{"id":95340,"date":"2020-02-25T10:22:18","date_gmt":"2020-02-25T18:22:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?page_id=95340"},"modified":"2026-03-02T17:04:22","modified_gmt":"2026-03-03T01:04:22","slug":"lines-strings-from-academia-to-infotainment","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/?page_id=95340","title":{"rendered":"Lines & Strings: From Academia to Infotainment"},"content":{"rendered":"

(This blogpost<\/a> by Kelly Lavoie was originally published on February 22, 2020, and is reprinted with permission.)<\/em><\/p>\n

Infotainment And The Desire To Blame<\/strong><\/p>\n

There have been some important works on the subject of Peoples Temple and Jonestown in fairly recent years; books and documentaries alike. It\u2019s noticeable, however, that we still don\u2019t want to see ambiguity, especially when it comes to responsibility and blame. We\u00a0really<\/em>\u00a0don\u2019t want to accept any diffusion there. Blame is a comfy blanket. It separates us from the sad and the scary. As we slowly learn more over time, we opt not to abandon our focus on blame in lieu of better roads to understanding, but to\u00a0shift<\/em>\u00a0it. Perhaps in a more thoughtful, thorough direction than before, but \u201cWho do I blame?<\/em>\u201d is still the main thing we want to settle.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s why \u201cInfotainment<\/a>\u201d \u2013 \u201cTelevision or radio programs that treat factual material in an entertaining manner, as by including dramatic elements\u201d \u2013 is so popular. Simplistic, black-and-white reasoning that lends itself to concisely packaged storytelling makes it much easier for us to\u00a0think<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>we know who to blame.<\/p>\n

As for the deaths at Jonestown, here\u2019s what I see:<\/p>\n

Late 70\u2019s through recently: Blame the majority of adults that were there for being in a\u00a0cult<\/em>\u00a0in the first place. Or, dismiss them entirely, and blame Jim Jones, evil incarnate, for his machinations. Or some combination of the two.<\/p>\n

Now: Blame Peoples Temple\u00a0leadership<\/em>\u00a0just as much as Jones \u2013 in some ways,\u00a0more<\/em>\u00a0\u2013 for participation and complicity.\u00a0Especially focusing on the\u00a0women<\/em>\u00a0in leadership.<\/p>\n

Now, in reality, there is\u00a0<\/em>a lot<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>worth exploring when it comes to women in Peoples Temple \u2013 as a whole, it was an organization\u00a0largely comprised of women<\/a>. Black women<\/em>, mostly.<\/p>\n

But people (at least, consumers of infotainment) seem to\u00a0love<\/em>\u00a0a story about middle-class white girls \u201cgone bad.\u201d Just look at the news coverage of the \u201cManson girls.\u201d When white privilege affords middle-class white girls a default status of \u201cgood,\u201d it seems all the more fascinating when they do something wrong.[1] <\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>In case you\u2019re wondering, reader \u2013 no, I am not going to \u201cdefend\u201d the Temple leadership. But I\u00a0am<\/em>\u00a0going to suggest that a blame-oriented lens is inherently flawed, simplistic, and, ultimately,\u00a0impedes understanding<\/strong>. It can result in deeply flawed conclusions, such as those reached in the 2018 documentary,\u00a0Jonestown: The Women Behind the Massacre<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The thesis of this documentary is that the responsibility for the deaths at Jonestown falls to the women (none of the men, I guess?<\/em>) in the Temple leadership. Especially four specific women: Marceline Jones, Carolyn Layton, Annie Moore, and Maria Katsaris.<\/p>\n

Such an assessment is the documentary equivalent of clickbait.<\/p>\n

I\u2019d hoped it might explore some of the complex dynamics at work specific to women, such as white feminism and its effect on the Temple\u2019s leadership structure. This was a great opportunity to discuss such a profoundly relevant issue.<\/p>\n

