Lonely's CountryHumans shenanigans

They also do speak to each other, so they would theoretically need a bridge language. I believe most if not all countries would be able to understand English. If they speak it? Well, some choose not to. But historically, English wasn’t always the Lingua Franca, and in some places it isn’t the primary bridge language. German and French were often used in recent history and even today. And Latin and Greek were also Lingua Francas. Chinese and Arabic are also commonly used. It depends on the context, which countries are talking to each other, etc.

Here is a silly poll I remembered I should make. I actually went around asking the same question in Countryhumans spaces a few years ago, but really only once or twice, and it didn’t really help because they had no clue what I meant. This is probably a more effective spot to do it, and I’m pretty sure nobody else is gonna ask it! (unless maybe they have idk) So;

This fandom is so versatile to me because of it's absence of a canon base (contra APH), and I've poured so much into my own worldbuilding it's hard to let go. I wish I could somehow divorce it from the fandom because I'm afraid my content won't be able to be engaged with due to the gap in... perception/conduct? That you and the person before you noticed (a.k.a. mistreatment of personified nations) coming from inside the community (mostly made up of people who came from different fandoms that didn't have such abstract and restricting framework (ironic) they probably wouldn't know how to handle or engage with anyway). But it's hard to do so, because it literally came from this fandom, and it's outward appearance is immediately telling (banners my beloved.....), and the fandom aleady blew up in the most horrible way possible that I feel it's near impossible to somehow promote it as well, without raising eyebrows (though any personification of nations would invite some eyebrow-raising I think) from the outside.

Back on topic, I'd conclude that, yes, the fandom is uh bad, but the concept itself had a positive impact on my life, because it combined my interests and hobbies. I feel happy that I've found it as my source of creative outlet, especially when I also kinda stopped both engaging with and expecting too much from the fandom and started focusing on my own work; it actually reinvigorated my interest in the concept and made me very productive and positive overall.

The last few sentences really ring for me. I'm not letting this go, I love this whimsy of mine.

Here is a silly poll I remembered I should make. I actually went around asking the same question in Countryhumans spaces a few years ago, but really only once or twice, and it didn’t really help because they had no clue what I meant. This is probably a more effective spot to do it, and I’m pretty sure nobody else is gonna ask it! (unless maybe they have idk) So;

Here is a silly poll I remembered I should make. I actually went around asking the same question in Countryhumans spaces a few years ago, but really only once or twice, and it didn’t really help because they had no clue what I meant. This is probably a more effective spot to do it, and I’m pretty sure nobody else is gonna ask it! (unless maybe they have idk) So;

I have nothing silly planned :(

Cw: mentions of transphobia, homophobia and discussions of colonial acculturation.

Facts! Don't get me wrong. The Third Reich is a disgusting regime and it should be hated by everyone. I'm not defending them at all. I just think people should stop being such hypocrites when it comes to other countries. I'm talking mostly about the USA and the UK.

My interest in the Cold War waned because I wasn’t a fan of what other people were doing with it. But I wouldn’t let that consume me now.

he is a p3do and someone who has been harassing me and my friends for ages on youtube

now I know he follows me here but wtf can he do?

down below are some ss, all people mentioned by him are minors

This is a prevalent issue I see in this fandom that doesn’t make any sense and is also very offensive to the people of Washington, DC. I think it is because people want someone to blame for the government, someone to take on the beliefs of the American government, so that the United States himself doesn’t have to embody those beliefs. To achieve the desired personification, one must often sacrifice another, even though no one is forcing them to adopt a personification that embodies those beliefs.

Since this is a terrible depiction of Washington, DC (I can’t even call it stereotypical because no one is actually embodying the district or the city, just portraying the ideas of a few loud people in the government), I want to go over why this is so terrible, the actually history of DC that makes this depiction even worse, and what should actually be done to portray a city.

The Federal Government and the District of Columbia 

Defining Some Things

First, as I feel this needs to be done, let us define what the District of Columbia is and how it has, legally, evolved since its conception. The first bill you need to be aware of is the Residence Act, passed on July 16, 1790. Officially called “An Act for establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the Government of the United States,” this is the act that established the idea of the District of Columbia.

In this act, we see the borders of the new territory laid out for the first time, with the words “a district of territory not exceeding ten miles square, to be located as hereafter directed on the river Potomac at some place between the mouths of the Eastern Branch and Connogochegue be, and the same is hereby accepted for the permanent seat of the government of the United States.” While the exact borders of DC were to change during the Civil War, this act established the borders of modern-day DC.

