What I do find uncomfortable, on that note, is the actual removal of a black person from the text, which has happened twice in modern editions of the Adventure series. Jo-Jo (now Joe), in The Island of Adventure, is one of Enid's most effective and sinister villains, who happens (originally) to be a black man. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that Enid was implying that he's a villain because he's black, let alone that ALL black people are criminals. He is portrayed as being a little strange, but that is part of the story. In fact, in the original context, it's precisely because people assume he's just a bit odd (maybe with their own racial prejudices in mind) that he is able to get away with what he does without being questioned. Far from being stupid and servile, he is actually a brilliant and dangerous criminal mastermind. And yet in modern editions he's not allowed to be a bad guy and black.
(Funnily enough, the recent reprint of Island reinstates the original illustrations, which show "Joe" very clearly as a black man, even though there's now no reference to his skin colour in the text!
)In The Mountain of Adventure, I can definitely live with Sam's dreadful "me poor nigger, missy" talk being removed. I can only guess Enid was trying to imitate stories where African-Americans were portrayed as always talking in that kind of self-deprecating pidgin English. Perfectly understandable in a book that's set in the era of slavery like Huckleberry Finn; totally unnecessary in a 1940s children's book. But could they not have left him as a black man — maybe also cutting down on David's and Lucy-Ann's rather over-the-top shock at seeing a "black" face — and just given him normal English dialogue? He's an African-American who is an elite paratrooper and has been terrified — quite understandably, as we later discover — on finding out what he and his fellow troops are being asked to do in this mysterious mountain. Cut out the Uncle Tom-style dialogue and he would actually be quite a positive portrayal of a black character. But no, he's not allowed to be black. Instead, the modern edition not only removes his colour, but apparently — I don't have a copy, so can't check it — makes his dialogue full of bizarre supposed-to-sound-American talk instead!
That said, I also agree with having the original editions available too, as you say. I'd rather be aware of what the author actually wrote — "warts and all" — than have the historical text censored out of existence as if these controversies over race, gender, etc. never happened. How are we ever going to understand how society has changed over time, and how nuanced these debates really are — and yes, that's something even young readers can and should appreciate — if we don't have books from the past as they were written at the time?
