Producing a protest song was pretty challenging at first, coming up with initial ideas was tough. We didn’t know what we wanted our song to be about, we weren’t sure what we were protesting against yet. Gradually we threw around some ideas and a couple stuck. We decided there are too many people talking about how America is so much better than the rest of the world, and we personally felt this wasn’t true, so why not write a song that attempts to dispel this fiction? As a result, our song sort of became “lets list all the things wrong with America” Obviously we didn’t cover everything, but we fit a decent amount of content into our song. We didn’t focus in on any one topic, just the fact that there is an unhealthy amount of nationalism in America, and we shouldn’t be blind to our flaws.

                I would consider our protest song to be both “magnetic” and “rhetorical,” but if I had to pick one I suppose I’d choose rhetorical because it was, in my opinion, meant to change people’s viewpoints more than draw them to a particular movement. We didn’t have a super defined political message, but we were essentially trying to change peoples’ opinions about America. The first amendment allows us to write whatever we want without fear of the government punishing us, and we took some pretty clear and direct shots in this song, we called some people out. There were instances where we were pretty blunt and direct with our criticisms, and were it not for the first amendment, that wouldn’t be possible.

As for a reaction from the general public… I don’t know if we would get a reaction beyond cringing at the terrible singing, I think that’s a huge distraction from the lyrical content. If we got someone who could actually sing to record our song and then distribute it, I think we would offend a lot of people. I know there are tons of people who take criticism of America very personally and become angry. One of the things that first inspired this song was an image circulating Facebook where an image of a neo-nazi stomping a person of color’s face into the pavement in response to an image of people of color standing on the American flag in protest. It’s those sorts of people, who are so blindly nationalistic, that this song is meant to target and prove wrong. It’s meant to say “your beloved America that you foolishly worship is incredibly flawed. You try to deny it but here are some examples.”

Trololol

In soviet Russia, calling censorship “common” is an understatement. It’s not surprising that much of the music composed under those circumstances faced a lot of adversity from the USSR government. One of the most famous examples of a censored song composed in Soviet Russian is Edward Khil’s I am glad because I am returning home.

                The song was originally composed by Ostrovsky, it was meant to have a plot consisting of dangerously western ideals. The original concept was said to be this: “John on a mustang is riding across a prairie to his love Mary who is waiting for him and knitting him a woolen sock.” When this idea was explained to the staff in the recording studio, they objected, saying something with these “cowboy” themes could not be recorded and/or distributed in Russia. As a result, the song changed directions. Its new name became I am glad because I am returning home, and the “plot” behind the song was changed. It is now simply about a good mood, the official description is “A man is merry he walks and sings for himself. He is glad and everyone around him is glad.” The new theme sounds a little silly, but the song captures that feeling of Joy very effectively. There was no real need for this censorship; it was simply the result of a strict communist regime. In the end, I would argue that the whole world benefited, because the resulting song is nothing short of a masterpiece.

Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM

Sources:

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/trololo-russian-rickroll

http://www.spb.kp.ru/daily/24454.4/617512/

Drew Kompare

DCC 320.03

April 6, 2016

Professor Dumas

            The Supreme Court simulation was pretty fun, especially from the position of a justice. It was a nice critical thinking exercise, hunting for the weaknesses in the two arguments presented to me. From my perspective, it was abundantly clear where majority of the weaknesses lay, but as it came time for the simulation to end, it became apparent that not all the Justices were on the same page.

I essentially judged the arguments on their validity. Do these arguments make sense? Do they hold water? Are they logical, hard to despute? After taking a political rhetoric class last semester, I felt very qualified to evaluate any argument presented. Human Heritage also instilled a certain mentality in me, the idea that there are no right or wrong answers, simply well-argued or poorly-argued positions. Essentially, the case all boiled down to this: which side did a better job of proving or disproving that the students’ rights to free speech were violated?

I’m quite certain the whole class knows I was unhappy with the verdict… Several of the justices had no idea how court cases work. They based their decisions on irrelevant factors, like the fact that the student’s paper could make the school look bad (despite the fact that there is a disclaimer stating that the school is not responsible for the paper’s content). The justices who ruled in favor of the school did so because they felt the school’s actions were justified. The problem is, that has nothing to do with the case at hand. Nobody is asking whether the school’s actions are justified or not, the issue we were addressing was the student’s rights to free speech. As obvious as that was to me, and no matter how many times I explained it, my fellow justices still focused on the motives behind the schools actions. I said it in class and I’ll say it again, it doesn’t matter why the school did what they did, all that matters is whether or not the student’s rights were violated, and the student’s did an excellent job establishing that they did not violate any rules or policies. They were able to cite school codes that firmly established that the student’s never once stepped outside of the school’s rules, and yet majority of the justices decided the student’s rights were not infringed upon. Perhaps it’s a good thing most of my classmates don’t vote.

