Australia is an English speaking country that was part of the British Empire, and now the Commonwealth. Australia is also a neighbor of New Guinea, a country of black people who were often brought to work on Australian farms under horrible conditions. Australia also has a dark skinned indigenous population, so I'm sure the local culture understands the derogatory nature of blackface.
There is no homogenous local culture, and I don't think it's fair or accurate to equate Melanisians and Polynesians with African-Americans/British, or all 'dark skinned' people - that's a canvassing I wouldn't have expected from you, implicitly or otherwise.
I mean it's great we've dealt almost exclusively in stereotypes, but aren't those, I don't know, a foundation of racism?
To be honest, I think a lot of the derogatory nature of blackface is less about the paint, and more about how those performances were used to degrade. I can't see it being reasonable that, in of itself, a superficial skin paint is insulting.
Again, those guys at the rugby didn't go to insult someone - they went to imitate someone they admired. Someone who is in no way connected to the history of blackface.
The MJ imitation was a much better example of Australians 'not getting it' - since it was a skit that provoked comedy and is much closer to original blackface performances, IMO.
It's surprising to me that considering the genuine, current, significant racial and racist issues surrounding Australian society, government and politics, we're focusing on a visible, but near-irrelevant issue (2 dudes dressing up, unaware of the problems their costume could cause).
So does a white Australian, with no cultural knowledge of blackface, "know exactly what they are doing"?
Or don't you stand behind what you said?
Don't even bother, cognitive dissonance at work.