| Author |
 Replies: 15 / Views: 1,522 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1227 Posts |
A preface note: if this gets heated, I know very well the mods will come in and shut it down, so let's try to keep this academic, guys. I will do my best to stay neutral (since this subject DOES interest me) and I hope everybody else will, too.
I was at work last night, thinking about the random crap I think about at work, and that turned my thoughts to the three Canadian cents I found in a single roll. It occurred to me that in much of the world, living people are on coinage: whether ruling monarchs, titular heads (like the British queen being on Canadian coinage), war heroes, or elected presidents, there are a lot of places where you don't have to look to a tombstone to find the face on the coin.
In the US, we're quite different--Kennedy and Roosevelt weren't long dead before they hit our coinage, but they WERE dead, and the vast majority of heads on our money have been decomposing for generations or even centuries. Even the US Presidents coin series specifies that you have to have been dead for a specific number of years to be part of it, which created a stir over one of the recent old-as-dirt-but-still-alive Presidents (Ford? Carter? Someone help me out here). Indeed, I don't think you'd hear anybody--no matter how politically-inclined, no matter how crazy--suggest we should put Obama on our coins because he's the current head of state, or any of our retired-but-living Prezes on coins to "honor their contributions" or whatever.
So far, the groundwork. Now my question: How does this affect a nation's self-identity or loyalty? For example, although I've heard Brits grumble about how costly it is to maintain the royal house because [things I don't entirely understand about British taxes go here], I've never actually heard a Brit--or a Canadian, for that matter--come right out and say "I don't like the Queen, if this were an election I'd NEVER have voted for her, her whole family's a bunch of voles," etc. and so on. On the other hand, you can hear all kinds of interesting insults flung around the US about ALL of our Presidents (well . . . the better-known ones, anyway, I've never heard anybody call Milliard Fillmore anything except, possibly, "who?"), including the dead ones on our money.
So, what is everybody's thought about living vs. dead on the money? Living folks have the chance to embarrass the crap out of themselves (famous, not-very-arguable example: Watergate), while dead ones are enshrined in myth (famous example: there was no cherry tree and no axe, whatever your history teacher may have told you) and hashing over their peccadilloes is really pointless--at this late date, it doesn't matter if Lincoln had a gay lover (or not, whatever, the man's a hundred years in his grave, let him rest) or if Thomas Jefferson was a crappy dresser (there . . . really is no doubt about that one, sadly, he was). On the flip side, it seems to me--and I could be wrong, since I am not well-traveled and so get to view foreign politics through a news lens and American ones close up--that nations with their living head on their coins tend* to have a sort of . . . not patriotism, exactly, but a proudness, about the fact that they have this person who leads them (or waves nicely and breaks bottles of champagne over boat prows while Parliament makes decisions).
The TL;DR version: Does who's on our coins, and when they're on them, affect our politics and nationalism as a whole? Or is this Nina having half-baked, bored-out-of-my-mind-filling-these-soda-cups-for-the-fifth-time-today thoughts that have no basis in reality?
Your thoughts, discuss. (Also, in general, pros and cons of living vs dead on currency.)
*An exception to Belgium, which, according to one of my Belgian friends, can't even commit to whether or not it's a single country. Edited by ninamason
12/08/2012 03:52 am
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 Australia
16829 Posts |
You have your founding fathers to blame for the "no living people on coins" policy. Washington, in particular, believed the various proposals to put him on the coinage would make him, and by extension the Presidency, appear too monarchial. And as a general rule, democracies do not put living people on their coins, for exactly the same reason. Britain, for example, is a monarchy but also a democracy; the notoriously ugly Churchill crown of 1965 was the first time a commoner had appeared on the coinage since the end of Cromwell's Protectorate (when England was briefly a Republic), and very few commoners have appeared on coins since then. Here in Australia, which is also a monarchy and a democracy, the RAM's policy on coin design explicitly states: Quote:
In general, circulating coins will not feature individuals whether living or deceased other than Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and other members of the British Royal Family. In the rare circumstances that a commemorative circulating coin design does feature the image of an individual, the coin would mark the anniversary of the birth or significant historic event in the life of that person. Coins will not commemorate the death of an individual. Alternatively, an individual may be included on a coin where an individual is associated with the organisation, event or object being commemorated on the coin. Of course, the Queen isn't technically an Australian; the only living person we allow on out coinage without special dispensation isn't even one of our citizens (a state of affairs often used in arguments in favour of us becoming a republic). Perhaps one of the longest-running coinage series depicting living non-royalty would have to be the coins of Haiti, which have routinely featured portraits of the current serving President ever since they began issuing coinage, over 200 years ago. To my knowledge, having their current president on their coins for so long has not particularly helped with Haiti's self-esteem or nationalism. Nor the democratic nature (or lack thereof) of the government. Japan is probably one of the countries with the strongest sense of national pride and self identity, and they don't have portraits on their coins at all. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16829 Posts |
Two other points to comment on. Quote:
I've never actually heard a Brit--or a Canadian, for that matter--come right out and say "I don't like the Queen, if this were an election I'd NEVER have voted for her, her whole family's a bunch of voles," etc. and so on. Although we do have Republican movements here in Australia, and there are similar movements in Canada and even Britain itself, very very few republicanists ever directly criticize the current Queen herself. Even the staunchest anti-monarchist acknowledges that the Queen made an excellent effort at doing an extremely difficult job for over 50 years. It's the institution of monarchy itself that it attacked, rather than the monarch personally. Quote:
An exception to Belgium, which, according to one of my Belgian friends, can't even commit to whether or not it's a single country. The Belgian monarchy has, historically, had an additional problem: King Leopold III allowed himself to be captured by the Nazis and used as a puppet during the Nazi occupation of that country. He was the only "pro-Nazi" European monarch allowed by the Allies to keep his job after the War, but unpopularity at home meant the king had to stay in exile in Switzerland; Wallonia particularly suffered under Nazi rule and they refused to accept him back. Since one of the king's main roles in Belgium is to be a symbol of national unity, an impartial arbiter of Flemish-Walloninan disputes, his rejection by the Walloons forced the king to abdicate in favour of his son. This... ambiguity, about whether or not they would actually remain a monarchy and who that monarch might be, no doubt explains why post-war Belgian coins make little or no mention of their king-in-exile. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Valued Member
United States
207 Posts |
Wow, you must have a lot of time to "think" at work  . A lot of good points made and I think you hot the nail on the head. It would seem too monarchial and if we wait until they're dead, public sentiment can be better measured. I just don't see any current politicians and that is what the presidency has become, being on a US coin. |
|
Valued Member
United States
386 Posts |
You said it all, Sap.  P.S. I wouldn't want people like Donald Trump or a Kardashian finding their way onto coins. I couldn't use them. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
For example, although I've heard Brits grumble about how costly it is to maintain the royal house because [things I don't entirely understand about British taxes go here], This year it cost the British people $58 million to maintain the Royal House. That covered all of the Royals, their trips upkeep on all the Palaces, security etc. This year it cost the US public $1.3 billion to take care of the President and his family. I don't know what the British are complaining about. Quote:
Even the US Presidents coin series specifies that you have to have been dead for a specific number of years to be part of it, which created a stir over one of the recent old-as-dirt-but-still-alive Presidents (Ford? Carter? Someone help me out here). Ford is dead, Carter is alive. The problem is that Reagan, who served after Carter, is dead and would qualify for a coin, but he law is a little vague. Can you skip over a president who is still living and doesn't qualify to honor one that does qualify, or do you follow the part of the law that says the President will be honored in the order in which they served and once you honor the last one you can the program comes to an end. The way the mint has interpreted it you do them in order and right now the last one that qualifies is Ford. In order for Reagan to get his coin, Carter would have to qualify first. But since he has to be dead at least two years before his coin comes out, Carter would have to die before mid 2014. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10038 Posts |
Good post nina. And, Sap, thanks for the view from Oz - enlightening. I do remember, on the news, when The new royal couple were visiting Canada, that a few Canadians were said (by the media - for whatever that is worth) not to want them to visit b/c they were opposed to the monarchy. I don't know if this is true or not. I will also keep as neutral as I can, but truth be told, the people such as George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and others on the series were of a different caliber and character then those of today. Their standards and dreams for our country have been betrayed in many areas. Can you imagine being asked to be King, like George Washington was, and turning it down for the good of the country? I think some presidents in the last 20 years would LOVE to be named king of the US. Our nations mindset has greatly changed to one that denies our own heritage many times (speaking legitimately in terms of not educating our children on the true history of the US form the documents of the people who were there). So I think the older people being on our coins is a good thing. It reminds me of the "Great Experiment" the US was and what it produced. How many kids are taught that the people back then were viewed by the old world as a new breed of man b/c the new system they established for themselves was so unique compared to the rest of the world? Its good to see these men still remembered daily. I admit I shudder to think of some of the non-Founding-Father-time-era people (I was nice) that are destined to be on the Presidential dollar series. To me it seems an insult to people such as Washington, etc. I wonder how they will get around the "have to be deceased" rule to make the last of the series? And, BTW, if kids were taught more about true history like they should be, so we don't lose our heritage, the "Millard Fillmore question" would not exist. How much squash could a Sasquatch squash if a Sasquatch would squash squash? Download and read: Grading the graders Costly TPG ineptitude and No FG Kennedy halveshttps://ln5.sync.com/dl/7ca91bdd0/w...i3b-rbj9fir2 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Russian Federation
5173 Posts |
There is, in fact, a fairly major historical thing to say about Millard Fillmore: he was the last* US president to date to be neither a Republican nor a Democrat (he was a Whig; admittedly the Republicans didn't exist yet back then). Also apparently he was somehow related to the Michael Perry expedition which finally opened up Japan (not sure of the exact details though). I can't, however, think of anything famous about his predecessor, Zachary Taylor, or his successor, Franklin Pierce  (then again, I'm not even from the US). *) with the possible exception of Andrew Johnson, who appears to have actually been both |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1227 Posts |
