• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we put Martin Luther King Jr. on our currency?

Should we put Martin Luther King Jr. on our currency?

  • Yes but only for regular circulated coins and or paper currency.

    Votes: 14 23.7%

  • Yes but only for commemorative or special edition coins and or paper currency.

    Votes: 7 11.9%

  • Both of the above

    Votes: 7 11.9%

  • no

    Votes: 31 52.5%
  • Total voters
    59
Dittohead not! said:
You'd get used to it. Just use a coin purse.
I used to keep a pocket full of coins that could actually be used to buy something. Now, I just dump them on the dresser, and then, when that soda costs $1.01, I get a bunch of worthless coins back in change, and dump them on the dresser, too. Now, that's inconvenient.
Click to expand...

No I'd rather just be able to get the $1 out of the same place I get the $20, it's much easier and quicker. With the extra change I put it in one spot, and every now and then I get it exchanged for cash. Not inconvenient at all.
 
jamesrage said:
Should we put Martin Luther King Jr. on our currency?


Yes but only for regular circulated coins and or paper currency.

Yes but only for commemorative or special edition coins and or paper currency.

Both of the above

No



I say yes but for regular circulated coins or paper currency.Because I think it should be something that regular people will use not something that only collectors will have their hands on. I think maybe a dime or twenty dollar bill.
Click to expand...

Maybe on the day we actually realize his dream.

Though in general I would say no. I know we've put some other folk on our currency from time to time; but I'd keep it Presidents. Maybe Bruce Campbell.
 
Morality Games said:
Eisenhower had a mistress in Europe.

Rich and powerful men who don't have affairs (when models and actresses are lining up to jump into bed with them) are extremely rare.
Click to expand...

Benjamin Franklin was a playboy. I'm actually mildly offended Andrew Jackson is on the $20 considering his brutal treatment of Native Americans. Washington owned slaves and btw, his famous wooden dentures was partially made from the teeth of his slaves that he directed to be yanked out of their mouths probably without anesthesia.

I say replace Jackson on the $20 and use Reagan instead. Then create a $3 bill with MLK. To keep it from becoming an collectors item, the government should stop printing $1 bills for a while; maybe 5 years to get people to start using the $2 and $3 more or have to carry around a lot of change. I also think Eisenhower should be on a new $30 bill; the greatest military hero of the 20th century, two term POTUS, built the Interstate highway system and started NASA. IMHO Eisenhower is more deserving than a lot of people already on our currency.
 
I think he deserves to be on regular money, which raises the question; who are we gonna get rid of? Jackson? Grant?
 
Muhammed said:
Oh hell no. The man is mainly known for 3 things to those who look at his life objectively. His Hitleresque speeches being yelled into a mic at brain dead followers. Plagiarizing his doctoral dissertation. And getting shot.
Click to expand...

So because you don't like him and what he stood for he doesn't deserve to be remembered on a coin/ bill. Seems about right.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: I don't think anyone is expecting it to do so - this is about the man, not the color of his skin.


That being said, MLK Jr probably single-handedly kept America from seeing a low-level race war, introduced the peaceful protest into the political mainstream, and held this country to account for its' founding principles, helping us to right deep and bitter injustice with a minimum of bloodshed. Bills are generally for Presidents, but if any non-president deserves a currency, he does.
Click to expand...

I agree. He taught people like my parents to protest peacefully and not to have hate in our hearts. Man we could use someone like him right now instead of these a** clowns like Sharpton.
 
Your Star said:
No I'd rather just be able to get the $1 out of the same place I get the $20, it's much easier and quicker. With the extra change I put it in one spot, and every now and then I get it exchanged for cash. Not inconvenient at all.
Click to expand...

I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. Money is going more and more to debit/credit cards and less and less cash. Eventually, all money will be electronic.
 
There are hundreds of historical figures that should be considered before MLK in cronological order.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
If a black president didn't ease race relations a black on currency won't either.
Click to expand...

What a thoughtful reply. What if the idea behind this is not to ease race relations. What if the idea is to recognize an individual who is considered a great historical figure and who is American. If any other country had produced an historical figure of his stature, an individual recognized the world over as a great man, there would be no debate.
 
rocket88 said:
Like Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin? When were their terms again?
Click to expand...

Its amazing that people use the the ten and hundred dollar bills bills on a regular basis and forget the fact that those men were never president.



If we look at the history of American paper currency there were all sorts of people who were not president on our currency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_one-dollar_bill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_ten-dollar_bill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_twenty-dollar_bill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_fifty-dollar_bill
 
mpg said:
I think he deserves to be on regular money, which raises the question; who are we gonna get rid of? Jackson? Grant?
Click to expand...

I vote for Grant. Though I like the irony of replacing Jackson with a black guy.
 
Smeagol said:
Benjamin Franklin was a playboy. I'm actually mildly offended Andrew Jackson is on the $20 considering his brutal treatment of Native Americans. Washington owned slaves and btw, his famous wooden dentures was partially made from the teeth of his slaves that he directed to be yanked out of their mouths probably without anesthesia.
Click to expand...
Good point regarding Andrew Jackson. I'd be fine with putting King on the twenty

I would be fine with any bill except the one. Washington should remain on the one. The number one, 1st President, it just seems to fit and shouldn't change.


Smeagol said:
I say replace Jackson on the $20 and use Reagan instead. Then create a $3 bill with MLK. To keep it from becoming an collectors item, the government should stop printing $1 bills for a while; maybe 5 years to get people to start using the $2 and $3 more or have to carry around a lot of change. I also think Eisenhower should be on a new $30 bill; the greatest military hero of the 20th century, two term POTUS, built the Interstate highway system and started NASA. IMHO Eisenhower is more deserving than a lot of people already on our currency.
Click to expand...
Would give a whole new meaning to the slang, "Queer as a three dollar bill". :lamo
 
I say yes. Simply because he stood for peace and we could all use a little more of that these days.
 
Dittohead not! said:
When King's dream becomes reality, we will no longer think of him as a "black guy."
Click to expand...

You'd still see it. Putting him on money would be judging him by his character, not his skin color.
 
rjay said:
What a thoughtful reply. What if the idea behind this is not to ease race relations. What if the idea is to recognize an individual who is considered a great historical figure and who is American. If any other country had produced an historical figure of his stature, an individual recognized the world over as a great man, there would be no debate.
Click to expand...

So why in your opinion is their debate here?
 
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.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
So why in your opinion is their debate here?
Click to expand...
here, as in the U.S. ?

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.
 
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.
 
rocket88 said:
Like Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin? When were their terms again?
Click to expand...

They were part of the founding fathers of this country. (I said historically reserved, not exclusively reserved.)

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?
 
jamesrage said:
Should we put Martin Luther King Jr. on our currency?
Click to expand...
No. Money in this country has always featured presidents, and people who were fundamental to the founding and expansion of the nation. Outside of counterfeit prevention measures, I see no reason why we should change our money.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom