That's not at all to disagree with the article, I think changing art of the time is very misleading, if you don't want to read such things, just read newer books.
Do we? It seems like racial tensions are higher than they've been during my lifetime because there's a grievance culture explicitly focused on race instead of treating people as individuals based on their merits. By the standards of today, MLK's request to treat people based not on the color of their skin but the content of their character is rejected as racist.
Civil rights movement -> equality under the law of all Americans (with later protections under affirmative action actually giving minorities a modest advantage in some situtions)
What hoped for outcome is being sought now? "Give me money because things aren't fair" isn't a change in law or status, it's grievance politics that has no logical end.
Disparate outcomes aren't proof of social injustice; disparate outcomes are proof of disparate behavior.
I just don't see bridge building taking place in the current approaches.
My argument is that we should not conceal history because our responses have generally improved over the course of history (and will continue to improve in the future). History serves as a reminder that we must remain humble and open to further progress.
I agree with you in the changing of art, I would not change them but rather label or restrict to adults, so they serve us as what they are: pieces of history to learn from.
Some slaves who were teachers or artists were also probably happier and more respected than a lot of "free" people of today.
I'm obviously playing devils advocate here, but as I said in another comment: we always think we've figured things out better than the people before us.