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.

Edited to add: Not honored directly on any US stamp. But is pictured on stamps and currency when they are based upon John Trumbull's 1818 painting Declaration of Independence. Currently Wilson is circulating on the $2 bill and has been since 1976.

I don't like living people on stamps, nor do I particularly like corporate mascots on stamps. To me, a postage stamp should be more than a tiny piece of advertising or a popularity contest. Putting a corporate mascot on a government-issued stamp seems especially problematic because it takes something that is supposed to commemorate our history and turns it, at least in part, into advertising for a private company and its brand. I don't think the Postal Service should be in the business of promoting corporate brands, even indirectly.

I think we already devote far too much attention to the famous, wealthy and powerful people at the top of society. Presidents, celebrities, business leaders and other well-known figures are constantly recognized, while the people who actually did much of the hard work that built and sustained this country are often invisible.

There are nurses, teachers, farmers, factory workers, firefighters, civil-rights activists, inventors, volunteers, soldiers, caregivers and countless other ordinary people who struggled, sacrificed and made a genuine difference without ever becoming household names. Some of them changed their communities, some changed an industry, and some simply spent their lives helping other people. Those stories seem much more interesting and meaningful to me than putting another famous person on a stamp simply because everyone recognizes the name.

So my objection isn't about whether someone is Black, white, male, female, religious, or anything else. I'd much rather see stamps recognize people whose contributions actually improved the country or the lives of ordinary people, including people who never became famous themselves.

And yes, all humans have faults. But I don't think "historical context" should be used as an excuse for those faults. Slavery is a good example: the fact that slavery was accepted or widespread in a particular period doesn't make owning another human being morally acceptable. Context can help us understand why people behaved as they did; it doesn't require us to excuse or minimize the behavior.

At the same time, I don't think one has to pretend a historical figure was morally perfect in order to recognize something they genuinely accomplished. We can condemn the bad and still acknowledge the good. That standard should apply consistently, regardless of race, sex, religion, or political affiliation.

That's also why I think the focus on particular personal failings can become selective. If we're going to examine people's faults when deciding who deserves commemoration, then let's apply the same standard to everybody.

This is now very way off topic. Wondered what folks today think about putting living persons on U.S. stamps. I, for one, am against it for many reasons, if for none other than the U.S. has always held a special place in the world of stamps, allowing some time (and history) to settle before such honor is bestowed.

No, the comments are reasonably connected to the topic. Folks are telling you what they think so you should consider what they think.

I don't have any problem with living persons on US stamps because I think any sense of integrity or nobility in stamp subjects has been compromised already by subjects like Star Wars and Charlie Brown. I don't think that living versus non-living risks the sky falling because so many past stamp subjects have obviously been political choices. We've survived having Frida Kahlo, Jimmy Carter, William F. Buckley, and Richard Nixon on recent stamps. The CSAC is purportedly non-partisan, but all that means is that the political affiliations or views of the members are not disclosed, not that they don't apply them in their decisions.

So, as another poster wrote ... yawn.

Putting an acting President on a stamp (whether this one, or a future one), is a bad idea. Seems like something done by dictators.

Surely we have enough dead people (recent or otherwise) to honor.

First of all, morality is not carved in stone and it does change over time and with different viewers.

You statement misses a simple fact, the slave owners or holders consider their actions moral. Additionally, slavery has been around for much longer and in almost all societies throughout the history of human existence. It even continues today in the world. While some efforts are made to reign it in, such as preventing human trafficking (slavery), in other areas, slavery is expanding. On the land which is occupied by the USA, slavery among native inhabitants existed before 1600, both in North and South America. One could argue that enslavement of others has been a human constant. My aforementioned debtor's prison stopped in part because of the forced involuntary servitude while attempting to make payment on the debit.

Nixon and Carter were past presidents and certainly deserved the honor and tradition. Buckley was a major force and influencer in the conservative movement. Star Wars and Peanuts cartoons were both groundbreaking in their genre and recognized and appreciated worldwide!

In your list, the only blip I see is Kahlo. Putting her politics aside, her art was recognized far and wide and could certainly might call for some recognition on a stamp, but she was Mexican, never became a U.S. citizen, and surely there are other foreign artists who deserve equal recognition. Not sure what CSAC was thinking there.

Sports is a big deal. I'll take a shot at a block of four for great American basketball coaches (missing living and passed):

Men's: Mike Krzyzewski, Dean Smith (now passed), Roy Williams, John B. McLendon (passed)

Women's hoops: Pat Summitt (passed); Geno Auriemma; Tara Ann VanDerveer; Dawn Staley ...

This list avoids a few controversies ... and there are others, of course, but maybe it's the kind of thing CSAC would consider.

(That said, I'm still against the concept! The Harry Potter stamps were a terrible decision.)