Serious question:

>>8737649
I accept that that particular sort of racism was a historical fact and keep that in mind as I read the book.

You mean, the first paragraph?

That's not really a racist thing -- certainly not "extreme racism". It's nothing more than applying the "exotic savage" trope to the people he's seen in Africa. At worst, it's just ignorance on Roosevelt's (and the wider world's) part, nothing to cry about.

Racism would be suggesting that, because they're "savages", they should be conquered or enslaved or so on -- that their way of life should be eradicated and "updated" just because you can't understand them as they are.

>>8737698
>just because you can't understand them as they appear.

ftfy

>>8737649
People thought differently in earlier times, OP.
You must be really dense to not appreciate this fact.

>>8737649
>How should someone tackle extreme racism in late 19th century/early 20th century works?

Not sure what you mean by "tackle."

If racism in literature offends someone, I imagine they more often than not simply choose to ignore the offending work. Now, if said work were mandated by public education, that would be a civil issue.

I just don't read racist literature. I couldn't care less who does, or what their reasons for taking an interest in racist literature may be. As long as they do nothing to encroach on anyone else's rights, I won't try to encroach on theirs.

>>8737686
This

As well as laugh at how funny it is.

Last week my entire class laughed at some sexist passages.

Oldschool racism and sexism is usually too quaint and ridiculous to be taken seriously, let alone seen as a threat, by a modern reader.

>>8737649
What >>8737686 says.

If you read 19th century stuff you will find what we call casual racism and if you read 15th century stuff you find a lot of 'kill the infidel' rhetoric.

I actually hated the fact that one of my uni teachers censored the shit out of J.S. Mill making him look like a 21st century superhero rather than the person he actually was.

>>8737702
No, you broke that for them. Work on your reading comprehension.

>>8737649
A lot of rhetoric that was unremarkable then has since been moralised. That passage doesn't mean much else than that the group's infrastructure was underdeveloped and its standard of living was in various ways destitute. Let me go full /pol/ a moment: it's only triggering you because the race-topic isn't in its usual cloak of coddling, PC euphemisms - and you're frightened by the underlying hint that it's possible to think in different ways.