There are other deserving scientists and thinkers, it's true. But there are no other scientists or thinkers that were as grievously and unapologetically wronged by the UK as Turing was. For all he did to help them win what was literally a fight for their existence, they should've put him on the ten pound note in 1946 amid celebration, instead of vacillating about it in 2012.
Quite a few other people fought in the war, and quite a lot of people paid with their lives.
Not to downplay Turings own contribution, but I wish the hyperbole and the "he was persecuted!" angle could be reined in somehow.
Also if anything I think scientists/thinkers have had more than their fair share of slots in banknotes. Perhaps the turn of former PMs, artists, charity founders etc.
> Also if anything I think scientists/thinkers have had more than their fair share of slots in banknotes. Perhaps the turn of former PMs...
From an American perspective I assumed you were being facetious until I actually looked up who's on UK banknotes. I'll be damned--you guys actually seem like a civilized country. Since "Series D", you've only had two politicians on banknotes--and one of them was better known as a military commander.
For contrast, recent US banknotes picture an assortment of former Presidents, as well as Alexander Hamilton (first US Treasury Secretary), Benjamin Franklin, and Civil War era US Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase. We don't have a single non-politician, but we do have three slaveholders and the guy responsible for ethnic cleansing of American Indians. It would be nice to give some other notable historic Americans a chance.
If Turing were to be chosen to be on a bank note, I'd hope that it was for his undoubted achievements in his field rather than a sense of guilt or sympathy.
Why can't it be both? He qualifies for the running based on his achievements alone, and his persecution is an extra reason to do this. He didn't qualify simply because he was persecuted.
I feel that focussing on Turing's persecution almost belies his achievements and by continually focussing on his chemical castration, we begin to lose sight of his brilliance as a mathematician. Of course his treatment was abhorrent, but that's not why we as a nation should recognise him. Surely the fact that he is being considered at all to shows the esteem with which he is held?
Throughout history, people sometimes make bad calls. With hindsight, it's easy to see what those were. Clearly some of his treatment was in the 'bad call' camp, but I don't think that was clear at the time.
Do you think he'd rather be remembered for his contribution to science, or for being 'persecuted by the government'? Personally, I expect it'd be the former.
I think it's useful to put things in perspective though... People fought in the war and DIED.
> Throughout history, people sometimes make bad calls. With hindsight, it's easy to see what those were. Clearly some of his treatment was in the 'bad call' camp, but I don't think that was clear at the time.
This is a bullshit argument, of course they knew what they were doing to him and why. They persecuted him with the intent to eradicate homosexual people. If you can give the Brits the benefit of doubt and assume that it wasnt clear to them how bad it was what they were doing to homosexuals, than you can equally claim that it wasnt so clear to the Nazis that it was bad what they were doing to the Jews. The persecution og the homosexual minority by the heterosexual majority is not less obviously wrong than the persecution of the black minority by the white majority or the persecution of the jew minority by the christian majority.
No, they did it in the hope that it would make him less prone to being compromised and giving away secrets to the enemy. That doesn't make it any less wrong, but to claim they were basically just a bunch of gay-haters is a bit silly.
Yes, they did, and Turing was chemically castrated. Not by the baddies, either. It might not be going to war to die, but that is still pretty messed up.
It is also not like Alan Turing would be filling the "only slot" of being honored on currency. Other deserving scientists have been / will be on bills.
Michael Faraday.
Sir Isaac Newton.
James Clerk Maxwell.
(among many others)
There are quite a few folks on there that have undoubtedly placed themselves among the very highest class of contributors to the advancement of humanity.
It isn't, and shouldn't, be a matter of just picking your top four people and saying they should be on the notes forever. It changes with each new note series. Newton was on the D-series £1 note. Michael Faraday was on the E-series £20 note (only withdrawn a decade ago) (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England_note_issues#Den... ). Why cycle them back in so soon? Give some others a chance.
