According to multiple Canadian news sources the new Canadian $100 bill featuring a female scientist was modified after a focus group looked at the original and said the scientist looked too Asian, thus feeding into a stereotype. Then the Bank of Canada went back and made the figure neutral. When the news got out that this modification occurred, various groups complained. The bill below is the current bill:
According to the Bank of Canada, that figure is ethnically neutral. To my eyes she looks white. To be truly ethnically neutral is probably impossible, but to be at least ambiguous I would suggest darker skin and some wavy or curly hair.
What I found amazing in the stories is that the bank spokesman cited a policy against portraying specific ethnic groups on bank notes. That statement strikes me as odd given the front of the bill.
The gentleman, Sir Robert Borden, is clearly of a certain ethnic group. Did the bank spokesperson mean that when presenting generic scenes they aim for ethnic neutrality? That may be more likely the case given the number of real live historical white people on Canadian money.
On a larger scale, this news leads me to wonder why it is wrong to have representative figures with identifiable ethnicity on currency? I could imagine issues of marginalization developing so there would have to be a mix, but that could be done. I think the opposite, claiming generic ethnicity for the figures is nonsensical. If that is the goal there should be animals or buildings but no people at all. People see race when they look at other people. To try to defeat that impulse is a futile quest.
Now I will have fun imagining American currency without identifiable ethnicity. Good by Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Sacajawea. Hello eagle, buffalo, and Statue of Liberty. Wait a second, isn’t she white?






