The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew was planning to put Tubman on $20

124

Posts

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Couscous wrote:
    Andrew Jackson doesn't appear to have had any moral qualms over slavery and supported its expansion.

    The fed could always put John Brown on currency.

    Personally, some of the lesser known founding fathers should get the time to shine. John Dickinson was an independent minded person and seems overall decent for his time period.

    While I certainly appreciate ideas like this one, and also opinions that to some extent it may be whitewashing history to pretend that Tub had the same respect & station as the rest of the figures emblazoned in coinage... probably time has come to include people on American currency who aren't all rich white men?

    We had a similar debate up here (although it's a bit different because Canadian currency has never really been dominated by faces of men... which is kind of an oddity among currencies, now that I think about it).

    Probably, yeah. Usually the purpose is to honor some notable dead citizen, and that doesn't require them to have been immensely important to the development of the country. Edward Elgar was on British currency despite being known because he was a composer, hardly the most vital thing to the history of the United Kingdom.

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Couscous wrote:
    Andrew Jackson doesn't appear to have had any moral qualms over slavery and supported its expansion.

    The fed could always put John Brown on currency.

    Personally, some of the lesser known founding fathers should get the time to shine. John Dickinson was an independent minded person and seems overall decent for his time period.

    While I certainly appreciate ideas like this one, and also opinions that to some extent it may be whitewashing history to pretend that Tub had the same respect & station as the rest of the figures emblazoned in coinage... probably time has come to include people on American currency who aren't all rich white men?

    We had a similar debate up here (although it's a bit different because Canadian currency has never really been dominated by faces of men... which is kind of an oddity among currencies, now that I think about it).

    Well that depends. We have women on our money because britian said "fuck it lets have queens then" way back and we currently have one. Given that the queen appears on everything except the 5, 10, 50 and 100 bills though we don't have a lot of slots for other women, though I have no complaints with who we do have

  • GatorGator An alligator in Scotland Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Gator wrote: »
    Jefferson also held slaves. Life is complicated, history even more so!

    Well yeah because Jefferson was mostly a dick who managed to rephrase the writings of Locke eloquently a few times

    Look man

    It`s very good to exaggerate for rhetorical effect

    But when MLK started his "I have a dream" speech he didn't say "this nation will one day rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'eloquent rephrasing of Locke'"

  • FCDFCD Registered User regular
    As I said earlier, one can remember historical figures without celebrating them. It's important to remember the bad along with the good, and sometimes the bad was particularly bad.

    Gridman! Baby DAN DAN! Baby DAN DAN!
  • A duck!A duck! Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited April 2016
    I don't see how throwing someone on currency reminds anyone of their faults. Unless you're actually educated on the subject (which does not involve faces on currency) it's just veneration. I don't see a specific need to venerate assholes.

    A duck! on
  • FoefallerFoefaller Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    The Ender wrote: »
    mostly I just chuckle at the idea that the person on a particular bill has any impact at all on our understanding of history

    like, has anybody's understanding of jackson's life and place in history been enhanced by the fact that he's on the twenty? Would it be reduced if you took him off of it? It seems irrelevant to me

    Jackson is enough of an edge case where it might. Being on the 20 is maybe the only thing that keeps him from being another one of those "presidents between Jefferson and Lincoln" people don't remember.

    How prominent or not is the war of 1812 in American education?

    That it happened... and that's about it.

    Oh, there's also stuff about USS Constitution getting the nickname "Old Ironsides," Battle of New Orleans and how it happened after the war was technically already over, how the Star Spangled Banner was written and Washington DC was burned down.

    Don't remember until my college years hearing about the other stuff, like how we started the war because we wanted Canada and though Napoleon was the perfect cover to nab in from the British, only for Napoleon to pick that year to try and invade Russia. How we burned Montreal to the ground, and how New Orleans was the rare victory in a string of almost embarrising defeats on land because everyone who commanded in the Revolutionary War was dead or retired and noone bothered to keep up with European-style warfare because most of the army was militia and most of their fighting experience since 1780 was skirmishes with Native Americans.
    The Ender wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Gator wrote: »
    Jefferson also held slaves. Life is complicated, history even more so!

    Well yeah because Jefferson was mostly a dick who managed to rephrase the writings of Locke eloquently a few times

    Really? This is what Jefferson boils down to? My last boss was a dick but I'd cut him some slack if he founded the greatest nation in the history of the world (that I have lived in).

    I'd say that is not exactly a reasonable breakdown of Jefferson, but the man was certainly not someone I think should be lionized as often as he is. He didn't merely own slaves, for example: he pioneered entirely new ways in which slavery could be leveraged in an increasingly diversified American economy. His innovation in that area was a fundamental part of keeping the slave trade alive.

    He was two-faced when it came to armed revolt & state sovereignty. It was a good thing when he was one leading the revolt, an unforgivable sin when he was the one sitting as President.

    He betrayed some of his closest friends & confidants for financial gain.


    The Louisiana Purchase was certainly a worthy accomplishment, but I don't know that it outweighs the legacy of essentially cementing in place the eventual cause of the civil war.

    He also started the Barbary Wars when he refused to pay tribute to Algiers and Tripoli, which is something that I never heard about in school until college, and was supremely disappointed that such an interesting part of American History was hidden from me. I mean, US wages a war against pirates and they never have it in the history books!?

    Foefaller on
    steam_sig.png
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    Gator wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Gator wrote: »
    Jefferson also held slaves. Life is complicated, history even more so!

    Well yeah because Jefferson was mostly a dick who managed to rephrase the writings of Locke eloquently a few times

    Look man

    It`s very good to exaggerate for rhetorical effect

    But when MLK started his "I have a dream" speech he didn't say "this nation will one day rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'eloquent rephrasing of Locke'"
    https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/367/Locke DecIndep.htm
    Locke: " It is evident that all human beings – as creatures belonging to the same species and rank and born indiscriminately with all the same natural advantages and faculties – are equal amongst themselves"
    and
    "This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity."

    It wasn't even copying Locke, it was a reference.

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    Foefaller wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    mostly I just chuckle at the idea that the person on a particular bill has any impact at all on our understanding of history

    like, has anybody's understanding of jackson's life and place in history been enhanced by the fact that he's on the twenty? Would it be reduced if you took him off of it? It seems irrelevant to me

    Jackson is enough of an edge case where it might. Being on the 20 is maybe the only thing that keeps him from being another one of those "presidents between Jefferson and Lincoln" people don't remember.

    How prominent or not is the war of 1812 in American education?

    That it happened... and that's about it.

    Oh, there's also stuff about USS Constitution getting the nickname "Old Ironsides," Battle of New Orleans and how it happened after the war was technically already over, how the Star Spangled Banner was written and Washington DC was burned down.

    Don't remember until my college years hearing about the other stuff, like how we started the war because we wanted Canada and though Napoleon was the perfect cover to nab in from the British, only for Napoleon to pick that year to try and invade Russia. How we burned Montreal to the ground, and how New Orleans was the rare victory in a string of almost embarrising defeats on land because everyone who commanded in the Revolutionary War was dead or retired and noone bothered to keep up with European-style warfare because most of the army was militia and most of their fighting experience since 1780 was skirmishes with Native Americans.
    The Ender wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Gator wrote: »
    Jefferson also held slaves. Life is complicated, history even more so!

    Well yeah because Jefferson was mostly a dick who managed to rephrase the writings of Locke eloquently a few times

    Really? This is what Jefferson boils down to? My last boss was a dick but I'd cut him some slack if he founded the greatest nation in the history of the world (that I have lived in).

