http://vermontreview.tripod.com/Interviews/devo.htm
VR: Going back to your early days. You were present at the Kent State shootings in 1970. How did that day affect you?
JC: Whatever I would say, would probably not all touch upon the significance or gravity of the situation at this point of time? It may sound trite or glib. All I can tell you is that it completely and utterly changed my life. I was white hippie boy and than I saw exit wounds from M1 rifles out of the backs of two people I knew. Two of the four people who were killed, Jeffrey Miller and Allison Krause, were my friends. We were all running our asses off from these motherf&*$#ers. It was total utter bullshit. Live ammunition and gasmasks – none of us knew, none of us could have imagined. They shot into a crowd that was running. I stopped being a hippie and I started to develop the idea of devolution. I got real, real pissed off.
VR: You said that the Kent State shooting sort of served as a catalyst for your theory of Devolution, which spawned Devo.
JC: Absolutely. Until then I was a hippie. I thought that the world is essentially good. If people were evil, there was justice and that the law mattered. All of those silly naïve things. I saw the depths of the horrors and lies and the evil. In the paper that evening, the Akron Beacon Journal, said that students were running around armed and that officers had been hurt. So deputy sheriffs went out and deputized citizens. They drove around with shotguns and there was martial law for ten days. 7 PM curfew. It was open season the students. We lived in fear. Helicopters surrounding the city with hourly rotating runs out to the West Side and back downtown. All first amendment rights are suspended at the instance when the governor gives the order. All of the class action suits by the parents of the slain students were all dismissed out of court because once the governor announced martial law, they had no right to assemble.
I can really identify with the experience he’s describing. The older I get, the harder it is to believe that the world is essentially good, and that there is justice in it. I feel naive and gullible for buying into that myth, which I am coming to think is propagated by those who defy it, to keep those of us who buy into it docile.
#1 by Joshua Bardwell at May 5th, 2010
Here is how he closed the Interview:
“VR: What do you do when you are not devolving and making commercials?
JC: I collect wines and try to have incredible sex. Stay away from morons, idiots and psychotic people.”
Best. Answer. Ever.
#2 by Maggie at May 6th, 2010
Yikes! I totally get “disillusionment” and “wavering,” but I don’t understand giving up. The way I see it, all the b.s. is socially constructed. This is great; because if we can build this way, we can build a different way. But I think people quickly become blinded by what they want (fast change) and forget how things usually work (baby steps, over time- often, a long time). Humans are quick to crap in our nest, and slooooow to clean it up. But that doesn’t mean we should burn the brooms.
#3 by Joshua Bardwell at May 6th, 2010
@Maggie: I don’t think I’m giving up. The things that I do in my life are the metaphorical “brooms” that I’m not burning. I just feel like I’m realizing that a lot of the things I grew up believing are bullshit, and not innocent bullshit, but straight-up lies. Like: America is a country where the rule of law reigns supreme and the police are there to serve and protect the people. I don’t think I’m having a unique experience. It’s probably pretty typical for my age.
#4 by Maggie at May 6th, 2010
I can relate to that. Perhaps we’re the same age.
There are many flaws in our system, just like every other system humans have created. What is there to do but do our best and push forward? I think every society tries to pass on its history in the best possible light. But obviously, this leads to unrealistic expectations.
#5 by Joshua Bardwell at May 6th, 2010
@Maggie: “pass on its history in the best possible light.” I attribute more sinister motivations, but I can’t really elaborate.
#6 by Maggie at May 6th, 2010
Hmm… I only said what societies try to do. Not why.
#7 by Dalice at May 12th, 2010
Hey there, I am getting caught up on your posts and I just wanted to throw in a comment. I can really identify with the misconception that “America is a country where the rule of law reigns supreme and the police are there to serve and protect the people.” I work as a nanny for a three year old girl and she is in the midst of all the childhood conditioning that goes along with that statement, and it kills me a little bit every time she talks about how good policemen are for keeping us safe, etc. I want so badly to correct her and say “No darling, they exploit minorities and enforce bullshit laws that mostly end up costing us a whole bunch of money.” But she wouldn’t get it anyway. Maybe I’ll try when she’s a little older. But I can always be rebellious with you guys online!!
#8 by Issa at May 13th, 2010
@Dalice I was a nanny for years, and I’ve pondered a lot how to tell kids about police. On the one hand, police can really fuck you up for bullshit reasons. On the other hand, most of us call the police if a crime is committed against us, and we tell kids to look for one if they’re lost. I finally settled on the idea that police are okay if *you* initiate contact with them, but you should be wary of them if *they* initiate contact with you. This seems simple enough to communicate to a child, although as a nanny, you have limited ability to modify the message even that much.