How about Hedy Lamarr? She invented a frequency hopping system that helped defeat the Nazis in WWII, and it is still used today in cell phones to hop communication towers.
Also, she was a great actress as well as an engineer.
An Austrian actress and a composer invented frequency-hopping? That's pretty awesome.
How about Hedy Lamarr? She invented a frequency hopping system that helped defeat the Nazis in WWII, and it is still used today in cell phones to hop communication towers.
Also, she was a great actress as well as an engineer.
I agree that Harriet Tubman (which my phone wants to auto correct to 'gunman') should be first, though.
Hedy Lamarr wasn't American, as far as I know
Okay, then how about Jeanette Rankin? First woman to be elected to the House of Representatives (not just appointed to an open seat), she was a staunch anti-war advocate - casting a no vote against the the declaration of war in both WWI and WWII (being the only member of Congress to do so in the latter case.)
You had me up until that whole voting against WWII thing.
How about Hedy Lamarr? She invented a frequency hopping system that helped defeat the Nazis in WWII, and it is still used today in cell phones to hop communication towers.
Also, she was a great actress as well as an engineer.
I agree that Harriet Tubman (which my phone wants to auto correct to 'gunman') should be first, though.
Hedy Lamarr wasn't American, as far as I know
Okay, then how about Jeanette Rankin? First woman to be elected to the House of Representatives (not just appointed to an open seat), she was a staunch anti-war advocate - casting a no vote against the the declaration of war in both WWI and WWII (being the only member of Congress to do so in the latter case.)
You had me up until that whole voting against WWII thing.
She was staunchly against war, and stood for her principles knowing full well it would cost her the seat.
How about Hedy Lamarr? She invented a frequency hopping system that helped defeat the Nazis in WWII, and it is still used today in cell phones to hop communication towers.
Also, she was a great actress as well as an engineer.
I agree that Harriet Tubman (which my phone wants to auto correct to 'gunman') should be first, though.
Hedy Lamarr wasn't American, as far as I know
Okay, then how about Jeanette Rankin? First woman to be elected to the House of Representatives (not just appointed to an open seat), she was a staunch anti-war advocate - casting a no vote against the the declaration of war in both WWI and WWII (being the only member of Congress to do so in the latter case.)
You had me up until that whole voting against WWII thing.
She was staunchly against war, and stood for her principles knowing full well it would cost her the seat.
Why is that a bad thing, exactly?
It's not, per se.
I can respect her conviction and simultaneously think she acted foolishly.
How about Hedy Lamarr? She invented a frequency hopping system that helped defeat the Nazis in WWII, and it is still used today in cell phones to hop communication towers.
Also, she was a great actress as well as an engineer.
I agree that Harriet Tubman (which my phone wants to auto correct to 'gunman') should be first, though.
Hedy Lamarr wasn't American, as far as I know
Okay, then how about Jeanette Rankin? First woman to be elected to the House of Representatives (not just appointed to an open seat), she was a staunch anti-war advocate - casting a no vote against the the declaration of war in both WWI and WWII (being the only member of Congress to do so in the latter case.)
You had me up until that whole voting against WWII thing.
She was staunchly against war, and stood for her principles knowing full well it would cost her the seat.
Why is that a bad thing, exactly?
Because she's basically Edith Keeler, MAN! The City on the Edge of Forever! "Peace was the way. She was right. But at the wrong time."
(I am totally kidding. This just reminded me of Star Trek, that's all.)
Achievement doesn't exist in a vacuum though. Nor is it a contest to see who has the most accolades, and the top 10 end up on money. Switching from symbolic imagery on money to portraiture was intended to commemorate the people appearing on money for what they did.
In the same vein, the US dollar and quarter both commemorate a slave-owning hardcore racist.
actually ignores the reality that the true problem is that the historic record has had a massive bias against noting the deeds of women and minorities.
