I voted for the final ballot of the Women on 20s last night, which is a movement to get a woman on the $20 bill, but now I'm actually regretting it. It's not that I don't think a woman should be on a unit of U.S. paper currency. In fact, quite the opposite.
The shake-up I'd propose is "radical." Equal representation. 2.5 men, 2.5 women. Eliminate Hamilton, Jackson, and Franklin. Either move Washington to the $100 and replace him with Rosa Parks AND MLK; or put Rosa Parks on the $5 and put Lincoln and MLK on the $100. Obviously those proposals are needlessly complex, but I'm trying to account for both a person's importance, their gender, and their race.
So why do I dislike what Women on 20s is doing? The reason is simple, the justification multifaceted. I don't like the candidates. Simple as that. They are not representative of the American experience. They are, as a whole, far too politically minded, or at least contributed in some way to things that were very political in nature. A few others most people have never heard of. For this exact reason, many would be extremely controversial if chosen, which is a major issue in my book. "But wait!," you say, "Andrew Jackson is controversial too. I mean he indirectly killed thousands of Native Americans when he authorized Indian Relocation." Yes, that's true, and that's exactly why I think replacing him first is Women on 20s only truly great idea.
Margaret Sanger was a birth control activist. Many, if not most, Catholics, even those on the left, would find having her on a bill contrary to their beliefs. There would most surely be backlash to the presence of the founder of feminism's second wave Betty Friedan or environmental activist Rachel Carson, too. I've also never heard of Alice Paul, who was evidently another suffragette, but of whom nobody has ever heard, but who somehow beat out Lucretia Mott, herself only marginally more well-know. It could be said Sojourner Truth also struggles with this unfamiliarity, though to a lesser degree. Even Barbara Jordan, who enjoys tremendous recognition in parts, though certainly not all, of Texas, is probably not nearly so well known as in other parts of the nation.
The final ballot, which includes Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Wilma Mankiller, is okay, I guess, given the other 12 alternatives, but it could be so much stronger. Each of them is tied to something intensely political. Tubman and Parks with race relations, an issue at probably its greatest height since at least the 1980s, if not the time of Parks's bus riding. Roosevelt did indeed pioneer the modern day role of the First Lady, but again, that's incredibly political. Wilma Mankiller, about whom I knew nothing except that she was clearly Native American given her surname, was the first ever female principal chief of the Cherokee Nation. Again, politics, but I feel she's the worst option. Sure, replacing Jackson with a Native American sounds great. "Yeah, we're super-cool activists!" But does she really deserve it? Probably not given the alternatives. Would she be there if Jackson weren't on the $20? Almost certainly not.
Why can't we also pick women who did super-awesome stuff: cultural icons, glass-ceiling-shattering adventurers and scientists? The immense concentration of politicians on the bills is, in my opinion, almost as pressing an issue as the lack of women (but I'm not a woman, so what do I know?). Why not Sally Ride (my personal favorite for a variety of reasons, including her sexuality)? Why not Helen Keller? Why not Amelia Earhart? Sweden passed legislation in 2011 that will replace their 5 current banknotes (2 women, 5 men; 2 kings, 1 author, 1 scientist, 1 opera singer) with notes featuring 3 women and 3 men (1 politician, 1 popular singer, 1 opera singer, 1 actress, 1 film director, 1 author) in 2016 or 2017. Surely we can't replace Washington or Lincoln, but replacing all of the others with politically related figures would be a mistake.
We are not just men, but we are also not just politicians and activists of one sort or another. We change the world in so many different ways; failing to recognize that diversity of impact would be a massive shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment