Should ANYONE be on our currency?

[Einzige]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[American]

I guess Darwin just was "fit" enough. :lamo

*wasn't

:lol:

 

[DVSentinel]

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.