But he's saying that due to bias against women and minorities in the Olden Days, they didn't accomplish as much as white men. Your sentence here sounds like you're arguing that there were secret black Einsteins or female Lincolns and their accomplishments didn't get written down, which is not true. There weren't any because they weren't allowed to become them thanks to racism and misogyny.
No, they just get downplayed - see his whole "well, Grace Hopper really wasn't that impressive an individual, her contributions to programming notwithstanding" argument. Not to mention that our idea of "worthiness" is itself up for discussion, as those very rules themselves are structured in a way that benefits white men at the expense of women and minorities.
So just to be clear, your argument is that there is no criteria for who belongs on money....
but if there was there are plenty of women and non-whites who accomplished just as much as the most accomplished handful of white males despite centuries of well document and extensive barriers to intellectual, political, cultural and professional fields
but their contributions are now downplayed by a secret cabal that shroud their societal contributions now that many of those barriers have been eliminated or greatly reduced.
I think we can all hopefully agree that MLK, at least, should be on money.
MLK is certainly a reasonable person to include on money. I'd honestly prefer for it to wait for Hilary because that debate would suck with Obama as PotUS, but he had a very real and large impact on society, his central philosophy is overwhelmingly positive and supportable and his personal flaws are extremely minor.
Achievement doesn't exist in a vacuum though. Nor is it a contest to see who has the most accolades, and the top 10 end up on money. Switching from symbolic imagery on money to portraiture was intended to commemorate the people appearing on money for what they did.
In the same vein, the US dollar and quarter both commemorate a slave-owning hardcore racist.
actually ignores the reality that the true problem is that the historic record has had a massive bias against noting the deeds of women and minorities.
But he's saying that due to bias against women and minorities in the Olden Days, they didn't accomplish as much as white men. Your sentence here sounds like you're arguing that there were secret black Einsteins or female Lincolns and their accomplishments didn't get written down, which is not true. There weren't any because they weren't allowed to become them thanks to racism and misogyny.
No, they just get downplayed - see his whole "well, Grace Hopper really wasn't that impressive an individual, her contributions to programming notwithstanding" argument. Not to mention that our idea of "worthiness" is itself up for discussion, as those very rules themselves are structured in a way that benefits white men at the expense of women and minorities.
So just to be clear, your argument is that there is no criteria for who belongs on money....
but if there was there are plenty of women and non-whites who accomplished just as much as the most accomplished handful of white males despite centuries of well document and extensive barriers to intellectual, political, cultural and professional fields
but their contributions are now downplayed by a secret cabal that shroud their societal contributions now that many of those barriers have been eliminated or greatly reduced.
It's not a secret cabal at all. It's something we see in society even up to this very day - women and minorities routinely see their accomplishments downgraded, if not outright stolen from them. Hence the saying that they have to be "twice as good".
So just to be clear, your argument is that there is no criteria for who belongs on money....
but if there was there are plenty of women and non-whites who accomplished just as much as the most accomplished handful of white males despite centuries of well document and extensive barriers to intellectual, political, cultural and professional fields
but their contributions are now downplayed by a secret cabal that shroud their societal contributions now that many of those barriers have been eliminated or greatly reduced.
No, there's plenty of criteria, subjective as it may be. What people are saying is that criteria should be weighted in certain situations, such as the achievements of women and minorities in the past, due to the difficulty of them being able to achieve anything noteworthy at all during those times. Saying women and minorities didn't achieve much in the past because of white men, so we shouldn't put women and minorities on currency because there's a disproportionate number of white men who achieved so much more is like saying the double amputee who climbed Everest shouldn't really be recognized because way more people with legs have done it. The adversity that had to be overcome just to get to the point that they could achieve anything is what makes the achievement so much more noteworthy.
How about Hedy Lamarr? She invented a frequency hopping system that helped defeat the Nazis in WWII, and it is still used today in cell phones to hop communication towers.
