I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I think Disney has good reason to keep Song of the South in a vault, but I'm not in favor of censorship of words, thoughts, literature, or films. I'm perfectly comfortable with the notion of Song of the South, The Anarchists' Cookbook, and even Mein Kampf being available in my local public library. They don't have a place on my personal reading list, but they're a part of the historical record of what was deemed appropriate to publish at various points in time. We need those records to understand the history of those times.

Surely you understand why the minstrel-like image of Uncle Remus offends so many people, even if you, yourself aren't offended? That's why I say it's problematic. I'm not trying to police what anyone says; I'm just trying to foster what I hope is an interesting discussion.

Ultimately, each person is responsible for their own speech acts. To one extent or another, when we write or speak, it's for the purpose of causing a change in our listeners or readers. The question I ask is simply to what extent we should consider how others might misinterpret our intent.

Sadly, I'll probably think twice before using the word "niggardly" or the phrase "tar baby" in the future, even though I think they're both perfectly acceptable turns of phrase. In the abstract there's no hate in either one of them, but as your indignation shows, no matter how careful a person is in what he says, there's always the possibility of being misperceived.