| FRONT PAGE |
GEOSPATIAL ART |
DC HISTORY / TIMELINE |
NEWS |
COLONIST |
FOUND MAPS |
FRACTALS |
|
PHOTOGRAPHY |
ANTIQUE |
DESIGN |
VIDEO |
|
CONTACT |
A Projected Relief Park Map of the United States – The Washington Times, March 28, 1897
|| 11/26/2009 || 3:54 pm || 1 Comment Rendered || ||
Yesterday I found this unique map that was published by the Washington Times on Sunday, March 28th, 1897 in the Library of Congress / National Endowment for the Humanities “Chronicling America Collection.” Its rather amazing how this portion of the National Mall was ultimately developed! Where would Alaska & Hawaii have been added? With today being Thanksgiving, I am giving thanks to the fact that some maps were never made.
Scans & transcription of the article below:
+ MORE
The D.C. Colonist Is The Subject Of A Letter To The Editor In Today’s Washington Post
|| || 1:02 am || 1 Comment Rendered || ||
A D.C. protester garbles the garb
Tuesday, November 24, 2009Nikolas Schiller seems to lack a clear understanding of the history of the District of Columbia [“Hats off to D.C. statehood,” the Reliable Source, Nov. 19]. He wears “Colonial” garb to make the point that, in his words, “the status of D.C. residents has not changed since Colonial times.” But there was, of course, no District of Columbia in colonial times. There was a city of Georgetown, in Maryland.
Mr. Schiller also needs a new costume consultant. His coat is cut incorrectly, and I hope he doesn’t really wear German lederhosen, as he said, but rather correctly cut knee breeches when he isn’t wearing blue jeans.
Ann Wass, Riverdale
I’ll have a reply in the afternoon. In the meantime, the Latin Phrase of the Day is Ad Hominem.
My Accidental Geography Submission “Gingerbread DC” Was Featured Today on StrangeMaps
|| 11/23/2009 || 7:12 pm || + Render A Comment || ||
Grant D.C. Residents Full Rights – The Oregonian, April 15th, 1992
|| 10/9/2009 || 9:54 am || + Render A Comment || ||
The Oregonian, April 15th, 1992
Congress can right an old and grievous wrong in coming weeks. It should pass the District of Columbia statehood bill to grant district residents the same citizenship rights enjoyed by all other Americans.
The measure to create the state of New Columbia recently passed the House District of Columbia Committee. The bill should reach the House floor by late May or June.
While the new state would be–unlike any other–entirely a city, the continued subjugation of district residents to a paternalistic Congress is a travesty of democratic justice.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the district’s nonvoting representative, points out that Washingtonians not only have fewer rights than those in the 50 states, but fewer rights than those in the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa, which at least have local self-governance.
Limited home rule has been a hollow promise. All laws passed by the district’s city council must be approved by Congress. An assualt-weapons referendum overwhelmingly approved by city residents is being challenged by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. The district can’t even change garbage-collection days without clearance on the Hill.
D.C. residents pay U.S. taxes without representation and serve in the military with no voice in choosing those who put their lives at risk.
The unique creation of a city-state has led some opponents to suggest joining most of the district to neighboring Maryland. That, however, runs counter to the will of district residents and those of Maryland.
The district meets three traditional statehood tests: Statehood reflects the will of the people; they have agreed to adhere to a representative form of government; and there are enough people and resources to ensure economic viability.
The district’s 608,000 residents outnumber the populations of three states. D.C. households have an average income of $32,106. The district raises 84 percent of its $3.8 billion budget through income, property and sales taxes.
No compelling argument against statehood has been advanced, and no acceptable alternative has been offered. To continue second-class citizenship for D.C. residents is inconsistent with and offensive to democratic principles. It is unworthy of this republic.
This newspaper article was obtained from the Congressional Record in the Library of Congress related to H.R. 51, The New Columbia Admission Act of 1993. The article is not in the public domain but is being republished here under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law in order to continue my advocacy for full representation for the American citizens of the District of Columbia.
