Should we put Martin Luther King Jr. on our currency?

[jamesrage]

No. Money in this country has always featured presidents, and people who were fundamental to the founding and expansion of the nation. Outside of counterfeit prevention measures, I see no reason why we should change our money.

Not true.Coins for a long time did not feature any actual people animals, Indians, or depictions of lady liberty.Coins featured people who were not founders and these people appeared on various bills

John Marshall
Salmon P. Chase
Martha Washington
Christopher Columbus
Lewis and Clark
Stephen Decatur
Running Antelope or Tȟatȟóka Íŋyaŋke
Thomas A. Hendricks
Michael Hillegas
Henry Clay
Edward Everett
Silas Wright
William H. Seward
Winfield Scott
Thomas Hart Benton
David Farragut

 

[Neomalthusian]

I think the only people who should appear on our currency are federal reserve bankers.

And yes I say that with resentful undertones, but I'm not joking.

 

[Surtr]

Not true.Coins for a long time did not feature any actual people animals, Indians, or depictions of lady liberty.Coins featured people who were not founders and these people appeared on various bills

John Marshall
Salmon P. Chase
Martha Washington
Christopher Columbus
Lewis and Clark
Stephen Decatur
Running Antelope or Tȟatȟóka Íŋyaŋke
Thomas A. Hendricks
Michael Hillegas
Henry Clay
Edward Everett
Silas Wright
William H. Seward
Winfield Scott
Thomas Hart Benton
David Farragut

Alright, I was wrong, but if we're going to commemorate the civil rights movement, I'd rather the slot be filled with the real major players of the Civil rights movement. The guys who brought the issue to the courts. People like Medgar Evers, who was heavily involved in legal efforts to overturn segregation laws in Mississippi, or Thurgood Marshall, who was an activist lawyer who fought in the Supreme Courts to end segregation, and the first black Justice of the Supreme Court. In the end, MLK just got himself into the public eye, and had a memorable speech. The march wasn't even his idea, it was a joint effort, but you'll probably never hear about Dr. Benjamin Chavis Jr, or any number of the various groups who supported the march. I just think MLK's reputation is way too overstated, and that there are people who are far more deserving of such an honor.

 

[Cephus]

Portraits on paper currency has been historically reserved for Past Presidents.

Well, past presidents and founding fathers and I see no reason to change. What's next? Elvis on the $5?

 

[Ray410]

The Mexicans would not allow MLK to be on the money. They would demand that Caesar Chavez or someone else that they like be on there instead.

 

[rocket88]

I say NO, his addition would be seen as a token act.

Not too mention our current administration has tarnished his reputation by politicizing his efforts.

Please, ever since he was assassinated he's been a political football. You're using him as one here.

 

[rocket88]

The Mexicans would not allow MLK to be on the money. They would demand that Caesar Chavez or someone else that they like be on there instead.

Mexico doesn't have to put him on their money if they don't want to.

 

[rocket88]

Not true.Coins for a long time did not feature any actual people animals, Indians, or depictions of lady liberty.Coins featured people who were not founders and these people appeared on various bills

John Marshall
Salmon P. Chase
Martha Washington
Christopher Columbus
Lewis and Clark
Stephen Decatur
Running Antelope or Tȟatȟóka Íŋyaŋke
Thomas A. Hendricks
Michael Hillegas
Henry Clay
Edward Everett
Silas Wright
William H. Seward
Winfield Scott
Thomas Hart Benton
David Farragut

Also Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea. Not to mention that with the series of Presidential dollar coins, such luminaries as Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson have gotten coinage. And assuming it continues we'll get the Jimmy Carter dollar (which I think would technically be worth about 70 cents).

Given Susan B. Anthony's presence, I would think MLK should be a slam dunk. I think he should be on money.

 

[rocket88]

They were part of the founding fathers of this country. (I said historically reserved, not exclusively reserved.)

Do you think that King deserves to be on a coin? Must not, since you didn't mention that part of my post but instead chose to pick nits.

