Who cares , nobody gives a fvck who is on the 20's. Go ahead call me me a racist , call this puertorican, born and raised in Utuado P.R. a racist.
Because Latino is a race? Its not, its an ethnicity. You can be of any race and still be Latino. And being Latino doesnt mean someone cannot be racist. There are Afro-Latinos (black), European descent Latinos, and those who are mixed with Native Blood. And there are even those with Asian or Indian blood(sub-continent)
Also, there's tons of racism in Latin America. And yes, Mexicans, Boricuas, and Dominicans will tell you this. I have Puerto Ricans in my family. So it's not like I don't know this stuff.
Ah I see, when you get called out on your anti-white thoughts, you push it back to topic.
You think whites should be displaced and you believe they do not deserve a land for themselves.
You are a full-on anti-white racist and a complete hypocrite when it comes to them having any rights at all.
In these threads I am not going to stop reminding you and the board of your position on this.
Like I always tell you. Prove it.
Show everyone here exact quotes of my racism that you always whine about. Not false and disingenuous interpretations or you putting words in my mouth...
show us all exact quotes. Because I have plenty of exact quotes of these stormfront-lite fools being racist, and you've never had a peep to say about that.
And actually, you and others whined like little girls when some of those of the posters were perma-banned from this forum for being racist tool-bags. Now either put up, or shut up.
I personally think Martin Luther King Jr. should have been placed on that bill if they were going for an African American.
He made a great influence and protested peacefully and legally. He actually made people come together and unite against segregation. Harriet Tubman was a hero and a criminal for a her time. Not saying slavery is right in any way, but what she was doing was illegal at the time. Looking back at her actions you can say what she was doing was right but that's because society has evolved ever since. You would have to literally be there at that moment in time to make a judgment.
And you can't say Andrew Jackson was a bad president simply because it was a different time, that's comparing apples to oranges. The dude was around when other dudes were wearing wigs, we really have no idea what it was like.
Also, the Republicans back then were more Democrat based, and vice versa, compared to today's political belief standards. So Harriet Tubman would be considered a liberal in today's standards.
We already have Abraham Lincoln, whom stopped slavery to unite America again, why do we need her? If anything, I would want Martin Luther King Jr.
And plenty of people in the South said Lincoln was a criminal and tyrannical leader....but history looks at him as one of the greatest presidents of our history and the man who saved the nation. That said, Lincoln's actions were more about uniting the nation, moreso than rights for Blacks as a whole.
Because after the Civil War, and into the 20th century, the GOP wasn't doing all that much for the black community. Which is why the Democratic party (at least in the North) started taking the reigns on civil rights and gaining black support. All that said, just because Lincoln has his recognition, does NOT mean Tubman and other black freedom fighters and leaders shouldnt get theres.
So honestly, it matters little what bigots of the past thought of Harriet Tubman's actions. She is more than deserving of being on the $20 bill. Martin Luther King has plenty of honors as it is. He has numerous streets, buildings, plazas, and a federal holiday named after him. Harriet is deserving of this recognition she's now getting.
EDIT - And even for his time period, Andrew Jackson was a sack of sh!t. And not just because of the forced relocation and massacring of Native Americans. (Though you might want to not look at past genocide, and simply say "oh...times back then were bad in general")
You might want to look at his domestic policies as well.