Statehood for the District of Columbia – The Minneapolis Star and Tribune, June 27th, 1987
|| 10/6/2009 || 9:21 am || + Render A Comment || ||
The Minneapolis Star and Tribune, June 27, 1987
Walter Fauntroy, nonvoting delegate who represents Washington, D.C., in the House, seeks to transform the District of Columbia into the state of New Columbia. Fauntroy’s quest is a long shot, despite support from such prominent Democrats as House Speaker Jim Wright and Majority Leader Tom Foley. Yet he deserves to succeed because his cause is just.
In the past two decades, district residents have been granted home rule and the right to vote in presidential elections. But they still lack representation in Congress. In 1978, Congress offered for ratification a constitutional amendment that would have provided congressional representation but stopped short of statehood. When the seven-year limit on ratification expired in 1985, only a few states had approved the amendment. Minnesota was one of them. With the failure of the 1978 amendment, Fauntroy offered his statehood proposal, which requires only congressional approval and presidential signature.
Like all other U.S. citizens, district residents honor U.S. laws, pay U.S. taxes and serve in the U.S. military. Unlike other U.S. citizens, they have no direct say in what laws Congress will pass, what taxes Congress will impose and what wars Congress will declare. Fauntroy seeks to redress that fundamental unfairness.
There are also practical reasons for granting statehood. Like many core urban areas, the district has suffered a declining population, loss of commercial and industrial tax base to surrounding suburbs and increased poverty. Costs grow faster than city resources. Most states, recognizing the vital role central cities play in metropolitan economies, respond with urban aid raised by taxing suburbs–or by giving core cities the power to impose a payroll tax on suburban commuters.
But Washington has no state government to help out; its suburbs are in Virginia and Maryland. And the district charter prohibits a payroll tax. Which leaves only Congress to finance the rising cost of district Government. And that means Minnesota taxpayers shoulder as much of the district’s financial burden as those in Virginia and Maryland, who benefit directly from the district’s government-dominated economy.
Federal support will always be appropriate, given the government’s enormous tax-exempt holdings in the district. But statehood would allow Washington to tax commuters or work out other arrangements requiring Virginia and Maryland to bear a larger share of the district’s burdens.
Fauntroy’s bill is likely to come to the House floor this fall. Because the district is Democratic, urban and black, it faces opposition from Republicans, rural legislators and bigots. None relish adding district representatives to Congress. Such crass partisanship and bigotry should not be allowed to subvert the drive for statehood. To ease the district’s financial burden and to erase an embarrassing political injustice, Congress should pass the statehood bill and welcome New Columbia to the Union.
This newspaper article was obtained from the Congressional Record in the Library of Congress related to H.R. 51, The New Columbia Admission Act of 1993. The article is not in the public domain but is being republished here under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law in order to continue my advocacy for full representation for the American citizens of the District of Columbia.
Map Tattoo: The State of Maryland
|| 9/9/2009 || 2:15 am || + Render A Comment || ||
Photo of the Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt Printed on Polyester Fabric
|| 8/7/2009 || 6:00 pm || 4 Comments Rendered || ||
I gave this map to the client Wednesday afternoon, but not before snapping a photograph of the final version of the map. I have to say that seeing a map on my website is a completely different experience than seeing one in person. When you are actually looking at the map, all the details come through, as opposed to viewing them on-line, where the map’s scale is reduced considerably. This map was printed at 60″ x 40″ on polyester fleece and I am quite happy how the printing turned out! I sincerely hope the final recipient enjoys it :-)
As always, send me a message if you interested in purchasing a map or having one commissioned for yourself or as a gift.
– [Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation One
– [Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Two
– [Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Three
– [Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Four
– [Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Five
– [Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt
+ MORE
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt
|| || 3:35 pm || 3 Comments Rendered || ||
Of the draft maps created for this series, it was the scaled down version of Tessellation Number Three that was ultimately chosen. Up next, a photo of the map printed on fabric :-)
Click here to view the Google Map of Sandy Spring Friends School in Montgomery County, Maryland .
View the rest of the map details:
+ MORE
[Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Five
|| 8/3/2009 || 11:44 pm || + Render A Comment || ||
The last two maps I created for this commission feature identical tessellations of the area around the Sandy Spring Friends School in Maryland, but shown at two different spatial scales.
– Click here to read more about the commissioned map & rendering series here.
– Click here to view the Google Map of Sandy Spring Friends School in Maryland.
