Tuesday, January 09, 2007



I think Washington, DC's permanent residents, all 550,000 of them, are entitled to a House seat and 2 U.S. Senators, just like Wyoming (population- 509,000), Alaska (population- 663,000 ), Delaware (population- 843,000), Vermont (population- 623,000), South Dakota (population- 776,000) and North Dakota (population- 637,000).

And today Washington's elected, non-voting delegate to the Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, along with Republican Congressman Tom Davis (VA) from Washington's suburbs, re-introduced a bill that would add a seat to Congress for Washington. Isn't that nice of Davis? Who would have ever thought a Republican would do such a nice thing for that many African-Americans since... Abe Lincoln? Well, of course, there's a catch, a bad one. It's bad enough that Davis and the neo-Nazi racist party he's in are demanding that in return for a seat for Washington there also be a new seat created for the most right wing Republican stronghold in the country, Utah-- their 4th. (Utah says they deserve the seat because so many of their religionist maniacs are running around as missionaries at any given time that they never get a fair census count.) What makes it even worse is that this would give the Republican state legislature an opportunity to gerrymander the whole state and eliminate Utah's one quasi-Democratic seat, the one currently occupied by Jim Matheson.

I don't know why this should piss me off so badly since, when it comes to substantive issues, Matheson votes like a Republican most of the time anyway. I should be happy to see him gerrymandered out of his seat by the vicious reactionaries he's been trying to placate. But now that the Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress, I'd like to see them just do the right thing and get DC it's congressmember AND 2 senators. Utah shouldn't even be entitled to statehood since they came into the Union promising to end polygamy, which-- just ask Anderson Cooper-- they haven't done.


At 7:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Er, if you are promoting the advancement of black people in America I fail to see what you are showing an image of Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln said (in 1857): "There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races. A separation of the races is the only prevention of amalgamation . . ."

On Aug. 14, 1862, the told the first delegation of blacks ever to be invited to the White House: "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference thatn exists between almost any two races . . . your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. . . It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated," he said, urging the delegation to find men who would move, with their families, to Central America.

Lincoln said to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862 (after issuing the Emancipation Proclamation) that the national territory, although "well adapted to be the home of one national family . . . is not well adapted for two, more more."

"I can conceive of no greater calamity," Lincoln said, "than the assimilation of the Negro into our social and political life as our equal . . ."

Lincoln's desire was to send American blacks overseas. He wanted slavery excluded fromt he territories, largely because he, and most whites, wanted no blacks to live there at all.

Even by the standards of his day, Lincoln was an ardent white supremacist.


Post a Comment

<< Home