You're right about Maxwell. The other two have already appeared on banknotes. (The ones highlighted in grey have already appeared on banknotes, though there's some inconsistency between the highlighting and Wikipedia's list of people on UK currency.)
Other scientists, mathematicians, and technical innovators already honored: Kelvin, Darwin, James Watt, Florence Nightingale, George Stephenson, Alexander Graham Bell, and Alexander Fleming.
From the list[1], authors such as Kipling, Potter or Wilde would be crowd pleasers, but a figure like Winston Churchill would likely win if this were decided by popular vote.
Saying that, recent Bank of England notes[2] seem to sway much more heavily towards engineers/scientists (Newton, Wren, Stevenson, Faraday, Darwin, Boulton/Watt) and social/economic reformers (Nightingale, Houblon, Fry, Smith) than artists (Elgar, Shakespeare, Dickens) or military leaders (Wellington)
The only player out of that list who compares is Scholes; Paul Scholes is the best midfield player of the last 20 years according to Xavi.
Neither Rooney or Gerrard are fit to lace Beckham's boots. Rooney has been a shortlived wonderboy, and Gerrard admittedly has been fantastic for Liverpool, but has had one good game for England in the 5-1 victory over Germany.
Beckham's vanity as a person shouldn't impact the reality that he was an extremely good footballer.
Well, the point is, he's a distinguished, popular, and famous Briton because of his skills in sport. It's not outside the realm of imagination that he might deserve to be on a bill, though that honour is usually mostly reserved for politicians or royalty.
The government's response to the petition says that it needs another 80,000 signatures to be debated by parliament. This is true, but on the other hand it already has been [1]. The role of this petition has always been to show that there is significant interest in having Turing on the tenner, rather than to reach 100,000 signatures as such. But if it does get that far, I won't be complaining.
For what it's worth, the Bank of England will "certainly be looking at him". [2]
Full disclosure: I was the one who started this petition, back in March. (You might like to note that http://turingonthetenner.com redirects to the petition page.)
In this case no, I don't think so. He was a great scientist, one of the greatest the UK has produced. If his contribution is not worthy of commemorating on a UK banknote, I don't know whose is.
Erm, if anything I would say his contribution to the sciences is what is commonly overblown, not what his government did to him. Perhaps what he contributed is being overblown because of what his government did?
In any event, I think the reality of the man is enough to warrant honoring on some bill.
It's the very least we could do after having persecuted him whilst being alive even though he contributed so much. The apology he got years later always seemed a little feeble to me.
As a memorial to persecuted gay people it would be more poignant to choose someone that people have ever heard of in the style of the unknown solider in the cenotaph. The damage done to Alan Turing was shared by many people who have just as much right to be recognised. The tragedy is not the destruction of genius but the destruction of hope and happiness and life. Put Michael Causer on a bank note.
I think the £50 would be a fairer choice or even the £20. Alan Turing on the brown £10 does not seem the best choice of note perhaps. The £50 is pinkish and the £20 a purplish colour. I personaly like the £20 the best astheticaly.
Alan Turing was treated really, really horribly by the government of the UK. I very much doubt he would like to be honored by the exact people who persecuted and destroyed his life.
This is a tempting argument, but think for a second whether you actually believe it. Are they the exact people who did that to him? Not at all. You can say all you want about how the government has or hasn't changed, but I think the fact that it's up for discussion is a good sign. It's a different time, different people, and if the people want to honour him I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing (even if he were able to judge). Of course, if you refuse to look past the symbol of government then I guess you're pretty much stuck where you said.
He absolutely needs to be put on a note. He's one of the most important persons we've ever had grace our country, and with the help of a few other honourable Brits, and some extremely bright Poles helped secure the world we now live in.
Consider the fact that he was treated dreadfully after the war, and that the vast majority of our country would probably think Simon Cowell is more significant, we need to celebrate Alan Turing. Hopefully the first steps to another Age of Enlightenment.
