Trump on Harriet Tubman $20: 'Pure political correctness'

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator

Trump on Harriet Tubman $20: 'Pure political correctness'

"Maybe we do the $2 bill or we do another bill"


90

"Maybe we do the $2 bill or we do another bill," Donald Trump said, echoing a line from his campaign surrogate Ben Carson. | AP Photo

p o l i t i c o
Nick Gass
04/21/16

Donald Trump blasted the Treasury Department's decision to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman

"Andrew Jackson had a great history. I think it's very rough when you take somebody off the bill. Andrew Jackson had a history of tremendous success for the country," Trump told NBC's Matt Lauer on "Today" when asked if he viewed the decision as another example of political correctness, which the candidate has railed against throughout his campaign.

Trump noted the initial proposal to remove Alexander Hamilton from the $10 bill, "and all of a sudden the Broadway play, 'Hamilton' or the Broadway play sort of saved that one. I read it just this morning."

As far as whether he wants Tubman on the $20, Trump called the abolitionist "fantastic" but said he "would love to leave Andrew Jackson and see if we can maybe come up with another denomination."

"Maybe we do the $2 bill or we do another bill," he said, echoing remarks from surrogate Ben Carson on Wednesday afternoon. "I don't like seeing it. Yes, I think it's pure political correctness. [Andrew Jackson has] Been on the bill for many, many years and really represented—somebody that was really very important to this country. I would love to see another denomination, and that could take place. I think it would be more appropriate."

Jackson's presence on the $20 bill has long faced criticism due to the president's role in removing Native Americans from their lands in the Trail of Tears.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/trump-20-harriet-tubman-222256#ixzz46TDfROal
.
 
What Does It Mean for America to
Put Harriet Tubman on the $20 Bill?


A roundtable discussion on women, people of color, and the country’s newest currency

lead_large.jpg

Library of Congress

The Atlantic
Adrienne LaFrance,
Juleyka Lantigua-Williams,
Shauna Miller, and Gillian B. White
Apr 20, 2016

Ah, the irony of American history. The Treasury Department is planning to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill and replace him with Harriet Tubman. Andrew Jackson was a slaveholder who infamously sent thousands of Cherokee Indians to their death along the Trail of Tears. Tubman was a slave who escaped and served as a spy for the Union during the Civil War, freeing other slaves using the Underground Railroad.

The enslaver has been replaced by the slave, and the United States currency library just got one tick less male. To be fair, that was the only way it could go: The only women currently featured on national currency are Susan B. Anthony and Sacagawea, who grace the nearly useless $1 coin.

Irony, for sure. But is this really the justice advocates were hoping for? Four of our writers and editors discuss below.

Adrienne LaFrance: I am very happy about having a black woman on some money. (And several other women, in fact! Harriet Tubman will be the portrait on the front of the new $20 bill. The back of the $10 bill will feature Lucretia Mott, Sojourner Truth, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Alice Paul; and the back of the $5 bill will feature Marian Anderson, and Eleanor Roosevelt.) I actually had a stronger reaction to the news than I expected. I immediately texted my parents and emailed my sister. There were many exclamation points involved. So, I think it’s great news.​


Shauna Miller: I had the same initial reaction as Adrienne. It is undeniably a major deal for a person of color to be on the face of something Americans pass through their hands every day. It’s just as major to have a woman occupying that space. I was pretty shocked it happened, to be honest. But I did like this counter-point, from the writer Feminsta Jones. I've been thinking a lot about money a lot lately: Who has it, where it goes, what it supports, the ways in which it is still used to perpetuate the cycle of poverty and incarceration of people of color, particularly black people.​

So I very quickly shifted into that headspace—similar to Jones’s essay—regarding Tubman being on the $20. Here is a woman who was born into an America who treated her as a salable item. Here is a woman who fought that with everything she had. How would she feel about being the new face of inclusive capitalist imagery? No one can say. But I think I am falling into the trap of my own white privilege with so much cynicism. There is a black woman on the $20 bill! Harriet Tubman is on the $20 bill! It's incredibly bold to put a woman who was born an enslaved American on the twenty. Pretty much no other person better represents the America that rejected slavery. Every time her face is seen, there will be a reminder of very old wounds, and an opportunity for discussions on race and gender Americans need to have. And every time her face is seen, the message gets sent that America is making moves to face its history of violent discrimination against people of color and women. It's meaningful and powerful for all of these reasons. But because of the America we live in now, it’s not entirely comfortable for me. Which is good, because white people especially should not be right now.​


