While carefully aiming the shot after the other person had fired in a duel was not explicitly against duelling rules, a lot of people saw it as kind of a dick move.
The idea that we're somehow erasing history by not honoring certain people banknote portraits is just so bizarre to me that it makes me kind of psyduck.
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.
I'm real happy Andrew Jackson is being replaced, because he was awful. I'm hoping this trend continues and we can replace the people on the rest of our currency. Moving away from ancestor-worshiping these demonstrably deeply flawed men would be a good thing.
Edit: Also, hand-wringing about not judging by our modern values/not learning from our storied past is ridiculous. There are stories we can learn from that aren't about the winners of the Climb a Hill of Corpses Contest of a given year. History doesn't need to be a succession of Great People.
The reason Washington will probably never be replaced is because he was one of the most critical people to the stability of the early United States.
Before him, the "presidents" (I guess that's the best term for them) and congress were having a hard time unifying the country. We could've likely split into regions or city-states that ran themselves.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The idea that we're somehow erasing history by not honoring certain people banknote portraits is just so bizarre to me that it makes me kind of psyduck.
Total agreement. One can remember the past without celebrating it. We remember who Genghis Khan is, and the impact he had on the world. We don't name streets after him, or get his birthday as a day off from work.
The idea that we're somehow erasing history by not honoring certain people banknote portraits is just so bizarre to me that it makes me kind of psyduck.
Total agreement. One can remember the past without celebrating it. We remember who Genghis Khan is, and the impact he had on the world. We don't name streets after him, or get his birthday as a day off from work.
I'd say the removal is in itself an attempt to erase or minimize. Which is what it is, but we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
I just think the logic doesn't hold up. The heroes of most cultures/countries were forged in bad times: in wars, revolutions, in times of great cultural/social upheaval. How you view these people greatly depends on what side won, how history progressed, or just plain distance of time from the event.
Part of the reason we (still) put portraits on our currency is that it hijacks some pretty basic human programming to recognize and interpret faces. We notice if something is off with a portrait way before we would a skyscraper.
I mean, that's totally an ex post facto justification but it makes some sense.
Ehhh, I kinda hate the idea of erasing the past to please present politics. But whatever, won't hurt anyone and if it makes a bunch of people happy I guess it's worth it.
RIP sweet, genocidal prince.
It's a good thing for a mature country to re-evaluate past heroes. We don't get all misty when Austria clears up the last "AdolphHitlerStrasse."
I disagree. As a species and a society we continually learn, grow and change. It does us no good to judge the past by today's standards, it just allows us to feel extra special about ourselves and how great we are while divorcing the long dead from any real context.
At a certain point we just accept that judging the past with the morality of the present is a fruitless exercise.
Again, though, not a huge thing. Having her on a 20 will probably mean a lot to many, so though I don't like the method I'm not rly broken up about it.
Jackson's actions were abhorent in his day. The whitewash is pretending that what he did was accepted by everyone in his day and only now do we look back and say "Oh no!"
Was it?
Look I don't really care for Jackson and I'm glad this is happening, but, I'm fairly confident that owning slaves and performing duels was pretty common for wealthy white folk in the 17 & 1800s. Also yes he was kind of a dick when he was president to people who he didn't like, which, I guess if you are on his shit list, you might find him abhorrent.
On slavery: While the slave trade was rampant & eventually spiralled into the American Civil War, the abolitionist movement was also quite strong & there were clearly conflicted thoughts even among slave owners about the trade. Some (like Jefferson) felt that slavery could be justified so long as slave masters weren't cruel & the ends of a prosperous whole justified the means of a few slaves housed in reasonable living conditions.
Washington's letters at the end of his Presidency, IMHO, provide some of the best illustrations for the issue - he knew it was wrong, he knew it was unsustainable, he knew he was likely going to be judged poorly in the future because of it. He chose to be a slave owner anyway for most of his life because it was convenient & something of a social norm, not because he didn't think it was unethical.