Why should, in your opinion, MLK, Jr. not be on a coin? Was he less important that JFK?

I believe that I said I was in favor of it. If not, I will say it again.

MLK should be on money.

 

[Dittohead not!]

there is a history of putting animals on the money, too. The eagle, for example, that stands for freedom, and the buffalo, that stands because there isn't room for it to sit down.

Given the number of dog and cat lovers in this country, it's surprising that we haven't put Fluffy or Fido on the currency.

 

[radcen]

Well, before adopting the euro, most national currencies in European countries had on them the portraits or significant people in the state, most notably scientists and researches, men of culture (musicians, painters, etc) or other significant people, but not really politicians. Except you know, the queen's face on them, but the other side is reserved for some famous person that did a technological or cultural or major economic invention or stuff. Same for the now deceased deutchemark and the french franc.

I am pretty sure I read somewhere that all the countries that have adopted the euro and replaced their own currency, there were just 4 people who didn't fit the pattern. The pattern being people who delivered historical works of art, science and technology and things like that. So 4 people who were basically politicians or reformers.

Now of course the euro has no famous people on it. each banknote is representative of a cultural period. From renaissance to modernism.

So with this in mind, do I think the US should put MLK on a banknote? No. frankly, he doesn't deserve it and anyone whose face is now on the banknotes is far more deserving to be there. If there is to be a reshuffle... a new generation of banknotes, better put scientists on them, not politicians. So Benjamin Franklin can stay, but you know, put people like John Hall, William Shockley (invented the transistor->it's literally the reason we have more processing power in a smartphone than all computers 30 years ago combined, heck, it's the reason why we have computers to begin with and all this wonderful thing called microelectronics) and such people.

I'd bet that they did that specifically so there wouldn't be any nationalistic squabbles. But, maybe that's the answer here, as well.

there is a history of putting animals on the money, too. The eagle, for example, that stands for freedom, and the buffalo, that stands because there isn't room for it to sit down.

Given the number of dog and cat lovers in this country, it's surprising that we haven't put Fluffy or Fido on the currency.

 

[brothern]

I'd bet that they did that specifically so there wouldn't be any nationalistic squabbles. But, maybe that's the answer here, as well.

I would bet it's more likely an issue of standardization. Each member state is allowed to issue banknotes. That'd be 17 member states + 3 nonmember states all printing multiple designs over the course of a decade. You'd end up with hundreds of different variations of the same note, which would probably render bill scanners and atms useless.

They are allowed one country-specific design on the coins they mint, but with the condition that the reverse still has to bear the common European design.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I believe that I said I was in favor of it. If not, I will say it again.

MLK should be on money.

I agree. Argument ended.

 

[rocket88]

there is a history of putting animals on the money, too. The eagle, for example, that stands for freedom, and the buffalo, that stands because there isn't room for it to sit down.

Given the number of dog and cat lovers in this country, it's surprising that we haven't put Fluffy or Fido on the currency.

Or Bo. I still think Mittens deserved a coin.

 

[Surtr]

Or Bo. I still think Mittens deserved a coin.

 

[chromium]

He can go on my credit card, where currency belongs in the 21st century.

 

[Master PO]

Benjamin Franklin was a playboy. I'm actually mildly offended Andrew Jackson is on the $20 considering his brutal treatment of Native Americans. Washington owned slaves and btw, his famous wooden dentures was partially made from the teeth of his slaves that he directed to be yanked out of their mouths probably without anesthesia.

I say replace Jackson on the $20 and use Reagan instead. Then create a $3 bill with MLK. To keep it from becoming an collectors item, the government should stop printing $1 bills for a while; maybe 5 years to get people to start using the $2 and $3 more or have to carry around a lot of change. I also think Eisenhower should be on a new $30 bill; the greatest military hero of the 20th century, two term POTUS, built the Interstate highway system and started NASA. IMHO Eisenhower is more deserving than a lot of people already on our currency.