On a more positive note I really enjoyed this activity, it was fun to explore this complex issue as a class and examine all perspectives. It’s crazy to see how much censorship happens in a country founded on the principal of free speech, I can’t believe that even in the 80s music was under so much attack. It drives me crazy to think that in America, of all countries, there were/are organizations trying to tailor media to their values. In a free country, music and other mediums of expression were/are regulated in the name of protecting the public. The irony… 

Blog entry 3

Voices of Freedom summer… I don’t have a whole lot to say about this, especially since we’ve only done one day in class about it, but it hasn’t exactly been… fun. It feels like I experience this cycle where on a regular basis I am reminded of how unimaginably horrible this country has been in certain points of history. I’m not saying that it’s bad to be reminded, I think we should all have the most accurate picture of the United States in our heads as possible. Maybe then we can stop calling it “the greatest country in the world.” We have more blood on our hands than several other first world countries combined, and Voices of Freedom Summer is just another testament to that. I understand that that’s not the focus of this play, but I choose not to look at the play through a focused narrow lens. I can’t help but think of the big picture, of where this all fits within our countries history. It’s uncomfortable, to say the least, to sit through class and listen to these atrocities, but this is a legitimate chapter in our history that deserves attention. As awful as it is to dwell on these tragedies, it’s better than letting them fade away with time.

ONLINE READINGS

Reading the different testimonies was pretty interesting… It was kind of scary that the United States government essentially had no problem openly admitting that even though this is the United States and this country is founded on the concept of free expression/right to your own personal beliefs, they are out to find and punish Communists/supporters of Communism. They were just so blunt, so shameless about Communism being a forbidden philosophy in America… It’s clearly unconstitutional, but if there’s enough fear-mongering, it doesn’t matter.

BOOK

I think that the journalist that exposed this poor guy who was trying to live a private discreet life is a huge jerk, but I also believe that you can’t always use the law to enforce kindness. In an ideal society, readers of that article would not be shocked by the current living status of Sidis, but more shocked by the cruelness of Thurber for publishing the piece. I want to live in a world where Thurber wouldn’t have published the article in the first place for fear of being ostracized by society.

                The rest of the reading was interesting as well, hearing about this poor family that was not only was held captive by convicts, but also had their life misrepresented in a Broadway play… some strange things have happened in America! The book makes the excellent point that society needs a balance between privacy and freedom of speech. The Press must accommodate a variety of social interests. This parallels my media class I took last year, one of the biggest takeaways was that the media are very powerful, particularly the journalism aspect, and with that power comes responsibility.

CRADLE WILL ROCK

As this movie slowly began I was taking notes about the setting and general state of things (because of the great depression, the government is funding theater through the FTP). I looked up from my notes and found that we were in a room with a playwright at his piano, and thought to myself “wait a minute, has there been a single cut yet?” I started the movie over and watched carefully, the entire opening sequence was one long continuous take! Only a minute or two in and I was already impressed.

The rest of the film chronicled the struggles of several characters. Even with a huge list of people to keep track of the movie did a good job of keeping things manageable and follow-able, confusion was kept to a minimum. I found that I was somehow able to feel invested in more characters at once than I ever thought possible.

                The title is first dropped in a scene in the park where the playwright is observing a soapbox speech where the speaker yells “the cradle of power is rocking.” Soon the police arrive; we see the playwright’s perspective as he absorbs the struggle between the police and unemployed people in the park. The playwright has his eureka moment and gets arrested.

I found that the film had several scenes featuring the long tracking shots, with tons of dialogue and animated acting. There was plenty of rhythmic back-and-forth banter between characters, usually featuring very witty discourse. This all added up to create the effect of watching an actual live play, it was awesome! Other scenes feature conversations that are incredibly real, characters talking over each other and people’s comments going unnoticed made for a very relatable dinner table dynamic.

                The movie was a serious, true story, but it wasn’t without its funny moments. Bill Murray dealing with his two unteachable pupils was great, as was watching him struggle with romantic relations. Rockefeller first meeting Diego River was pretty funny, but not nearly as funny as the scene where Diego Rivera explains to Rockefeller that there are syphilis cells in his giant mural. 

Speaking of the mural, I love the climax where the destruction of the painting was juxtaposed with the peak of the play. The intercutting between the two visuals with the continuous audio from the play gave me flashbacks to The Godfather, specifically the scene where Michael becomes the literal godfather of a child in the church while the murders are carried out to make him the figurative godfather of the Corleone family.

Overall the film was fairly complex and had a lot going on, but this film treats you like an adult and relies on your ability to read it. It reminds me of when I watched Easy Rider a couple weeks ago; nothing was really said outright, the movie depends on the viewers ability to interpret it, and it’s been awhile since I’ve seen a movie like that. It makes me feel good about myself, like I’m smart or something.

Alrighty, first blog post! I just finished the reading, and I have to say, the introduction of the title of the book is pretty badass. I really like the quote, and then the author goes back to explain how he encountered the quote in his meeting with Frankfurter. Picturing the scene, the wise old Frankfurter handing this quote to Anthony Lewis, and Lewis reading it with the hair on the back of his neck standing up, it feels almost like a Daniel and Mr. Miyagi type of relationship.

The reading felt a little repetitive in the early chapters, it seemed as though it was the same story over and over again about people having their right to free speech infringed upon. It was frustrating, but it got old. Towards the end, we sort of have a protagonist in justice Holmes, and I found a little bit more entertainment in learning about Holmes flip-flopping his views and the different influences that played a role.

For the slave song segment of this blog entry, I found the song "Jimmy Crack Corn." I've heard the chorus of this song at some point in my childhood, I have no memory of the context, but after doing some research I've learned that it was a slave song that's become a children's song. Apparently this song was originally about a slave masters death and the slaves are not at all bothered by his passing away. I imagine this was a song sung by slaves, not for the purpose of conveying a message or furthering their cause, but simply because it was relatable. I assume most slaves felt no compassion for their owners.