if you read something which challenges your own personal beliefs to the point that you wish it censored or banned, then perhaps you should instead examine the strength of your own beliefs.
It could just as easily be argued that if you read something which is seen by so many to be offensive, out-dated and out-moded, but aren't
moved to change, you too should examine the strength of your belief...
As has been said before, not having something because it has ceased to be suitable for the age we live in isn't censorship or banning in the sense you are implying: it is "banning" in the sense that drinking and driving were not immediately seen to be a problem, but, as time has moved on, society has deemed the two to be incompatible with safe, fair and equitable life for the many, and made drink driving an offence (in most places - there may be exceptions). The "right" of an individual to drink and drive was seen to be less than that of the right of society not to have to live with the offence. Same with racism, be it passive, aggressive or by omission.
I've also said before that not publishing something isn't the same as censorship at all: the majority of all books ever written are *not in print* today. That's just time moving along, and leaving a lot of stuff behind.
If one might want to make a case that Congo
should be valued as an indicator of colonial mores of the past, that's fine - but one can't then claim to also like/ admire/ enjoy it as a book/ story: that would mean that it still has currency, and isn't
being used to illustrate the way things were, or treated simply as a "period piece".Congo
will always be available for academic study/ social discourse/ examination in libraries and collections, along with the trophies of colonialism, and the artifacts of the slave trade. That's also fair enough.