LaFrance: I appreciate how deeply you’re thinking about the implications of the decision. But should we really only keep white men featured on American currency since they’re the most authentic representation of a flawed system? To me, even if putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill is just symbolism—which obviously doesn’t begin to address actual, systematic injustices—it’s still a meaningful step forward.​


Juleyka Lantigua-Williams: I see the inherent complexities here, but I can accept this as a Hallmark card from the establishment, which will never have the proper tools or venues for acknowledging—let alone correcting—the sedimentary layers of harm and damage done to people of color in this country’s history. For blacks, Native Americans, and descendants of the original Mexican states (just to choose three groups) that now make up most of the West and Southwest, some level of restitution—via free higher education through multiple generations, grants for purchasing affordable housing units, training and re-equipping folks in dying industries—might be a start. But, none of it will balance the historical scale. The best we can expect is a gradual leveling of the disproportionality with which some succeed over time while others stagnate. As the spike in “Who is Harriet Tubman?”Google searches proves, most people will not have the depth of knowledge about her to contextualize her worth and work in a meaningful way. But, in their daily lives as they pick up groceries, pay for gas, buy flowers, and give their kids an allowance, they can be reminded of one representative black woman’s work on behalf of the suppliers of the free labor that set in motion the economic machine we now benefit from. Most importantly, as has been proven in millions of ways with our first black First Family, seeing an image that reflects who we are to some degree is fortifying for the soul and reassuring for the intellect. I want my two sons, nieces, and nephews to grow up in a world where such sights are so common as to be taken for granted.​


Gillian White: I respect and understand Jones’s point, that perhaps this choice to have her image placed on national currency wouldn't have been in line with Tubman’s views, but I also don’t think that should necessarily stop it from happening. This, to me, is as much about recognizing a set of people as it is the specific person whose face is being used. There is, as you all have mentioned, something incredibly important about being represented and being seen. The luxury that so many white people take for granted is seeing people who look like them in every facet of life, from politics to economics to entertainment. This doesn’t exist for people of color. It matters to me that people will now see the face of a former slave who helped build and define this nation as often as they see the faces of white men like George Washington and (cringe) Andrew Jackson.​

The gesture is far from perfect. Juleyka mentioned that this isn’t a country that has the proper tools to even beginning to fully reckon with the damages and disregard it has had for people of color and I couldn’t agree more. And that means that proposals and solutions are going to be imperfect and contentious. I prefer a version of change that involves continually trying to honor the history of people of color in this nation, even if it’s incremental, and even if it’s messy. Unless the government is suddenly considering cutting a check to a bunch of different brown folks, there aren’t many existing options for honoring and acknowledging people of color that aren’t going to be, in some way, deeply flawed. But at least we are finally having a conversation about it.​


SOURCE: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/harriet-tubman-20-dollar-bill-justice/479199/



.
 
Trump on Harriet Tubman $20: 'Pure political correctness'
"Maybe we do the $2 bill or we do another bill"


For Trump, Tubman on $20 bill illustrates broader American problem


Donald Trump’s take on the decision to put Harriet Tubman on the front of the $20 bill as “pure political correctness” is symbolic of a style of politics he’s displayed throughout this campaign: at times wary of changes to long-standing American customs and institutions and showing a willingness to take controversial stands on issues that affect women and minorities.

“I think Harriet Tubman is fantastic,” Trump said in an interview on NBC’s Today Show on Thursday. “I would love to — I would love to leave Andrew Jackson and see if we can maybe come up with another denomination. Maybe we do the $2 bill or we do another bill.”

His remarks illustrate the divide between the political approach of Trump and the man he could succeed, Barack Obama.

The decision by the Obama administration to honor Tubman was a celebration of a historic figure admired by Americans of all political beliefs. But it was also a clear political act.

“This whole thing is symbolic politics,” said Andra Gillespie, an associate professor of political science at Emory University. “Putting women on currency is not going to change the gender pay gap and not going to change the fact that the pay gap is worse for black women and women of color.”

Obama and his administration have put the inclusion and promotion of women, people who are gay and transgender, African-Americans, and Latinos at the center of their political agenda, seeking to make up for past discrimination and promote diversity of gender, race and sexual identity whenever possible. Obama has appointed the first Latino Supreme Court justice, first two black U.S. attorney generals, the first openly transgender White House staffer making his administration one of the most demographically diverse in history.

Replacing Andrew Jackson — who forced tens of thousands of Native Americans to relocate from the South to Oklahoma in what is known as the “Trail of Tears”— with Tubman was a natural step for Obama’s team.

