Replies

“That’s fine, but while you may fairly argue that Tubman is not worthy of being portrayed on US currency, there is no lie in saying that she was a courageous woman of faith who helped many others escape human slavery.”

That’s not good enough. Not to be on the currency of the United States of America.

Her virtuousness is also supported by another obvious lie: that black slavery within the boundaries of the United States was the worst thing that ever happened in the history of the universe.

We all have ancestors who were slaves. Whether you are Irish, Swedish, Chinese, or Spanish, you have ancestors who were slaves. Was black slavery in the US worse than the Egyptian bondage of the Hebrews? Was it worse to be whipped on a plantation in Mississippi than it was to be whipped to death as a Russian serf?

Yeah, I’ll say it: GTF over it, already. No one now living was a slave. No one now living ever owned a slave (Pigdog murder muzzies excepted). But the race-hustling poverty pimps make a very good living from keeping these imaginary grievances alive, and no one is hurt more by this than American blacks.

That is what Tubman on the money is about: fanning the flames of racial discord (by humiliating whites) for the purpose of harming the United States. That, and nothing else, no matter how many drooling morons are taken in by their snake oil.

“but there’s nothing fair about impugning the opinions of others and decreeing that they do not truly esteem Tubman and are simply using her in order to humiliate white men.”

You have restated my argument to make it easier to attack. I did not say that *everyone* was using her to humiliate. This should be obvious, because only a very small number of people had any say in this. Whether those few people actually esteem her or not, *they* are using her to humiliate white men.

It is quite obvious that many Americans are deluded, insane, or stupid, and therefore think this is a good idea, but those people had no say in this.

“There is no set of established guidelines to qualify a person for portrayal on US currency”

There was until Beelzebubba started ignoring them, and there is no reason we shouldn’t abide by them once again.

“and obviously, an escaped slave would not have the same opportunity to shape the world that a privileged, educated politician would.”

Privileged? Are you accustomed to having “white privilege” accepted as a valid concept? Not here, Boris.

And here’s another obvious lie that humiliates one to accept: “If we say that a person would have been a hero if she had been white, that’s the same as actually being a hero.”

It doesn’t matter why she failed to accomplish anything worthy of getting her on the currency; she didn’t.

“But what Tubman did was remarkable”

Repeat that as many times as you like; what she did was not sufficient to place her on the currency.

“an unqualified good.”

Really? The slaves were freed through the efforts of abolitionists like John Brown and Harriet Tubman. Which is another way of saying that the actions of the abolitionists, including the freeing of slaves and the killing of slaveholders, resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 600,000 Americans.

Economic and historical factors would have resulted in the abandonment of slavery in a few short years had the Civil War not broken out. The price paid for those few years was inordinately high. And before you start howling, reflect that none of the other large slaveholding nations had to fight a civil war to get rid of it.

“I believe Tubman stands among those most worthy of honor.”

Wow. And you can vote.

“I believe Tubman had a perfect idea of what it then meant to be a Republican.”

You seem to believe whatever sophistry will purport to justify this travesty.

One should certainly reflect on this: no white person has ever been put on our currency for accomplishments of this magnitude.

How racist is that? “We can’t find a black who deserves to be on our money, so we’ll lower the bar as far as we have to until we trip over one.” If I were a black or a woman, I’d be insulted.

Well said.

Your points are well taken. I do not know enough about Harriet Tubman to even comment on her as an individual, one way or another. But if the Federal Government is seeking an American Negro we can all truly honor, should it not be someone like a Booker T. Washington or George Washington Carver, whom all fair minded people of any race can truly respect?

Picking someone who apparently fought against other Americans is not the sort of unifying figure that we can all rally to. To understand my point, consider the common appeal of Booker T. Washington.

As for someone proposed for honor on our money by the Obama Administration? Based on the Administration's track record on anything involving race, one has to expect a devious and divisive intention.

That’s not good enough. Not to be on the currency of the United States of America.

As I said before, there is no standard set of guidelines for qualification. You're applying your own criteria, and seem to be outraged that your criteria are not accepted as the law of the land, which is not reasonable.

Her virtuousness is also supported by another obvious lie: that black slavery within the boundaries of the United States was the worst thing that ever happened in the history of the universe.

No, not the worst thing that ever happened in the history of the universe, but I and most other rational people believe that human slavery is an evil which should be eliminated. The fact that Tubman consistently put herself in harms way to deliver others from slavery testifies to her virtue.

Was black slavery in the US worse than the Egyptian bondage of the Hebrews?

I have no idea, since we don't know nearly enough about the conditions in which ancient Egyptians kept slaves. I also don't see the relevance, since that had nothing to do with US history and we are, after all, trying to determine who should have a place on US currency.

Yeah, I’ll say it: GTF over it, already. No one now living was a slave.

And no one now living was a soldier in the Civil War - the only reason US Grant has a place on US currency. You realize, of course, that your argument can be applied to any figure currently portrayed on US currency?

That is what Tubman on the money is about: fanning the flames of racial discord (by humiliating whites) for the purpose of harming the United States.

You keep referring to some imagined humiliation, and you still haven't explained why you find this humiliating, or provided any concrete example of the humiliation taking place. What is humiliating about the fact that a US president who lived long before your time or mine will be moved to the back of the $20, while a deserving black woman is portrayed on the front?

The accomplishments of white men speak for themselves - the modern-day Western world, which is the freest and most prosperous in human history, is primarily the work of white men, and everyone knows it. There may have been evils committed, and slavery was certainly one, but a moral and decent culture acknowledges it's mistakes and corrects them, as ours (led by white men) did. I can't see a reason for such insecurity. To quote your own words, GTF over it, already.

I did not say that *everyone* was using her to humiliate.

Thank you for your clarification - you are saying that only a small number of leftist Machiavellis are using her to humiliate the extraordinarily sensitive, while the rest of us who do not share your ability to detect imaginary humiliations are "drooling morons" who are "deluded, insane or stupid". Is that correct? If so, are you sure the issue may not be with you?

Privileged? Are you accustomed to having “white privilege” accepted as a valid concept? Not here, Boris.

And now you attempt to divert the conversation over the use of the English word "privilege", as if the mere use of the word entitles you to call me "Boris". This is laughable. Any escaped slave of any skin color is obviously not going to have the same privileges as a free person born into wealth. Are you saying otherwise, and if so why?

It seems to me that the problem isn't with the rest of us. The kind of political hyper-sensitivity you exhibit is normally the domain of 18 year old college liberals looking for safe spaces to escape nasty trigger words which humiliate them. I assume the word "privilege" is one of yours.