Even the people you'd think would write the most repugnant affirmations of the practice - the brutal plantation owners in Louisiana & New Orleans - almost always couched their own public thoughts in terms of economics. Not something you'd do if you thought your cause was just.
On duels: It's not entirely clear how common pistol duelling was in the United States (it was apparently common enough that some norms were established, but credible records of actual duels are surprisingly rare), but the consensus is that - however common they were - most duels ended the same way: both parties discharging their weapons into the ground and then leaving. The famous duel that ended Hamilton's life, for example, may have been a tragic misunderstanding: Hamilton fired into the air, Burr thought he was being shot at (since usually people threw their shot away at their own feet, not into the sky) and returned fire. Burr's writings after the fact pretty strongly suggest he was haunted by the event for years afterward (go figure).
Again, it's not like people were just randomly glove slapping each other and having gun fights to the death every Tuesday with no regard for the consequences. It was a terrible practice, but then again we have many terrible cultural practices & prejudices today that people in that era didn't have, so we should be careful about hanging our hats on sore points and thinking that we just know better today (not to disparage the progress we've certainly made).
Holy shit. Everyone at work is freaking the fuck out over this because they're all horrible racists. Like literally the idea that we just won't accept 20s with Tubman on them as payment for things has been floated.
Part of the reason we (still) put portraits on our currency is that it hijacks some pretty basic human programming to recognize and interpret faces. We notice if something is off with a portrait way before we would a skyscraper.
I mean, that's totally an ex post facto justification but it makes some sense.
I'd never really looked before, but is there any particular reason the US seems to have mainly ex presidents on your notes? It seems kind of odd to have such focus.
Holy shit. Everyone at work is freaking the fuck out over this because they're all horrible racists. Like literally the idea that we just won't accept 20s with Tubman on them as payment for things has been floated.
Given that whole "people can pay for things in pennies, even if it's a dick move" thing I've seen on the internet (John Oliver?), wouldn't that be illegal? Isn't there some law in the US about businesses having to accept legal currency for payments, or is that one of those things that varies state to state? I'd assume it would be on the federal level, but can't say that with certainty from my view within America's Hat.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Holy shit. Everyone at work is freaking the fuck out over this because they're all horrible racists. Like literally the idea that we just won't accept 20s with Tubman on them as payment for things has been floated.
Did you explain what "Legal Tender For All Debts, Public And Private" means?
Holy shit. Everyone at work is freaking the fuck out over this because they're all horrible racists. Like literally the idea that we just won't accept 20s with Tubman on them as payment for things has been floated.
Anyone care to guess how long it'll take before Trump pledges to restore the $20 bill to it's former glory once elected President?
Holy shit. Everyone at work is freaking the fuck out over this because they're all horrible racists. Like literally the idea that we just won't accept 20s with Tubman on them as payment for things has been floated.
Given that whole "people can pay for things in pennies, even if it's a dick move" thing I've seen on the internet (John Oliver?), wouldn't that be illegal? Isn't there some law in the US about businesses having to accept legal currency for payments, or is that one of those things that varies state to state? I'd assume it would be on the federal level, but can't say that with certainty from my view within America's Hat.
They have to accept currency for incurred debts (all bills bear the legend "Legal Tender For All Debts, Public And Private" for this reason) which is how you get the "paid with 20 pounds of pennies" story. But if no debt has been incurred, then they can opt to not take cash.
The idea that we're somehow erasing history by not honoring certain people banknote portraits is just so bizarre to me that it makes me kind of psyduck.
Total agreement. One can remember the past without celebrating it. We remember who Genghis Khan is, and the impact he had on the world. We don't name streets after him, or get his birthday as a day off from work.
I'd say the removal is in itself an attempt to erase or minimize. Which is what it is, but we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
I just think the logic doesn't hold up. The heroes of most cultures/countries were forged in bad times: in wars, revolutions, in times of great cultural/social upheaval. How you view these people greatly depends on what side won, how history progressed, or just plain distance of time from the event.