Also, she was a great actress as well as an engineer.
I agree that Harriet Tubman (which my phone wants to auto correct to 'gunman') should be first, though.
Hedy Lamarr wasn't American, as far as I know
Okay, then how about Jeanette Rankin? First woman to be elected to the House of Representatives (not just appointed to an open seat), she was a staunch anti-war advocate - casting a no vote against the the declaration of war in both WWI and WWII (being the only member of Congress to do so in the latter case.)
How about Ted Kennedy. Or Robert La Follette. Or Hubert Humphrey. Or Robert Wagner. Or if you want to limit it to the House, Sam Rayburn or Tip O'Neil.
Any of them are at a completely different level on their influence on American politics and culture than Rankin, who served a total of 2 terms in office and never actually succeeded at anything Legislatively. And none of them are really threatening to be on currency
edit
And that's before you even get to Rankin voting against war with Japan after they attacked the United States.
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Can we not have prominent American female heroes on money just because we want to? Or because female representation is something we have a long history of sweeping under the rug?
Or can Barbara Jordan not be on money because she didn't invent the steamboat?
I could see an underrepresented minority on like another quarter run; that'd be fun
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
We could include some ethnic minorities and women on currency but it would some fairly dishonest revisionist history. One of the greatest societal (as opposed to individual) harms from irrational discrimination based on race/sex is the inefficient utilization of talent. A genius female or African American would likely have a very difficult time having nearly the impact they would if they were white male through much of US history. That tragedy shouldn't be "whitewashed"
So having Joseph Mansfield and James Wilson on our currency was more merited than, say, Harriet Tubman or Harriet Beecher Stowe or Elizabeth Cady Stanton?
How about Hedy Lamarr? She invented a frequency hopping system that helped defeat the Nazis in WWII, and it is still used today in cell phones to hop communication towers.
Also, she was a great actress as well as an engineer.
I agree that Harriet Tubman (which my phone wants to auto correct to 'gunman') should be first, though.
Hedy Lamarr wasn't American, as far as I know
Just went and looked it up, you're right - she was born Austrian. However! She became a naturalized citizen in her 30s, which is good enough for me. Also, while reading up on her, I learned that she performed the first on-screen simulated orgasm in the 1933 movie Ecstasy.
~The more you know~
+8
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
So would Rosalind Franklin get to be on money, or does she not count because she technically doesn't have influence?
If she'd discovered DNA all by herself, maybe, but we don't put scientists on money to begin with since we prefer people with social/political achievements. If we're switching up the money we keep Washington and Lincoln, put MLK on the 10, and that leaves us with 3 bills. Washington, Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., "the woman who helped Watson and Crick discover DNA"? It's a hard bar to clear, unless you want to go with Paladin's suggestion and do the quarters thing.
edit- I don't think being an assistant to the people who actually discover/found things counts, if I was unclear. So Rosalind Franklin would not count, but Clara Barton would.
So tell me, @PantsB, were the Australians wrong for placing an opera singer on the A$100 note? If so, why?
Because you seem to have a very specific idea of Who Is Worthy Of Being On Money, but you seem to be shying away from arguing that criteria directly.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're proposing women who you feel have had a major impact while pretending not to have a criteria.
Let's take from the petition that inspired this thread.
WHEREAS, Women On 20s calls upon President Barack Obama to order the Secretary of the Treasury to change the current portrait portrayed on our American $20 bank note to reflect the remarkable accomplishments of an exemplary American woman who has helped shape our Nation's great history;
or from their "Why the 20" page
So it seems fitting to commemorate that milestone by voting to elevate women to a place that is today reserved exclusively for the men who shaped American history.
There's a pretty clear understanding of the criteria. And you're the one calling for change. If you believe the entire process is arbitrary there's no reason for change. If you believe there should be women represented on currency, you are indicating a standard that is not being adhered to. Just by proposing candidates, you acknowledge that standard by looking for women who have had a major impact on society. If you want a woman to be represented solely for her gender, at least come out and say it so we can disagree like reasonable adults.
