What has the blogosphere come

What has the blogosphere come to? I can't believe I'm going to do what
I'm about to do, which is that I'm going to sit here and write a
defense of the word "cakewalk" because Sullivan has maligned it. Fer
chrissakes. It's not like there aren't better things I could do with my
time. But, damnit, I like the word "cakewalk" and I'm not going to let
him ruin it for me. I'm just not going to. The buck stops here. Go here and scroll down. (His permalinks never freakin' work for anyone other than Instapundit.)

Apparently, it seems that there are now so many politically incorrect words out there that the New York Times has even goofed in its use of one. Sullivan quotes from a NYT op-ed:

All this fumbling has left Mr. Obama, the smooth-talking, Harvard-educated law professor from Chicago, looking like the only candidate in a race that may make him the only African-American in the Senate. Voters who don't know him yet surely will after the Democratic National Convention, where he will be keynote speaker. But it would be too bad if Mr. Obama cakewalked into Washington. Not just for Mr. Obama, who would take office with an asterisk ("*ran against incompetents"). Illinois voters deserve to see a capable opponent force him to answer tough questions and defend his positions. In other words, they deserve a nonludicrous race.

Then Sully posts an emailed-in definition of the word "cakewalk." (Apparently they don't have cakewalks in England, hence his need for defining. Why he needed someone to email it in to him, I have no idea.)

. 1. Something easily accomplished: Winning the race was a cakewalk for her. 2. A 19th-century public entertainment among African Americans in which walkers performing the most accomplished or amusing steps won cakes as prizes. 1. A strutting dance, often performed in minstrel shows. 2. The music for this dance.

Ok, now scroll further up his page, and note the alternative definition of cakewalk sent in by another reader to supplement. Then note that Sully has gone trolling on the Internet and has found examples of the minstrel show definition of a cakewalk, then says, "I don't think there's much doubt, ahem, about the racist message." Hence, of course, the implication of this whole thing is that because the Democratic Senatorial candidate from Illinois, Mr. Obama, is black, the NYT has maligned this man by using this term associated with minstrel shows from a hundred years ago. To qualify: this is what I pulled from all of this. I could be completely wrong in where my mind is leading me, but I don't think so. Of course, Sullivan never comes out and says this. He simply leaves you to wonder. It appears to me that Sullivan has chosen the more dramatic definition of the word "cakewalk" and has run with it, even without saying as much. According to the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Ed. Unabridged, a cakewalk is:

1. (formerly)a promenade or walk, of black African origin, in which the couples with the most intricate or eccentric steps received cakes as prizes. 2. a dance with a strutting step based on this promenade. 3. music for this dance. 4. Informal something easy, sure or certain. 5. to walk or dance in or as if in a cakewalk. {1860-65; cake + walk}.

