Well, I would recommend reading the editor's introduction to the new edition. From what he says, it does sound as if he has encountered a signficant amount of African-American objections to the book's language.
Thanks for that, votd. I don't have a source for this, but while I was discussing this with a friend, she told me that Lawrence Hill's Book of Negroes was published in the US (and Australia) as Someone Knows My Name. Apparently, at first Hill thought this was just offended bourgeois liberal sensibilities and fought the publisher over the change; but after talking to African-American activists in the US who also objected to the name, he relented. As can be imagined, it's a frought word everywhere, but particularly so in the USian context. The NAACP has tried to have Huck Finn banned for the word, for example.
Catchfire, do you have a source for your assertion that this word was not considered fine or simply colloquial when Twain wrote? I'd be very interested to see a discussion of that question. Either way, it certainly affects the interpretation of the work.
The OED cites instances of the n-word as "hostile" when used by non-blacks as early as 1775, and "depriciatory" by blacks as early as 1834. It also cites usage by American blacks as a favourable term as early as 1831, suggesting that the move to "reclaim" the word was already underway. I'd say the social and historical complexity of the word was already in forceful effect.
Does anyone else find it odd that there are people out there who think that constantly referring to Black people as "slaves" is a progressive move?
Yes! I had the exact same thought. Why is "slave" less offensive than "nigger"? Particularly in the historical context when Jim actually was a slave.
I do think it's important to point out that while I don't support sanitizing this book (one of my all-time favourites), I also have never encountered the n-word-as-insult in my lived experience, so I don't think I fully comprehend its potency.