There was basically no exploration of the interplay of race and gender other than the obligatory mention of Jim\u2019s predilection for affairs with young white women. He liked sex with white women, he liked sex with his staff, therefore his staff was predominantly white, end of story.<\/p>\n

Probably because a complex discussion of race and gender dynamics, one that does not\u00a0exclusively<\/em>\u00a0focus on sexual intrigue, doesn\u2019t make for tawdry, interesting \u201ccharacters\u201d to marvel at.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s easy to work around the fact that a\u00a0documentary<\/em>\u00a0is meant to be about that pesky \u201creality\u201d thing, the thing that is complicated and messy and hard to sort out. Easy when we consumers of infotainment are so eager for someone to blame, for a \u201creal-life\u201d macabre soap opera.<\/p>\n

I say \u201cwe\u201d very deliberately \u2013 I\u2019m in the true crime community to some extent. I know how easy it is for people, especially ones who hurt others in whatever way, to become a character, a \u201cvillain,\u201d more than a real human.<\/p>\n

It\u00a0shifts<\/em>\u00a0that blame and dismissal rather than asking questions about the broad, complex forces that truly did lead to the deaths \u2013 political, racial, gender, emotional, psychological, and spiritual dynamics, all overlapping and interacting to create a confluence of events so much larger than any specific handful of women, or any one man.<\/p>\n

That does not mean I think the harmful things that individuals did are okay. Not at all. But, it\u2019s not for me to absolve or blame anybody for anything. I\u2019m about understanding what happened and understanding who they were, every last one, to the extent that I possibly could. And if you want to understand,\u00a0blame gets in the way<\/em>.<\/p>\n

A New Spin On A Pre-Existing Lens<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Women Behind the Massacre<\/em>\u00a0presents an extra \u201cjuicy\u201d story, involving young women having sex with a much older married man, basically in exchange for power and personal affirmation. But this framing takes no account of\u00a0many<\/em>\u00a0relevant factors. In attempting to portray a perspective that is \u201cnew\u201d and \u201cunique,\u201d specific points of view (even specific\u00a0pieces<\/em>\u00a0of specific points of view) are heavily emphasized, while other views and many facts are consciously excluded.<\/p>\n

The focus of blame on four particular women stemmed from the ideas put forth in Dr. Mary McCormick Maaga\u2019s 1998 scholarly work,\u00a0Hearing the Voices of Jonestown<\/i><\/a>.<\/p>\n

To be clear, Dr. Maaga did not specifically place responsibility on the four said individuals in her book. She posited that white female leadership in Peoples Temple were acting with agency by sleeping with Jim Jones in order to accomplish their personal goals (whether social justice or personal power) and to gain a sense of affirmation. And that Jim Jones was not all-powerful; others played significant roles in what happened. There was a focus on understanding where some of the leadership were coming from, what was personally motivating them (that<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0<\/em>part, I am all for<\/em>).<\/p>\n

I do not agree with all of Maaga\u2019s assertions for a variety of reasons that I will detail in this post. However, I think it is important to point out that Dr. Maaga\u2019s work is very thorough and informative. I\u2019m going to hammer a lot of points that she made in\u00a0The Women Behind the Massacre<\/em>, but her book was not as simplistic as this documentary. Her interviews were cut up just like everyone else\u2019s, I\u2019m sure.<\/p>\n

Even though I\u00a0do<\/em>\u00a0take issue with her summation of Jim Jones\u2019 leadership circle, in\u00a0<\/em>both<\/em>\u00a0her book and this documentary, I found that the documentary presented the most simplistic and misleading framing, using her ideas as a springboard. I find her efforts to have been a sincere attempt at understanding, whereas the documentary was driven by the demands of the entertainment industry.<\/p>\n

Misleading Assertions<\/strong><\/p>\n

First of all, Annie Moore was not Jim\u2019s mistress, as she is presented to be in\u00a0the synopsis<\/a>. I obviously have no idea if she ever slept with him or not, but her primary role was that of his nurse. Casually referring to her as his mistress is sloppy, sensationalist journalism, and it is sexist. The only reason a fact like that would be \u201coverlooked\u201d by professionals is because it sounds more salacious and fits into the crafted narrative neatly.<\/p>\n

