The Treasury Department under President Biden's administration is planning to speed up the process of replacing the image of Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 dollar bill. This was originally planned at the end of the Obama administration, which was not carried out by former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and was later opposed by President Trump. This process has been slow-walked until now that Biden has become President. White House Press Secretary says that "The Treasury Department is taking steps to resume efforts to put Harriet Tubman on the front of the new $20 notes," and that "It's important that our money reflect the history and diversity of our country."
However, all of this has been quite controversial. In an article written by TIME, the author expresses that putting a black woman's face on the $20 bill may seem like a great honor, but when exchanging it may bring out uncomfortable images or scenes of enslaved people and their experiences to people's minds. President Andrew Jackson is also quite the controversy. Many argue that people should look up to Andrew Jackson as the hero of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, a man of the people protecting the common man; others condemn him for owning hundreds of slaves and his harsh policy towards Native Americans that forced them off their homeland. People have long debated on the controversies of Andrew Jackson I'm sure it will continue.
I personally do not care that much who is on the $20 bill. After all, having a different portrait on the bill does not change the value of the bill, and I've never memorized who and what buildings are on which bill. But I do agree that black history is American history and that representation does matter. People of color are just as qualified to be in positions of leadership and decision-making, and being portrayed as such. I am unsure if putting a black woman on the $20 bill is the right way to do so, but it never hurts giving it a try.
Questions:
1. What are your thoughts on the legacy of Andrew Jackson? Good or bad president?
2. Do you support the efforts to put Harriet Tubman being on the $20? Should it be someone else? Should it stay Andrew Jackson?
3. Does it matter who is on the $20? If yes, how much does it matter? Does having a specific figure make you feel a certain way?
The first thing that comes to mind when I hear Andrew Jackson is the Trail of Tears, and I think that keeping him on the $20 bill almost says to the American people that we are okay with honoring someone who made thousands of Native Americans suffer. I do support the efforts to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill because she was an incredible abolitionist who helped others, and is a vital part of American history. I agree with you that in my day to day life I don’t really pay that much attention to whose faces are on my cash, but it’s pretty symbolic. Like you said, representation does matter, and I think there is a lot of value in who we choose to memorialize as a country, and honoring and recognizing black history is important.
ReplyDeleteI agree whole heartedly with Abbie. Andrew Jackson is notorious for his demagogue style of leadership and aggression towards all people of color, which we should not idolize in our currency. He would not be an acceptable president today, yet Harriet Tubman is a role model for modern leaders. She was a bright light during slavery that allowed hundreds of slaves to escape, which makes her more qualified than Jackson to be memorialized on our currency. Our statues, currency, and idols should be historical figures who we would respect today if they were in our society, as that fosters a healthy environment for change. Additionally, those tough conversations surrounding slavery and black people's rights in America need to happen, so this would be a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Jackson is mixed at best; the reason he's on the bill is because of his popular perception as a man of the people (due to his populist appeals), but he's also a war hero, with the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 - the only President to fight in both. Of course, the elephant in the room is the Trail of Tears and other elements of a racist legacy, which, though normal for the time, is obviously horrific. In short, good and bad in different areas though obviously somebody who nobody in the modern day can support in good conscious.
ReplyDeleteWith that said, I don't support the effort to replace him because the same logic can be applied to get rid of everybody else in our history - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin (at one point) were all slave holders, and others bore their own sins. Should they be removed as well? If one lends support to the replacement of Jackson on the $20 bill, it can only be intellectually consistent to also support the abolition of any representation of our nation's heritage. I disagree with this because our heritage is where our nation's common identity rests and what are values are built from; ridding ourselves of it will only divide our nation further, which is just about the last thing we need right now. Our nation's past leaders should be celebrated for the good they did, even though the bad should also be brought forward, recognized, and learned from. Now, an argument may be made that Jackson's actions leaned more to the bad side to the good side as compared to other Presidents, and therefore he should be replaced, but I rarely see this nuance added to the argument for this strain of historical revisionism.
In the end though, it doesn't matter who is on the money - changing it, even if you wholeheartedly agree, is a symbolic victory at best. I am more concerned about the spirit in which this is done in, which I think seeks to erase our nation's shared heritage and values as we know them.
Perhaps I should've extended my question and asked about the legacy of other presidents too because you bring up the exact point I wanted to bring up. As you said, the founding fathers were also slave owners and each had their own imperfections. I remember an assignment from last semester of writing an extended paragraph on whether Jefferson's statue should be removed and it's the exact argument. When looking from a modern perspective, numerous US presidents and historical figures had racists beliefs towards African Americans and people of color. Should we then condemn them and ignore the admirable things they did? I don't know the answer. I think you bring up a good point that at the time they were in, it was a common belief that they were superior and people of color are inferior purely because of race, and I think it wouldn't be exactly fair to judge them from our modern views. But it also raises the question: is owning slaves/being racist ever justified? In my opinion, it's never justified and never will be, but when looking at history I think we should take in the context of their environment and look past what we consider is right and wrong, and instead look at why they acted the way they did and made the choices they made.
DeleteI firmly believe that historical figures should be honored for the good they did, not the normalized evil they engaged in - this is logical because every single person in history has engaged in some form of normalized sin for their time period. Even more recently, examples are incredibly easy to find - FDR is celebrated for the reform he brought and leading us through WW2, but he also signed Executive Order 9066 to incarcerate Japanese Americans. Is incarcerating a particular group based on the color of their skin ever justified? Now, no, but back then, most regrettably - yes. Standards change over time, and unless we want to roll down the slippery slope to cancelling every single historical figure of note, then we should not replace their symbols, such as Jackson on the $20 bill.
DeleteI agree with Abbie and Maya that Harriet Tubman should be on the twenty dollar bill. For me, any good that Jackson did is far overshadowed by his treatment towards and views of people of color. Harriet Tubman is a much better representation of American values and she deserves to be honored in this way. I understand Anthony’s argument that replacing Jackson may be divisive, but Harriet Tubman represents American heritage just like the Founding Fathers do. Instead of getting rid of Jackson, I think of it as a transition. I honestly don’t think that replacing Jackson on the $20 bill will threaten his legacy, because as we can agree, people don’t really pay attention to who's on their bills (maybe because they are all white men who have been honored many other times before). However, this would probably change if Tubman were to be added, as people would notice the change and the fact that she was the first Black woman on their money (a first that is long overdue). I believe that symbolism does matter: it reflects who we are as a nation and what we value and honor.
ReplyDeleteLike Caitlin said, I think you expressed your side really well. Abbie and Maya bring up the argument that Andrew Jackson does not represent who we are, and partly I agree with that because we do not share the racist beliefs he had. But I also partly disagree because it was who we are. Andrew Jackson is American, the only difference being he was in a different time period than us. I'm sure if we were born in Jackson's period of time and experience the same things he did, we would not be very different from him. This is why I like your idea of transition so much. I think laws and the belief of what is right changes at different times, but what is right is always right, and perhaps putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill is a step in that direction, or the transition if you will. Many questions can also be asked about your position such as why Harriet Tubman? What about Sojourner Truth? Harriet Beecher Stowe? How would you decide who? And finally, I think no one is perfect. Harriet Tubman did many praiseworthy things, but by no means do I consider her a flawless model. She may not have signed the Indian Removal Act or owned slaves, but I'm sure if I were to interact with her on a daily basis, I would see her qualities of imperfections as well.
DeleteElementarily, I don't think replacing Jackson will do any objective good for the nation. If you don't represent Jackson by only his worst actions, Jackson was an influential early President of our country - he paid off the debt, was elected in the first election where you didn't need property to vote, fought in two wars, etc. Tubman was an influential symbol later on in the fight for equality - no explanation needed here, nobody ignores the good she did (despite her not being a white man, which for some reason was included as part of your argument). Both figures can be a part of our culture and history without polarizing them to be all good and all bad - and there is nothing wrong with Tubman on the $20 bill. However, removing Jackson on the basis of him doing something that we consider in the modern era to be morally reprehensible sets the wrong precedent, as I explained earlier; it would also be politically divisive at a time that we need genuine unity between the right and left. Therefore, I think he should be kept on the $20 bill.
DeleteI think that Ella wrote it out really well. If Harriet Tubman is on the $20 bill it is going to have a significant amount of significance because she embodies what people think America is, and sometimes (okay, a lot of times to not be exaggerating) America levels up to the bravery and leadership that Harriet Tubman was. And as Maya said, Harriet Tubman is a role model for modern leaders and probably, besides the institution of slavery, a timeless inspiration. But Anthony does point out the challenging question that nobody is perfect and essentially everyone in history can have a skeleton in their closet so it will continuously prompt the current generation to ask: What do we value? because it would all be a-historic thinking and analysis. But I think the solution as Ella made, it is not replacement as it is transition. As the present, we have the choice to decide what we want to value and who we want to celebrate and honor, but that doesn't mean there's a group of people who never made mistakes or whatnot. But in the end, people would probably care more only about the value of money rather than who is on it, yet for a group of forward thinkers it would be appropriate to have Harriet Tubman on America's money.
