It's like Disney's The Song of the South, really. Historically important work, something that scholars and diehard fans have been wanting on their shelves for ages, but every time it gets even close to happening, the parent company decides that the potential headaches aren't going to offset the potential profits. They manage to upset people and get enough headlines for unintentionally offensive material, so they're always going to balk at the stuff that they know is going to offend people.

I think its pretty easy. One has the potential of bringing bad press to a large-scale movie investment, thereby having a possible negative impact on costing the company money.

The other does not.

As business decisions go, it could easily be worth their while to determine how the film does and if it indeed becomes a franchise before they determine whether releasing such a collection would be profitable. 

Greg Kirkman wrote: "So, I ask—legitimately, not because I actually have an “answer” and am therefore trying to offer a rebuttal to your statement—where is that line drawn? What makes some product-of-their-time books okay to keep in publication, and others not? Granted, Golden Age comics may not be at quite the same literary level as Mark Twain, but..."

Where is line drawn? Back there, behind us. We're past it now.

If DC were to reprint the Monster Society chapters as is, they would literally be repeating the mistakes of yesterday and profiting from the racist depiction of the races therein. One of the oft-cited reasons for keeping these things alive to avoid repeating those mistakes. And yet you argue that we should, what, perpetuate them now so there are less of them in the future? Or should we just, y'know, see the humor of them and be cool with it? Do you find Steamboat and Nippo funny?

Why should a black kid who enjoys the Shazam film pick up a book and find the very same subservient mushmouf stereotype that his grandparents were subjected to? Because you think it's of historical interest? You get to make that determination for him? How wise of you. How learned.

It's odd that in recent threads correspondents complain of or are warned against saying things that might paint them as racists or homophobes. God forbid anyone here should suffer being mis-characterized. 

Why, it's almost as if the manner in which people are presented in public mattered or something...

Or are we still selling it in as many shops and Barnes and Noble locations as we can? The intro will mollify a certain portion of the buying public, but there we still be those who come to the property cold and will be surprised, even perhaps, if its still permissible, offended by what they find inside. Well, their fault, right? Should have read the introduction first. 

Or, y'know, here's a wacky thought... we could just reprint some non-racist Captain Marvel stories and sell it everyone. How about that?

As noted, I don’t have an answer. Speaking only for myself, of course, I just don’t like the idea of censorship and suppression and whitewashing of history. It doesn’t sit well with me. As a (Hopefully!) rational adult, I can pick up such a book and view it with the proper historical context. Try to learn from it. Get a sense of history, with all of its ugly truth laid bare. 

I know that the same can’t be said for everyone, and that there are considerations to be had for both children and for those who would legitimately (and quite reasonably) take offense. It’s obviously a delicate matter, and I don’t have an answer. But I think it’s important not to lose sight of history, so as not to repeat it. Does reprinting history mean repeating it? I I don’t know.

I read some time ago that a controversial, scholarly reprinting of Mein Kampf sold like hotcakes in Germany, and opened up a big can of legal and moral questions.

And I wish DC would. The Archives are out of print, and chronologically reprinting the earliest, crudest stories was a pointless and self-defeating exercise, anyway. 

It is a publisher deciding that material designed for popular entertainment, specifically the enjoyment of children, no longer meets that requirement in modern times. The same is largely true of Song of the South for that matter. Like the Monster Society, it was put back into print some time ago and deemed commercially non-viable afterwards. Those reissued versions are still out there. Disney hasn't demanded their return to their warehouses under criminal penalty. The government hasn't stepped in to make certain they never see the light of day again. Nothing is being censored.

Another cycle of copies released today would likely not make money, especially not when balanced against the amount of press necessary to offset the attendant criticism. Even if it did make money, the product would still be something ugly. 

It is gratifying to hear you say that offense can still be a legitimate and reasonable reaction. Largely your arguments to date seem to characterize offense as a tool being used by horrid SJW's to attack fans and deprive society of its most treasured cultural holdings. 

As for the question of whether reprinting it means repeating it, yes, it does, with a newly assigned UPC code right there on the cover to ensure that the cash goes right into the DC and book seller's coffers. Is DC then in the business of selling pictures of racist caricatures; rubbery lips the shape of inner tubes, slanty devil eyes and buck teeth? DC has decided they aren't. 

It's strange that so many think they should be.

It's full of racist imagery?  Well, how bad is it?  How much is there?  That's sort of the point.  I'll never know.  Somebody else has decided for me that it's best I not see it.

But it HAS been reprinted already though, right?  In the Archives.  I guess I can go track those down sometime.  Expensive hardcovers that probably only middle-aged adults bought.  The material is out there, and nothing happened.  No big outcry, no children crying on the national news.

I'm reading Hemingway's "To Have And Have Not" right now, for the first time.  Well, the book Harry Morgan is a far cry from Bogart's charming movie version.  The book has racist utterances all the way through, from Harry.  Does that extend to Hemingway's thoughts and intentions too?  Does it matter?  It's historical and I want to read it.  Reading the racist language does not mean I agree with the racist language.  Am I glad it's in print and publishers didn't decide that the best thing for me was that I couldn't read it?  Yes, I'm glad.

But "Comics aren't literature!"  Aren't they?

Sometimes, censorship (even self-censorship, when overdone) has unintended consequences.