I did not speak with anyone but Malin before posting this response.
I repeat: Some responses to my post borders on the ridiculous, and it's difficult for me to consider them as serious historians. To write history is a way to render your opinion, since the interpretation of history is always subjective, and allows you to presuade the reader of your argument, and we may agree or disagree. But you must do it intelligently, and tactfully without seeming that you have a "bone to pick" or "tit for tat". (Hear that Sharon, Lee, Tony, Anthony and K Wyer) To be a historian is to be engaged in endless discussion and debate. History changes; that is, what we think happened, what we think is important, what we think the reasons are for what happened, and what we base our beliefs of good and bad on, all change.
I wish to reiterate my concerns to the historians, scribes, interpreters, and researchers of the forum as stated in my previous post re the Buffalo Soldiers and the Western Frontier: If your historical analysis re African American military history (or any history) is sound, and you have done the research and made an interpretation, then enlighten us by enumerating what you consider myths and embellishments, and then give us your fact/interpretation albeit supported by primary/secondary, publications and credible sources. We must remember no one has a corner on truth, and there is no single truth. To be a historian is to discover and share different ways of interpreting historical data. Remember you must have evidence. You must have facts, and you must have interpretations.
A learned historian would not have responded as you did. It is obvious that you are suffering from low self-esteem with "chip on shoulder".