Secondly, Marceline Jones is presented as a\u00a0silent<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>contributor to the deaths. While she\u00a0was<\/em>\u00a0complicit in a great deal of what\u00a0led up to<\/em>\u00a0the events, there are 1.) mitigating factors to consider, and 2.)\u00a0glaring<\/em>\u00a0reasons to believe that she was absolutely opposed to the plans for everyone to die.<\/p>\n

Marceline could have left, and could have probably even left with her children. But she would have lost all these people with whom she had been living her life for over a decade. And it would\u2019ve meant losing this possibility to bring about a transformation in the world.<\/p>\n

At that point [when Jim first states, on November 18, that now was the time they\u2019d have to die], perhaps there still would have been a moment where Marceline Jones might have stood up and said, \u2018Let\u2019s not do this.\u2019 I think Marceline\u2019s role in legitimizing the cult of suicide was in her silence. I really do think that she was, herself, so exhausted from all these years of having no privacy, no resources of her own, sharing her husband with the women of the community, seeing that this ideal had become instead this insular, paranoid, violent community, that I think she didn\u2019t have it in her to fight anymore.<\/p>\n

Maaga, \u201cJonestown: The Women Behind The Massacre\u201c<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Although this documentary presents these opinions as if they were facts, they are based on one perspective, one interpretation of\u00a0some<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>of the information. Several other perspectives, including those of people who lived it, assert the exact opposite when it comes to Marceline.<\/p>\n

She technically could have left, but the implication that she could have done so\u00a0easily<\/em>\u00a0is not backed up by what we know.<\/p>\n

Marceline\u00a0had<\/em>\u00a0attempted to leave Peoples Temple. She was threatened, told she would never see her children again if she did. In 2020, we know that\u00a0using children to make threats against a partner is a form of coercive control and emotional abuse<\/a>. When abused women end up dead, do we typically say \u201cShe should have just left?<\/em>\u201d\u00a0We don\u2019t, because we realize that it is so much more complex than that.<\/p>\n

Also important to note \u2013 abused women sometimes participate in harmful, negative behavior, even criminal behavior, things they would have never normally done, at the behest of their abusers (Moe, 2004). Happens all the time, unfortunately.<\/p>\n

In addition to the stated threats against Marceline and her children, there were\u00a0influences<\/em>\u00a0on her decision making that held a great deal of weight. Her mother, clearly unaware of just how dire the situation would become, urged her to stay in the marriage, to maintain some sort of family unit, to try to make things work with her husband.<\/p>\n

This is in addition to the clear pattern of gaslighting that she experienced from Jim and others in the Temple, all\u00a0insisting<\/em>\u00a0that Jim\u2019s affairs were benevolent gestures and that\u00a0she<\/em>\u00a0was emotionally unstable.<\/p>\n

When Marceline\u2019s parents later visited her at Jonestown, her mother would retract that advice, disturbed at Jim\u2019s condition and state of mind. But Marceline felt it was\u00a0too late<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>for that, and told her mother so.<\/p>\n

It is clear that her reasons for being complicit up to a point are complicated and changed over time. An equation of factors. Perhaps losing her community and the opportunity to change the world played some role in her staying at first. But even then, she was concerned about the welfare of her children, and she was being told by people she trusted\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0to trust her gut.<\/p>\n

By the end, unambiguously, she remained because her children and grandchild were there. She had tried to extricate her teenage son Stephan in multiple ways \u2013 getting him an apartment in the U.S., slipping him money and travel documents in Jonestown.\u00a0These are the actions of someone who knows it would be best to leave, but feels powerless to openly do so.<\/p>\n

