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 11:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1689 words, total size 10 kb.