In reply to Postmanpat:
> As I've explained several times through the thread, I am starting from the premise, which appeared to be andyjonson's, that the practice does not have a "racial" origin, and asking how it should be treated in that case.
> So my question is how far people who are being, or claim to be, offended by a practice because they misunderstand the practice, should be placated. Or should they be educated instead?
I'm happy to go forwards with your assumption.
However, I think you're failing to look at it in the context of those who were offended. You're out shopping and you see a group of men, performing a well-known rural English tradition, with their faces painted black. It's begging to be interpreted in a racial context. My first thought would be "Hey, that looks kinda racist". And it might set me wondering whether Morris dancing was linked to some more sinister older tradition with racist connotations, which had generally been phased out, but in this instance was being practised by purists.
At this point someone explains to me the history and that it's not intended as imitation and I think "Ok, that's fine then, just some harmless tradition".
However, we're also ignoring the fact that to a black person who has experienced racism, there's a strong emotional response to the perception of racism directed towards them. It's too little too late to try and explain that it isn't to someone who's already deeply upset.
So yes, I think the organisers should have been aware of how it might've been perceived, and a bit more sensitive in their presentation.