I disagree. I feel his presence on the bill in the first place is a kind of celebration of Jackson, and his removal from it is a step towards remembrance without lionization.
Ugh... so I heard someone say they might keep Jackson on the back of the 20... is that true? If so having someone like Harriet on the front of the bill and Andrew on the back is just.... terrible. On so many levels.
Part of the reason we (still) put portraits on our currency is that it hijacks some pretty basic human programming to recognize and interpret faces. We notice if something is off with a portrait way before we would a skyscraper.
I mean, that's totally an ex post facto justification but it makes some sense.
I'd never really looked before, but is there any particular reason the US seems to have mainly ex presidents on your notes? It seems kind of odd to have such focus.
well, like so many things, that's what we happened to have when the boomers were children and as such they're immutable tradition
see also: christmas songs
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I know you can refuse to accept certain denominations (bills over 50 etc.) but I'm pretty sure you can't refuse a particular print of a specific denomination.
Holy shit. Everyone at work is freaking the fuck out over this because they're all horrible racists. Like literally the idea that we just won't accept 20s with Tubman on them as payment for things has been floated.
Given that whole "people can pay for things in pennies, even if it's a dick move" thing I've seen on the internet (John Oliver?), wouldn't that be illegal? Isn't there some law in the US about businesses having to accept legal currency for payments, or is that one of those things that varies state to state? I'd assume it would be on the federal level, but can't say that with certainty from my view within America's Hat.
They have to accept currency for incurred debts (all bills bear the legend "Legal Tender For All Debts, Public And Private" for this reason) which is how you get the "paid with 20 pounds of pennies" story. But if no debt has been incurred, then they can opt to not take cash.
At McDonald's, where you pay before you get stuff, the clerk can tell you to pound sand. At a fancy restaurant, where you get a bill at the end, they are obligated to accept the US currency regardless of form.
I know you can refuse to accept certain denominations (bills over 50 etc.) but I'm pretty sure you can't refuse a particular print of a specific denomination.
Holy shit. Everyone at work is freaking the fuck out over this because they're all horrible racists. Like literally the idea that we just won't accept 20s with Tubman on them as payment for things has been floated.
Given that whole "people can pay for things in pennies, even if it's a dick move" thing I've seen on the internet (John Oliver?), wouldn't that be illegal? Isn't there some law in the US about businesses having to accept legal currency for payments, or is that one of those things that varies state to state? I'd assume it would be on the federal level, but can't say that with certainty from my view within America's Hat.
They have to accept currency for incurred debts (all bills bear the legend "Legal Tender For All Debts, Public And Private" for this reason) which is how you get the "paid with 20 pounds of pennies" story. But if no debt has been incurred, then they can opt to not take cash.
There's actually no legal requirement from the Department of Treasury that business must accept a certain legal tender. Legal tender specifies legality of the currency but not its requirement for use of transactions. A business can say "we accept payment in legal tender but not if you give me pounds of pennies" or they can say "we accept payment but not with that 300 dollar bill". Both are acceptable.
Wasn't this all about upgrading the ten dollar bill to be harder to counterfeit. I feel like Hamilton the musical is going to be costing me money and I can't even afford to see it.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I know this is kind of a weird take, but with a lot of these "replace old dead white guy with old dead [race] [gender]" things. I tend to get kind of disappointed in the replacements. Sorta like when February rolled around in elementary school and you end up learning about a guy who really really loved peanuts. Its not like you normally hear about Robert C Baker every year through 6th grade.
In this case Jackson was such a giant tool that kicking him off is no loss-besides losing the sort of eternal grave dance/middle finger that is having the President who hated central banking being on the most circulated bill.
But If I am stack ranking 'people on US currency' on their importance and achievements....
TOP
Washington
Lincoln
Hamilton
Jefferson
Franklin
Grant
Tubman
I mean I could see a swap here or there but I feel like she is pretty solidly last.
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy.
Hamilton>Jackson in basically every way including morally and in importance so I'm glad at the change of removing Jackson instead.
