Last year I remember there was talk of changing the face on the 20 US dollar bill from Andrew Jackson to Harriet Tubman. Turns out that this was more than mere talk. The faces are going to be changed. Tubman isn’t the only new addition announced, as assorted feminists are going to be added to the back of the 5 and 10 dollar bills, but what is happening to the 20-dollar bill is arguably the greatest change. Jackson will not be removed completely but his presence will be severely diminished. He will be a figure in the background.
Andrew Jackson, for those who don’t know, was a American war hero who went on to become a two term president of the United States from 1829-1837. I can’t say I know much of the Jackson presidency just the basics – he recognized the independence of Texas from Mexico, dissolved the federal bank, increased suffrage to all White males regardless of land ownership, began the ‘trail of tears’ when thousands of Amerindians were moved westwards and apparently ‘Old Hickory’ beat the hell out of a would-be assassin.
Jackson has long been a divisive figure with many seeing him as a champion of the common man on the one hand or as a corrupt tyrant. Much controversy surrounds Jackson especially in regards to his economic policy and his creation of the ‘spoils system’, but that is not why he was targeted,
Jackson stood for the America of free White men, the America that the founder’s spoke of when they talked of “our posterity”. Tubman replacing him is the replacement of White America with the multiracial America that has been forced upon us.
Of course the fact that ‘Old Hickory’ was a slave owner who initiated the ‘trail of tears’ is a major factor as well. There is a huge propaganda coup in using Tubman because she freed slaves and so saying you are against the change can lead to shaming from lefties, “you support slavery!?”, or “you think the enslavement of blacks was ok!?”Any support for Jackson will inevitably lead to cries of “racist!” and other prog buzzwords.
This is also like how Black Lives Matter is named as it is because if you say you don’t support it then you can be called a racist who doesn’t think black lives matter. Jackson’s dislike for the banking system is also helpful because it means people can pretend to be more rational and moderate by saying, “why should someone who hated the national bank have his face on currency created by such an organization?” The treasury secretary even notes that now that it’s a done deal and Tubman will be replacing Jackson (and suffragettes being added to the other bills) no one is going to take them off,
I don’t think somebody’s going to probably want to do that – to take the image of Harriet Tubman off of our money? To take the image of the suffragists off?
Of course not. That would open people up to accusations of committing a hate crime. How racist, sexist and intolerant!
This month has also seen an act of anti-White iconoclasm north of the 49th parallel. Statues of past Canadian prime ministers were rejected from Wilfred Laurier University because apparently it is insensitive to 4% of the population. They’ve found a new home (for now) in a small community to the west of Kitchener, Ontario. These men did not murder or enslave and many PMs were sympathetic to the non-White indigenes – such as Diefenbaker who extended voting rights to them – but because they are White they need to go.
The acts of iconoclasm which this month have occurred north of the Rio Grande are hardly the first incidences. I have talked before about two others (though there have been more), Cecil Rhodes and Jeffery Amherst. These are all easy targets because they represent White dominance and/or imperialism – which has been deemed as a great sin. And some such as Columbus or Jackson can be easily demonized for having committed acts that while perfectly acceptable at almost any other time in history are deemed as atrocious today.
But of course there are no calls for similar acts of replacement when it comes to non-Whites because the issue here is a racial one and Whites are viewed as relics from the past; the future is not supposed to belong to us. It won’t be long, if it hasn’t happened already, that the left will just go after any and all historical figures who happen to be White, or at least that is the direction this anti-White iconoclasm seems to be heading.
It would be amusing if the White suffragettes and feminists added now were to be removed at some later date because, as great as it was that they held the permitted values, they were White and thus are in need of replacement.