Living Persons Now Allowed On US Stamps

Actually, you read into the comments that "two black woman should not be on stamps". That was not said.

The funny thing is that what you accuse others of is exactly what you are engaging in. If a non-white is commented on in an unflattering light (actual historical facts) you scream racism and change the focus to the one race that apparently is permissible to target. Strange rules you have.

How about we agree that all humans have faults regardless of sexuality, ethnicity or religion and look at all the same, with honesty.

It is also a common affliction by some to ignore the historical context of a period when throwing stones.

Does one's skin color matter if a historical figure was a hard drinking womanizer? Or a tax cheat? Owned slaves but wasn't white? Would love to hear your take.

Anyway, living persons on stamps is IMO not a good idea. It can give unfair advantage to those who may use the opportunity to further their politics or agenda.

PS: Hope the thread stays unlocked. Interesting topic.

How many trafficked folks have you worked with and or saved, revcollector? If you had perhaps your view point would be different on the matter.

Human trafficking has been a big political deal for the last 20 years or so. Unlike other folks mentioned, she was honored in the midst of the focused activity of trying to stop human trafficking. If she was white or male I would write the same facts, this is if the trajectory of the life still included arriving on a stamp. Be that as it may, she was black, her son black and her grandson black. With whom I shared many meals, conversations and activities for well over 10 years. I was one she trusted with her grandson as he grew into a young adult.

Also unlike the other individuals cite by other posters, she was honored about a year after death, no decades. But I wonder how close she was examined prior to the preparation of the stamp, when the quote selected for her stamp was not in fact her original work. Known for her own words, poetry and writings, upon which she built her legacy, not using her words seemed odd. While not her words (she never hid the fact) she certainly was the amplifier to get them hear throughout much of the world.

Folks all have good, bad and embarrassing times in their life, especially when view through lens of a different period. My point is that there is no consistency as to what is acceptable to ignore and what should (or is) scrubbed from history; the choices are made by political factions trying to weave their own story for their own purposes. It bothers me not today that this fine country was started perhaps by a bunch of drunken slave owners, a group which seem to have done a wonderful job.

While I understand why some folks dislike founding fathers who owned slaves and seek to "cancel" them, I do not agree, but I understand. However I am forced to ask those same folks why no efforts were or are being made to "cancel" the Democrat Party after its years long support for slave owners and slavery, which is part of the Party's storied history.

The concern for allowing living folks to be selected for appearance on US stamps means such selections, good or bad, can be skewed by current political thought at the time of selection. I am not sure that will lead to go outcomes.

One of my personal favorites is James Wilson a Founding Father, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and one of the original U.S. Supreme Court justices appointed by George Washington. While on the SCOTUS bench, he served several terms in debtor's prison. That was before debtor's prison was outlawed in the USA.