Something I keep trying to point out to people, and it just doesn't soak in. If you're going to analyze a movie, do it while keeping in mind the mores and social structures of the time. People _today_ look at animation from the early days and blow their stack. People _at the time_ just laughed because it was funny. "Jim Crow" was just a pun at that point. It wasn't bad taste or good taste, it was just a pun. Stereotypes were always used (and still are) in animation, vaudeville, street theatre, and yes, travelling shows like the minstrel shows. It's just that "modern" people get their feelings hurt too easily, and excessively push collective guilt.

Just as an aside, if you look at 'blackface' from the perspective that I have (of a theatre technician background), you'll realize that there were VERY obvious reasons for it. Remember, even black minstrel shows were done with blackface makeup, eventually. 1) Men wore suits unless there was a strong reason not to. You weren't taken seriously unless you were dressed. Look at pictures and illustrations from hobos and bindlestiffs during the Depression - they still carried or wore coats, no matter how torn or patched. 2) Minstrel shows and similar were like any other travelling show. They had no lights, and were often done at dusk or after dark, when people were done with their work for the day. They had lanterns, or torches, maybe a fire nearby, but no klieg lights. Not even limelight. So, they needed their expressions to show well in poor light conditions. That meant emphasize the mouth somehow, plus distinguish the torso and hands. So, black coat, white gloves, white (or light) shirt. That meant that the hand motions would be distinct, while the white shirt would give a solid point for people to watch. Makeup around the mouth would help people realize the origin of the voice. If the person wore spats (spatterdashes), or shoes with white sides, that would even distinguish the feet. (Bert Williams is a good name to research from the 'early' days of commercialized blackface) "We", those who grew up in electrified cities, with generators to light up rural concerts (Even Woodstock had electricity), tend to not think about things such as "What did you do when it got dark", or "what kind of entertainment was available in rural America in the late 1800's and early 1900's" My mother remembers a party line being installed at her home, long before they got electricity. That was in the 1950's. They had to take the batteries down to town every couple of weeks to have them changed out for new ones at the Bell store. (the telephones were crank phones. You cranked the handle, which ran a generator to ring a bell/flash a light at the operator panel in town. the batteries actually powered the phone call.) They didn't get power until the 1960's, if I recall correctly, and they were just up the mountain from the TV and radio station! (that's probably why they got it that early)

I also remember putting on performances at scout camps - it was rare that it had any light more than the fire, and often, you couldn't see the actors as anything but blurs in the dark, especially if they were on the other side of the fire itself (they were lit, but you were looking through the flames). If they were in front of the fire, then you could see their sides, but not their face.

Do I think they all realized that? No. Most were probably just taking advantage of the art form to make a buck, and put no thought into the origin of the clothing styles. Just like few people realize that bell bottoms weren't just a fashion, but made it easier for sailors to roll up their trousers to scrub salt off of the ship deck. In this case, it's an entertainment art form that's been excessively abused with the word 'racism' to the point where nobody can actually perform it without being accused of SOMETHING, whether they be black, white, or green. Yet, for 70 some years, it was very popular with blacks AND whites. Were they wrong to be entertained by it? I personally don't think so. I think they had the right to be happy as long as the entertainer wasn't being abused. (Some were, but that's the story in a lot of industries, not just in entertainment)