The rest of the bill goes into the creation of DC, and is not really important to mention other than this, that “the operation of the laws of the state within such district shall not be affected by this acceptance, until the time fixed for the removal of the government thereto, and until Congress shall otherwise by law provide.” This final section says that the laws of each state, Maryland and Virginia, will apply in DC until the federal government takes up residence.

So why, you may ask, would you make us read this bill? Well, this establishes two things. One, that upon the creation of DC, it was described as a “district” and “seat of government,” but never as the federal government, which many people portray DC as, but also to show that from the beginning, DC was not allowed self-government and the people who lived there were going to have less rights, as the laws of no states applied there, and there was no other power to make laws there there than Congress. Therefore, DC, unlike the states, has no representation in Congress and will not have a choice in making decisions for the country or for themselves.

The next act relevant in the creation of DC is the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801, which is officially called An Act Concerning the District of Columbia, passed February 27, 1801. This act formally placed DC under the control of the US Congress and divided the district into two counties, Washington County on the Maryland side of the Potomac River, and Alexandria County on the Virginia side of the river (leaving the cities of Alexandria and Georgetown intact). However, the laws of both Maryland and Virginia remained in force in the county.

It was not until May 3, 1802, that the City of Washington was granted a municipal government consisting of a mayor appointed by the president of the United States. Therefore, when DC got its first government, it could not even vote for its own mayor (and is still under the rule of the US Congress). Not only that, but when the 1801 bill was passed, residents of DC were no longer considered citizens of Virginia or Maryland and lost the right to vote in elections.

Now we must move on to the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, which repealed the individual charters of the cities of Washington (the capital city) and Georgetown (now a neighborhood district) and established a new territorial government for the whole District of Columbia. Therefore, despite being established in 1790, DC did not have a unifying government for the whole territory until 1871, and even then, it still lacked voting rights and representatives in Congress. This law was only passed due to the population growth that DC experienced after the US Civil War. 

However, while still under the direct rule of Congress, DC was given some more self-government at this time, with an appointed governor and 11-member council, a locally elected 22-member assembly, and a board of public works charged with modernizing the city. This act was also when DC had its first territorial seal, which did not have any symbol or seal representing the district until now.

Lastly, we have the most recent bill influencing the creation of DC, one that provided its citizens with legal rights every other state and city in the US had but DC lacked: the ability to vote for their own mayor and city council. 

This act, the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, was passed on December 24, 1973, and gave some of the rights that Congress had to control the DC government to the people, granting DC an elected mayor and city council. However, despite gaining this government, it still lacked many rights that other cities had. Most notably, Congress needs to review all legislation passed by the council before it can become law, and it continues to have authority over the district's budget. DC judges are still appointed by the president, and DC still has no voting representative in Congress, despite the fact that Congress has to review all laws that the elected council creates.

If the council didn’t have enough restrictions on its ability to govern, Congress also gave it a list of restrictions on what laws they could create, including lend public credit for private projects, impose a tax on individuals who work in the District but live elsewhere, make any changes to the Heights of Buildings Act of 1910, pass any law changing the composition or jurisdiction of the local courts, enact a local budget that is not balanced; and gain any additional authority over the National Capital Planning Commission, Washington Aqueduct, or District of Columbia National Guard.

That’s right: DC to this day does not control its National Guard, and it is only controlled by the president, meaning that if the president is upset with the city, they can choose to prevent the district from using its own National Guard.

In many ways, this home rule was more symbolic and appeasement than giving the city any more rights, as it still had its laws determined by Congress, had restrictions on what laws they could even pass, and it still did not have any voting representatives. 

The Conclusion From These Definitions

So, that was a lot of political talk, so now I will explain what conclusions we must draw from these bills. First, the clear number one thing is that DC is not the federal government, but its own autonomous entity within the United States. Two, DC residents do not have the right to vote, and it took decades to even have their own government. Three, even with their own government, DC is still under the thumb of Congress. And four, it was not until 1973, 183 years after the creation of DC, that DC residents gained the ability to vote for the members of their own city council and their own mayor.

Thus, the legal history of DC reveals a city lacking rights, a city where the people were not given the ability to even choose their own mayor, and a city that is autonomous, yet subjugated to the federal government. 

The Right of the People

Voting Rights–An American Right the Capital Lacks

So, if it wasn’t clear by the acts mentioned previously, residents of DC did not have the right to vote in Congress or vote in presidential elections when their city was created. They did not have the right to vote, and if you lived in the city, you were unable to gain the right to vote or leave the city to vote in Maryland or Virginia.

In a country that prides itself on voting rights, for decades, nearly two hundred years, the people of DC did not have voting rights.

It was not until 1961, with the passage of the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution, that residents of DC were allowed to vote in the presidential election.