I never knew that a "cakewalk" was of African-American origin. Nor did I know that this was a dance performed in minstrel shows. You wanna know what I do know about cakewalks? Just that I've been a participant in more of them than I can remember. Where I grew up it's a popular little game played at church festivals, birthday parties and the like. The variant that I grew up with goes something like this: a large circle is laid out, with squares marking where people are supposed to stand. Music is played, and you walk from square to square, while the people who run the thing take a square away each round, leaving someone as the odd man out when the music is stopped. This eventually eliminates all the contestants save one. It's musical chairs with squares instead of chairs. The last person standing gets the cake. Due to some odd twist of fate, I am good at this. I always win a cakewalk. I even won the cakewalk at my neice's birthday party last year. (I got a box of Little Debbie Strawberry Shortcake ho-ho's. Mmmm. Now watch someone blast me for using the word "ho-ho's" because it's offensive to prostitutes.) I remember going to a festival sponsored by the church in my Dad's hometown once. My parents really wanted the prize cake, and of course, I won. No skill was needed to do so, either. Hence, this experience has always led me to the definition that cakewalks are easy, because if I could win one, well hell, then anyone could. I was pleased when I learned that yes, indeedy, when someone used the word "cakewalk" to describe something, that my definition of it being an easy thing jibed with the original. Now, apparently, if you listen to what Sully has to say, "cakewalk" is a racist term, hence is politically incorrect. I think not. "Cakewalk" is simply one of those words where the meaning has changed with time. I see a cakewalk as a happy thing. Most people see it like this, I'm sure. Something fun and easy with a prize attached. Musical chairs without the chairs. With a nice, homemade cake as the prize for winning. It's never been a racist term to most of us, but the message Sullivan sends out is that the NYT is using a word with a racist meaning, hence none of us should be using it. Particularly since he came up with proof of what a cakewalk was, a hundred years ago. Why should I change my usage of this term, which is actually listed as one of the official definitons in my dictionary, because someone says there's a long-forgotten racist connection to this word? I'm not going to stop using it. Morever, I think it's ridiculous that Sullivan would throw this out there like he has, without drawing any firm conclusions. It's an overwhelming lame thing for him to do, particularly as he is---supposedly---a champion of the anti-PC movement. Yet, what he's written is completely in-line with the entire political correctness movement. He's changed things in a completely sneaky way, never saying it's right or wrong, simply pointinng out the perceived faux pas, and letting us draw our own conclusions. {Insert waggling of eyebrows here}. Well, I'm not buying it. I'm sick and tired of this kind of crap. It keeps happening over and over again, and as a result the language has morphed into something that can be used as a weapon against the user, tainting the user even if they had no idea. The idea is to shut people up. This picking and choosing of definitions and then in a de facto sort of way, banning the usage of some words because they might be considered offensive to someone has got to stop. We all need to get thicker skins. I'm assuming that I'm not alone here in having words switch definitions in midair because of "political correctness." When I was in college, in "Business English" I was reamed for automatically using the masculine instead of using "he or she" or "their". (Can you tell that this still annoys me?) It was simply what I was taught and when I called the professor on it because my grade had suffered, she simply shrugged irritably and said, "Well, you can't do that anymore. It's changed." HOLD THE FREAKIN' PHONE? I stood there, in complete disbelief that the rules of the English language had changed. It was as if someone had said you couldn't use adverbs anymore. "It wasn't in the textbook," I pointed out. "Well, that doesn't matter. You should have known because always using the masculine is sexist, so I'm not changing your grade." We went a few rounds in the middle of class on this one, and I pointed out that how the hell was I supposed to know that the way I'd been writing papers for four years in college---I'd never been corrected on it before---was now unacceptable? She stuck to her guns and said I should have known, and furthermore, as a woman, why wasn't I offended by the "blatantly sexist" usage of the masculine when referring to a person whose gender was unknown? I said I'd never thought about it. "Well, you should have. You offended me with your usage by automatically putting me, as a female, in second place." That shut me up. Thoroughly chastised and stunned, I sat back down. I should have known? How? The rules had changed somewhere between high school and college and no one had bothered to tell me. This is representative of the political correctness movement, in my opinion. I always find out too late about words I shouldn't be using anymore. And then there's always the corresponding expression of pity and condescension from the person who corrects you, who would probably tut-tut if they weren't afraid of offending you. How definitions can change automatically without some memo being sent out to those of us who aren't pointy-headed academics is beyond me. It's simply not fair and it always leads to someone being caught with their pants down, and hence looking bad, if not worse, if we didn't know about some arbitrary change of definition. Don't think this is the way it happens? Well, what do you want to bet that the next time someone uses the word "cakewalk" in a completely innocuous way, Sullivan jumps all over them and calls them a racist because of said usage? UPDATE: protein wisdom has his own take on political correctness and, as usual, it's much better than mine.

Less windy, too, even though I just edited for clarity. Like that's going to help.

Posted by Kathy at July 1, 2004 11:16 AM | TrackBack