When I clicked on the link I was hoping to find a article about cheap design...
Anyway, I like the designs and I really like the idea of using currency as a means of education (e.g. Bill of Rights, and branches of government on the bills.)
One thing I don't get though is this: "One thing I definitely don't want is the government deciding what cultural figures or movements are the most important or 'American.' Instead, I think the most important politicians should be on money." I'm not sure how you determine what political figures are on the bills without influence from the politicians in power.
It should also be noted that Benjamin Franklin was never an American president.
However, if the politicians featured are significantly old enough, they lose a lot of their political nature. Most people don't think about, say, Indian removal when using a $20 bill or suspension of habeas corpus when using a $5 bill. Assuming enough time has passed, the furor over certain decisions disappears because the winning decision becomes part of our culture. Slavery was a heavily divisive topic in the 1800s and Lincoln became a key figure on the anti-slavery side, but with enough time passed everyone (or at least a number dominant to the point that others are considered fringe) has become anti-slave.
Other countries put important scientific and cultural figures on their money. The Bank of England puts Darwin on its £10 note and is going to put Adam Smith on its £20. Why can't we do the same? Along with Ben Franklin we could have Herman Melville, Marian Anderson, Richard Feynman...
When I clicked the link my expectations lead me to believe this was some kind of re-evaluation for monetary exchange. This is a cute idea but I was expecting something bit more ambitious given the title.
Comments
When I clicked on the link I was hoping to find a article about cheap design...
Anyway, I like the designs and I really like the idea of using currency as a means of education (e.g. Bill of Rights, and branches of government on the bills.)
One thing I don't get though is this: "One thing I definitely don't want is the government deciding what cultural figures or movements are the most important or 'American.' Instead, I think the most important politicians should be on money." I'm not sure how you determine what political figures are on the bills without influence from the politicians in power.
It should also be noted that Benjamin Franklin was never an American president.
However, if the politicians featured are significantly old enough, they lose a lot of their political nature. Most people don't think about, say, Indian removal when using a $20 bill or suspension of habeas corpus when using a $5 bill. Assuming enough time has passed, the furor over certain decisions disappears because the winning decision becomes part of our culture. Slavery was a heavily divisive topic in the 1800s and Lincoln became a key figure on the anti-slavery side, but with enough time passed everyone (or at least a number dominant to the point that others are considered fringe) has become anti-slave.
Other countries put important scientific and cultural figures on their money. The Bank of England puts Darwin on its £10 note and is going to put Adam Smith on its £20. Why can't we do the same? Along with Ben Franklin we could have Herman Melville, Marian Anderson, Richard Feynman...
When I clicked the link my expectations lead me to believe this was some kind of re-evaluation for monetary exchange. This is a cute idea but I was expecting something bit more ambitious given the title.