ReplyDeleteI believe we covered a bit about Andrew Jackson in class. When I heard his name, I remembered his efforts to force Native Americans out of America. However, I also remember that he was sold as a president that listened to the common man’s perspective. Considering that he actively supported the discrimination of a race, I do support the efforts to put Harriet Tubman on the 20$ bill. As others have mentioned, it feels like a step towards the future. We are not only honoring an activist who overcame the difficulties they faced but also giving tribute to an often underrepresented minority in American history. Rather than ignore history, putting Harriet Tubman on the bill would force everyone to confront it. Regarding question 3, I do think what figure we put on the 20$ bill matters. Sure, it may not be something we think a lot about, but the purpose of those figures is to honor their legacy and what they have done for our country.
ReplyDeleteLike a few others have said, I personally don't pay attention to what is on the bill itself, however I do believe symbolically it has power. I dislike Andrew Jackson, and despite doing some good things, in my opinion it is overshadowed by his extremely racist beliefs and actions towards minorities. It's just too large for me to overlook. I agree with Ella and Caitlin, that a good way to think of replacing Jackson is as a transition. Of course, we have to understand our history and that means recognizing his presidency, however now it is time to transition. White men have dominated history for centuries, and a symbolic victory is still a victory and if replacing Jackson with Harriet Tubman is meaningful then it is worth it. Of course, like Zeke said, everyone has their flaws and imperfections, but I think having Tubman on the bill is, like Maya said, a good step forward (even if it is overdue). -Rowan CC
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anthony's point that removing Jackson from the bill is a tricky thing. Every single historical figure has flaws, and it's really difficult to draw the line of where their "good deeds" outweighed their "bad deeds." That being said, I don't think removing Jackson from the bill would be erasing his legacy, like Ella said, so I don't think that making the change would be a major issue: we wouldn't be erasing Jackson, we'd be making room to honor another figure in American history that indisputably deserves to be honored throughout the country. Like many people above have stated already, I also don't really pay attention to who is on American currency, but it definitely holds significant symbolic value, and I think that this would be a pretty big change, so it would get a lot of public attention and possibly raise greater awareness about the issues of slavery, racism, equal representation, and diversity.
ReplyDeleteWhat does "greater awareness" accomplish? Is there anybody not yet aware in modern America that racism is bad? (besides hardline racists, who funnily enough would probably feel even more "threatened" by changing the $20 bill - and no, this is not a justification for keeping the bill the way it is, if you make genuine racists feel uncomfortable more power to you). I don't really believe that putting somebody else on the bill will make them instantly celebrated any more than putting Jackson on the bill is sparing him from being flamed by every high school student in California: the only thing it will accomplish is getting rid of a historical figure from a century-long depiction of our $20 bill while setting the precedent that you can be cancelled over actions considered bad today that were acceptable back then, in spite of the good they did. It simply isn't a productive model long-term.
DeleteAndrew Jackson has a poor legacy as a president, considering what he did against the Native American community he should not be honored to the extent he currently is, or the whole story should be told about him. Removing Andrew Jackson from a bill is definitely a controversial decision, while each historical figure has their pros and cons, it is difficult to find an effective standard. It is an overall good, or a threshold of a certain amount of good to where all bad is exempted? However, removing Jackson from the bill does not erase his legacy, not in the slightest. As long as Jackson is still taught about in schools, his legacy is done sufficient justice. We are honoring another patriot whose immense contribution to America shaped our society today, so this change seems apt. Additionally, I like the idea of switching out figures on currency every 20-30 years, this way relevant figures become honored. It does not really matter who is on the $20, because as payment moves more and more to online forms, individual pieces of tender are not incredibly important anymore, or as important as they were.
ReplyDeleteAs you said, Jackson is a controversial figure. I mean the dude was a racist who screwed over the Natives and owned slaves. But at the time idk what president didn't do that. In general he was a bad president, but I can't help but be intrigued by his character. His legacy is also mixed, I mean he founded the Democratic party, was the 1st president who wasn't born into wealth, fought in the Revolution as a teen. On top of ruling with lots of authority and again screwing the natives, so big legacy, definitely not good, but not the definition of evil. I don't have a problem with Tubman being on the bill, I'd probably prefer if they'd find something new to put her on. I don't like the precedent where if we don't like something we just scrub it off and slap something new on. On top of that it is a 20 dollar bill I really don't care that much. But if it empowers some black girl or something go for it guess.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not pay much attention to who is displayed on bills, I firmly believe that Andrew Jackson should be replaced with Harriet Tubman on the twenty dollar bill. Like the responses above, displaying Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill undermines his many faults as a president and honors someone who cost the lives of thousands of Native Americans. In addition, I think that Harriet Tubman would be a far stronger representation of what we have become as a nation and as Rowan stated, replacing Jackson with Tubman would provide a transition much needed; current bills only display white men, only a representation of a fraction of our diverse nation.
ReplyDelete