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…