It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former slave Harriet Tubman to be new face of US$20 bill: official

page: 8
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Konduit

But the parties switched... err, at least when it's convenient to the racially divisive narrative Democrats rely on to support their lies of how the Republican party is racist. On issues that don't support the narrative we're all expected to stay stupid and silent.


I would like a definitive answer as to when they switched.
Was it before LBJ started the 'War on Poverty'?
Trick question.

It was during the Civil Rights Movement. Not even 2 weeks ago, I explained this in a separate thread (here). So I'll just let wikipedia explain it this time:

1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater won his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South, depicted in red. The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed in Congress earlier that year. Capturing 61.1% of the popular vote and 486 electors, Johnson won in a landslide. Note that Texas went to Johnson as he was its favorite son.

Southern Strategy

As a refresher, the "Civil Rights Act of 1964" is what ended forced racial segregation in America. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave African Americans the right to vote. And the 1967 Supreme Court Case "Loving v Virginia" ended the bans on interracial marriage (most Southern States had interracial marriage bans in their State Constitutions at the time). These, mixed with Nixon and Atwater's "Southern Strategy" policy which I linked above, are the reasons why the demographics switched political parties.




posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I'm being a little devils advocate here...

Isn't this promoting slavery in the PC world we live in today.

I honestly don't care, it's just money and it's refreshing not to have an old president on them. Though I wish it wasn't coming during this admininistration as I feel its more of trying to slap people in the face rather than honor a great person in this nations history.

Graffik



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Konduit

But the parties switched... err, at least when it's convenient to the racially divisive narrative Democrats rely on to support their lies of how the Republican party is racist. On issues that don't support the narrative we're all expected to stay stupid and silent.


I would like a definitive answer as to when they switched.
Was it before LBJ started the 'War on Poverty'?
Trick question.

It was during the Civil Rights Movement. Not even 2 weeks ago, I explained this in a separate thread (here). So I'll just let wikipedia explain it this time:

1964 Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater won his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South, depicted in red. The Southern states, traditionally Democratic up to that time, voted Republican primarily as a statement of opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which had been passed in Congress earlier that year. Capturing 61.1% of the popular vote and 486 electors, Johnson won in a landslide. Note that Texas went to Johnson as he was its favorite son.

Southern Strategy

As a refresher, the "Civil Rights Act of 1964" is what ended forced racial segregation in America. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave African Americans the right to vote. And the 1967 Supreme Court Case "Loving v Virginia" ended the bans on interracial marriage (most Southern States had interracial marriage bans in their State Constitutions at the time). These, mixed with Nixon and Atwater's "Southern Strategy" policy which I linked above, are the reasons why the demographics switched political parties.

Sorry, I didn't read every thread that you have ever posted in, so I missed how you already covered it.

Yep, LBJ was a 'new' Democrat then.... thanks for the info.

Lyndon Johnson said the word “'n-word'” a lot. In Senate cloakrooms and staff meetings, Johnson was practically a connoisseur of the word. According to Johnson biographer Robert Caro, Johnson would calibrate his pronunciations by region, using “nigra” with some southern legislators and “negra” with others. Discussing civil rights legislation with men like Mississippi Democrat James Eastland, who committed most of his life to defending white supremacy, he’d simply call it “the 'n-word' bill.” Then in 1957, Johnson would help get the “'n-word' bill” passed, known to most as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the segregationists would go to their graves knowing the cause they’d given their lives to had been betrayed, Frank Underwood style, by a man they believed to be one of their own. When Caro asked segregationist Georgia Democrat Herman Talmadge how he felt when Johnson, signing the Civil Rights Act, said ”we shall overcome,” Talmadge said “sick.”



Nor was it the kind of immature, frat-boy racism that Johnson eventually jettisoned. Even as president, Johnson’s interpersonal relationships with blacks were marred by his prejudice. As longtime Jet correspondent Simeon Booker wrote in his memoirShocks the Conscience, early in his presidency, Johnson once lectured Booker after he authored a critical article for Jet Magazine, telling Booker he should “thank” Johnson for all he’d done for black people. In Flawed Giant, Johnson biographer Robert Dallek writes that Johnson explained his decision to nominate Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court rather than a less famous black judge by saying, “when I appoint a 'n-word' to the bench, I want everybody to know he’s a 'n-word'.” According to Caro, Robert Parker, Johnson’s sometime chauffer, described in his memoir Capitol Hill in Black and White a moment when Johnson asked Parker whether he’d prefer to be referred to by his name rather than “boy,” “'n-word'” or “chief.” When Parker said he would, Johnson grew angry and said, “As long as you are black, and you’re gonna be black till the day you die, no one’s gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, 'n-word', you just let it roll off your back like water, and you’ll make it. Just pretend you’re a goddamn piece of furniture.”

MSNBC

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” ~ Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One



LBJ was an awful man. He only promoted and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act because he thought it was politically expedient. He disagreed violently and kept it a secret, something I think is unreservedly detestable. Or is it a common politician’s disease? Let’s look at another quote attributed to “Great Society & Civil Rights Hero” LBJ: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Huffington Post


These are not right wing sources.
It shows what the switch was really really about and it shows what the Great Society was really about.... political expediency.


"It'll be Reconstruction all over again". Sounds like the same old Democrats from the Civil War... no?
edit on b000000302016-04-21T06:50:37-05:0006America/ChicagoThu, 21 Apr 2016 06:50:37 -0500600000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: GraffikPleasure


it's refreshing not to have an old president on them. Though I wish it wasn't coming during this admininistration as I feel its more of trying to slap people in the face rather than honor a great person in this nations history.


Not sure what you mean by this. Clarify? How is it 'slapping people in the face' and why not THIS administration?