Marceline<\/em>\u00a0was heading up the community\u2019s meetings in its last days, trying to reassure everyone that things would be okay, as Jim was hidden away in a drug-addled state.\u00a0This was her attempt to take the reins and see them through Congressman Ryan\u2019s visit without anyone being hurt, without anything drastic being done. She wanted Ryan\u2019s visit to be successful \u2013 for him to come away satisfied, and for no one to die or kill.<\/p>\n

Now, one might look at that and see her as a villain trying to hide the same things that Jim wanted to hide \u2013 abuse, coercion, keeping people there against their will. But I don\u2019t think she wanted to hide these things to save herself or preserve her power, and here\u2019s why\u2026<\/p>\n

In plain view of staff at Jonestown, the day before the deaths, she chastised Jim for his paranoid words and actions, for the drugged-up state that he was in. She chastised the staff for listening to him when he was clearly losing touch with reality, clearly lost to the drugs he was addicted to.<\/p>\n

She knew that things were not okay at Jonestown, make no mistake. But she knew that Jim would not stand for losing face. So, she felt the way to fix the problem was to get through the public scrutiny unscathed and address the problems internally. She may have even thought, as some survivors did, that he would die soon from his addiction.<\/p>\n

She seemed to feel that Jim was the main obstacle to the least harmful result; ultimately, she was not entirely wrong. The same can be said for others in the leadership, according to several memos (like\u00a0this one<\/a>, from Richard Tropp, or\u00a0this one<\/a>, from Gene Chaikin, for example) and survivors.<\/p>\n

This documentary implies that the leadership were a monolith, but they were\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0all on the same page, not even close.<\/p>\n

In fact, Carolyn Layton referenced Marceline\u2019s disapproval of the death idea in a memo to Jim.<\/p>\n

You have always seemed sure that we could do away with ourselves and the babies we are worried about. Yet, each time MJ [Marceline Jones] gets totally freaked out at this and I have not seen you yet consider it without letting her know which under different circumstances she has a right to be informed and a part of.<\/p>\n

\u2013 Carolyn Layton\u2019s Analysis Of Future Prospects\u201d\u00a0<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Getting \u201ctotally freaked out<\/em>\u201d is neither a sign of\u00a0silence<\/em>\u00a0nor approval.<\/p>\n

Survivor accounts also suggest that Marceline\u00a0fought<\/em>\u00a0as the children were poisoned,\u00a0physically restrained<\/em>, begging for them to stop. So, people wondering why nobody tried to rush up, fight, resist? Marceline\u00a0did<\/em>\u00a0fight until the tragedy was too much to bear. Seems she\u00a0did<\/em>\u00a0have it in her to fight at the end.<\/p>\n

And, beyond worth noting, so did<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>Poncho Johnson<\/em><\/a>, who tried to fight the men who were putting their hands on Marceline. For his brave intervention, he was forced to drink the poison immediately, according to witness accounts. And of course we know that<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>Christine Miller<\/em><\/a>\u00a0<\/em>stood up to Jim as best she could. I don\u2019t know why people still sometimes seem to assume there was no resistance.<\/em><\/p>\n

Marceline\u00a0did not<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>plan or approve of the poisoning, and it is a deeply misleading simplification to suggest that she and only three others bear the brunt of responsibility for the deaths.<\/p>\n

Dismissing Sexual Abuse And Manipulation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The minimizing of sexual abuse and manipulation through generalizations made with little evidence to back them up is a major theme in this documentary. Information that demonstrates the\u00a0lack of agency<\/em>\u00a0of multiple women was omitted, while facets of Dr. Maaga\u2019s opinion are presented as all-encompassing fact.<\/p>\n

Some of these women slept with Jim Jones so that they could have influence over him. That the power actually flowed both ways.<\/p>\n

Maaga, \u201cJonestown: The Women Behind The Massacre\u201c<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Maybe<\/em>\u00a0so, for certain women.\u00a0It is easy to suggest this about, say, Carolyn Layton, who obviously held a great deal of power in the Temple organization.<\/p>\n

