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.
We could put Darwin on the currency and see if it is adaptable enough to survive.
Can't we just turn Congress off and then turn it back on again?
If you watch any tv footage from the sixties you see that his ideas were not welcomed with open arms. He was controversial and his ideas were disruptive. With hindsight we can look back and clearly see that what was going on, particularly in the South, was wrong. King was an important part
of changing backward thinking. He forced Americans to look directly at the problems being faced by fellow citizens. He shone the spotlight in some dark corners. He got the silent majority to start responding.
The debate comes from the fact that anytime, anyone is proposed as a new face to put on currency, there is debate. Some folks would love to see Elvis on the $20.00 but you can bet that the proposal would be met with debate.
Time flies like an arrow; Fruit flies like a banana. - Groucho
Sure. I see no reason why not. There's nothing wrong with circulating people in and out of them, and I think we would do better to stop our fetishisizng of a few leaders like Washington , Jefferson, and Lincoln.
Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.
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 love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.
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.