And yes, Australia was silly for putting a soprano on its currency. I think if the US said "we'll put a woman on money" and chose Marilyn Monroe everyone would agree that would be insulting to women.
So would Rosalind Franklin get to be on money, or does she not count because she technically doesn't have influence?
If she'd discovered DNA all by herself, maybe, but we don't put scientists on money to begin with since we prefer people with social/political achievements. If we're switching up the money we keep Washington and Lincoln, put MLK on the 10, and that leaves us with 3 bills. Washington, Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr., "the woman who helped Watson and Crick discover DNA"? It's a hard bar to clear, unless you want to go with Paladin's suggestion and do the quarters thing.
edit- I don't think being an assistant to the people who actually discover/found things counts, if I was unclear. So Rosalind Franklin would not count, but Clara Barton would.
Except that she really wasn't an assistant, but very much a fellow scientist and key researcher. The main reason we think of her as "just an assistant" is largely due to the fact that Watson and Crick are really horrible bigots (to the point that Watson's caused a number of embarrassing moments for the institutions he's served with by virtue of opening his mouth as of late.)
It's hard to determine which scientists deserve national recognition because it just isn't that important in the scientific community. They'd much rather like leaving their names on some sort of principle or phenomenon you actually have to study to know about, and we're even moving away from that too
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In the context of choosing someone to commemorate and idolize, it'd be similar to putting Barbie on money. There's nothing wrong with Marilyn Monroe, but even from a purely cultural standpoint, other women had larger and more dramatic effect. If you want to put a female sexual revolutionary on money. use Mae West. Or even Katharine Hepburn.
It's hard to determine which scientists deserve national recognition because it just isn't that important in the scientific community. They'd much rather like leaving their names on some sort of principle or phenomenon you actually have to study to know about, and we're even moving away from that too
One of his earliest sins: Watson didn’t credit Rosalind Franklin, a chemist also working on DNA at the time, for her crucial research on X-ray diffraction images, without which he and Francis Crick would not have been the first to discover the double helix structure. (Linus Pauling and others were right behind them and would have figured it out.) In Watson’s The Double Helix memoir, he calls Franklin “Rosy” (not a nickname she used), critiques her clothing and makeup, and characterizes her incorrectly as another scientist’s assistant.
Which ties into that whole "it's not a secret cabal, it's asshole men and patriarchal culture" point from earlier.
In the context of choosing someone to commemorate and idolize, it'd be similar to putting Barbie on money. There's nothing wrong with Marilyn Monroe, but even from a purely cultural standpoint, other women had larger and more dramatic effect. If you want to put a female sexual revolutionary on money. use Mae West. Or even Katharine Hepburn.
But that's the thing - Melba was more akin to the latter two. She was the first Australian international superstar (both positively and negatively - her behavior created much of the idea of the prima donna we have today), and was a huge cultural milestone for the fledgling nation. Which is why the Aussies put her on the A$100 note.
And this comes back to the argument at hand - it's pretty clear now that PantsB is heavily wedded to Great Man Theory, and that is driving his criteria of Who Is Worthy To Be On Money. But the reality is that Great Man Theory is pretty heavily flawed, and has been moved away from more and more. If we are no longer so tied to the idea of Great Men, it turns out that there are many, many women and minorities who shaped our nation's history indelibly.
And this comes back to the argument at hand - it's pretty clear now that PantsB is heavily wedded to Great Man Theory, and that is driving his criteria of Who Is Worthy To Be On Money. But the reality is that Great Man Theory is pretty heavily flawed, and has been moved away from more and more. If we are no longer so tied to the idea of Great Men, it turns out that there are many, many women and minorities who shaped our nation's history indelibly.
But that's who you put on the money. Great People. No one would fault France if they put Napoleon on the money.