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

You asked when they switched parties so I answered. That's when the major demographic shift happened. There were still "holdovers" from each side, like David Duke and Robert Byrd. But the major change happened as I mentioned. It's when ethnic and social minorities switched to voting almost exclusively Democrat. And it's when conservatives switched to voting almost exclusively Republican.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: butcherguy

You asked when they switched parties so I answered. That's when the major demographic shift happened. There were still "holdovers" from each side, like David Duke and Robert Byrd. But the major change happened as I mentioned. It's when ethnic and social minorities switched to voting almost exclusively Democrat. And it's when conservatives switched to voting almost exclusively Republican.

My post was to show you why the switch occurred.
Political expendiency.
Neither party cares about the peons.... that would be any of us.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Fine by me. There are plenty of Presidents and historical figures sitting-the-bench when it comes to being featured on currency. Andrew Jackson can share the bench, and Harriet Tubman can join Sacagawea, and Susan B. Anthony.

I'm more interested in the tech those bills will contain.

edit on 4/21/16 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Not this admin because they had the greatest opportunity for racial unity and they took a dump on it.. ex: "if I had a son" ... "The cops acted stupidly". Both examples are racial divisive and were commenting on cases before the trials started.

Given those examples plus many more that could be added, I don't feel like the intentions are for the good. Hence slapping people in the face.

What do you feel about the party of my first post that you cut out from writing me?
You could make a case they are promoting slavery. It's just the upside down world we live in.

Graffik



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Maybe yall should have some dead indians on your money...

Effin pc hype.
The question is:
Why should people be on money?



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: yeahsurexxx



Why should people be on money?

I think it will spend just as well if there was a picture of a carrot or maybe a potato on the bills.

I have seen foreign currency with birds and other wildlife on it.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Ehhh...

It actually is a lot more complicated than that


That is just the very last part of the story...




The republicans were a new party in Lincoln's day. They were a conglomeration of various northern former Whig constituencies and people that wanted to develop the west that coalesced due to issues surrounding slavery. Generally speaking, they retained a lot of the older Whig economic views that the government should be involved in the economy. It should promote policies that promote growth, they thought. That meant financing infrastructure, education, protecting native industries, policies that promoted commerce and rapid job growth. They did believe in more federal involvement in all these things, and it cost money. They were the forward looking, innovative party, and also vaguely speaking they were the "big government" party and had policies that promoted big banks, big industry, big business.

The democrats were the more tradition-minded party. They were also the party focused on keeping taxes low and when it came to promoting commerce, etc... wanted to leave it to the states. Generally speaking, they were the "states' rights" party.

The shift started after the Civil War and continued for over 135 years. After the civil war, the republicans started to split into factions generally divided between how deep "in bed" you got with big business, so they developed a conservative business wing often at odds with with the more progressive wing. The democrats pretty much stayed the states rights party and were marginalized at the national level for several decades.

Link

That's the most condensed explanation.

The people like Ted Cruz would have fallen into the "Democrat" party during Lincoln's time for his core belief in limited government and low taxes and anti-progressive views. Sanders and Clinton would have been viewed as "Republicans" because of their belief that the government should be involved in the economy, and that the government should work for the people by using tax revenue to provide social services that benefit the population.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Sanders and Clinton would have been viewed as "Republicans" because of their belief that the government should be involved in the economy, and that the government should work for the people by using tax revenue to provide social services


Goddamned RINOs



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well that is an oversimplification...



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I liked Andrew Jackson on the 20 dollar bill, because he fought the banks, and won (though his accomplishment didn't last, because the banks are back in control of everything again currently).

Hariet Tubman did important things too as an abolishionist ... but I will miss the honorable Mr. Jackson, because of what he did for all common people, not just a smaller portion of the population.

True: Ms. Tubman fought real racially-motivated physical slavery. I get that.

But, debt slavery from banks can be almost as bad as true slavery.

*sigh*

Ultimately, I guess Tubman and Jackson fought different kinds of slavery ... so at least we still have someone on the US $20 who set people free, either way.

For that reason I can live with Ms. Tubman....



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

Fear not, he will still be on the twenty.

Each person is going grace one side.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen Call me racist. I am not in the closet. The south continues to pay for losing the war between the states. My grandmother's cousin-President Jeff Davis- was against the war; by the way. Thinking of moving to Texas-they are desperately trying to pull away from the "United" states of America. Obama wanted to leave his print on the US and he has certainly done it-and now this. Harriet Tubman was a wise and brave woman-just on the wrong side-and the fact she was a spy for the union just spits in the south's eye. So all you pc people enjoy your revisionist pc moment.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Nothing but placation. Give the black population a face on a bill, but continue to unjustly fill jail and prison cells with black men, inject new and more destructive drugs into their lives, chip away further at the public education system so they can all drop out and be nothing more than targets for police. Makes sense. Harriet Tubman will make everything all better.



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
i dont really care one way or the other.
14 years till she is on the bill though.
nobody is going to be carrying around actual tangible money in 2030



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Why not ditch Hamilton... oh yeah, the guy that hated the Federal Reseve being on Federal Reseerve notes was kinda a slap in the face wasnt it? Im not a fan of Harriets portrait looks like a white noose as part of her wardrobe... why not scale the image back a bit... is it an ascot a kkk hood when folded like on a mad magazine? Im glad to see the bill changing away from the old business towards equal representation as it should have been and still should... but the design is horribly planned, in the 4th grade she was my favorite person during the abolishionist era... creeping through gator infested swamps at night, surprized there hasnt been a big budget movie. Pelé looks like its going to be awesome, in the 70s dude made me want a soccerball so bad...



posted on Apr, 21 2016 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Benjamin Franklin was the only non-president.

Also, why replace Jackson...why replace any of them tbh...people barely use $50, and a $30 or $40 wouldn't be that bad.




top topics



 
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join