I detest both censorship and revisionist history.
Going through books like "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", or "Gone With The Wind", and changing "offensive" words, is tantamount to painting mustaches on "The Mona Lisa", and "The Girl With The Pearl Earring".
Yes, going forward, people need to be more cognizant of that stuff, but to go back and try to "retrofit" old books to reflect modern sensibilities is just plain WRONG.
I am 100% against such an endeavor.

Only in US are they trying to rewrite history.

I believe the word for that is censorship, and I'm personally opposed to it.

I think it is a mistake. People like Mark Twain ought to be read as he wrote his works, and teachers out to be trained well enough to explain the issues with these words to their students. If such words offends adults then they simply don't have to read these works.

I think people need to know what things were like and the books shouldn't be changed..

Totally opposed to that form of self-censoring. If we eliminated all the words that made people uncomfortable we'd hardly get a thing said or written, and what would be the point of that? And not using lynched? Are they crazy? It's a legitimate word for a specific act. What are we supposed to do when a discussion involves a lynching -- give a detailed description instead of just using "lynch"? Can't help feeling that would make people even more uncomfortable.

Bad language like that should not be used, but it should not be erased from history either. If you erased it all and cleaned up history, then centuries from now people will look back and wonder what all the fuss was about with something that was barely used.

I find certain words like this a helpful "red flag" when I talk to someone so I will know if I am wasting my time just being around or not...

I don't believe history or books from history should be changed. Would we change the Rosetta Stone? I know it isn't exactly the same, but where does it end? If someone needs to stop saying "lynched" will we then have to stop saying "lynchpin" because it has the word in it? And what about Negroid and negro as it means black in other languages?

And not to lessen the importance of words, but there are words that have been in use for years that have never been considered as having to be removed from common use in case of offense. One example is rape. Some women who have been through that horrific experience are then faced with its use in everyday life as if it's nothing when, for example, they may hear a co-worker say, "Oh, they came in and raped our department after the reorg and now everyone is devastated". It becomes a commonly used descriptor. Even in the past, we have poems, by famous writers, like "The Rape of the Lock". If we took every word that was offensive to everyone, all we'd be doing is editing for political correctness.

I believe it's impossible to correct everything that's in the past.
I think we need to be sensitive to what is current ideology and give it consideration.
And I think we need to be aware that no two people will necessarily agree on the semantics of a particular situation.

Censorship in all forms is a blight on mankind.

Well.... we shouldn't eliminate the books or the words. You know... children suffer from a lot of things. I wouldn't want to discourage them at an early age about how their own people sold them to other country men. How other country men went to their homeland and kidnapped them to work for the the people that bought them. I just don't know how to keep our children from looking at each other and thinking less of each other. Should we wait till they're older to stomach the bad things of our country men did in a selfish manner. Geeze ... i feel bad for what happened a few hundred years ago. The only positive thing out of all of this that they are slowly being accepted as equal. I see all human beings as my equil and we all have a right to enjoy our freedom. It must be noted that females feel persecuted for not being recognized. This requires changes in numerous places and levels. We also need a wage adjustment so others can survive and live a respectable lifestyle. So much needs to be done and done with love and kindness. Just thinking out loud.

NO!

I don't know where to draw the line. I love many of the Stephen Foster folk songs, but since that past is still so near I fear that to sing them as written could cause unnecessary distress while to sanitize them would ruin the songs.

I would be against that. Reminded me of some movie or show I saw where a statement was made, I hope history remembers me. The reply was, depends on who writes the history.

I think they should just run a disclaimer on page one that's kind of like what Warner Bros. does with their old cartoons. Something to the effect that there are words and images that can be offensive but that this was what people wrote/said/etc in the past and the past should be faced and learnt from, not hidden.

I do not believe in censorship

Rewriting - no.
.....
Using derogative terms for anyone isn't conducive to conversation usually.

Sometimes it doesn't sink in

If you change the wording you change the meaning and prevailing attitude of the times.
Just leave it be.

The rewriting of history is the start of an society that will be controlled by the Government.

Censoring the past is a very bad idea. Once started, it could lead to dangerous places.

I prefer to edit out silent letters.

Leave the authors work alone, But.
I've read sections of Faulkner in public settings and I fix his N words to slave or negro. I'm just not going to say it aloud. Times change.

read and learn that's all we have . on that subject watch "I ain't your nigger" a very succinct doc. describing the plight of africans in the west

I believe history in books should be preserved but also believe that the words "In God We Trust" needs to be removed from money and "under God" from the pledge of allegiance.

As appalling as it yes I tend to agree with you on this.