    I'd say that is not exactly a reasonable breakdown of Jefferson, but the man was certainly not someone I think should be lionized as often as he is. He didn't merely own slaves, for example: he pioneered entirely new ways in which slavery could be leveraged in an increasingly diversified American economy. His innovation in that area was a fundamental part of keeping the slave trade alive.

    He was two-faced when it came to armed revolt & state sovereignty. It was a good thing when he was one leading the revolt, an unforgivable sin when he was the one sitting as President.

    He betrayed some of his closest friends & confidants for financial gain.


    The Louisiana Purchase was certainly a worthy accomplishment, but I don't know that it outweighs the legacy of essentially cementing in place the eventual cause of the civil war.

    He also started the Barbary Wars when he refused to pay tribute to Algiers and Tripoli, which is something that I never heard about in school until college, and was supremely disappointed that such an interesting part of American History was hidden from me. I mean, US wages a war against pirates and they never have it in the history books!?

    The US did pay off the Barbary States for some time; Jefferson had decided to put the Navy that he fought so hard to put down under the Washington/Adams administration to good use.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    Hope the new 20 looks good, the photoshops I've seen are just awful

    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.
  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    Foefaller wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    mostly I just chuckle at the idea that the person on a particular bill has any impact at all on our understanding of history

    like, has anybody's understanding of jackson's life and place in history been enhanced by the fact that he's on the twenty? Would it be reduced if you took him off of it? It seems irrelevant to me

    Jackson is enough of an edge case where it might. Being on the 20 is maybe the only thing that keeps him from being another one of those "presidents between Jefferson and Lincoln" people don't remember.

    How prominent or not is the war of 1812 in American education?

    That it happened... and that's about it.

    Oh, there's also stuff about USS Constitution getting the nickname "Old Ironsides," Battle of New Orleans and how it happened after the war was technically already over, how the Star Spangled Banner was written and Washington DC was burned down.

    Don't remember until my college years hearing about the other stuff, like how we started the war because we wanted Canada and though Napoleon was the perfect cover to nab in from the British, only for Napoleon to pick that year to try and invade Russia. How we burned Montreal to the ground, and how New Orleans was the rare victory in a string of almost embarrising defeats on land because everyone who commanded in the Revolutionary War was dead or retired and noone bothered to keep up with European-style warfare because most of the army was militia and most of their fighting experience since 1780 was skirmishes with Native Americans.

    You left out the part where the British parked their ships in US waters and stopped ships in order to capture American citizens and force them into the British Navy.

    Edit: Doing some quick research, claims that the war was started to annex Canada are mostly from Canadians. US historians can't even agree on whether or not we would have kept Canada if we'd conquered it.

    gjaustin on
  • SmokeStacksSmokeStacks Registered User regular
    A steak! wrote: »
    I don't see how throwing someone on currency reminds anyone of their faults. Unless you're actually educated on the subject (which does not involve faces on currency) it's just veneration. I don't see a specific need to venerate assholes.

    People (even some people who are well versed in the life and times of Andrew Jackson) are resistant to change when that change is occurring in one of the cornerstones of American identity. We're a capitalist country, our currency is a big fuckin' deal, basically. It's the reason all of the proposals to eliminate the penny haven't gained traction.

    In a related note, I'm pretty sure that we would have gained at least another state or two over the past 50+ years (since Alaska and Hawaii in '59) if our flag hadn't have been designed with representative stars on it.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Jaclson's not coming off the 20; he's just moved to the back

    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.
  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jaclson's not coming off the 20; he's just moved to the back
    Boo. I understand why they're doing it, as I'm resistant to judging historical figures with modern mores myself.

    But Jackson was such a consistently terrible human being that I'm willing to make an exception.

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jaclson's not coming off the 20; he's just moved to the back
    Boo. I understand why they're doing it, as I'm resistant to judging historical figures with modern mores myself.

    But Jackson was such a consistently terrible human being that I'm willing to make an exception.