Let me repeat that. It was not until 1961, 171 years after the establishment of the District of Columbia, did the CITIZENS OF THE CAPITAL CITY gained the right to vote in PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. 

It was a lapse of rights that is nigh unthinkable in many people’s minds that the capital city of a country consists of citizens who are treated as second-class by the laws of that county. And again, it was not until 1973 that the residents of DC had the right to vote for their own mayor and their own city council. 

DC was established in 1790, and it took so long for them to get their rights. 

However, just because DC can vote for president and its own mayor does not mean that they have the same voting rights as the rest of the country. 

No Taxation Without Representation

“Hey Ailbhe,” I hear you say, “Why is this section titled after a phrase from the American War of Independence? I thought we were talking about DC?”

Well, we are! But 'No Taxation Without Representation' is now a DC phrase, evoking memories of the American War of Independence and its underlying reasons as a means to draw attention to the complete lack of representation DC has. In fact, this phrase even appears on their license plates, as the DC government has recognized the issue as so severe that they want to draw attention to it.

Remember how the US Congress has to review all laws that the DC city council wants to pass, and they can choose to prevent those laws from passing, even if they are supported by everyone in DC. So, you think with that, DC has some sort of representation in Congress, as all US states are entitled to by the US Constitution, right?

Well, now you’re missing the keyword: state. DC is not a state, so even though the US Congress controls it and restricts its rights in a way no other part of the US has to experience, DC has NO say in Congress.

“But I thought DC had a representative in Congress?” You might be asking, and you aren’t wrong about that. However, you are overlooking the key point that the District is represented by a delegate, who, because of those constitutional provisions that are so focused on statehood, is not allowed to vote on the House floor but under House rules can vote on procedural matters and in congressional committees. As for the Senate, DC has no representation in the Senate. 

In the entire US legislative branch, which controls and limits DC’s own government, DC has one delegate who cannot vote and can only participate in one section of Congress. 

Not to mention, this office was only established in 1971. While there was one that existed from around 1871-1875, it was disestablished, meaning that the office has only ever had three people in it. 

As it has been since DC’s creation, DC residents lack the rights that so many Americans take for granted.

Therefore, when you try to conflate DC as being the same as the federal government, you are ignoring the fact that out of the two million people that work for the US federal government, one of them is someone who represents DC, and out of the 535 voting members of Congress, not a single one is there for DC.

Yeah, DC is totally the same thing as the US government (That’s sarcasm by the way).

Overruling a Mayor–When the Federal Government Enforces Its Will

So, we know that Congress can block bills that DC wants to put in place, so let’s just go through a quick list of them. In 1988, Congress voted to block DC using local funds to cover abortion services through Medicaid. In 1992, Congress blocked the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act allowing both gay and straight couples to register as domestic partners, allowing familial recognition for such things as hospital visits and allowing the partners of D.C. government employees to purchase private health insurance. In 1998, Congress blocked a clean needle exchange program law. And at least twice they have blocked DC efforts to legalize weed.

In fact, if you have kept up to date with recent news in the United States, you can see the most egregious example of the federal government enforcing its will on DC with the military occupation of the capital. This has been done because Trump wants to have power, and he knows that he can get away with it in DC, because DC does not have a state governor to fight for it, nor does it have other cities within its borders to fight for it. The government already ignores the mayor and the wishes of the people when convenient. DC is the place where they know they can get away with it because DC is not a state. DC lacks rights that can protect it.

And, in February of 2025, Republicans in Congress have introduced a bill to repeal DC’s Home Rule, the bill that gave DC the ability to vote for its own government to begin with. Some people want to take away DC’s right to vote for their own government after they spent nearly 200 years without that right to begin with.

The federal government is not DC. The federal government demeans and bullies DC whenever the city does something it dislikes.

Do not take the federal government enforcing its power on a city as an excuse to have that city become the federal government. The city is more of a victim of the federal government than any state can claim to be.

Who Are The People of DC?

The Citizens of DC

DC was made to be a federal capital district, to hold the government and nothing more. However, as it was the capital city, it should have been expected that people would move there, especially those that worked in the government, bringing friends and family along, or those that were interested in seeing the government at work.

It was understandable that people would move there, but very few movements were created to give the people their rights. I can  only assume it was because it was believed that they would be a transient population. But more people moved in, and the rights did not improve for a long time. 

Therefore, it is important to understand that while DC did not start as a city for a large population of people, it evolved into that, with many people not being federal workers, and instead being Black or other people of color. 

Minority Majority

DC is a minority majority city, meaning that minority groups (Black, Asian, etc) make up the majority of the population there. Black people have been the largest group for decades, and have always been a large part of the population there. Being the capital city, DC also attracts many immigrants from the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, and other places, further adding to the diverse ethnic background of the city. 

