Coin design and diversity

[<k>]

From The Conversation:

Putting King Charles III on British currency bucks a global trend to honor diverse national heroes on coins and bills.

Extracts:

I'm a history professor and founder of the Black Money Exhibit. I'm also a member of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee at the United States Mint, which advises the secretary of the Treasury on the themes and designs of all U.S. coins and medals. For years I have closely monitored the evolving perspectives worldwide regarding the look of coinage and paper money. Those perspectives focus on the need to present more diverse historical figures on currency. The changing attitudes are affecting not only the U.K. but the United States as well.

A major diversification of U.S. currency has been underway since 2017, when the U.S. Mint issued a collectible commemorative gold coin depicting Lady Liberty as an African American woman. Today, the proposed Harriet Tubman $20 bill still seems to be on track. These changes, along with the depiction of writer Maya Angelou and other diverse women through the mint's American Women Quarters Program, is a welcome break from the past.

In June 2020 the Bank of England acknowledged its role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and pledged to develop more inclusive policies and practices. What's more, the bank has promised to include more Black people, Asians and other minorities on their bank notes and coins.

Now, with the death of the queen and inauguration of a new king, will the Bank of England honor that commitment?

[FosseWay]

Um, no.

The diversity of BoE banknotes (or lack thereof) is defined by the choice of subject for the other side, not the side with the king's portrait. The king serves the same purpose as a coat of arms or a symbolic animal (the eagle for the US).

In other words, the range of subjects could be a lot more diverse in terms of gender and ethnicity while still retaining the king's portrait on the other side, and equally it could be very non-diverse even if the king were replaced by something else that generically stands for the country as a whole (Britannia, coat of arms, or even just forgery-proof patterns).

You could put the individual being commemorated on one side and some aspect of their life or work on the other, thereby negating the need for either the king or a "national representation" of any kind, but again the diversity inherent in this is entirely down to who you choose to portray, not exactly how they are portrayed on the notes.

There's no fundamental reason not to remove the king's portrait, of course. Royal portraits on BoE notes only date from the 1960s; no monarch other than Elizabeth II has featured on them. But if we had hypothetically removed Elizabeth from the last series of notes but kept the other side as it was, that wouldn't have advanced the cause of diversity one iota.

[Figleaf]

Indeed, that commitment should be read in context. Whether live heads of state or dead presidents, it's the function that counts most. There are possibilities on the opposite side of the coin, but that's taken by a whole lot more than just portraits and busts.

The principle of diversity is logical and economically sound. Whether your motto is liberty, liberté - égalité - fraternité or something else, those basic principles are not divisible. They are there for everyone. In an economic sense, each person is a resource, so keeping some people down is a waste of them as a resource.

That makes diversity a double-edged sword. Everybody should be as equal as possible, but not more equal. From time to time, diversity is revived as a theme. In such times, overreaction is understandable*. Diversity is not an exact science. In due time, though, education and being sensitive to equality should again become more important than overreacting.

Let's have some diversity celebrating coins or banknotes in this thread!

Peter

* France is just concluding a period of end-of-winter sales. Pictorials for ads are bursting with Africans, Asians, homosexuals and the like. So what? It doesn't do any harm; it just makes me grin at the marketeers.

[chrisild]

In advertising I find it pretty normal now to see all kinds of colors represented. Does not necessarily mean that non-male non-white people get equal job opportunities  but is at the very least a way of "reflecting" they exist. And these days, most countries around here do have pretty mixed populations. Also, people can be more open about their sexual orientation. Nothing wrong with that, on the contrary.

Things get a little challenging when we talk about money. I am from and in Germany, and our collector coins tend to honor people, of fame or merit, from earlier centuries. Those people were almost exclusively "white". When it comes to (white) women, there is a little more diversity; for example, our last DM banknote series observed gender equality, and you can find women on present day collector coins.

But our circulation coins do not have portraits, and neither do our notes. (OK, except for Europa in the stripe and watermark.) As for "race" ... difficult. On one hand I think there is no such thing as human "races" – on the other hand, the term now gets pushed by those suffering from racism. Anyway, there are quite a few in Germany, be it politicians, scientists or football players, who are "not white" and would certainly deserve being honored on coins. But they are all alive, and I wish them long lives. For the time being, I am glad that with regard to diversity our (DE) circulation coins and the euro notes are OK.

[quaziright]

I believe the UK is due to issue a commemorative circulating series based on diversity with prominent persons of BAME origin to feature