change the fact that billionaires and trillionaires won't have pay a dimes in taxes with these 'new' notes, while a retiree like myself will have to still shell out 1500 on a measly 8100 made this post retirement year. And while .30 on the dollar could have helped in savings, every penny of my income had to go to my survival in these times. Please. Spare me the condescending attempt at easing the racism and unfairness that is rife within this free, equal and democratic nation. Need less taxes, corruption and condescension and more of the former mentioned above.

Does it matter?

A bison was on a (the?) $10 note in 1901.

Not a single Pole in any US currency, paper or metal.

The Irish are also important in US history, too.

Most people don't have any idea of the role they played, or the discrimination they faced, or the contributions they made. At best, they lump them, Polish and Irish, in with "anglos."

Lumping the Irish and Poles in with anglos is like calling African-Americans "Australian aborigines" because of a similarity in skin color or calling all Mexicans "Spanish" because of their language. I mean, it's already offensive to call Salvdorenos "Mexicans", but it's not lke the Salvadorenos are more different from Mexicans than Poles are from British or even Czechs. In the case of Irish, it's especially demeaning and offensive because most Irish in the US came over as a result of oppressive British--"Anglo-Saxon"--policies.

About 10.5% of Americans report having some Irish ancestry, so they're not far behind African-Americans as a percentage of the population at probably #4. (Af-Am is #3 in rank, after all). Polish, only about 3%.

Of course, we can just say "race is the criterion" and ignore a lot of history. And Salvadoreans and Brazilians are Mexican.

Tubman and most of the other names circulating for women on paper currency also had little to do with the founding of the US government or its earliest years, so let's not have that be a criterion. It's not the inclusiveness that's the problem, it's the selective inclusiveness, at least for me, and the striving for some argument that can then be taken as the original premise in order to justify the selectivity and selection(s).

You just changed the argument to weasel out of YOUR OWN point.

- and apparently you choose not read the entire post... "" Pocahontas once graced the back of the national $20 bill in an image, based on a painting now in the Capitol Rotunda and on a note first issued in the 1865, that portrayed her baptism. She appears dressed in a gown and kneeling on a podium before a priest, flanked by settlers on one side and Native Americans on the other. """ Nice...