From "Readers React" in the NYT today

[User 11148]

"Jim Crow" laws did not take away rights. They allowed governments to shirk their responsibility to secure rights. In pursuing and enforcing such legislation, those governments were rendering themselves invalid.

I know this is semantics, but semantics are very important here. The philosophical charter of this country rests on the idea that human beings have inherent rights, and that government's primary duty is to ensure that these rights are not abridged.

 

[User 11148]

Some (including me) would argue that "Europe" as a polity (rather than simply a geographic region) does not exist.

Why do you think Europe as a polity does not exist? I don't see it a black or white, but more of a trend in changing identity. I see Europe resembling the U.S. pre-Civil War with strong identification with a state under a European umbrella. A change to primarily identifying oneself as European is going to take a generation or two.

Think of German and Italian states prior to unification in the 1860s and 1870s. Germans and Italians didn't have national identity up until post World War I. Bavaria had its own army until 1918.

Seeing yourself as a European rather than a German -- or a Greek or an Italian -- is going to take more than a generation or two. National identities forged over centuries do not dissipate simply because we wish them to. Look at Belgium. It was pieced together out of French- and Dutch-speaking peoples in the 1800s, and they still get on one another's nerves. It's a helluva job ensuring that all parties feel adequately represented. And this is in the center of the EU!

 

[Starman]

During, Jim Crow state "Redeemer" governments indeed took away rights included in the Reconstruction Amendments.

The Reconstruction Amendments. Ah yes, the ones the teabaggers want to get rid of.