Funnily enough, january, I think Zach Taylor's and Franklin Pierce's names are both better-known than Milliard Fillmore even though he doesn't appear to have actually DONE a whole lot. Earle: Semi-related, I thought I would share with you that during the Clinton era I knew the names of every single US President, and I was only seven years old. However, you don't have my teachers to thank for that; you have Steven Spielberg and this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvy0wRLD5s8 A lot of my peers will tell you we know the Presidents, states, and at least some of the countries of the world ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v...re=endscreen worth linking because it's just SO FUN even though it's out of date now) thanks to the Warner brothers. Sap, interesting points, and obviously I didn't think of all (or even most) of them. I'm still digesting what you had to say (it's frakkin PITHY), but good points, all. Conder, I tried to make sense of your numbers on the theory that when you broke it down per capita we'd pay less, but it breaks down to $1.48 per person for the Queen and $4.17 for the President when you divide the upkeep versus the population, so that didn't work. I'm coming up empty for anything else, except that--if I recall correctly from a long-ago BBC article and I may not, so this could be total bollocks--I think the Queen is taken care of out of the same pool of money that takes care of other "public interests" like parks and such? I think I read an article about how parks were closing because they didn't have money, but they had money for the Queen to get new clothes for a banquet or some other "non-vital" expense like that. That might explain it. Also, thanks for catching me on the Prez! I couldn't remember the exact problem, but I knew it was somewhere in that era. (It doesn't help that I no longer remember exactly what order the 20th-century Presidents went in.) Ron, I work at a gas station and a lot of what I do is sheepherding (we will not discuss the number of times I have explained to two of my coworkers that it is against company policy to go outside after dark, yet they try to get me to go outside STILL to sell propane after dark . . . or how many times I have had to remind them that sending a text when no customers are in the store, and making a phone call to refill your TRACfone WHILE SERVING CUSTOMERS and occasionally ignoring them so you can hear the automated prompts, are two very different things) and grunt work (moving boxes, stocking, designing displays, etc.). There's plenty of time to think. Edited by ninamason
12/08/2012 3:40 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1411 Posts |
Also, the British were complaining that they were 'paying' one of the Royal Family 11 million pounds... After the same member payed 15 million pounds(I believe that that is the correct amount) in taxes!
So I believe that the total amount is actually less than the given number, but it comes from the Royal Families taxes..
Edited by Windchild
12/08/2012 4:23 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
The problem is that Reagan, who served after Carter, is dead and would qualify for a coin, but he law is a little vague. Can you skip over a president who is still living and doesn't qualify to honor one that does qualify, or do you follow the part of the law that says the President will be honored in the order in which they served and once you honor the last one you can the program comes to an end. The way the mint has interpreted it you do them in order and right now the last one that qualifies is Ford. In order for Reagan to get his coin, Carter would have to qualify first. But since he has to be dead at least two years before his coin comes out, Carter would have to die before mid 2014. Personally id rather them just go ahead and do Regan if Carter is still alive and keep the series going as opposed to having long breaks where nothing comes out. Bush the first may actually qualify before carter as well judging by their current health. Speaking of which once they get to that point what happens? Does the series just go on hold for a bit or is the series ended when they run out of qualifying presidents. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
2830 Posts |
quote: "... Of course, the Queen isn't technically an Australian ..."
- not true.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
386 Posts |
Anyone else old enough to remember buying Billy beer?
|
|
Moderator
United States
188440 Posts |
Quote:
Does the series just go on hold for a bit or is the series ended when they run out of qualifying presidents. No, it just ends. It will take additional legislation to restart it. Also, it is my opinion that legislation will be enacted to remove the ambiguity and authorize the Reagan dollar if Carter is still alive in 2014. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
No, it just ends. It will take additional legislation to restart it. Also, it is my opinion that legislation will be enacted to remove the ambiguity and authorize the Reagan dollar if Carter is still alive in 2014. Fingers crossed |
|
Pillar of the Community
Sweden
729 Posts |
In Sweden, we are just about to change the look of our coins and bills.
We have the living king on most of the new coins, but will get completely new reverse designs.
On the paper money, wel got rid of dead kings sometime in the 1990s and put old science dudes on there instead.
and on the new bills, we will put not as old dead dudes and dudettes on there, most of the known all over the world:
-Astrid Lindgren (Pippi Longstocking)
-Evert Taube (not famous internationally)
-Greta Garbo (Hollywood actress)
-Ingemar Bergman (Director)
-Birgit Nilsson (opera singer)
-Dag Hammarskiold (UN Sec. Gen.)
So we are getting rid of our Royal highnesses, but will not put a non regent living person on a coin or bill
|
| |
Replies: 15 / Views: 1,522 |
|
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
|
| Coin Community Forum |
© 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums |
| It took 0.43 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|
Posted 12/08/2012 08:37 am
