I said "And the civil rights movement was deeply socially disruptive for the Jim Crow South, just as the abolition of slavery was deeply socially disruptive for the antebellum South even earlier."
And you replied "If slavery is structured such that the interests are aligned well enough to politically constrain abuses..."
Well, yes. A situation which clearly did not pertain in the specific examples I gave, rendering the rest of your comment irrelevant. And if the oppression of gays in Russia was structured in a way that wasn't brutal, cruel, and a denial of basic human rights, it wouldn't be so terrible...and if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass when they hopped.
(I'm not going to even touch on your characterization of slavery in Rome, since it just doesn't matter. Your argument is that slavery was (somehow!) good for the Roman slaves, but unless you want to argue that the oppression gays are currently experiencing in Russia is somehow good for them too (please, I'd love to hear it!), then this entire example is a pointless derailment. Which is why, incidentally, I was careful to specify slavery in the antebellum south, and not slavery in general. I am comparing two—three counting Jim Crow—situations that are unambiguously bad for the victims, and I think you wouldn't be so desperate to talk about Rome if you didn't realize this.)
TL;DR: You managed to write an awful lot while very carefully avoiding every point I made. My troll-o-meter is starting to flash...
No I didn't avoid it. Slavery in the South was an inter-group problem and because the groups were fully static over generations, it's properly a place for intergroup pressure.
It is an argument to be cautious though and I think reconstruction failed because it was orchestrated on the plans of industrialist Northerners rather than those who had direct personal experience with what was going on. If Sherman's 40 acres and a mule plan had been implemented race would be different in America today.
And you replied "If slavery is structured such that the interests are aligned well enough to politically constrain abuses..."
Well, yes. A situation which clearly did not pertain in the specific examples I gave, rendering the rest of your comment irrelevant. And if the oppression of gays in Russia was structured in a way that wasn't brutal, cruel, and a denial of basic human rights, it wouldn't be so terrible...and if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their ass when they hopped.
(I'm not going to even touch on your characterization of slavery in Rome, since it just doesn't matter. Your argument is that slavery was (somehow!) good for the Roman slaves, but unless you want to argue that the oppression gays are currently experiencing in Russia is somehow good for them too (please, I'd love to hear it!), then this entire example is a pointless derailment. Which is why, incidentally, I was careful to specify slavery in the antebellum south, and not slavery in general. I am comparing two—three counting Jim Crow—situations that are unambiguously bad for the victims, and I think you wouldn't be so desperate to talk about Rome if you didn't realize this.)
TL;DR: You managed to write an awful lot while very carefully avoiding every point I made. My troll-o-meter is starting to flash...