> The historical reality matters because to ignore it undermines the
> efforts to remove real racist/sexist colloquialisms.
> If we give the opponents (the anti-pc police) a legitimate example of
> misused historical content it they will use it as an example to paint
> the entire pc idea as bogus.
I just think focusing on "historical reality" is missing the point. What matters is what the saying/word/rhyme/whatever means to people today.
Take the use of the word "niggardly," which has caused enough problems that there's an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to "Controversies about the word 'niggardly'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22
I remember after the 1999 incident where the DC official had to resign over using the word, the conservative rag at Michigan used it to pick on a pro-affirmative action student group -- which is hardly innocent usage. The point is, the word "niggardly" has now acquired meaning beyond its dictionary definition; so people who know better probably shouldn't use it.
This cuts both ways too: I once dated a woman who objected to the use of the word "hysterical" because of its sexist etymology. Her position was basically that sordid etymology -- I suppose via some mystical process -- irrevocably pollutes certain words. That struck me as beyond-flakey -- I'd never associated hysteria with women until she brought the etymology to my attention. The vast majority of people today don't have any idea what the history of the word is, so people in the know should feel free to use it, IMO.
-WD