For everyone who is excited by the replacement of Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman, the United States Mint has unveiled a special commemorative coin. With her toga and braids, Lady Liberty – for the first time – is depicted as a black woman. This is the introduction to a series that will release a new coin every two years to “reflect the cultural and ethnic diversity of the United States”. Thus, future editions will feature Asian-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Native Americans.
Despite popular opinion, there are at least three problems with these initiatives. First, they are superficial gestures that gloss over the real, material conditions of women. Compared to every dollar earned by white men, here is what women earn:
- Asian-American $0.90
- White $0.78
- Pacific Islander $0.65
- African-American $0.64
- American-Indian $0.59
- Hispanic/Latina $0.54
Therefore, if Harriet Tubman were alive today, she would earn just $12.80 for every $20 bill with her face on it received by a white man. The right-wing agenda (empowered by a Trump administration) has waged a war on worker’s rights and reproductive freedom – assaults that are felt acutely by non-white women. Having women of color on American money is like a coach not a player to join the Team but making their image the Team logo. Putting women of color on the money is not a substitute for putting money in their wallets.
Second, removing and/or replacing a controversial figure from the monetary supply is not indicative of structural change. The popular demand to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill cited his hateful Indian Removal policy as a main reason. But this is not synonymous with decolonization for indigenous people – as toxic waste plants are disproportionately located near reservations (Smith, 2005), and the Dakota Access Pipeline is still on hold. Although Jackson was removed from the bill, the United States government still adheres to an anti-indigenous worldview.
In that same vein, the decision to have an abolitionist grace the face of the $20 bill does not signify sympathies to black liberation. History shows the exact opposite is true. The FBI used COINTELPRO to dismantle and discredit black movements and activists in the 50s, 60s, and 70s – such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, etc. To this day, the United States seeks to contain and dilute the specter of black freedom.
Third, whether intentionally or unintentionally, the coins rewrite American history as if oppression never happened and is not happening. Since 2017 marks the 225th anniversary anniversary of the Mint, black Lady Liberty is situated on the coin between ‘1792’ and ‘2017’. This neat and tidy timeline crowds out the fact that black folks were slaves in the U.S. between 1619 and 1865. Beneath black Lady Liberty is the motto ‘In God We Trust’ – but black folks were not a part of the We in 1792. As I argue here, black folks were never incorporated into the We – and never can be. The word ‘liberty’ is on the coin but black folks were not free in 1792 and are not free today. That stated, featuring a Native American woman will only gloss the fact of conquest and genocide. Featuring a Latina will only gloss the fact of rampant exploitation and deportation.
The forthcoming $20 bill and the new commemorative coins are illusions of inclusion for women of color.
Photo credit: Reuters
References:
Smith, Andrea. 2005. Conquest.
January 14, 2017 at 6:55 pm
We have to acknowledge the division of women on these issues. Look at how many women (mainly white) in middle America supported Trump. But take Trump out of it, this problem predates Trump. This is what America was built on. In a f’d up way, many people are just doing what this country has taught them. In no way am I condoning any of that hatred s#it. Just pointing out that America’s whole obsession with imagery has everyone blind. Propaganda will tell you to look left, and take your wallet, health, and rights, from your right side. Keep up the good work man
LikeLiked by 4 people
January 14, 2017 at 8:07 pm
Thanks bro! You are right. The majority of white women voted for Trump, in spite of his sexism. Goes to show that race is the tie that binds, not sex or even class. It’s all propaganda: seeing a black woman on a coin or bill while black women are the fastest rising denomination behind bars is crazy. Native American women are most likely to be raped but we are supposed to cheer because they are putting an indigenous woman on a coin? It’s as if we are supposed to overlook the fact that stuff is going to get worse for women these next few years.
LikeLiked by 4 people
January 14, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Great post! It’s horrible that so many white women voted for Trump. It’s unbelievable that women will vote for such a misogynist and it shows how much racism there still is among white women. Shame!
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 14, 2017 at 10:06 pm
Thank you! I agree. I admit: when I heard the original poll results, I was shocked that so many white women voted for Trump. I mean … why would they vote for someone who was blatantly sexist and is declaring war on women’s reproductive rights? The results of this election are exactly why intersectionality is so important. I hope more fruitful discussions come out of the Million Women’s March on Washington.
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 24, 2017 at 1:46 pm
I don’t get the math. White women voting for Trump and a whole bunch of White women marching against Trump.
So…. Russian hackers? LOL!!!
LikeLiked by 3 people
January 25, 2017 at 10:18 am
Lol! They are still talking about Russia! Lol
I am a little confused by the math, too! Sad to say.. even the white women who marched against Trump are not necessarily pro-black at the end of the day.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 25, 2017 at 10:32 am
Man, I’m so glad I’m not the only one who is confused! And your last point is nothing but the truth!
LikeLike
January 14, 2017 at 11:47 pm
Darryl! Another great piece! Mic drop here: “Putting women on the money is not a substitute for putting money in their wallets.” You have hit the nail on the head. The system reappropriates and repurposes the iconography and connotation associated with people, like Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King, etc, who stood outside of the system and rebelled against it. Placing Harriet Tubman on the $20 rewrites her history and role in it. It is an attempt to reabsorb and rewrite history to create a present day mythology about her and Blacks that is put into service to keep everyone in their current positions.
