"it's a comfort to know that there is at least someone else on this thread who can think outside the box."

We'll call this an epilogue then SS. There is sufficient evidence to support your original proposition - which I didn't see as inflammatory or advocated anything other than the facts. Additional points illustrate 1954 is a partial, ill-founded and outdated conclusion to what folk is. Clear thinkers among the traditionalists admit as much.

To avoid those conclusions requires a degree of evasion no amount of additional words from me will fix. If '54 advocates don't address those points it's because they don't want to see them.