I believe Washington's teeth, are whale bone, and other animal but not any human teeth.

 

[VanceMack]

Why disrespect the mans legacy like that???

 

[Medusa]

Oh hell no. The man is mainly known for 3 things to those who look at his life objectively. His Hitleresque speeches being yelled into a mic at brain dead followers. Plagiarizing his doctoral dissertation. And getting shot.

sometimes words are not enough to express what we feel about a lie

 

[Dittohead not!]

I believe Washington's teeth, are whale bone, and other animal but not any human teeth.

Wooden Teeth Myth

Next to the Cherry Tree legend, the story that George Washington wore wooden dentures arguably remains the most widespread and enduring myth about Washington's personal life. While Washington certainly suffered from dental problems and wore multiple sets of dentures composed of a variety of materials—including ivory, gold, and lead—wood was never used in Washington's dentures nor was it commonly employed by dentists in his era.

Ivory, gold, and lead. I don't think they knew about the toxic characteristics of lead in those days.

 

[Master PO]

Wooden Teeth Myth



Ivory, gold, and lead. I don't think they knew about the toxic characteristics of lead in those days.

one displayed by a museum, the curator stated they were whale bone and hippo.

 

[Smeagol]

I believe Washington's teeth, are whale bone, and other animal but not any human teeth.

I saw something on one of the cable channels on his life saying his dentures were partly human teeth from his shaves.

The following year, in May of 1784, Washington paid several unnamed "Negroes," presumably Mount Vernon slaves, 122 shillings for nine teeth, slightly less than one-third the going rate advertised in the papers, "on acct. of the French Dentis [sic} Doctr. Lemay [sic]," almost certainly Le Moyer. Over the next four years, the dentist was a frequent and apparently favorite guest on the plantation. Whether the Mount Vernon slaves sold their teeth to the dentist for any patient who needed them or specifically for George Washington is unknown, although Washington's payment suggests that they were for his own use. Washington probably underwent the transplant procedure--"I confess I have been staggered in my belief in the efficacy of transplantion," he told Richard Varick, his friend and wartime clerk, in 1784--and thus it may well be that some of the human teeth implanted to improve his appearance, or used to manufacture his dentures, came from his own slaves.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/video/lives.html

At least they were paid, albeit underpaid, and it seems to have been voluntary.

 

[radcen]

I saw something on one of the cable channels on his life saying his dentures were partly human teeth from his shaves.

You'd think he'd be more careful. :mrgreen:

 

[Dittohead not!]

I saw something on one of the cable channels on his life saying his dentures were partly human teeth from his shaves.

The following year, in May of 1784, Washington paid several unnamed "Negroes," presumably Mount Vernon slaves, 122 shillings for nine teeth, slightly less than one-third the going rate advertised in the papers, "on acct. of the French Dentis [sic} Doctr. Lemay [sic]," almost certainly Le Moyer. Over the next four years, the dentist was a frequent and apparently favorite guest on the plantation. Whether the Mount Vernon slaves sold their teeth to the dentist for any patient who needed them or specifically for George Washington is unknown, although Washington's payment suggests that they were for his own use. Washington probably underwent the transplant procedure--"I confess I have been staggered in my belief in the efficacy of transplantion," he told Richard Varick, his friend and wartime clerk, in 1784--and thus it may well be that some of the human teeth implanted to improve his appearance, or used to manufacture his dentures, came from his own slaves.

Special Video Reports - The Private Lives Of George Washington's Slaves | Jefferson's Blood | FRONTLINE | PBS

At least they were paid, albeit underpaid, and it seems to have been voluntary.

Transplantation?

Doesn't that infer that the teeth were taken from one person and transplanted into another?

That hardly seems likely, given the state of medical knowledge back in the 18th. century. I'm not sure such an operation could even be done today.

 

[Shadow Serious]

We could replace FDR on the dime. Or we could start issuing $500 bills and use MLKjr though not many people would have them generally.