LikeLiked by 5 people
January 15, 2017 at 10:15 am
Brother Malakhai – thank you! You are spot on my dude with your point about reappropriating icons. MLK Day is tomorrow – and we will, undoubtedly, hear a very soft, American version of his message. People tend to fixate on his “I Have a Dream” speech and the image of little white boys and little black girls holding hands. Okay, that is cute. But no one ever realizes that Dr. King’s opinion evolved as he grew older. They freeze him in 1963. No one ever talks about 1967/1968 Dr. King when he was condemning the War in Vietnam, and saying that America “is the greater purveyor of violence”. Exactly one year after he spoke about Vietnam for the first time, he was gunned down. They conveniently forget that J. Edgar Hoover was trying to get him to kill himself because he was a threat. They conveniently forget that there was a civil court trial in 1999 in Memphis that found that the U.S. government was complicit in Dr. King’s assassination – they wash all of that out of the history books and bring him back into the American fold as if he never spoke out AGAINST America. There is nothing Dr. King would endorse today: he would not endorse Obama’s deportations, or Obama’s beckoning to Wall Street, or Obama’s drones. But everyone just throws in a Dr. King quote and think they are in alignment with his overall message….they aren’t! You are absolutely right, they re-write history. The only thing is a desire to make black revolution unthinkable by bringing black folks back into the American fold. They present those who are outside of the establishment as if they were a part of it all along – as if Harriet Tubman was pro-American lol. It’s absurd.
Thanks bro!
LikeLiked by 4 people
January 15, 2017 at 8:05 pm
Bravo!
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm
Thank you 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 16, 2017 at 7:01 pm
Right. We have to stop getting all excited over representation and images of representation. I recently read an article that discusses part of this (not the money part). You might enjoy it: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/14/opinion/sunday/president-obama-martin-luther-king-racial-barrier.html?_r=0
LikeLiked by 3 people
January 17, 2017 at 4:32 pm
Hey Dr. Garland. I hope all is well.
Thank you for sharing this piece. This point is spot on: “But the exceptionalism of Mr. Obama’s biography couldn’t save us from the Tea Party revolution, Republican obstructionism, police brutality, voter suppression and Islamophobia. We now know that no individual, no matter how singular, can bend the moral arc of the universe. Not even Dr. King could.”
You are right – we can’t be getting so caught up in the representation. Obama hasn’t *really* done anything for Black folks except … BE black. It was purely symbolic – performance in lieu of substance – a narrative that is then used to beat black folks over the head with points about “diversity”. And even then, we could argue that having a black president made discussing racism much harder.
Our backs are definitely against the wall right now. I am glad this piece reclaims the legacy of Dr. King as a radical – instead of that recycling the same old milquetoast quotes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 17, 2017 at 4:35 pm
You’re so welcome. As for the rest of your comment, AB-SO-LUTELY!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 24, 2017 at 1:48 pm
YAAAASSSSS!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 17, 2017 at 6:33 pm
You right on the money with this one. We need to be more concerned with how many coins we got in our pocket instead of who is on them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 17, 2017 at 7:54 pm
Yes, very true. They had Sacagawea on a coin a while back – yet they are still trying to lay that pipeline – so it literally means nothing, smh.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 17, 2017 at 9:13 pm
Right… just trying to pacify people with symbols of freedom without actual freedom.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 24, 2017 at 1:42 pm
OMG! There are so many goodies in this post! Bravo Darryl—Once again!
First, when you pointed out exactly how much our dear Harriet would have received in compensation using currency with her face on it was PRICELESS! So, in essence, if I recall correctly, she’d get about $13 for each $20 bill that sported her likeness!
D. it’s not like I didn’t know that but when you put it in those terms I was like damn!
And then your example of not being able to play on a team that uses your face as the mascot is, as you’d say, FIRE!
Flat out, these cursory gestures make folks feel good but they don’t do a damn thing to add food to the table. It all goes back to our previous conversation about women in this country—especially sistas of color.
That boi be killin’ ’em!
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 25, 2017 at 10:15 am
Hey Lady G! Always good to hear from you!
I enjoyed writing this piece, and I am glad you picked out my favorite points to comment on! When I thought of the Harriet Tubman $13 thing I honestly had to take a little walk away from the computer for away bit. I was in my ZONE right there nahmsaying ! 😂 lol
You are absolutely right about those cursory gestures. It’s all theater with no actual results!
LikeLiked by 1 person
January 25, 2017 at 10:30 am
LOL!!! I feel you!
LikeLike
January 30, 2017 at 4:37 pm
The attempt to re-write history goes right along with what we were saying about law manipulation for agenda-setting, doesn’t it? Although different examples, the tactic is still the same – distraction. Both this tactic and and loosening the ban with a clause are both tools of distraction.
LikeLiked by 2 people
January 30, 2017 at 7:11 pm
Yes, I agree, very true! They try to impress us with smokescreens to get away from the fact that we still aren’t making enough money to feed, clothe, and house ourselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person