I still kinda think that it whitewashes the degree to which women were denied the opportunity to meaningfully act in the highest and most impactful spheres of society until very recently to pretend one had reached the level that would garner inclusion with those appearing as a "dead president", but you certainly can't deny Tubman's personal heroism in the worst conditions.
Holy shit. Everyone at work is freaking the fuck out over this because they're all horrible racists. Like literally the idea that we just won't accept 20s with Tubman on them as payment for things has been floated.
Given that whole "people can pay for things in pennies, even if it's a dick move" thing I've seen on the internet (John Oliver?), wouldn't that be illegal? Isn't there some law in the US about businesses having to accept legal currency for payments, or is that one of those things that varies state to state? I'd assume it would be on the federal level, but can't say that with certainty from my view within America's Hat.
They have to accept currency for incurred debts (all bills bear the legend "Legal Tender For All Debts, Public And Private" for this reason) which is how you get the "paid with 20 pounds of pennies" story. But if no debt has been incurred, then they can opt to not take cash.
There's actually no legal requirement from the Department of Treasury that business must accept a certain legal tender. Legal tender specifies legality of the currency but not its requirement for use of transactions. A business can say "we accept payment in legal tender but not if you give me pounds of pennies" or they can say "we accept payment but not with that 300 dollar bill". Both are acceptable.
Debt is the important part of that.
Buying something isn't a debt. But, student loans or a car payment is.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The American government made the decision in the 1950s to encourage the teaching of "consensus history" that emphasized the positives of the American system over communism while papering over any conflicts or bad actions by the society and government. It was blatant propaganda, and we are living with the effects. Our politics are what you'd expect out of several generations of propagandized citizens who cannot think outside a very narrow worldview.
This is an interesting revelation to me and I think I'm going to enjoy reading about it further.
Not to get too OT but I am highly skeptical given the prevalence of the "Lost Cause" version of history that factually predates the 1950s and the seeming universality of putting a positive spin on your own nation/tribe/regions history
Wasn't this all about upgrading the ten dollar bill to be harder to counterfeit. I feel like Hamilton the musical is going to be costing me money and I can't even afford to see it.
They upgrade all of them every decade or two. Except the $1, because it would break every vending machine and who counterfeits ones anyway?
Posts
Interesting. Just thought I'd share that.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Edit: Also, hand-wringing about not judging by our modern values/not learning from our storied past is ridiculous. There are stories we can learn from that aren't about the winners of the Climb a Hill of Corpses Contest of a given year. History doesn't need to be a succession of Great People.
-edit-
For that matter so does Hamilton. Do you like having a functional federal government? Because I do.
Eh, I mean they aren't sitting in the eaves beaming about the honor.
I mostly feel like shifting off the laser-focus we tend to have on our glorious revolution/sainted founders would do some measurable good.
Travis Purrington's 2014 currency redesign project that uses imagery of technological and scientific achievements instead of "great people" speaks to me: http://www.travispurrington.com/211378/2317660/gallery/2014-usd-proposal
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Before him, the "presidents" (I guess that's the best term for them) and congress were having a hard time unifying the country. We could've likely split into regions or city-states that ran themselves.
Jesus, I would love that.. but ... it'll never happen.
Total agreement. One can remember the past without celebrating it. We remember who Genghis Khan is, and the impact he had on the world. We don't name streets after him, or get his birthday as a day off from work.
I'd say the removal is in itself an attempt to erase or minimize. Which is what it is, but we shouldn't pretend otherwise.
I just think the logic doesn't hold up. The heroes of most cultures/countries were forged in bad times: in wars, revolutions, in times of great cultural/social upheaval. How you view these people greatly depends on what side won, how history progressed, or just plain distance of time from the event.
Part of the reason we (still) put portraits on our currency is that it hijacks some pretty basic human programming to recognize and interpret faces. We notice if something is off with a portrait way before we would a skyscraper.
I mean, that's totally an ex post facto justification but it makes some sense.
Jesus Christ can people be obtuse. My favourite comment was that he was responsible for winning the war of 1812.
