There were "blacking up" customs (I think "custom" is a better, more neutral term than "tradition") before American blackface minstrelsy.

However, I think minstrelsy assigned it's own meaning to blackface — even if the similarity to earlier customs influenced the use of minstrelsy blackface. That is, prior customs of blacking face are not irrelevant to minstrelsy, however, minstrelsy's blackface is appreciably distinct.

Blacking up, of course, went on to become a custom or performance practice of minstrelsy that was also perpetuated "just because." Most probably know that there were African-American minstrel performers who also blacked up - because it was the way one performed minstrel music.

Blacking up means several things. And the act of doing it wasn't always (and in some periods/contexts, wasn't most of the time) a gesture of racial hatred.

However, nonetheless it was largely a product of racism, no matter what the intent. And it had negative effects of a racial nature.

I think it's very possible to understand blackface minstrelsy as "simply the way it was" AND also as deplorable racism at the same time. Awareness of that has caused it to be discarded, even if the practice persisted in some enclaves where audiences did not find it objectionable (e.g. local productions, with mainly non-Black audiences). The point is that the ethics of blackface were interrogated.

The ethics of the Morris blackface can also be interrogated.

Have the Border sides performed as such in USA? Whenever I hear about them, I think about how I can't imagine their being accepted in USA. My assumption, perhaps false, is that they are able to continue in those "enclaves where audiences did not find it objectionable."

I think it is possible to do racist things without having "racist intent."

After a point, in blackface minstrelsy, performers could reasonably argue that their blacking up did not have racist intent. However, it did have (however unintended) racist repercussions. Serious repercussions.

I can understand if Morris performers are not interested in dealing with these questions. The places where and the audiences for whom they perform, possibly, allow them the "luxury" of not having to fully deal with it.

I don't object to them existing. I do think, however, that framing their practice under the magical concept of "tradition" might not be adequate if one is interested in ethics. "Tradition" makes it sound like things are inviolable and inevitable. "Custom" opens the possibility of assessing whether a change is appropriate.

I'm rambling.