But since we can only speculate, we could just as easily speculate that she was in love with Jim based on many letters from her to her family. Couldn\u2019t that have been a driving force for her? Or the fact that she was the mother of Jim\u2019s young son, Kimo? It is not possible to be sure.<\/p>\n

It is not a\u00a0fact<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>that anyone slept with Jones \u201cso that they could have influence over him.<\/em>\u201d Purely speculative, and not firm enough ground stand on in terms of saddling four specific people with the responsibility for over 900 deaths. It is unprovable that people such as Carolyn were driven to sleeping with Jones by their desire to effect social change or gain power.<\/p>\n

Not only that; I find it irresponsible that this documentary, by\u00a0omission<\/em>\u00a0of any perspective other than a single opinion, suggests all of the women who slept with Jim did so for some form of personal gain or furthering an agenda. Or even that they all did so entirely\u00a0willingly<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0very young<\/em>\u00a0women who were\u00a0clearly<\/em>\u00a0preyed upon are disregarded in this framing, some of whom certainly were part of the leadership circle. Deborah Layton immediately comes to mind, who detailed Jim\u2019s predation of her in her book,\u00a0Seductive Poison<\/a><\/em>.\u00a0Shanda James<\/a>\u00a0was drugged into submission when she chose to refuse him.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m sure there were more, since his position of power was\u00a0innately coercive<\/em>, especially to younger, more impressionable people.<\/p>\n

Maria Katsaris, one of this documentary\u2019s \u201cbig four,\u201d was\u00a0barely<\/em>\u00a0an adult when she first slept with Jim. Just 18 when he coerced her into a physical relationship. That is not just speculation; the lead-up to an early encounter between them was unwittingly overheard by a young Stephan Jones, one of Jim\u2019s sons. Jim manipulated her guilt (guilt that he imposed upon her) and her deference to him as the Temple\u2019s leader. She was pursued by him, not the other way around.\u00a0<\/strong>This portion of Stephan\u2019s interview for the documentary was cut<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n

That was not a woman who, with\u00a0full agency<\/em>, was choosing to use sex to manipulate a powerful political and religious figure to gain prestige and effect social change. That was a malleable\u00a0teenager<\/em>, an adult only by arbitrary legal measure of the difference between 17 and 18. The age and gender difference between them creates an inherent power differential, not to mention the fact that he was the end-all authority of the organization that she was a part of. And remember, Jim Jones successfully played much older and more experienced people than Maria.<\/p>\n

For these reasons, I am not comfortable\u00a0<\/em>singling her out<\/em>\u00a0in responsibility for the deaths on the assumption that she was some sort of power-mad seductress, as this documentary presents her. She\u2019d been sexually manipulated, arguably abused, for\u00a0years<\/em>\u00a0by that point. While that doesn\u2019t absolve her of her role (and it\u2019s not for me to absolve, anyway<\/em>), I find it very relevant.<\/p>\n

He began serving them instead of the other way around.<\/p>\n

Maaga, \u201cJonestown: The Women Behind The Massacre\u201c<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Who is \u201cthem,\u201d first of all? The entire inner circle, or just the four people this documentary declares responsible? The women only? There were more women than just these four in leadership. Also, no men?\u00a0Remember, there were, in fact, some<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>men<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>in the inner circle.<\/em>\u00a0And men did the shooting on the airstrip, and a man figured out how to mix the cyanide\u2026<\/p>\n

The inner circle, even some\u00a0<\/em>outside<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>the\u00a0really-inner<\/em>\u00a0circle, were making decisions about Jonestown\u2019s everyday functions while Jim was high. Doesn\u2019t change the fact that Jim wielded ultimate authority. There are even some memos that suggest his micromanagement of day-to-day matters, such as\u00a0this one<\/a>\u00a0from Harriet Tropp, who was irritated with his poor logistical decision making.<\/p>\n

