Jump to content

Talk:Angela Davis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 137.205.24.53 (talk) at 02:10, 2 February 2010 (→Germany). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


gay

Germany

"Faced with THE racism of THE West Germans"... Who wrote this nonsense?

Stop accusing Germany of racism, just look at USA, there you have THE racism! Hmm.. garbage replaced with garbage, who woulda known!?? RMartinez
She had a very hard time finding an apartment, apparently because she was black. Fred Bauder 16:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting theory. If someone doesn't find an apartment quick enough it's obviously because he/she is black, at least if it's in Germany, isn't it? "the racism of the West Germans", such an offensive statement does not belong into an encyclopedia! (except if you can show that all West Germans are racists or have been at that time)
I changed this statement due to the following rule: "Controversial material (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". In fact, the old version WAS controversial and potentially libelous. New version is "having only a stipend of $100 a month to work with, she had great difficulty ...".

Angela Davis ran for Vice President with Gus Hall on the Communist Party in the 1970s or'80s (1980, I think). It'd be nice if someone added information related to this here.

She was a killer!!!!

Really? Whom did she kill? RickK 05:01, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Angela Davis is an awesome individual. If you want a killer, go to the White House.

Damn Marxist kids nowadays.
Damn system agents.
Damn conspiracy theorists and morons.

From the article: She claims to receive a large volume of email.

Now really, is this that important? Lots of people get lots of e-mail. We don't even know what a lot means. Is this supposed to imply something else? She has lots of fans? Detractors? Doesn't have very good spam filters? :) DanKeshet 21:03, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is relevant because should someone reading the article find her email address, they should know, like many other public figures, she is unable to answer all of it. Bill Gates is reputed to get 5 million messages a day, for example. Public figures vary in this respect. The last time I talked to Maurice Strong, for example, he claimed he answered all correspondence. I presume she receives email mostly from those who share her interests in prison reform. The gist of the matter, is that should a reader wish to contact her regarding matters of mutual interest, the best way is through her publisher. Fred Bauder 12:22, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

The reference to "Malcolm X a West Indian activist" is wrong. If you read the article carefully, Davis must have met Stokely Carmichael after 1965. Since Malcolm X did on Feb. 21, 1965, she couldn't have met him in Great Britain. Also, Malcolm X was not a "West Indian activist", although his mother was born in the West Indies. AFAIK, there was an activist in Britain called "Michael X" who was active after Malcolm X died. "Michael X" very probably was from the West Indies. The article should be updated and the reference to "Michael X" should be updated, to ensure a logically correct timeline.

The comment about Michael X and Malcolm X is correct. Malcolm X dies in February 1965. Michael X was active in Great Britain.

I have finally corrected this in the article, I made the initial error. Micheal X is the person mentioned in her autobiography. Fred Bauder 10:59, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy of Davis

Can we begin adding a substantive section on her positions and beliefs?

Of course, I just lost interest and never finished. Fred Bauder 23:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality

I have noticed that someone removed information about Davis coming out as a lesbian. Was that person's action valid? Dinobrya 01:58, 28 January 2006

No, go ahead and replace the information. There were two sources. Fred Bauder 19:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

How could there not possibly be a section on "Criticism" for a person as contraversial as Davis?

This is a good article, leave it alone capitalist devil.
Let me explain why the article is the way it is. After watching her on Book TV, I got a copy of her autobiography and, working from it, I wrote almost all of the article. It only covers the first part of her life and, being based on her autobiography, has a sympathetic point of view. At a point, I lost interest and did not continue either her autobiography or write a critical section. Thus the article is both incomplete and lacks significant criticisms from opposing points of view. The solution is to do more work on the article, not complain bitterly about the work I have done. Fred Bauder 13:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She was "segregated from the general population" through solitary confinement. I'm sorry this is just an obnoxious spin on it. It's silly.--CJWilly 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not silly; it is what happened. Fred Bauder 12:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

j. jackson and friends "disrupted" the mcclain proceeding? wikipedia has no credibility in politics (which is unfortunate given its excellence in many other areas), and this is an example of why. they murdered a judge. and you're sympathetic. shameful.

