Seriously not trying to prove anything here, but it says:

Which is why I got a small chuckle out of hearing you say that the DCers don't protest; it's true, they don't demonstrate, but they do have a bit of a passive thing going on.
@deagonx, I think you're leaving out some key details. Let me make this a bit easier.
| Them | Others |
America in 1700s | No representation in Parliament, heavy taxing after a war on their continent, leader's attention somewhere else, no choice in leader, no representation in Parliament | Representation, moderate taxing after a war, leader's attention partially on them, no choice in leader, representation |
DC now | No representation in Congress, some taxation, leader's attention on Libya, choice in leader, No representation in Congress | Representation, some taxation, leader's attention on Libya, choice in leader, Representation in Congress |
Let's see the the results. America was being snubbed representation, a bit of tax, some of their leader's attention, and say in laws (that is to say, representation).
DC is being snubbed representation and say in lawmaking. So if Obama stopped attending to DCites, and cut taxes for the states, they might be justified in revolt.
Now, of course, this isn't quite an accurate comparison. America's treatment by the rest of Britain wasn't just becuase of inattentiveness, and the DCites aren't having regular skirmishes with the military. (don't bring a snowball to a gunfight)