Related Entries:
– [Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation One
– [Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Two
– [Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Three
– [Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Four
– [Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School – Tessellation Five
– [Commissioned Map] Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt
– Photo of the Sandy Spring Friends School Quilt Printed on Polyester Fabric
©2004-2023 Nikolas R. Schiller - Colonist of the District of Columbia - Privacy Policy - Fair Use - RSS - Contact
::LAST 51 POSTS::
45 queries. 3.106 seconds.
Powered by WordPress
::THE QUILT PROJECTION::
Square |
Diamond |
Hexagon |
Octagon |
Dodecagon |
Beyond |
::OTHER PROJECTIONS::
The Lenz Project |
Mandala Project |
The Star Series |
Abstract Series |
Memory Series
|
Mother Earth Series
|
|
Misc Renderings
 |
::POPULAR MAPS::
- The Los Angeles Interchanges Series::MONTHLY ARCHIVES::
::LOCATIONS & CATEGORIES::
My Response To Today’s Washington Post Letter To The Editor By Ann Wass
|| 11/24/2009 || 4:09 pm || 1 Comment Rendered || ||
Last night I found that there was a Letter To The Editor about the D.C. Colonist that was going to be published in today’s Washington Post. Below is the text of her letter in italics and my response in bold:
Nikolas Schiller seems to lack a clear understanding of the history of the District of Columbia [“Hats off to D.C. statehood,” the Reliable Source, Nov. 19].
Actually, I think I have a pretty decent understanding of the history of disenfranchisement in the District of Columbia.
He wears “Colonial” garb to make the point that, in his words, “the status of D.C. residents has not changed since Colonial times.” But there was, of course, no District of Columbia in colonial times.
You are correct. There was no District of Columbia in colonial times. However, the Seat of Government, now known as the District of Columbia, was the only territory explicitly defined in the United States Constitution. This important document happens to have been written in “Colonial times,” and needs to be updated, again.
Through the passage of “An Act for establishing the Temporary and Permanent seat of the Government of the United States” on July 16th, 1790, the “district of territory” became the permanent Seat of Government on December 1st, 1800, and Congressional representation was lost shortly thereafter.
Unlike the Maryland license plate, the license plate of the District of Columbia has a phrase that dates back to Colonial times, “Taxation Without Representation.” I don’t know if you’ve sat through a Congressional hearing, but signs are not allowed in hearing rooms. Fortunately, an elaborate costume is allowed. (Except hats, I guess?)
If you were to read my quote differently, “the [present day] status of D.C. residents has not changed since [the Americans in] Colonial times,” you might understand that the residents of the District of Columbia are present-day colonists who have the displeasure of “Taxation Without Representation” through the denial of federal representation, and I’m only dressing up as one to make the point you obviously missed.
There was a city of Georgetown, in Maryland.
In 1800, the year the Seat of government moved to the District of Columbia, this city was called George Town, Maryland. Two Words. You can look it up. The concatenation took place soon after and today those residents lack representation in Congress.
There was another city & county located in the Seat of Government that you left out: Alexandria, Virginia. In 1846 the residents voted to cede back into the Commonwealth of Virginia, but unlike the Georgetown residents of today, the citizens of Alexandria & present-day Alexandria County (Arlington County) have Congressional representation.
Mr. Schiller also needs a new costume consultant. His coat is cut incorrectly, and I hope he doesn’t really wear German lederhosen, as he said, but rather correctly cut knee breeches when he isn’t wearing blue jeans.
This ad hominem argument misses the entire point of my ongoing protest. While you might have “Taxation With Representation” in Riverdale, Maryland, I, a colonist of the District of Columbia, do not. No costume consultant is going to give me Congressional representation, are they? I don’t think so. I’d rather have Congressional representation so I can retire this colonial outfit for good.
But in the meantime, you could always attend the next hearing on the status of this federally administered city-state known as the District of Columbia. Maybe you could come dressed in period clothing as well? There have been suffragists since 1800 working to change this faux-pas of the Founding Fathers. Do you think a Senator or U.S. Representative would ask you to take off a bonnet or headscarf? You won’t know unless you try.
Colonially Yours,
Nikolas Schiller
ps.
The colonial attire was purchased from Backstage in the Barracks Row neighborhood on Capitol Hill. Feel free to contact their costume consultants for further inquiry.