Originally, this article was going to be a satire. I was searching the internet for ideas, hoping to come across some Trump enthusiast’s rant on why having Harriet Tubman on money would -- I don’t know -- tarnish the image of America or something crazy like that. Instead, I found Feminista Jones’ article, which was in no way satirical and actually provided legitimate reasons as to why Harriet Tubman should not be on the 20-dollar bill.
A Quick Crash Course: Harriet Tubman
As historian Crissle West stated in Comedy Central’s series, Drunk History, Harriet Tubman was “dope as hell.” Most people associate Harriet Tubman for her work with the Underground Railroad and how she acted as a guide to lead hundreds of slaves to freedom. What a lot of people don’t know is that she was also a spy for the Union Army during the Civil War. She singlehandedly orchestrated and executed a mission to burn down the plantations along the Combahee River: the first military operation in American history lead by a woman. Her efforts significantly helped the Union win the war.
So Why Shouldn’t She Be on the $20?
Harriet Tubman spent her life to destabilize the system of forced labor and oppression that the American economy was and still is built upon. By putting Tubman’s face on the currency that continues to oppress women and people of color, we are undermining the tremendous amount of effort Tubman put into overthrowing the system of oppression.
American capitalism is fueled by the oppression and marginalization of women and people of color. Women were forbidden from owning their own property. People of color were not allowed to vote until recently and even now, it is increasingly difficult for people of color to cast their votes due to literacy tests and identification checks. Women still do not make as much money as their male colleagues. Putting a woman on currency is not going to suddenly change these problems.
By putting a woman, especially a black woman, on American currency, it will become much easier for the country to ignore the blatant racist and sexist environment that these women have to live in. Jones states,
“America’s currency is viewed as a place to honor people of historic political influence. To suggest that black women are part of that club by putting Tubman’s face on the $20 simply would cover up our nation’s reality of historic and lingering disenfranchisement.”
Yes, women are not equally represented in history and their contributions to various fields of work often go unrecorded, but slapping Tubman’s face on the twenty isn’t going to magically erase all of the inequality that women, especially women of color, still face in their personal and professional lives. Rather, this act will end up misrepresenting Tubman’s legacy and distract the U.S. from addressing the social and economic problems that women still have to deal with every day.
Now don’t get me wrong, I want women to have a place in American currency. I want people to be aware of the contributions that were made to this country were not just made by white males. But the risk of masking the inequality women face by adding women to currency is high.
Harriet Tubman was never taken in by capitalism, free trade or competitive markets, probably because she was the one that was being abused by capitalism, free trade, and the competitive markets of slavery. At first, I thought having a woman, especially a black woman, on American currency would be a huge step towards visibility of people of color and their accomplishments, as well as women and their accomplishments.
Now though, I realized that while having some female faces on the new bills will showcase the efforts these women made in shaping our country, it won’t change the fact that we still have a long way to go before women are acknowledged as equal to men. And until these conditions are met, it seems highly unlikely that Harriet Tubman, guide to the Underground Railroad and spy for the Union Army, would be OK with being the face of the system that worked so hard to oppress the people she cared about.
