 'play' look at the huge push there was to displace Hamilton. 

The suffrage push for the women to get on the bills is a big thing as well.  While they are certainly very honorable women, should they displace others just so they can be honored?  Hard to say---unless is it to be politically correct. 

If this is the only way we can think of to honor our historically relevant figures---then maybe we could have a 5 or 10 year rotation of different figures. 

But as currency may go the way of the postal stamp---where will the next push be to honor them?

“It is unnecessary to diminish Jackson in order to honor Tubman,” Alexander said in a statement.

“Jackson was the first common man to be elected president. He fought to save the Union.”

I think this is the way some of the folks feel. Obviously, their sentiments are taken out of context and seen as bigoted, etc. This may be the case in a minority.  But for most it is not. But there really is no way to express your feeling on this and say it without people jumping to that conclusion. 

Of course, everyone of all walks respect her and want her to be honored. But is this the correct way is the question is all. 

Near as I recall, the only set requirement is that  'In God We Trust'   Must appear.  I suspect soon there will be a push to get rid of this.  So much of this is to be politically correct and to not 'offend' people --- when there is no obvious offense meant or even an unintended slight. 

I realize people say we have a bunch of long-dead white guys on the currency. But we can't swerve the fact that those were the founders of the nation and the Chase's and Hamilton's, who weren't even presidents had great contributions as well. Certainly postal stamps are not the thing they once were. But maybe there are other ways of honoring our great ancestors, without making it look as though the ones currently on the bills were somehow not really as honorable as we once thought they were.  For example, before the 'play' look at the huge push there was to displace Hamilton. 

The suffrage push for the women to get on the bills is a big thing as well.  While they are certainly very honorable women, should they displace others just so they can be honored?  Hard to say---unless is it to be politically correct. 

If this is the only way we can think of to honor our historically relevant figures---then maybe we could have a 5 or 10 year rotation of different figures. 

But as currency may go the way of the postal stamp---where will the next push be to honor them?