On slavery: While the slave trade was rampant & eventually spiralled into the American Civil War, the abolitionist movement was also quite strong & there were clearly conflicted thoughts even among slave owners about the trade. Some (like Jefferson) felt that slavery could be justified so long as slave masters weren't cruel & the ends of a prosperous whole justified the means of a few slaves housed in reasonable living conditions.
Washington's letters at the end of his Presidency, IMHO, provide some of the best illustrations for the issue - he knew it was wrong, he knew it was unsustainable, he knew he was likely going to be judged poorly in the future because of it. He chose to be a slave owner anyway for most of his life because it was convenient & something of a social norm, not because he didn't think it was unethical.
Even the people you'd think would write the most repugnant affirmations of the practice - the brutal plantation owners in Louisiana & New Orleans - almost always couched their own public thoughts in terms of economics. Not something you'd do if you thought your cause was just.
On duels: It's not entirely clear how common pistol duelling was in the United States (it was apparently common enough that some norms were established, but credible records of actual duels are surprisingly rare), but the consensus is that - however common they were - most duels ended the same way: both parties discharging their weapons into the ground and then leaving. The famous duel that ended Hamilton's life, for example, may have been a tragic misunderstanding: Hamilton fired into the air, Burr thought he was being shot at (since usually people threw their shot away at their own feet, not into the sky) and returned fire. Burr's writings after the fact pretty strongly suggest he was haunted by the event for years afterward (go figure).
Again, it's not like people were just randomly glove slapping each other and having gun fights to the death every Tuesday with no regard for the consequences. It was a terrible practice, but then again we have many terrible cultural practices & prejudices today that people in that era didn't have, so we should be careful about hanging our hats on sore points and thinking that we just know better today (not to disparage the progress we've certainly made).
I'd never really looked before, but is there any particular reason the US seems to have mainly ex presidents on your notes? It seems kind of odd to have such focus.
Given that whole "people can pay for things in pennies, even if it's a dick move" thing I've seen on the internet (John Oliver?), wouldn't that be illegal? Isn't there some law in the US about businesses having to accept legal currency for payments, or is that one of those things that varies state to state? I'd assume it would be on the federal level, but can't say that with certainty from my view within America's Hat.
eg: if they impound your car
Did you explain what "Legal Tender For All Debts, Public And Private" means?
Anyone care to guess how long it'll take before Trump pledges to restore the $20 bill to it's former glory once elected President?
They have to accept currency for incurred debts (all bills bear the legend "Legal Tender For All Debts, Public And Private" for this reason) which is how you get the "paid with 20 pounds of pennies" story. But if no debt has been incurred, then they can opt to not take cash.
Thanks guys.
I disagree. I feel his presence on the bill in the first place is a kind of celebration of Jackson, and his removal from it is a step towards remembrance without lionization.
well, like so many things, that's what we happened to have when the boomers were children and as such they're immutable tradition
see also: christmas songs
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
At McDonald's, where you pay before you get stuff, the clerk can tell you to pound sand. At a fancy restaurant, where you get a bill at the end, they are obligated to accept the US currency regardless of form.
To give a clarifying example.
yes you can
except your business would suffer dramatically
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Especially if currencies are trimmed down (see: the penny, seriously guys we got rid of the penny years ago and it has been nothing but a net win).
I still kinda think that it whitewashes the degree to which women were denied the opportunity to meaningfully act in the highest and most impactful spheres of society until very recently to pretend one had reached the level that would garner inclusion with those appearing as a "dead president", but you certainly can't deny Tubman's personal heroism in the worst conditions.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Debt is the important part of that.
Buying something isn't a debt. But, student loans or a car payment is.
Not to get too OT but I am highly skeptical given the prevalence of the "Lost Cause" version of history that factually predates the 1950s and the seeming universality of putting a positive spin on your own nation/tribe/regions history
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
They upgrade all of them every decade or two. Except the $1, because it would break every vending machine and who counterfeits ones anyway?