• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should ANYONE be on our currency?

See above

  • Yes

    Votes: 12 85.7%
  • No (explain in your reply)

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Total voters
    14

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Quite the opposite of this thread.

I oppose the use of historical likenesses on currency, no matter what nation, no matter which people. I find it (A) an abuse of historical notions of "Great Men", (B) pointless insofar as it actually degrades the memory of the person in question, and (C) aesthetically displeasing.

I, personally, prefer abstract designs: I'd also oppose the use of national symbols (eagles and Columbia in America, maple leaves in Canada, the crescent-and-star in Islamic nations, etc.) for much the same reason, but I am more amenable than I am to the use of people on money, which is much too on-the-nose.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,744
Reaction score
17,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
We include all of them for symbols on our currency. It makes more sense to have people on our currency, because humans generally feel more connection with man than they do their objects and animals. It also serves a nationalist purpose in creating unity over figures we consider important. I don't think it is aesthetically displeasing either.
 

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
We include all of them for symbols on our currency. It makes more sense to have people on our currency, because humans generally feel more connection with man than they do their objects and animals. It also serves a nationalist purpose in creating unity. I don't think it is aesthetically displeasing either.
I find several problems with including historical individuals on currency:

1. It creates needless bickering, particularly during periods when such bickering ought to be brought to a minimum. There was a debate several years ago between those who want to put Reagan on currency and those who oppose the idea; the Reaganites pointed to Roosevelt's appearance on the dime, and the Rooseveltians pointed in turn to his connection to the March of Dimes. The problem would never have been a problem had neither one of them the possibility of appearing on money.

2. It creates a selective narrative of history. Lincoln and Washington, yes - and why not Taylor and Harrison and Cleveland and Ford and every other third-rate President, all of who might have been as important as the "Great Men" in that they are as essential to history as it has unfolded as Lincoln and Washington, if not perhaps as dramatically?
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,933
Reaction score
28,509
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I do very much like Canadian money. They have a nice mix of people and stuff and the colors and designs are very attractive.
 

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
29,744
Reaction score
17,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I find several problems with including historical individuals on currency:

1. It creates needless bickering, particularly during periods when such bickering ought to be brought to a minimum. There was a debate several years ago between those who want to put Reagan on currency and those who oppose the idea; the Reaganites pointed to Roosevelt's appearance on the dime, and the Rooseveltians pointed in turn to his connection to the March of Dimes. The problem would never have been a problem had neither one of them the possibility of appearing on money.
We bicker about representation frequently on many matters. I don't think it is needless, it is just trying to figure out our priorities as a nation on our figureheads.

2. It creates a selective narrative of history.
That's what nationalism does, and that's what society does as a result of its consultation with history. It's a good thing. I suspect sooner or later, more stringent questions will be asked about Jefferson's inclusion or Adams's exclusion among the greats as a result of our collective morality.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,700
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Quite the opposite of this thread.

I oppose the use of historical likenesses on currency, no matter what nation, no matter which people. I find it (A) an abuse of historical notions of "Great Men", (B) pointless insofar as it actually degrades the memory of the person in question, and (C) aesthetically displeasing.

I, personally, prefer abstract designs: I'd also oppose the use of national symbols (eagles and Columbia in America, maple leaves in Canada, the crescent-and-star in Islamic nations, etc.) for much the same reason, but I am more amenable than I am to the use of people on money, which is much too on-the-nose.
Good point, I never really thought about that.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
You don't include an option for "don't care", so I'll vote yes. You have to put something on the money and it has to be a complex subject matter to make counterfeiting more difficult. Therefore, why not a face? I also wouldn't be opposed to landscapes or symbolism, although the last would have to be quite complex for the reason listed above. I just don't see the point in changing what already works, I don't want to see the U.S. government doing what the Post Office is doing, putting out tons of variant stamps specifically to appeal to collectors who pay a big portion of their budget. I wouldn't put it past them, to be honest.
 

Artevelde

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
698
Reaction score
194
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Quite the opposite of this thread.

I oppose the use of historical likenesses on currency, no matter what nation, no matter which people. I find it (A) an abuse of historical notions of "Great Men", (B) pointless insofar as it actually degrades the memory of the person in question, and (C) aesthetically displeasing.

I, personally, prefer abstract designs: I'd also oppose the use of national symbols (eagles and Columbia in America, maple leaves in Canada, the crescent-and-star in Islamic nations, etc.) for much the same reason, but I am more amenable than I am to the use of people on money, which is much too on-the-nose.
I don't really oppose it on principle, but I do believe you have a point.

Also, historically, the depiction of persons on money was mostly restricted to monarchs. In a monarchy, this is understandable. In a republic, much less so.
And while there obviously are certain historical figures who are mostly above serious controversy in their historical merit (Washington, Lincoln, ...) it is true that depicting persons on the currency inevitably leads to all sorts of silly controversies (remember the Susan B. Anthony dollar).
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
32,986
Reaction score
21,876
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
We recently had a debate about the lack of women on ours. (all of it has the Queen on the front, of course) But nobody begrudges Charles Darwin his place on the back of a tenner..
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,844
Reaction score
27,926
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We recently had a debate about the lack of women on ours. (all of it has the Queen on the front, of course) But nobody begrudges Charles Darwin his place on the back of a tenner..
I guess Darwin just was "fit" enough. :lamo
 

DVSentinel

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
5,647
Reaction score
1,579
Location
The Republic of Texas.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sure, put Obama on the Penny. It's almost completely worthless and cost America a lot of money to keep them, seems appropriate to me.
 
Top Bottom