"Should Jackson Stay on the $20 Bill?"

“The story is even worse than is generally known. Jackson and his friends obtained slices of Cherokee real estate for personal profit, and colonized the land with lucrative cotton plantations worked by slaves.

What redeems this as an American story is the resistance of John Ross. A Cherokee of mixed race, Ross navigated between cultures in a way that feels familiar today. As a young man he fought in Jackson’s army. Later he became Jackson’s antagonist, rejecting his efforts to capture the Cherokee homeland in north Georgia and surrounding states.

Determined to adapt to white civilization, Cherokees embraced white styles of clothing and agriculture. Some, including Ross, also took up slavery. (There are few saints in this tale.) The ultimate adaptation came in 1828, when Ross was chosen as principal chief under a new constitution modeled on that of the United States. Ross’s government started a newspaper, publishing exposés of the Cherokees’ white antagonists. He worked with white allies, including women. Cherokees even sued, asking the Supreme Court to recognize their right to govern their land.

A ruling in their favor was ignored. But Cherokees were more than mere victims. They enriched our democratic tradition. Ross wanted the Cherokee Nation to become a territory or state within the Union — which it did, in a way, generations later as part of Oklahoma…

A $20 bill with Ross and Jackson would set a pattern for other bills. Each denomination should feature two different people who together tell a story, illustrating our democratic experience.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/opinion/should-jackson-stay-on-the-dollar20-bill.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

This is… interesting. It taps into what I’ve been thinking about a lot, the idea of who ‘owns’ America (in the, like, deep identity sense, not the capitalism sense) and who gets to be American and who gets to decide who owns and is America. There is something about people on the money as a representation of America.

And there is something here about a white man (the author) recognizing that importance but still being uncomfortable about losing representation.

I don’t know, trying to pull apart why I find this ‘double representation’ idea cute but falling short of the point.