    He shares company on the backs of the 5 and the 10 with MLK and the women's suffrage movement. Also the change won't happen until 2020 at the earliest, likely 2030. Also ice cream will now contain an assortment of flies in celebration of spider peace

    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.
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Jaclson's not coming off the 20; he's just moved to the back
    Boo. I understand why they're doing it, as I'm resistant to judging historical figures with modern mores myself.

    But Jackson was such a consistently terrible human being that I'm willing to make an exception.
    On the flip side, not removing him also means the first* woman on a US bill only gets to have half of it.

    They're doing some other cool stuff tho, like putting historical scenes on the backs of some of the other bills.

    *not really but kinda y'know?

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    Its also 14 years away so plans could very readily change

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Will we even still use paper money by then?

    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.
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    mostly I just chuckle at the idea that the person on a particular bill has any impact at all on our understanding of history

    like, has anybody's understanding of jackson's life and place in history been enhanced by the fact that he's on the twenty? Would it be reduced if you took him off of it? It seems irrelevant to me

    Jackson is enough of an edge case where it might. Being on the 20 is maybe the only thing that keeps him from being another one of those "presidents between Jefferson and Lincoln" people don't remember.

    How prominent or not is the war of 1812 in American education?

    That it happened... and that's about it.

    Oh, there's also stuff about USS Constitution getting the nickname "Old Ironsides," Battle of New Orleans and how it happened after the war was technically already over, how the Star Spangled Banner was written and Washington DC was burned down.

    Don't remember until my college years hearing about the other stuff, like how we started the war because we wanted Canada and though Napoleon was the perfect cover to nab in from the British, only for Napoleon to pick that year to try and invade Russia. How we burned Montreal to the ground, and how New Orleans was the rare victory in a string of almost embarrising defeats on land because everyone who commanded in the Revolutionary War was dead or retired and noone bothered to keep up with European-style warfare because most of the army was militia and most of their fighting experience since 1780 was skirmishes with Native Americans.

    You left out the part where the British parked their ships in US waters and stopped ships in order to capture American citizens and force them into the British Navy.

    Edit: Doing some quick research, claims that the war was started to annex Canada are mostly from Canadians. US historians can't even agree on whether or not we would have kept Canada if we'd conquered it.

    As I learned it (in college more than HS though I did get some there as well) the whole "drafting of US Sailors" thing wasn't much of an issue to the people whose actual sailors were being drafted, largely because most of the people who actually ended up being drafted were British sailors who had jumped over to the US to try and avoid being drafted into the navy, so the people it actually affected weren't complaining too much. Most of the arguments and complaints came from Southerners, mostly slaveholders, who wanted war with Britain for the main reason of taking land from Native American nations that were allied to England. They needed an excuse to fight Britain for a short time and push their allies of their land, and the British taking American sailors, and "freeing" Canada from British control, were two excellent excuses. Excuses which people who had most of the sailors and ships, and who actually lived next to Canada, did not buy for a goddamn second. But Southerners had far more control of the US government at the time, so war is what we got.

    Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    gjaustin wrote: »
    Foefaller wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    mostly I just chuckle at the idea that the person on a particular bill has any impact at all on our understanding of history

    like, has anybody's understanding of jackson's life and place in history been enhanced by the fact that he's on the twenty? Would it be reduced if you took him off of it? It seems irrelevant to me

    Jackson is enough of an edge case where it might. Being on the 20 is maybe the only thing that keeps him from being another one of those "presidents between Jefferson and Lincoln" people don't remember.

    How prominent or not is the war of 1812 in American education?

    That it happened... and that's about it.

    Oh, there's also stuff about USS Constitution getting the nickname "Old Ironsides," Battle of New Orleans and how it happened after the war was technically already over, how the Star Spangled Banner was written and Washington DC was burned down.