It's hard to determine which scientists deserve national recognition because it just isn't that important in the scientific community. They'd much rather like leaving their names on some sort of principle or phenomenon you actually have to study to know about, and we're even moving away from that too
One of his earliest sins: Watson didn’t credit Rosalind Franklin, a chemist also working on DNA at the time, for her crucial research on X-ray diffraction images, without which he and Francis Crick would not have been the first to discover the double helix structure. (Linus Pauling and others were right behind them and would have figured it out.) In Watson’s The Double Helix memoir, he calls Franklin “Rosy” (not a nickname she used), critiques her clothing and makeup, and characterizes her incorrectly as another scientist’s assistant.
Which ties into that whole "it's not a secret cabal, it's asshole men and patriarchal culture" point from earlier.
That and thousands of stories like that are why the scientific community just gives blank stares when they witness how they are publicly perceived, and largely keep to themselves when sorting out their own heroes and villains. How much did you know about the recent push to rename medical eponyms honoring the work of Nazis?
It is largely understood that there is a good chance that people who became popular scientists got there by being the best at clawing eyes and licking boots, which is normal for every profession but especially prevalent in science because fellow scientists make easy prey. You'd be hard pressed to find modern standouts in science because they've figured out that being on good terms with the scientific community is far more important than breaking out to the public, and requires a whole different set of credentials. Any scientist that wants to become a role model is better off becoming a polymath in public policy or law or something that the vast majority can legitimately appreciate.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I still don't see why you have to choose just one set of people to commemorate on the bills for all eternity. Why not switch them up?
I'm Norwegian. We've redesigned our paper currency (including who gets their face on the bills) 7 times (and are in the process of designing the 8th series) since we starting printing money. Almost all of them have had people on them.
We've commemorated (people only):
7 poets/authors
4 statesmen
3 scientists/mathematicians
2 musicians
1 admiral
1 painter
Three of these have been women.
You Americans don't have a shortage of people to commemorate, and it would be silly to only put the most famous and influential politicians on bills. You have so many other people with accomplishments in wide-ranging fields to be proud of! Give them all a chance to be on money.
Full list of people who appeared on Norwegian bills:
Series 1 (1877-1901):
Then-king of Norway and Sweden Oscar II
Series 2 (1901-1945) and 3 (1945-1955):
Then-President of the Parliament of Norway W.F.K. Christie
Admiral Tordenskiold (18th century war hero)
Series 4 (1948-1976) and 5 (1962-1987):
Fridtjof Nansen (explorer, scientist, humanitarian, Nobel Peace Prize winner)
(Only S4) Christian Michelsen (first prime minister of independent Norway)
Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson (poet, Nobel Literature Prize winner)
Henrik Wergeland (poet)
Niels Henrik Abel (mathematician)
Henrik Ibsen (playwright)
Series 6 (1979-2001):
Aasmund Olavsson Vinje (poet and journalist)
Camilla Collett (writer, feminist)
Edvard Grieg (composer)
Christian Magnus Falsen (co-writer of the constitution)
Series 7 (1994-):
Peter Christen Asbjørnsen (writer and scholar)
Kirsten Flagstad (opera singer)
Kristian Birkeland (scientist)
Sigrid Undset (writer, Nobel Literature Prize winner)
Edvard Munch (painter)
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+4
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
actually ignores the reality that the true problem is that the historic record has had a massive bias against noting the deeds of women and minorities.
But he's saying that due to bias against women and minorities in the Olden Days, they didn't accomplish as much as white men. Your sentence here sounds like you're arguing that there were secret black Einsteins or female Lincolns and their accomplishments didn't get written down, which is not true. There weren't any because they weren't allowed to become them thanks to racism and misogyny.
