Royston wrote:
"Don't be fatuous. There is neither accusation nor evidence that red-face disguise was taking the piss out of Native Americans, it is clearly a genuine medium for disguise and we all know it."

Not fatuous. That's exactly my point.

He continues:
"Those concerned about blackface are advocating the use of other colours, like red, as equally/more authentic and entirely uncontroversial."

But red is not uncontroversial. It may well be (indeed is) that there was no intention originally to mock native Americans. However, I would be very surprised indeed to find a morris side in the USA or Canada using solid red make up; I think they would be uncomfortable about doing so. And what about those redfaced morris dancers I have seeen wearing feathers in their hats arranged somthing like a native American headdress? Intentional or not? In the mind of the dancer or in the eye of the beholder?


Royston also writes:
"This is not the sixth form debating society, so don't start on the "what is black/red/yellow skin" nonsense. We are debating minstrelsy and related racist behaviours and we all know what we mean by "black" in that context"

Black make up is not the same colour as anyone's skin - likewise red make up, yellow make up, white make up. So we have at least two different meanings for "black" in this context. The colour black is just a colour, as is the colour red. If I paint my face black, I don't look like anyone who has ever lived. Likewise if I paint my face red. Intentions and perceptions are what make the use of a colour racist or not.

By introducing red, I was attempting to show that the question is not simply about black make up. There never have been any red minstrels, but that doesn't mean that there never will be a problem with redface.