Living Persons Now Allowed On US Stamps

Both the suggestion as well as the cancellation.

A woman was placed upon a stamp soon after her death this century for political reason (2015 POTUS Obama) without consideration for her self admitted and published admission and acknowledgement of her period of time as a human trafficker**. Plus the USPS attributed her for a quote on the stamp which was not her work.


**Edit: Before anyone jumps on me about this I was a friend of the family for quite sometime. But truth is truth. All it shows is that with the correct political winds, anything can be "overlooked."

All historical figures were/are humans and as such imperfect. Perhaps flags and hearts should be the only subject matter allowed. Yawn.

If it does happen, I anticipate this cachet becoming popular again.


Or when a marker monkey detects an uncancelled letter and adds some creative artwork to cancel the stamp... Sharpie's Revenge.
First Amendment, or Treason? At minimum, likely a fireable offense.

I assume that the Harriet Tubman reference was a poor attempt at sarcasm or satire.

It was formally proposed under POTUS Obama in 2016, with the idea dropped in 2026. The BEP even produced an essay design.

I find it interesting you, revcollector, consider facts only as sarcasm or satire. Surprised you did not comment on the Maya Angelou human trafficking self admission fact the we, the USA, honored a person with a human trafficker background.

She was trafficking herself, and spent a few months as a late teen with a young child surviving that way. Which she was very open about. I am not surprised that you are the kind who would put the worst spin possible on this. Or think that the rest of her life did not atone for that. Or that she does not belong on a stamp.

She was operating as a pimp, trafficking others. You need to get it correct.

I never said she did not belong on a stamp, you are projecting. You also are projecting as to atonement, my acceptance of atonement. However atonement acceptance seems to be particularly political according a rather vocal political group's view point.

For a couple of months as a late teen with a young child she did so to two people so that she and her child could eat. Not exactly the same thing as some currently occupying high level positions in this country.

I'll bet that if she was white, you would not have written any of this. Or if she was a man, either.

Just another lousy idea in a long line of lousy ideas.

and off the rails we go again...

All I know is that both examples picked were black women. I don't think it was an accident. There are certainly other possible examples if one wanted to find them.

What's striking to me is the selectivity of the standard. When the subject is a Black woman, a troubled episode from her youth suddenly becomes central to the question of whether she deserves to be honored. Yet that same scrutiny does not seem to be applied consistently to other celebrated figures.

Rudolph Valentino faced scandal and legal trouble, including a 1916 arrest tied to allegations involving prostitution. He was nevertheless honored on a U.S. postage stamp. JFK, who was famously known for his extramarital affairs and reputation as a womanizer, has appeared on U.S. postage stamps numerous times.

Both men were honored despite serious controversies surrounding their personal lives. So why does a troubled past become disqualifying in one case but not another? If we're going to apply that standard, shouldn't we apply it consistently?

Most of the Founding Fathers have been drug through the mud now and hundreds if not thousands of monuments across the Country were removed and/or defaced. The insinuation or outright accusation of racism by some is absolutely ridiculous but predictable.