On Wednesday April 20th 2016 Treasury Secretary
Jacob J. Lew announced a makeover that plans on making a bold historically
symbolic statement. In a letter to the American people which can be found on the U.S. Department of Treasury website, Jacob J. Lew announces his plans for the new $20, $10 and $5 notes. He proposes
that the portrait of Harriet Tubman will be featured on the front of the new
$20. In his letter he states that “The decision to put Harriet Tubman on the
new $20 was driven by thousands of responses we receieved from Americans young
and old.” Such a big step is being taken a century later in our government and
I couldn’t help but wonder does having Harriet Tumban on a bill make a big
difference?
After putting a good amount of thought and reminding myself
all the good Tubman has done I realized it makes a big difference.
Historically, countries have used their currency to make sure everyone is aware
of who’s important and who’s in charge. We till this day have seven white men
on seven notes representing our diverse and welcoming nation. It seems only
fair to make a change and honor women, especially in this time period where we
have a woman running for presidency. This only shows that women in general have
come a long way fighting for their rights. If the United Kingdom can put its
queen on every single bill, incorporating women into our notes only seems like
a necessary realignment of our symbols and our professed values. Though, I
personally do prefer a modern figure on the note, its makes sense why Harriet
Tubman is the chosen one. She is someone who is known by people of all age.
Since elementary you are taught about the honorable Harriet Tubman and it’s a name
and a person you can never forget after.
1 comment:
In this blog, I will be commenting on a blog called “A Bold Move.” The topic made headlines as Jacob J. Lew proposed the idea of putting the face of Harriet Tubman on the front of the $20 bill. The question raised by the author is, “does having Harriet Tubman on a bill make a big difference?” Now, I believe that Harriet Tubman is absolutely incredible and has benefitted the world in the most extraordinary ways by standing up for equality. However, my question is, why did they feel the need to extinguish Andrew Jackson completely? Tubman, without a doubt, deserves to be honored, but at the cost of removing Jackson does not seem right. I understand that it is just a piece of paper and it should not be overdramatized, but being on the money is a symbol of honoring contribution. As the world becomes more equal, we should not get carried away in the sense of replacing previously higher ranked people with previously lower ranked people. Ironically, the entire point of having Tubman on the dollar is to show that we are all equal, but by replacing Jackson, it can easily mislead people to think otherwise. No one should be replaced unless they are were horrible and caused wrongful harm, thus deserving it. Tubman can be equally honored in numerous amounts of ways that do not include replacing others.
The blog mentions that 7 white men are on the dollar, ruling out other races and women. Obviously, this is completely wrong when considering how far we have come to realize our equality, but that still does not make it right to dishonor those already on the bill. Those people made a significant impact to the American country that will last forever. We have developed to acknowledge all races and genders, so lets do so without discrediting those in the past. A similar scenario is if the founder /CEO of a major company had their sculpture in front of the building where the headquarters was located, but was destroyed and replaced several years later because a new person took on the role of CEO.
Conclusively, yes, Harriet Tubman deserves honorable glorification, but not at the cost of another. There are other ways to equally honor a great historical figure.
Post a Comment