This documentary highlighted the story of Jim\u2019s \u201cfake kidnapping\u201d idea, which Maria, Carolyn, and Stephan Jones quietly put a stop to \u2013 Why would they have to\u00a0finesse<\/em>\u00a0situations like that to prevent them from happening if Jim\u00a0served<\/em>\u00a0Maria and Carolyn? Why couldn\u2019t they just veto a plan like that openly?<\/p>\n

Because Jim wasn\u2019t\u00a0serving<\/em>\u00a0anyone but his addiction at that point. The women on his staff who left near the end \u2013 Deborah Layton and Teri Buford \u2013 were clearly very frightened of him, clearly\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0\u201cserved by\u201d him.<\/p>\n

The generalization is\u00a0dismissive<\/em>\u00a0of abusive dynamics that existed between Jim and multiple women he was involved with.<\/p>\n

As Dr. Rebecca Moore pointed out,<\/p>\n

To suggest that four women alone were \u2018behind the massacre\u2019 is as ridiculous as saying Jim Jones was responsible for the whole thing. What about the men at the airstrip: do they bear no responsibility? It was a group effort\u2014from planning, organizing, arranging, administering, and ending things. Unfortunately many people were involved in effecting the last days of Jonestown.<\/p>\n

Moore, Q & A<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Infotainment Industry Is Shady<\/b><\/p>\n

There are a few things worth mentioning concerning the interviews for this documentary:<\/p>\n

Several of the people whose interviews are used \u2013 nearly everyone who appears in the documentary, in fact \u2013 expressed to me that their words were misrepresented through cutting and editing. And that the way it was initially presented to them was\u00a0entirely<\/em>\u00a0different than the final product.<\/p>\n

The consensus among those I spoke with is that the producer from\u00a0Every Hill Films<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>who developed relationships and trust with interviewees initially was somehow overruled well into the project \u2013 it was sold to\u00a0A&E<\/em>, who apparently demanded the flawed and sensational framing of the story. By that time, they already had their interviews and the freedom to edit them as they chose.<\/p>\n

Dr. Rebecca Moore, scholar and sister of Carolyn Layton and Annie Moore, said of the experience:<\/p>\n

In a nutshell, I think what happened (or hope what happened) is that the initial producer was telling me the truth when he said that he was working on a documentary about women in Peoples Temple. It took him about a year to persuade me to participate in the documentary, but he did his homework, read things I had written, and appeared sincere. At some point along the way, he dropped out of sight and another producer, or producers, took over. I learned only by chance about the title of the program, and realized that the documentary was not what I had signed up for. I was told by the current producer that A&E required or demanded a sensationalistic title, so it wasn\u2019t her fault. But the reality is that the title was quite accurate in describing what the documentary was about. It was about the women purportedly behind the massacre. But it wasn\u2019t about women in Peoples Temple.<\/p>\n

That was a bad experience for me. Not just because my sisters, and others, were repeatedly called murderers and masterminds, but because I felt I had been duped into participating in a program I would never have agreed to had I known how the story was going to play out. To suggest that four women alone were \u201cbehind the massacre\u201d is as ridiculous as saying Jim Jones was responsible for the whole thing. What about the men at the airstrip: do they bear no responsibility? It was a group effort\u2014from planning, organizing, arranging, administering, and ending things. Unfortunately many people were involved in effecting the last days of Jonestown.<\/p>\n

Moore, Q & A<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

A point that I find especially egregious is the omission of Jim Jones\u2019 sexual predation of teenage Maria Katsaris. Because they wanted to include her as one of four specific women who, they posit, manipulated Jim Jones in exchange for power, they chose to cut from their footage a piece of information that perhaps could have humanized her\u00a0too much<\/em>\u00a0for their purposes. Regardless of how one feels about blame \u2013 even if you hate Maria for her role \u2013 should a woman who was preyed upon be portrayed as nothing more than an obsequious tart?<\/p>\n

I have no doubt that this sort of thing happens all the time in \u201cthe biz.\u201d Stuff being left out, people\u2019s words being twisted. That doesn\u2019t make it any less shitty. These people they got interviews from are human beings, not conduits to satisfy our voyeuristic fascination\u2026 or to make\u00a0A&E<\/em>\u00a0some money.<\/p>\n