    Don't remember until my college years hearing about the other stuff, like how we started the war because we wanted Canada and though Napoleon was the perfect cover to nab in from the British, only for Napoleon to pick that year to try and invade Russia. How we burned Montreal to the ground, and how New Orleans was the rare victory in a string of almost embarrising defeats on land because everyone who commanded in the Revolutionary War was dead or retired and noone bothered to keep up with European-style warfare because most of the army was militia and most of their fighting experience since 1780 was skirmishes with Native Americans.

    You left out the part where the British parked their ships in US waters and stopped ships in order to capture American citizens and force them into the British Navy.

    Edit: Doing some quick research, claims that the war was started to annex Canada are mostly from Canadians. US historians can't even agree on whether or not we would have kept Canada if we'd conquered it.

    As I learned it (in college more than HS though I did get some there as well) the whole "drafting of US Sailors" thing wasn't much of an issue to the people whose actual sailors were being drafted, largely because most of the people who actually ended up being drafted were British sailors who had jumped over to the US to try and avoid being drafted into the navy, so the people it actually affected weren't complaining too much. Most of the arguments and complaints came from Southerners, mostly slaveholders, who wanted war with Britain for the main reason of taking land from Native American nations that were allied to England. They needed an excuse to fight Britain for a short time and push their allies of their land, and the British taking American sailors, and "freeing" Canada from British control, were two excellent excuses. Excuses which people who had most of the sailors and ships, and who actually lived next to Canada, did not buy for a goddamn second. But Southerners had far more control of the US government at the time, so war is what we got.

    Yeah, taking land from Native Americans that the British were supporting was definitely a major factor in actually declaring war. Actually annexing Canada was likely not a primary goal.

    But either way, the whole sailor thing makes a damn good casus belli. If tomorrow China parked ships off of California and started stopping American vessels and kidnapping American citizens, we'd probably be at war within the week.

  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    Yeah but the situation would be a lot more complex if China was currently at war with a neighboring power (like Russia or something) and the people they were grabbing were Chinese draft dodgers.

    I mean to me the big thing is that although it was a pretty decent casus belli in terms of appearances at least, because at least some US sailors were drafted even if not many, Northern States were opposed to it because they thought going to war with Britain was a bad idea, especially since, as aforementioned, they contributed the majority of sailors and ships the US had. So if war broke out between the US and Britain, it would be mostly northern Sailors and Ships who would have to contend with the British Navy, and Northern soldiers who would have to invade Canada, whereas the South would be stealing land from Native Americans. The North recognized this would be a raw deal, and were opposed to the whole thing.

    Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
  • gjaustingjaustin Registered User regular
    I don't think a distinction would be made. Stopping the ships in US territorial waters alone would cause a ruckus.

    Otherwise I agree. The American view that it was solely about the sailors and the Canadian view that it was solely about conquering Canada are both self-serving ways to look at the war. For that reason they should get extra scrutiny.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    From LGM: Andrew Jackson Was A Comprehensively Terrible President

    Edit: One of the best points is that to see how horrible he was, one only need look to his predecessor, the exceptional JQ Adams, who still holds up well even when held to modern perspectives.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Jubal77Jubal77 Registered User regular
    edited April 2016
    Putting Jackson on the back of the 20 with Tubman is not only a blast on womens rights but everything she stood for. It is despicable and only meant to limit the blacklash from "that sect" of white america.

    Jubal77 on
  • MuzzmuzzMuzzmuzz Registered User regular
    My favourite Tubman tidbit was her waking up, and seeing two bounty hunters talking amongst themselves wondering if she was the infamous Tubman. So she pulled out a book and began to read.

    To the Bounty Hunters, that proved that they were mistaken, since the fugitive Harriet Tubman was widely known to be illiterate.

    Which was true, Harriet couldn't read, but used the book as a prop.

  • IlpalaIlpala Just this guy, y'know TexasRegistered User regular
    I really wanna believe the first person they told that story to just kind of pinched the bridge of their nose and said "Now see...you know you got played, right?"

    FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
    Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
    Fuck Joe Manchin
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Will we even still use paper money by then?

    Poor people are going to be using cash for a very long time.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Will we even still use paper money by then?

    Poor people are going to be using cash for a very long time.

    I've shifted almost entirely to cash over the last four years. Sure, I'm poor, but it's also really hard to try and steal my credit card number if I'm using cash for 95% of everything I do. I'll consider switching when RFID catches on faster and in far greater numbers.




    Anyway, I don't care if Jackson stays on the front or back. I don't care who they put on the money since it spends the same no matter what. But when people start complaining that it's all about PC or erasing history or whatever dumbass thing pops into their heads, then I say we put people like Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan, and Cornelius Vanderbilt on them. Let us remind the world what our money is really fucking all about.

    You're muckin' with a G!

    Do not engage the Watermelons.
  • TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    pic%20over_0.jpg

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    tubman-money.jpg

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    Will we even still use paper money by then?

    Poor people are going to be using cash for a very long time.

    I've shifted almost entirely to cash over the last four years. Sure, I'm poor, but it's also really hard to try and steal my credit card number if I'm using cash for 95% of everything I do. I'll consider switching when RFID catches on faster and in far greater numbers.




    Anyway, I don't care if Jackson stays on the front or back. I don't care who they put on the money since it spends the same no matter what. But when people start complaining that it's all about PC or erasing history or whatever dumbass thing pops into their heads, then I say we put people like Andrew Carnegie, JP Morgan, and Cornelius Vanderbilt on them. Let us remind the world what our money is really fucking all about.


    That's what all the Freemason and Illuminati imagery is for.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    TL DR wrote: »
    pic%20over_0.jpg

    That's a classy sword.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    TL DR wrote: »
    pic%20over_0.jpg

    That's a classy sword.

    And she wasn't afraid to use it - either on slavers pursuing them, or on anyone who got cold feet, because she wasn't leaving liabilities behind.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    why is the change gonna take so long? Can't ya just start circulating new notes like, now? It feels like the time between making a new £20 note and the old ones being removed from circulation was like, 6 months...

    Oh brilliant
  • Hahnsoo1Hahnsoo1 Make Ready. We Hunt.Registered User, Moderator, Administrator admin
    why is the change gonna take so long? Can't ya just start circulating new notes like, now? It feels like the time between making a new £20 note and the old ones being removed from circulation was like, 6 months...
    Changes in currency also introduce new anti-counterfeiting measures, generally. The art also needs to be created... they don't "copy-pasta" an existing portrait. IIRC, the portraits and landscapes on currency are actually composites from several different artists, to deter counterfeiting (since any single artist will have their own "signature" when they make their art).

    8i1dt37buh2m.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Hahnsoo1 wrote: »
    why is the change gonna take so long? Can't ya just start circulating new notes like, now? It feels like the time between making a new £20 note and the old ones being removed from circulation was like, 6 months...
    Changes in currency also introduce new anti-counterfeiting measures, generally. The art also needs to be created... they don't "copy-pasta" an existing portrait. IIRC, the portraits and landscapes on currency are actually composites from several different artists, to deter counterfeiting (since any single artist will have their own "signature" when they make their art).

    We need to just go to polymer notes already.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Also, changing money costs money. You don't want to do it too often

    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.
  • Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Also, changing money costs money. You don't want to do it too often

    You gotta spend money to make money

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • RT800RT800 Registered User regular
    Especially if you're makin' pennies.

  • Johnny ChopsockyJohnny Chopsocky Scootaloo! We have to cook! Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered User regular
    I'm strangely okay with Jackson being moved to the back of the bill, given how much he loathed the idea of a centralized national Bank. Continue throwing shade at the asshole's ghost. Make him spin in his grave forever and ever.

    ygPIJ.gif
    Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
  • MuzzmuzzMuzzmuzz Registered User regular
    cross posted from SE++

Sign In or Register to comment.