I don't think it's racist at all to "continue calling black people black, white people white, Asians Asian, Latino's Latino etc"... by any measure. It's oversensitized, imo, to say there's a problem there. You could call someone black in a room full of black people and nothing would happen. If you called someone black in a room full of overzealous white folk, then maybe there might be different. But if you're reasonable, there's no reason for you not to make that judgement call.
Actually, I will take this one step further.
In a casual situation, such as a dinner party, I would say it is more appropriate to refer to ethnic lines using terminology such as black, white, Hispanic, ect. My black friends feel awkward when someone refers to blacks as African Americans, it's equally vexing as referring to white people as Caucasian Americans. Most people are more comfortable around the the terminology above rather than the latter. Plus, I know several minorities from other countries, and they don't really appreciate being called an African American, when they are Black Dominicans, ect. The fusion of nationality and race as the standard for political correctness is quite convoluted. Rather, when specifically referring to black in America, it is better to use terms such as Black Americans, rather than focusing so much on the origins which might not be entirely accurate, convolutes, and classifies someone based on historical basis rather than contemporary circumstances. Essentially, simple terminology is often more clear, and less likely to create tension or confusion.
Beyond inconsistencies amid language that is often termed politically correct, terminology often referred to as racist is also a concern. For instance, when Dave Chapelle or Chris Rock states cracker or n-word(see, I have to sanitize the later or I would be given an infraction!), it is no big deal. And it shouldn't. During stand-up comedy or around a group of friends, you can use these words, and essentially joking around about racial relations rather than being racist. I am sure neither of the listed comedians hates white people. However, seldom will you hear a white comedian utilize the n-word in their routines. If employed, these comedians will be vilified as a racist. Now, if a politician states, "those n-word are always starting trouble...", then it is obviously racist. The word itself doesn't establish political incorrectness, it is the context, who says it, how they say it, and for what purpose.
The group I see the most condemnation for political incorrectness is the LGBT community, probably because there exists the most political incorrectness and hostility toward the group, but this, in turn has created the everything-is-a-hate-crime complex. Meaning, when reaction to political incorrectness is magnified beyond the extent of the words incited, or situations in which political incorrectness is not explicitly employed based on the context is responded to as politically incorrect. Also, there develops a hatred and fear of others based on race, sexuality, ect. as they attribute those groups and members as being involved in their own injustices. Thus, creating more racism and tensions between LGBT and non-LGBT people.
One of my gay friends started ranting to me about how one the classes were full of a bunch of homophobes because most of them voted for Romney for president. I see this ALOT in the LGBT community, hetero-phobia, in which their is a strong distrust and apprehension of the "breeders" and their churches. The funny thing is that the vast majority of the conservatives and religiously devote members in my classes are pro gay marriage or domestic partnerships, my friend was new to the school, and made a judgement based off political-affiliation and religious affiliation rather than getting to know the student body. To castigate someone on their religious affiliation/poli ID is reckless given that it's about a 50%+ chance they support gay marriage or domestic partnerships if they attend church or are a college republican. Now, criticism of a church or the church leadership is completely different given the leadership roles and thus can be given scrutiny, and often people are unfairly attributed based off the behaviors of a select few within their membership rather than the individual's behaviors. I have exactly two friends that are Mormons, one supports gay marriage, the other domestic partnerships, but not vehemently opposed to gay marriage.
Another example, this relates to race. In my class, we were doing a word association survey. The topic was Detroit. A few responses were "Crime", "poverty" and "black", separately. One girl stood up and started ranting that the class was a bunch of spoiled white racists, when in fact, Detroit has one of the highest crime rates, poverty rates, the largest black population in the Michigan STATISTICALLY. An outburst like this is a rare observance in a university setting, but there still exists this reaction from people who have faced adversity based on their race or sexuality to condemn political incorrectness even when it doesn't exist. In fact, the only one who was racist in the situation was the girl. She essentially became a racists from her adversity, and despite her hardships is responsible for respecting other people; her disruption of the class afterward had created an atmosphere in which the class felt like they needed to speak in code when really, the issues we discuss must be discussed in a direct manner. Statistics are important in identifying problems with race in America. If it is stated that blacks are much much much more likely to be arrested and charged for a drug offense, it is an important piece of information to address rather than an offensive statement.
Well that is a bit on how proclaiming something as politically incorrect has negative implications, dare I say, politically incorrect implications. Minority and majority groups alike need to respect the bounds of their rhetoric and actions based on circumstances, and afford everyone a benefit of a doubt before castigating a person based off attribution.
