In reviewing the Wiki history of R. Crumb I found he had done a fairly odd cartoon called "When the Niggers Take Over America" that panders to every racist stereotype possible. So much so that it’s a favorite of many white power groups.
What is this comic supposed to be exactly? Crypto-Racism? Anti-Racist Irony? Social Commentary? Crumb being Crumb? The cartoon is so unironic, and is such a perfect slice of how hardcore racists regard black people I find his explanation a bit facile.
How long till this shows up in the New Yorker?
It is satire, and anyone who thinks R. Crumb is racist is clearly completely unfamiliar with his body of work. Crumb is absolutely obsessed with blues music, has written countless comics about black blues artists, and is an avid collector and historian of the genre. He’s also married to a Jewish woman (he did another cartoon called “When the Jews Take Over America” that’s along the same lines.) Crumb is drawing on deeply-entrenched ideas and archetypes in our culture that most of us wish didn’t exist, and he takes those and shoves them in our face which is why he is considered such a transgressive artist. But he is in no way a bigot.
It was one of a pair of pieces - the other was called “When The Goddamn Jews Take Over America”. It was in issue #28 of “Weirdo” magazine, though it was titled “Verre D’eau”. The second piece concludes:
“If the whole thing’s gonna go down the toilet anyway, there’s one thing, one power that’s still in the hands of the white man - one choice, one great act of will we can still make…”
(drawing of a John Galt type telling a pleading woman “Yes - That!”)
“As we built the greatest civilization ever seen on this earth, so it’s our right, perhaps our destiny, to take it away, to destroy it utterly…Steel yourselves White men, for this great mission is now at hand!”
(Drawing of a Crusader saying “With faith, hope and love, we give to this nation and the world, the fulfillment of the Holy book of Revelations…”)
“The Apocalypse!!”
(Drawing of an atomic bomb explosion, labeled “The Big Boy”)
and it ends with:
“Our dear Lord Jesus Christ awaits us with open arms on the other side. Amen!”
If you haven’t seen both pieces in context (pages 18 through 23), you haven’t seen how it takes the insanity of racism to it’s insane, dehumanizing conclusion. Crumb is no more a racist than Swift was a baby eating cannibal.
One other piece of trivia: the editor of this issue was Crumb’s wife, Aline Kominsky-Crumb.
I am Not a fan of R Crumb as a person… his personal life, like many artists, is, to say the least, “messy”. That being said, I have read /seen much of his work.
But those panels were (and continue to be) taken out of context… they represent the base fears of racist, close minded unthinking people… In the copmplete text/storyline of the strip, this is shown.
The comic “MAUS” has many panels that could be considered pro nazi, if I selected them on their own. In light of R Crumb’s body of work, this small selection does little to portray his real ideals, vision or intent.
Its not fast food for the mind, its a feast for the soul… anyone who want’s to find offense in this “segment” is encouraged to look at the greater work of R Crumb. Then, and only then do they have the right of comment.
Taken out of context, Bob Hope could be made to look “pro Viet Cong”…
FML
FML
Read it, thought it was funny, didn’t take it seriously.
Leafing through issue #28 of Weirdo, nearly every story is about America. R. Crumb and family had moved to France by this time and Aline says in her introduction to the issue:
Basically, it’s a regurgitation of all the racism Crumb saw in the US (which presumably has a slightly different flavor than French racism). I’ve read most of Crumb’s work, and when he’s not satirizing racist beliefs, he generally portrays African-Americans in a sympathetic way - like his excellent biographical sketch of Charlie Patton
All satirists take this risk. I’ve seen Stephen Colbert excoriated for the ridiculous conservative positions he espouses. I’m sure he also has conservative admirers, just like Archie Bunker, Alex Keaton, and Rush Limbaugh. Many people either don’t get the satire, or do and don’t care. (What? You didn’t realize Limbaugh was meant to be satire?)
So taken as read that Crumb was writing satire, the question becomes did it accomplish anything? Is it like squeezing a pimple? Does bursting open help it to heal faster, or just spread the infection? Actually, I’m not sure what the answer is for real pimples, much less how well the approach works on racism.
I’ll always defend Crumb on grounds of tweaking taboos and pushing the boundaries of free expression. His approach to satire does cut to the bone at times. It’s worth mentioning, though, that Harvey Pekar–a friend and frequent collaborator–said of this piece that it’s a mistake to attribute liberal motivations to Crumb’s illiberal expressions.
While no Klansman at heart, Crumb does have impolitic thoughts about blacks, women, Jews and other protected classes of modern Western society. He acknowledges this, not with pride, but with honesty.
This piece isn’t his full view on race issues, but it is an undeniable part of a larger tapestry.
Racism or comedy? A bit of the first and a lot of the second.
