SharonA, since Azizi is frequently the only alternate source of Mudcat opinion on this kind of subject, I would suggest long explanatory posts are pretty much a necessity. (I also don't get this dislike some people have of 'long' posts: 'tl,dr' indicates to me someone who has a very short attention span or lacks the inclination to be bothered, or is not interested, in which case, why bother to comment).

As for her sources, in my experience they are no more, and often possibly less, questionable than those of everyone else. It's a fact history is written by the 'victors', in this instance the whole of white America, not just the Northern States. In this thread you have seen people who appear to have studied the subject, with access to the same set of conventional sources, disagree on important points. (An important work of professional historians is to re-evaluate standard takes on history, taking into consideration the validity of alternate sources and the possibility of biased reporting from conventional or contemporary sources - was Richard III a monster or not?.) Yet you don't question their sources.

What I have observed is that sometimes when Azizi expresses an opinion, sourced or not, which some people do not like, she is accused of having an agenda (like no one else might have one, or like there might not be a good reason to have one), or a chip on her shoulder (I have not observed that, but she wouldn't be alone, and she might be justified if she did), or of being racist (again, I do not agree).

However you have decided to 'decode' akenaten's remark, it was dismissive and insulting, implying, for whatever reason, that Azizi's words are worthless, and that was offensive.