R. Crumb Speaks Out On The Killings At Charlie Hedbo

Today The New York Observer published an interview I did with Robert Crumb, on Jan 9, about the massacre of 12 people in Paris, including two satirical cartoonists.

Special thanks to the late, and greatly missed, Christine Maggiore, who connected me to Mr. Crumb many years ago.

He is one of the most vast, patient, kind and brave souls I have ever met, though he views himself as the opposite.

There is a sense now, a real sense, we all agree, of something shifting.

The collective energy is saying:

Enough.

Whatever it is, bring it, but we’re not going to live like this.

Tyranny and blood only serve to hasten the process of liberty, to wake it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

  1. R. A. Davis says:

    WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE TALKING AESTHETICS AND TASTE AS IF THESE WERE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES? DOES NOT MURDER TRUMP ALL THAT SHIT?
    IF YOU WERE STUPID AND IGNORANT OF WHAT’S GOING ON, YOU COULD BE FORGIVEN. BUT YOU’RE NOT STUPID. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN EVENT IN THE RUN-UP TO GLOBAL WAR.
    MAYBE YOU’RE JUST SCARED, SO YOU FOCUS ON IRRELEVANCIES.
    “And the poets down here don’t write nuthin at all,
    they just stand back and let it all be
    And in the quick of the night they reach fort heir moment & try to make an honest stand
    but they end up wounded, not even dead….”

  2. John Essmyer says:

    I think Mr. Crowe missed the whole point.
    “Tyranny and blood only hasten to wake it ( liberty ) up”.
    Fanatical intolerance is….intolerable. No matter who is beating their personal view drum.
    What I’m hearing are the sounds of waking up.

    • David Crowe says:

      Fanatical intolerance is intolerable. But Charlie Hedbou is also fanatical intolerance. Not to the same murderous level obviously, but it gives succor to people like Anders Breivik and can indirectly cause violence. It also helps support the killings of the French military in its former colonies overseas.

  3. R. A. Davis says:

    de gustibus andother artistic matters aside, consider the political ramifications:
    Certainly not France’s Muslim population; they are already viewed as interlopers.
    “Somebody” wants France to adopt a more anti-Muslim policy. Who is that “Somebody”?
    Cui bono?
    On US-based alternative websites, the term “False Flag” is being shouted, as loud as it was over Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon “bombing”.
    Cui bono?
    Which nation stands to gain if France turns anti-Muslim?

  4. David Crowe says:

    Like almost everybody, Robert Crumb, repeats the line, “Charlie Hebdo, they print so many insulting cartoons about Muslim extremists, you know, geez, they just kept at it, you know…but that wasn’t the only people they insulted, they insulted everybody.” But that is, in fact, the big lie. They insulted everybody, but not in the same perverted sexual way that they did to Mohammed and to the stereotypical muslim they drew (reminiscent of earlier stereotypes of Jews). Could we see a naked Virgin Mary with a gold star on her ass? Or a stereotypical black minstrel, or Jew? At least Crumb didn’t claim that they only attacked people with power, like many others have because, in France at least, muslims have very little economic, political or moral power.

Speak Your Mind