No, they just get downplayed - see his whole "well, Grace Hopper really wasn't that impressive an individual, her contributions to programming notwithstanding" argument. Not to mention that our idea of "worthiness" is itself up for discussion, as those very rules themselves are structured in a way that benefits white men at the expense of women and minorities.
huff
puff
IS SOMEONE DOWNPLAYING AMAZING GRACE HOPPER I WILL HAVE WORDS
An improvement over the current bills (solely in terms of design, not taking into account the subjects chosen), but I think we could still do better.
But then, I've always been a fan of well-done engraved art on money.
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
edited May 2015
Those are godawful. 1. they look like everyone elses's 2. they're probably plastic and 3. there are some stupid choices. Steve Jobs? Bob Dylan? Really?
Keep the current designs, but switch out the portraits and maybe the landmark on the reverse.
If I was in charge of the US mint, I'd probably do something like make three or four versions of each bill, wherein the portraits on the face are different but virtually everything else is the same. I'd decide on three or four categories, and build from there. Great Americans (i.e., mostly politicians and civil rights leaders, but also people that don't necessarily fit into other categories), science/technology, and art would be my go to categories.
For example, the five dollar bill would continue to have a version with Lincoln on it for the Great American category, it could have Grace Hopper for the science/technology category, and it could have Harriet Beecher Stowe for literature.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
If I was in charge of the US mint, I'd probably do something like make three or four versions of each bill, wherein the portraits on the face are different but virtually everything else is the same. I'd decide on three or four categories, and build from there. Great Americans (i.e., mostly politicians and civil rights leaders, but also people that don't necessarily fit into other categories), science/technology, and art would be my go to categories.
For example, the five dollar bill would continue to have a version with Lincoln on it for the Great American category, it could have Grace Hopper for the science/technology category, and it could have Harriet Beecher Stowe for literature.
The problem with that is it makes counterfeiting easier, the more variations of a single bill you have in circulation, the easier it becomes to slip in fakes. It also makes being accused of holding counterfeit money more likely, too. Look at the $2 bill Taco Bell story. They've been in use since 1862 but they're so rarely seen in circulation cashiers regularly think they're fake.
If I was in charge of the US mint, I'd probably do something like make three or four versions of each bill, wherein the portraits on the face are different but virtually everything else is the same. I'd decide on three or four categories, and build from there. Great Americans (i.e., mostly politicians and civil rights leaders, but also people that don't necessarily fit into other categories), science/technology, and art would be my go to categories.
For example, the five dollar bill would continue to have a version with Lincoln on it for the Great American category, it could have Grace Hopper for the science/technology category, and it could have Harriet Beecher Stowe for literature.
The problem with that is it makes counterfeiting easier, the more variations of a single bill you have in circulation, the easier it becomes to slip in fakes. It also makes being accused of holding counterfeit money more likely, too. Look at the $2 bill Taco Bell story. They've been in use since 1862 but they're so rarely seen in circulation cashiers regularly think they're fake.
Then put three people on each bill. That works too.
Also, as has been suggested in this thread (and elsewhere...) use different sized bills for different denominations. A $20 bill should be physically bigger than a $1 bill, to make it more difficult for counterfeiters to use $1 stock on making $20 bills.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
Fuck historical figures. I want notes that show American technological and scientific achievements.
Cotton gin on the $1
Telephone on the $5
Wright brothers' glider on the $10
DNA double helix on the $20
Integrated circuit on the $50
Apollo on the $100
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Posts
An Austrian actress and a composer invented frequency-hopping? That's pretty awesome.
You had me up until that whole voting against WWII thing.
She was staunchly against war, and stood for her principles knowing full well it would cost her the seat.
Why is that a bad thing, exactly?
It's not, per se.
I can respect her conviction and simultaneously think she acted foolishly.
(I am totally kidding.
