Designer Creates a 3D-Printed Stamp That Replaces Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 Bill

Above we have a very short video of a hand stamp­ing the face of free­dom fight­er and abo­li­tion­ist Har­ri­et Tub­man, aka Aram­inta Ross, over the stony mug of Andrew Jack­son, aka Old Hick­o­ry, “Indi­an Killer,” and slave­hold­ing sev­enth pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States who presided over the Indi­an Removal Act that inau­gu­rat­ed the Trail of Tears with a speech to Con­gress in which he con­clud­ed the only alter­na­tive to forc­ing native peo­ple off their land might be “utter anni­hi­la­tion.”

Hero to Amer­i­ca Firsters, Jack­son has fea­tured on the U.S. twen­ty-dol­lar bill since 1928. Iron­i­cal­ly, he was bestowed this hon­or under Calvin Coolidge, a pro­gres­sive Repub­li­can pres­i­dent when it came to Civ­il Rights, who in 1924 signed the Indi­an Cit­i­zen­ship Act into law, grant­i­ng all Indige­nous peo­ple dual trib­al and U.S. cit­i­zen­ship.

Any­way, you’ll recall that in 2016, Trea­sury Sec­re­tary Jacob Lew announced “the most sweep­ing and his­tor­i­cal­ly sym­bol­ic makeover of the Amer­i­can cur­ren­cy in a cen­tu­ry,” as The New York Times report­ed, “propos­ing to replace the slave­hold­ing Andrew Jack­son on the $20 bill with Har­ri­et Tub­man.”

Fur­ther­more, Lew planned to add his­toric fem­i­nist and Civ­il Rights fig­ures to the five and ten dol­lar bills, an idea that did not come to fruition. But as we await­ed the replace­ment of Jack­son with Tub­man, well… you know what hap­pened. Andrew Jack­son again became a fig­ure­head of Amer­i­can racism and vio­lence, and the bru­tal new admin­is­tra­tion walked back the new twen­ty. So design­er Dano Wall decid­ed to take mat­ters into his own hands with the cre­ation of the 3D-print­ed Tub­man stamp. As he shows in the short clip above, the trans­formed bills still spend when loaded into vend­ing and smart card machines.

Of course you might nev­er do such a thing (maybe you just want to print Har­ri­et Tub­man faces on plain paper at home?), but you could, if you down­loaded the print files from Thin­gi­verse and made your own Tub­man stamp. Wall refers to an exten­sive argu­ment for the legal­i­ty of mak­ing Tub­man twen­ties. It per­haps holds water, though the Trea­sury Depart­ment may see things dif­fer­ent­ly. In the British Muse­um “Curator’s Cor­ner” video above, numis­ma­tist Tom Hock­en­hull shows us a prece­dent for defac­ing cur­ren­cy from short­ly before World War I, when British suf­frag­ists used a ham­mer and die to stamp “Votes for Women” over the face of Edward VII.

The “delib­er­ate tar­get­ing of the king,” writes the British Muse­um Blog, “could be likened to icon­o­clasm, a direct assault on the male author­i­ty fig­ures that were per­ceived to be uphold­ing the laws of the coun­try.” It’s a prac­tice sup­pos­ed­ly derived from an even ear­li­er act of van­dal­ism in which anar­chists stamped “Vive l’Anarchie” on coins. The process would have been dif­fi­cult and time-con­sum­ing, “prob­a­bly car­ried out by a sin­gle per­son using just one set of indi­vid­ual alpha­bet stamps.” Thus it is unlike­ly that many of these coins were made, though his­to­ri­ans have no idea how many.

But the sym­bol­ic protest did not stand alone. The defaced cur­ren­cy spread the mes­sage of a broad egal­i­tar­i­an move­ment. The ease of mak­ing Tub­man twen­ties could spread a con­tem­po­rary mes­sage even far­ther.

via Kot­tke

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Pow­er­ful Mes­sages That Woody Guthrie & Pete Seeger Inscribed on Their Gui­tar & Ban­jo: “This Machine Kills Fas­cists” and “This Machine Sur­rounds Hate and Forces it to Sur­ren­der”

Inter­ac­tive Map Shows the Seizure of Over 1.5 Bil­lion Acres of Native Amer­i­can Land Between 1776 and 1887

A Big Dig­i­tal Archive of Inde­pen­dent & Alter­na­tive Pub­li­ca­tions: Browse/Download Rad­i­cal Peri­od­i­cals Print­ed from 1951 to 2016

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

by | Permalink | Comments (5) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!

Comments (5)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • NIGEL J WATSON says:

    Hi, Josh,
    You might want to check out King’s ‘revi­sion­ist’ his­to­ry on Andy. He was not at all the mon­ster the Rothchilds por­tray him to be.

    Just anoth­er day at the old smear fac­to­ry (pub­lish­ing hous­es and media).

    -JACKSON Andrew The Great-his hero­ic patri­ot­ic sto­ry — Mike S King 2018 179pp


  • Portococo says:

    Looks like this site has devel­oped a hard on for pub­lish­ing anti-white SJW cuck­old trash and being yet anoth­er vec­tor of “Amer­i­ca last” Democrat/cultural marxist/globalist pro­pa­gan­da.

  • Josh Jones says:

    Wow, you sound para­noid. There’s noth­ing in this post or on this site that is remote­ly “anti-white,” what­ev­er that means. But if what we do here isn’t your thing, you’ve got oth­er options, bud. You’re wel­come to go else­where.

  • George Krzymowski says:

    so while we are on revi­sion­ist his­to­ry, did the Indi­an Removal Act of Con­gress (passed by a wide mar­gin in the Sen­ate and a nar­row mar­gin in the House) autho­rize Pres­i­dent Jack­son to avoid the “utter anni­hi­la­tion” of the Native Amer­i­can’s east of the Mis­sis­sip­pi Riv­er. Sac­ri­fic­ing the many to save the few, avoid a con­sti­tu­tion­al cri­sis, and com­ply with Supreme court pre­ci­dent on states rights and trib­al sovreign­ty?

  • Josh Jones says:

    Before he was pres­i­dent, Jack­son was a land spec­u­la­tor who prof­it­ed from the expul­sion of the Creek and Chero­kee. The removal was, first and fore­most, a land grab. He was not a dis­in­ter­est­ed adju­di­ca­tor of a dis­pute between natives and set­tlers. He was a set­tler him­self with a con­sid­er­able finan­cial stake in tak­ing oth­ers’ land. Greed was the moti­va­tion for “Indi­an Removal” and it was jus­ti­fied by dehu­man­iz­ing indige­nous peo­ple, which led to mil­lions of deaths over the next few decades and the seizure of near­ly all native land by the end of the cen­tu­ry.

    This does­n’t make Jack­son espe­cial­ly unique. He was a rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the coun­try’s rul­ing inter­ests and val­ues at the time, and for decades before and after, though there was plen­ty of oppo­si­tion. The dis­cus­sion about keep­ing him on the cur­ren­cy today is not about “revi­sion­ist” his­to­ry in some Stal­in­ist sense. His­to­ry is revised and rewrit­ten all the time accord­ing to new evi­dence or new inter­pre­ta­tions. But no one is eras­ing Andrew Jack­son from texts or muse­ums. It is about choos­ing who the coun­try cel­e­brates and memo­ri­al­izes as rep­re­sen­ta­tive of its cur­rent val­ues.

Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.