I say Sanger should be the woman on the $20 bill. She represents the hypocrisy of Progressivism better than any other single human. Satan is the best representative of their hypocrisy, but he’s male so he’s not on the list.
People have sort of romanticized Andrew Jackson, as sort of “outlaw” kind of icons of American History, but he was in fact one of the first and most adamant adherents of Indian removal, either by genocide or by death marches to locations distant from the original habitat of a number of different tribes.
The “Five Civilized Tribes”, made up of the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, Seminole, and original Cherokee Nations, had been established as autonomous nations in the southeastern United States. The Indian Removal Act was passed by Congress on May 28, 1830, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. The law authorized the president to negotiate with Indian tribes in the Southern United States for their removal to federal territory west of the Mississippi River in exchange for their ancestral homelands, including that of the “Five Civilized Tribes”.
Every one of these tribes and many of the other “uncivilized” tribes, have their tales of “Trail of tears” as they were forced westward into Oklahoma, a barren and vacant land with few of the resources to which the tribes had been accustomed to using. There was a massive die-back in all segments of this transported horde. If there is one white man that all American Indians should despise, it is Andrew Jackson, who set the measure of how the tribal people of the United States were to be treated for many years.
The Seminoles fled to the Everglades of Florida, and fought a resistance to the United States government for years, and I believe there has never been a peace treaty signed between the US and the Seminoles.
So if a man like Andrew Jackson could be honored on the face of the $20 bill, then it is not much of a stretch to put the “eugenist” Margaret Sanger on as the replacement, to commemorate the genocide that was perpetrated upon the descendants of the slave population of America.
I am not criticizing here, it is what it is, but why, when there are so many other prospective candidates to be considered to remark on our history, do the arbiters of taste choose just these people?
Lot of divorced men here would probably beg to differ with you on that.