So just to be clear, your argument is that there is no criteria for who belongs on money....
but if there was there are plenty of women and non-whites who accomplished just as much as the most accomplished handful of white males despite centuries of well document and extensive barriers to intellectual, political, cultural and professional fields
but their contributions are now downplayed by a secret cabal that shroud their societal contributions now that many of those barriers have been eliminated or greatly reduced.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
MLK is certainly a reasonable person to include on money. I'd honestly prefer for it to wait for Hilary because that debate would suck with Obama as PotUS, but he had a very real and large impact on society, his central philosophy is overwhelmingly positive and supportable and his personal flaws are extremely minor.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It's not a secret cabal at all. It's something we see in society even up to this very day - women and minorities routinely see their accomplishments downgraded, if not outright stolen from them. Hence the saying that they have to be "twice as good".
No, there's plenty of criteria, subjective as it may be. What people are saying is that criteria should be weighted in certain situations, such as the achievements of women and minorities in the past, due to the difficulty of them being able to achieve anything noteworthy at all during those times. Saying women and minorities didn't achieve much in the past because of white men, so we shouldn't put women and minorities on currency because there's a disproportionate number of white men who achieved so much more is like saying the double amputee who climbed Everest shouldn't really be recognized because way more people with legs have done it. The adversity that had to be overcome just to get to the point that they could achieve anything is what makes the achievement so much more noteworthy.
How about Ted Kennedy. Or Robert La Follette. Or Hubert Humphrey. Or Robert Wagner. Or if you want to limit it to the House, Sam Rayburn or Tip O'Neil.
Any of them are at a completely different level on their influence on American politics and culture than Rankin, who served a total of 2 terms in office and never actually succeeded at anything Legislatively. And none of them are really threatening to be on currency
edit
And that's before you even get to Rankin voting against war with Japan after they attacked the United States.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Because you seem to have a very specific idea of Who Is Worthy Of Being On Money, but you seem to be shying away from arguing that criteria directly.
Or can Barbara Jordan not be on money because she didn't invent the steamboat?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Put her on the 10, only need to change the portrait.
Just went and looked it up, you're right - she was born Austrian. However! She became a naturalized citizen in her 30s, which is good enough for me. Also, while reading up on her, I learned that she performed the first on-screen simulated orgasm in the 1933 movie Ecstasy.
~The more you know~
edit- I don't think being an assistant to the people who actually discover/found things counts, if I was unclear. So Rosalind Franklin would not count, but Clara Barton would.
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You're proposing women who you feel have had a major impact while pretending not to have a criteria.
Let's take from the petition that inspired this thread.
or from their "Why the 20" page
There's a pretty clear understanding of the criteria. And you're the one calling for change. If you believe the entire process is arbitrary there's no reason for change. If you believe there should be women represented on currency, you are indicating a standard that is not being adhered to. Just by proposing candidates, you acknowledge that standard by looking for women who have had a major impact on society. If you want a woman to be represented solely for her gender, at least come out and say it so we can disagree like reasonable adults.
And yes, Australia was silly for putting a soprano on its currency. I think if the US said "we'll put a woman on money" and chose Marilyn Monroe everyone would agree that would be insulting to women.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Except that she really wasn't an assistant, but very much a fellow scientist and key researcher. The main reason we think of her as "just an assistant" is largely due to the fact that Watson and Crick are really horrible bigots (to the point that Watson's caused a number of embarrassing moments for the institutions he's served with by virtue of opening his mouth as of late.)
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In the context of choosing someone to commemorate and idolize, it'd be similar to putting Barbie on money. There's nothing wrong with Marilyn Monroe, but even from a purely cultural standpoint, other women had larger and more dramatic effect. If you want to put a female sexual revolutionary on money. use Mae West. Or even Katharine Hepburn.
Actually, in Franklin's case, it's pretty clear that she was crucial to their efforts to win the race:
Which ties into that whole "it's not a secret cabal, it's asshole men and patriarchal culture" point from earlier.
But that's the thing - Melba was more akin to the latter two. She was the first Australian international superstar (both positively and negatively - her behavior created much of the idea of the prima donna we have today), and was a huge cultural milestone for the fledgling nation. Which is why the Aussies put her on the A$100 note.