“The decision to put Tubman on the twenty is a powerful sign of Americans’ changing relationship with their own history. At the same time, it’s also the gesture of liberals who have been fairly impotent lately in their efforts to correct the deep socioeconomic sources of racial inequality,” said Molly Worthen, a history professor at the University of North Carolina who has written extensively about how views of identity shape each party.

The decision split conservatives along predictable lines.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who has made unifying the country a central theme of his presidential campaign and last year created a task force to deal with tensions between minorities in his state and the police, applauded the honoring of Tubman.

In contrast, Ben Carson, several Fox News personalities and Trump said that the decision was the latest example of an administration bent on what conservatives cast as “politically correct” moves. They praised Jackson, who was one of the key figures in the founding of what is the modern Democratic Party.


While Trump complimented Tubman, he said he didn’t agree with replacing Jackson on the denomination.

He added, “I don’t like seeing it. Yes, I think it’s pure political correctness. Been on the bill [Jackson] for many, many years. And, you know, really represented somebody that really was very important to this country. I would love to see another denomination, and that could take place. I think — I think it would be more appropriate.”

Trump has made comments suggesting that the Mexican government is intentionally sending criminals across the border, Muslims should be barred from entering the United States and that the U.S. needs to build a large border wall to keep out Mexican immigrants.

The comments about the replacement of Tubman with Jackson, like those other controversial Trump stances, have clear racial implications, Gillespie said. The issue also highlights that the real estate mogul has campaigned as something of a traditionalist, willing to defend people and customs that other Americans want to alter radically.

“Donald Trump knows that when he makes certain types of comments that he is going to tap into certain types of resentment in the American economy… jobs disappearing and a certain trepidation about the country changing demographically,” Gillespie said. “Those are sentiments he’s tapped into to cultivate his base of support in this primary season.”

Trump complained of the push by the NFL to make changes to the rules that might reduce concussions, telling a crowd in January, “football has become soft like our country has become soft.”

Early this month, campaigning in Pennsylvania, Trump called for the return of a statute honoring the late Joe Paterno, the Penn State football coach who was fired by the university amid allegations he had covered up allegations against assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who molested young boys while he worked at the university. Trump has repeatedly praised police officers and suggested that the Black Lives Matter movement is overly critical of them.

And throughout his run, Trump has argued he will not conform to “political correctness,” which to the real estate mogul seems to link issues from football to Tubman.

“The real rise of the phrase [political correctness] can be traced to the early 1990’s, when people started to use it to critique or just lament the policing of ideas that are out of step with the hegemony of liberalism in American society, post civil rights and post women’s liberation. In doing so they also effectively signaled themselves as ‘free thinking,” said Carole Bell, a professor of communication at Northeastern University in Boston.

But in case of some conservatives backing Trump, Bell argued, “it’s an expression of the racial resentment that political scientists have long known were animating much of our political discourse around identity. But it’s masked as a concern for free speech.”

Greta Van Susteren, a Fox News host, said this week the Obama administration was in effect the offender, not conservatives, arguing the Obama administration, in replacing Jackson with Tubman instead of leaving his face in place and putting her on another bill, was “gratuitously stirring up the nation.”

On gay rights, Trump has been more open to following the liberal drift in American culture.

He has not railed against same-sex marriage, as other Republicans have, and said in the “Today” interview that North Carolina should have not passed a law regulating which bathrooms transgender Americans use.

Obama, in contrast, has suggested that if he had a son, he would be reluctant see him play football, and has defended Black Lives Matter activists.

Hillary Clinton, in a tweet, wrote, “A woman, a leader, and a freedom fighter. I can’t think of a better choice for the $20 bill than Harriet Tubman.”

Politically, Trump’s remarks suggest he will continue to appeal to voters, particularly whites, who feel left out of Obama’s vision of America, Gillespie said adding that he will have to pivot for the general election.

Trump’s approach may be resonating.

A recent Pew Research Center poll found that 46 percent of Republicans said the country’s increased diversity makes the U.S. a “better place,” compared to 13 percent said who that diversity makes it a “worse place,” and 39 percent who said “no difference.” The majority of Americans (59 percent) indicated “better place.”

In the poll, Trump supporters, compared to those backing the other four presidential candidates, were the least likely to say “better” (39 percent) and most likely to say “worse” (17 percent).

Ultimately, the rhetoric over placing Tubman on the $20 is about a different kind of political currency, one of identity, political experts say.

“That’s going to symbolize for them a kind of change they are not necessarily comfortable with,” Gillespie said.

This story first appeared on NBCNews.com.


SOURCE:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-tubman-20-bill-illustrates-broader-american-problem



.
.
 
Back
Top