Hey, there! Log in / Register
Outrage in Gloucester: Fisherman bumped off new state quarter
By adamg on Thu, 09/10/2009 - 7:37am
Gloucester Daily Times: Feds nix 'Man at the Wheel' for state quarter honor - even though the statue was the clear favorite in statewide voting, because it's not "federally maintained."
Instead, the next Massachusetts quarter will feature the Lowell National Historic Park. Quick, what's the first thing that springs to mind when you think of that?
Good Morning Gloucester whips up a gale of protest:
... Who the hell has ever heard of the Lowell National Park and does anyone really think that our State in any way should be associated with a park in Lowell rather than The Proud Man At The Wheel. This state was founded on Codfish you fucking idiots! What a laughing stock the state of Massachusetts will become if this travesty is allowed to happen. ...
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Lowell
I'd think of a textile mill, which is almost as historically important to our economy as fishing , and is a fine thing to put on the back of a quarter.
Amen to that. Actually,
Amen to that. Actually, there's simply no question that Lowell played a greater role in the history of our state - and the world. The industrial system pioneered in Waltham and Lowell - which took fibers from their raw form to woven fabric under a single roof - set off the explosive growth of industrialization, the development of our economy, and the transformation of an agrarian society into an urban one. There are a handful of other sites around our state of arguably equal significance (the Springfield Armory, home of the Blanchard Lathe, springs to mind) but the Gloucester fisherman simply isn't among them. This state was built on innovation. Fishing was never more than a small portion of economic activity in this state. It's an extractive industry, and the offshore fisheries could be - and were - harvested from distant shores. I honor the men of the north shore who went down to the sea in boats to ply their craft and to support their families and communities at the risk of their lives, but let's not mistake romance for history.
What the Gloucester fisherman had going for him, though - and what Lowell plainly lacks - is iconography. It's a fantastic image. What're we going to show from Lowell, a power loom? A spinning jenny? A dull, red-brick building? You don't get to attach an explanatory text to a quarter.
Oh, and don't forget all the
Oh, and don't forget all the things that came out from the mills especially the labor movement.
Everything else is being
Everything else is being nationalized. Why not a statue? Problem solved.
I think the aversion to the fisherman image is due to the embarrassment felt by state and federal regulators that basically killed the industry up there.
Regulators killed the industry?
Or did they prevent it from completely dying on its own from overfishing?
Very complicated story
What killed the industry was overfishing by factory trawlers of extremely non-local origin. The response was a quota system for what was left that didn't address the root problems of mechanized overfishing, high bycatch levels (destruction of all species caught, not the target species), and loss of habitat to other fishery practices (e.g. dragging for shelfish destroying bottom habitat).
Regulations were just a small piece of an attempt to salvage some of the industry, but the results were dominated (of course) by larger interests.
Or the fact that it's not
Or the fact that it's not kept up, or designated as a federal landmark.
Sorry, by why enter it if you knew it already didn't qualify?
I Don't Get It
Nothing unusual with that, but still...
Why in hell does something have to be federally maintained to qualify as the image used? Is The Fed afraid of being sued by Gloucester - or any other locality, or perhaps an individual - for copyright infringement? Would the estate of Leonard Craske have a conniption if the image were reproduced on money? They got away with it with Daniel Chester French on the first MA quarter, so that wouldn't seem to be a problem. Or maybe they're afraid of Gorton's seafood? Didn't the previous round of quarters have some images that wouldn't qualify as 'federally maintained' items?
The whole thing is idiotic, IMHO, but this extra layer of idiocy is intriguing.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Federal program, federal tax
Federal program, federal tax dollars.
My guess is they wanted to spotlight where federal money is being spent to persevere American heritage. After all, everyone's always complain they don't know where their tax dollars are going (their own fault mind you)
I'm fine by it, as there's many parks, landmarks, ect of great value that are passed up from whats trendy and touristy. Gloucester should have read the fine print.
Lowell might not be the first on anyone's memory, but textile production in MA and the northeast was a huge part of what set America on the path that go us here.
Those quarters are hideously
Those quarters are hideously ugly anyhow, though I would say the MA quarter with the minuteman was probably one of the best because it only had one thing on it. I guess some states couldn't make up their mind about what to put on and so agreed to have, I don't know, a plover, a space shuttle and a lily all on one coin.
Whit
How about putting the numeral 25 on the back of the quarter?
How about putting the numeral 25 on the back of the quarter?
Website: Change for Change