And this comes back to the argument at hand - it's pretty clear now that PantsB is heavily wedded to Great Man Theory, and that is driving his criteria of Who Is Worthy To Be On Money. But the reality is that Great Man Theory is pretty heavily flawed, and has been moved away from more and more. If we are no longer so tied to the idea of Great Men, it turns out that there are many, many women and minorities who shaped our nation's history indelibly.
That and thousands of stories like that are why the scientific community just gives blank stares when they witness how they are publicly perceived, and largely keep to themselves when sorting out their own heroes and villains. How much did you know about the recent push to rename medical eponyms honoring the work of Nazis?
It is largely understood that there is a good chance that people who became popular scientists got there by being the best at clawing eyes and licking boots, which is normal for every profession but especially prevalent in science because fellow scientists make easy prey. You'd be hard pressed to find modern standouts in science because they've figured out that being on good terms with the scientific community is far more important than breaking out to the public, and requires a whole different set of credentials. Any scientist that wants to become a role model is better off becoming a polymath in public policy or law or something that the vast majority can legitimately appreciate.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I'm Norwegian. We've redesigned our paper currency (including who gets their face on the bills) 7 times (and are in the process of designing the 8th series) since we starting printing money. Almost all of them have had people on them.
We've commemorated (people only):
- 7 poets/authors
- 4 statesmen
- 3 scientists/mathematicians
- 2 musicians
- 1 admiral
- 1 painter
Three of these have been women.You Americans don't have a shortage of people to commemorate, and it would be silly to only put the most famous and influential politicians on bills. You have so many other people with accomplishments in wide-ranging fields to be proud of! Give them all a chance to be on money.
Full list of people who appeared on Norwegian bills:
Series 2 (1901-1945) and 3 (1945-1955):
Series 4 (1948-1976) and 5 (1962-1987):
Series 6 (1979-2001):
Series 7 (1994-):
https://www.behance.net/gallery/4542893/DOLLAR-reimagining-US-currency-for-a-new-century
I like these concepts!
huff
puff
IS SOMEONE DOWNPLAYING AMAZING GRACE HOPPER I WILL HAVE WORDS
An improvement over the current bills (solely in terms of design, not taking into account the subjects chosen), but I think we could still do better.
But then, I've always been a fan of well-done engraved art on money.
Keep the current designs, but switch out the portraits and maybe the landmark on the reverse.
If I was in charge of the US mint, I'd probably do something like make three or four versions of each bill, wherein the portraits on the face are different but virtually everything else is the same. I'd decide on three or four categories, and build from there. Great Americans (i.e., mostly politicians and civil rights leaders, but also people that don't necessarily fit into other categories), science/technology, and art would be my go to categories.
For example, the five dollar bill would continue to have a version with Lincoln on it for the Great American category, it could have Grace Hopper for the science/technology category, and it could have Harriet Beecher Stowe for literature.
The problem with that is it makes counterfeiting easier, the more variations of a single bill you have in circulation, the easier it becomes to slip in fakes. It also makes being accused of holding counterfeit money more likely, too. Look at the $2 bill Taco Bell story. They've been in use since 1862 but they're so rarely seen in circulation cashiers regularly think they're fake.
Then put three people on each bill. That works too.
Also, as has been suggested in this thread (and elsewhere...) use different sized bills for different denominations. A $20 bill should be physically bigger than a $1 bill, to make it more difficult for counterfeiters to use $1 stock on making $20 bills.
Cotton gin on the $1
Telephone on the $5
Wright brothers' glider on the $10
DNA double helix on the $20
Integrated circuit on the $50
Apollo on the $100
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Same size bills for all denominations because fuck blind people
We still have a goddamn penny
They could put Warren G. Harding's ballsack on every single note for all I care if they just fixed those two problems
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.