White people have never been the majority population of DC for decades, therefore when talking about and creating a DC character, it is important to know that DC is going to be a person of color (Black most likely), and will have a much stronger cultural connection to Black communities than white communities. 

In fact, the only time that Black people have been less than 25% of the population was in 1860 (19.1%), in the middle of the Civil War, where we can presume the tensions over slavery that caused the war and the influx of white soldiers into the city might have changed the racial make up. Just as it is important to mention that in 1870, Black people were 33% of the population. 

DC is a city made by and of Black people and people of color, therefore any personification should be connected to those marginalized communities. (Especially with DC’s own lack of rights and fights for them)

Emphasis on the should be.

Whitewashing of DC

Speaking about DC’s majority minority demographics, it also makes no sense how DC is very commonly portrayed as a white person, especially as a white person who represents the federal government.

I believe that it comes from people’s desire to make DC a personification of the federal government and its crimes that make people make DC white, despite all the evidence otherwise. Either way, just like how it is disrespectful to the people of DC to make their city the federal government when it is not that, the whitewashing of the city to achieve that goal is despicable. 

Black people have always been a large portion of DC’s population and have contributed a lot to DC’s culture and identity, and they are the ones being erased to create a white, racist DC when the city is so much more vibrant than that. They can claim its so they can show the racism and horrific laws of the federal government, but what they are really doing is erasing a Black city, with a Black identity and a Black culture and replacing it with a whitewashed notion of what the federal government is. 

DC is a Black city, but it is never seen that way, because some people cannot comprehend the idea of the capital being a minority majority city. This, tied in with how many historic Black neighborhoods are being destroyed in the gentrification of DC, is part of a long trend in which DC is being whitewashed for the use of others, and not the people that made the city what it is today. 

The Percentage of Federal Workers

Federal employees in DC make up less than half of the population. Therefore, claiming that the existence of federal workers in DC is not an excuse to have DC be the federal government “because DC’s population works for the federal government” or whatever. DC has many college students and law school students and other professions that people can work at, and the idea that DC has to be a federal employee because it is the capital when a small number of people are actually federal employees is just a cop out. Not to mention that the number has only gone down with how the Trump Administration is gutting the federal government. 

Also, even if federal workers were somehow a majority, they are not the federal government, nor are they the laws. They are just people, and most do not work for Congress and make laws. Maybe work for other organizations, and projecting your hate of the government onto them and pretending like they are everything you hate about the government still would not make DC the federal government. 

DC’s Fight for Statehood

Due to DC’s lack of rights, it is understandable why the district would keep fighting for statehood. It would help them gain many of the rights they lack, like representation in Congress, the ability to make their own laws without Congress’s interference, and more. However, none of these efforts have succeeded. 

There are many reasons why, but the movement is very complex and I encourage you to look more into it yourself. Some of them involve not wanting to give the other political party more power, while others are tied into the idea that the capital city should not be a state, even when DC residents argue that all federal buildings can stay a part of a new federal district. 

What I can say is that despite bills passing the House, none of them have ever been made law or even received much attention in the Senate (the part of Congress that has no DC rep), and DC still remains a district lacking many rights.

However, the fact that DC residents want to be a state shows that DC should not be the federal government, not when statehood is a real possibility. You wouldn’t make Texas the federal government, after all, so why DC?

But What if I Want A Personification of the Federal Government?

You make a personification. You call it “the US Federal Government.” Congratulations: you have one.

If you really want a personification of the federal government that badly, then create one, just make sure it accurately represents the federal government. I know people who do, referring to them as “government spirits” or “government humans.” This is the proper way you should be doing this: making something that will embody the federal government, not dragging DC into it, and pretending that all her people are the worst of the worst in Congress.

No one is stopping you from having a personification of the federal government. You just need to make it the actual federal government, not the city of 702,250 people, most of whom have no connection to that. 

They already suffer from a lack of rights compared to people in other states. You don’t need to punish them any further.

Additionally, the federal government has branches and offices throughout the United States. They are not limited to just DC. Therefore, limiting your federal government to DC, an entity that is not the federal government, you’ve not only made a flawed personification of DC, but a flawed personification of the federal government. 

A federal government is not its capital city in the same way a capital city is not a federal government. 

Conclusion

Most people’s depictions of the District of Columbia are not accurate representations of the District of Columbia itself, but rather of the federal government. Instead of conducting research into the area they are trying to personify, people often assume that because the District of Columbia holds the capital city, it represents the federal government, despite this assumption being widely untrue.

Instead of trying to make a personification of the federal government, they decide instead to use the District of Columbia as a stand-in, hoping that no one will notice.