I agree with you, that's exactly what I mean when I say that it's missing the point.

Even when he's being "racially insensitive", he's not doing it to promote a bigoted ideology or as an easy way to fame like modern right wing comedians are doing, he's doing it for the exact opposite.

It's like being mad at Schindler for making Jews work in his factory, basically.

I firmly believe that 'Huckleberry Finn' wasn't banned for racist language: that was the excuse to ban it for teaching youth to make their own ethical choices in rebellion against an unjust society.

I was raised in a staunchly Catholic home, but it was a scene in Huckleberry Finn that helped free me from 'the Church': Huck decides that if freeing Jim would send him to hell (as he was taught) he'd far rather the company in hell.

"It was a close place. I took . . . up [the letter I’d written to Miss Watson], and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: “All right then, I’ll go to hell”—and tore it up. It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming."

well, people are often stupid, like a few centuries ago, when they misinterpreted macchiavellis il principe as an instruction for dictatorships, ignoring the essence of his discorsi as his magnum opus, while the former was just the things he saw were happening and not what he liked, but thought of empirical facts (or at least what he percieved)

Its only an insult and completely derogatory now because it was the commonly used adjective at that time. At that time it was just the word used.

I understand, but that's not exactly the point I was making.

Mark Twain, for example, did believe that black people deserved rights and deserved to be treated like white people, but he still held some beliefs that conflicted with these ideas.

I'm not saying we should completely ignore the second part to focus on the first, I'm saying we should look at the second part under the light of the first part.

If, on the other hand, he had openly argued in favor of slavery, in favor of an unjust society, then it would be a completely different situation but this is not what he did.

An other good example of this, Schindler. Schindler was antisemitic, he even joined the Nazi party, but he ended saving thousands of Jews by risking his life every second of every day.

John Brown held some racist beliefs too, but he died, hanged, trying to end slavery.

These are people of their time but they elevated themselves above it, above their misconceptions and their prejudices, to fight for what they believed was right.

This not like saying "General Lee was a man of his time", for example.

I'm not really familiar with Tina Fey's work to be honest, but is she using her work in a politically engaged manner like Mark Twain?

Because that's specifically why I'm defending Mark Twain, he was using his work for equality. He didn't used these words to diminish black people like black faces were used, he used them to promote black people, he used his work that contained some measure of racism to advocate for our rights.

That's completely different than say a modern right wing humorist who makes racist jokes to appeal to a specific audience or to promote a bigoted ideology.

Yes, that's what I said, it's missing the point

Well, hear me here.

Doing bigoted jokes because that's en vogue is not the same as doing bigoted bits to deconstruct the idea.

I'm not familiar with Tina Fey's work, as I already pointed out, but it can only be similar if her goals were similar.