Don\u2019t take any one source as the end-all, readers. Especially when there are entertainment industry-driven factors in the mix influencing and altering the final product, as is the case for\u00a0Jonestown: The Women Behind the Massacre<\/em>.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cAnalysis of Future Prospects,\u201d<\/a> FBI Document RYMUR 89-4286-X-3-e-32a \u2013 X-3-e-32e.<\/p>\n

Bellefountaine, M. (2013) \u201cChristine Miller: A Voice of Independence.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cChildren as an Abusive Mechanism\u201d (Aug. 29, 2014)\u00a0National Domestic Violence Hotline<\/em>. Retrieved from\u00a0https:\/\/www.thehotline.org\/2014\/08\/29\/children-as-an-abusive-mechanism\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cHarriet Sarah Tropp Memo on Uglification of Jonestown\u201d<\/a>. FBI Document RYMUR 89-4286-EE-2-S-13A \u2013 EE-2-S-13B.<\/p>\n

Jones, S. (2019-2020) Personal Communication.<\/p>\n

Jones, S. (2005) \u201cMarceline\/Mom\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cJonestown 1978 Poncho Johnson.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0Peoples Temple\/ Jonestown Flickr.<\/em><\/p>\n

Kohl, L. J. (2019) Personal Communication.<\/p>\n

Layton, D. (1999)\u00a0Seductive Poison<\/em>. Anchor.<\/p>\n

Maaga, M.M. (1998)\u00a0Hearing the Voices of Jonestown<\/i><\/a>. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.<\/p>\n

\u201cMemo from Dick Tropp, May 1978.\u201d<\/a> FBI document RYMUR 89-4286-EE-1-T-64 \u2013 EE-1-T-65.<\/p>\n

Moe, A. (2004). “Blurring the Boundaries: Women\u2019s Criminality in the Context of Abuse.”\u00a0Women\u2019s Studies Quarterly<\/em>, 32(3\/4), 116-138. Retrieved February 16, 2020, from\u00a0http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/40004583<\/a><\/p>\n

Moore, R. (2017) \u201cAn Update on the Demographics of Jonestown.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

Moore, R. (2019) Personal Communication (Q & A accessible\u00a0here<\/a>, or\u00a0here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Rittenmeyer, N. (2018)\u00a0Jonestown: The Women Behind the Massacre<\/em>. Broadcast:\u00a0A&E<\/em>. Production:\u00a0Every Hill Films<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cUndated letter from Gene Chaikin.\u201d<\/a> FBI document RYMUR 89-4286-EE-1-C-10 ff.<\/p>\n

Vilchez, J. (2019) Personal Communication.<\/p>\n

Yates, B. (2013) \u201cMurder by Thorazine: A Look at the Use of Sedatives in Jonestown.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

Notes<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> It was rightly pointed out to me after publishing that the previous two paragraphs could be construed as implying that black women ought to have more focus in terms of blame<\/em>. I want to be extremely clear: since black women made up such a large portion of Peoples Temple, I find it a testament to white privilege that an unbalanced proportion of the curiosity, inquest, and analysis of what happened tends to center around white women. This is absolutely not because black women members of Peoples Temple should shoulder more of the blame, but because black women members deserve deeper understanding. That is what my statements above were in reference to. Thank you to the person who pointed out the need for clarification here.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(This blogpost by Kelly Lavoie was originally published on February 22, 2020, and is reprinted with permission.) Infotainment And The Desire To Blame There have been some important works on the subject of Peoples Temple and Jonestown in fairly recent years; books and documentaries alike. It\u2019s noticeable, however, that we still don\u2019t want to see […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":89456,"menu_order":9,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-95340","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/95340","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=95340"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/95340\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":134653,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/95340\/revisions\/134653"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/89456"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jonestown.sdsu.edu\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=95340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}