rahman vanessa joshua

on RUSSIANS.

click here.

TRANSCRIPT

Rahman: This song, Russians, by Gordon Summers (more commonly known by his stage name, Sting, was written in 1985, during the Cold War.

Rahman: Why did we choose the poem?

Vanessa: We chose it mainly for the Cold War aspect of the poem, something that our group takes great interest in. Furthermore, the themes are similar to our literature text, 1984, and we hope that through this pod cast experience, we can refine our understanding of it.

Joshua: The main themes in the poem are the emptiness of words, the divisiveness of ideology and the sanctity of human life.

Rahman: First off, the emptiness of words can be seen through Summer’s use of political imagery and diction. For example, “We will bury you,” is an allusion to a comment made by Krushchev with reference to triumph of communism over capitalism as an economic system, which was an inaccurate assessment by Krushchev.

Joshua: Krushchev was attempting to intimidate and impress the President of the United States when he made the comment. The comment was largely unfounded as the Soviet Union was lagging behind the United States already by a great amount.

Vanessa: This would show that the statement was completely baseless and contributes to Summers’ theme of the emptiness of words as after all, Krushchev’s prophecy proved to be far from the reality and it was the United States that eventually buried the Soviet Union.

Rahman: Also, the mention of “no such thing as a winnable war” shows the oversimplification of the consequences of war, that there is a clearly defined boundary between winning and losing. This is to say that Summers’ intention was to show that in war, neither side ever has a clean victory.

Vanessa: This is also irony in the choice of words, since neither side has a clear victory yet he uses ‘winnable’ instead of an alternative.

Joshua: Next, the danger of political divisiveness is portrayed by Summers through the use of war imagery.

Rahman: One example would be in the line, “How can I save my little boy from Oppenheimer’s deadly toy”. Oppenheimer’s deadly toy is a reference to the nuclear bomb. Let’s pass our time to our History associate.

Joshua*: Oppenheimer was a scientist involved in the creation of the nuclear bomb in World War 2. Thus, his deadly toy would refer to the nuclear bombs created in the aftermath of World War 2 and during the course of the Cold War.

Rahman: Thank you, Professor Munk. From this, we are able to see that the associations with Oppenheimer’s deadly toy are nuclear holocaust. Through this, Summers states that the danger of political divisiveness is in essence, the end of the world.

Vanessa: Further elaborating on this particular line, it also shows the sanctity of human life, through the use of diction. The desperation of the persona can be seen through the word, ‘save’.

Joshua: The word, ‘save’ carries with it the connotation of the imminent danger, which the persona foresees but feels helpless to forestall. This in turn, displays the extent of the persona’s concern for the child.

Vanessa: Then, one must look at what the little boy represents. The little boy represents life and the future of the human race. As such, the concern of the persona for the little boy translates to a deeper fear of the end of humanity. The implication that we are all in danger of a nuclear holocaust is brought out here.

Joshua* I would like to point out at this juncture that the little boy, also carries a significance in its name as it plays on the association of the nuclear bomb as well. Little boy was one of the two atomic bombs that ended World War 2. I will now pass the time over to fat man, RAHMAN!

Rahman: Thank you, Professor Munk. Though I must insist on professionalism here. The significance of this second association with little boy, is an ironic play on words. Although the toy and the boy seem completely separate at first glance, they are on another level the exact same thing. This would contribute to the idea of the emptiness of words, as the interpretation of little boy alone is open to two completely separate meanings

Vanessa: Another theme which is prevalent in this poem is the illusion of division which ideologies perpetrate. This is seen by the symbolism in the poem. For instance, the Russians are juxtaposed with Europe and America. In essence, the Russians are the representation of a foreign entity, while Europe and America represent the norm, or that which is familiar.

Joshua: This is due to the context of the symbols. Russians bring forth the ideas of communism and the Soviet Union. This association, in Summer’s Westernised background is therefore a negative one, due to inherent biases within the capitalist democracies towards communism. Similarly, being raised in the West, Summers gave the persona a Western perspective, which viewed itself as the norm, in essence, Europe and America.

Rahman: However, following this symbolism, the repeated chorus of “We share the same biology/regardless of ideology” is a direct criticism of this illusion of difference. Similar comparisons, such as Mr Krushchev against Mr Reagan are debunked by this statement.

Vanessa: In conclusion, Summers’ Russians amplifies the problems of society during the cold war, and the ways in which politics and words can obscure the fact that we are all human, and depend on the same things for survival. Russians is a poignant reminder of the danger we face with political rhetoric and the nuclear threat which gripped the world during the Cold War. It’s impact can be felt even today, even with the War but a distant memory for some, and already an event in modern history.

Joshua*: This is Professor Munk, for the last time, thank you, and goodbye!