Yeah she believes in a lot of extremely radical things like freeing all minorities from the prison system because they are all political prisoners of a racist United States. She also calls for a "complete and radical overthrow" of the United States if they wish to solve the issue of racism.... Aren't these issues pretty extreme? If anyone had said something that was as extremely conservative as this is liberal, it would be sure to be up on wikipedia. -BradKgj08 (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the thinking is that some people, whether because of race or ideology are beyond criticism. It's Orwellian. Besides that it violates Wikipedia's NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. JKeck (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it. Part of the problem, however, is that conservatives have never taken her orientation seriously enough to make coherent criticisms. "She was, or is, a Communist" might be true, but having said it, if that is all you have to say, that is the end of it. Fred Talk 00:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the quotation. The article still needs more critical material. Contrary to your claim on my talk page, whether or not Solzhenitsyn "studied" Davis, he is an historical witness to her impact in Soviet Russia and beyond. It might be possible that conservatives have never taken her particularly seriously because her thought is derivative. She's certainly not known as a particularly bright luminary in philosophical circles: more of an evocative image than a coherent source of original thought. Or perhaps you can cite her scholarly impact? JKeck (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I can't. She publishes, but not, to my knowledge, in scholarly journals. However, here is what might be a good example of her work. She may have innovated the notion of the industrial Prison complex. Fred Talk 13:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quote from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

can someone post or paraphrase a rebuttal from Angela regarding the quote criticizing her by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? It does not seem objective to only include that criticism, especially since it has the weight of a Nobel Prize recipient. --MM 06:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out as a clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I gave a brief paraphrase of Solzhenitsyn's criticism, though even mentioning him at all seems less than obviously relevant. There's a trend in bios to dig up any random person who said anything bad about the biography subject; I think out of a misguided understanding of "balance". Solzhenitsyn is certainly notable himself, but there is a bio of him (and probably articles on his individual books; I haven't checked), which is where stuff on him should go.
I think the question to keep in mind is: "Would Davis be any more or less notable if Solzhenitsyn had not given that particular speech?" And analogous questions in other biographies where "critics" are dug up. In this case, the answer seems to be a pretty unambiguous "not even close". I'm sure during her life thousands of fairly notable people have said critical things about Davis: the way to present those is in general summary, e.g.: "Many people have cricizied Davis for blah blah..." LotLE×talk 18:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solzhenitsyn's quote gives insight into Angela Davis' character. This isn't a fan page, and people need these quotes if they want an intimate glimpse into the subject's beliefs.User:gatsby×talk 20:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is clear evidence that Angela Davis was and probably remains a Marxist and a communist who for a significant period of time supported the ideology and policies of the Soviet Union. She probably still supports those of Cuba and remains a member of the Committees of Correspondence, an offshoot of the Communist Party USA. The article should reflect those facts, for good or ill. Legitimate criticism has been made of those positions and may properly be included in the article. I am responsible for the generally sympathetic point of view, having worked from her autobiography. I don't propose to delete that material, but encourage addition of material from more objective sources. Fred Bauder 12:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm new to helping abut not new to wikipedia. This is a great developing article, but I noticed something that didn't make much sense to me. "In her view - contrary to historical experiences- democracy and socialism are more compatible than democracy and capitalism." I think that the aside, "contrary to historical experiences" is unnecessary and slanted. I am not saying that history has proved democracy and capitalism a good pair, or that it hasn't. I am saying that this statement is uncessary, because it is a culturally specific perspective, that if it were backed up by sources and appropriately cited, would frankly outweigh the comment that it was interjected into. I have not changed it yet, because I wanted to bring it to the attention of those better at this sort of thing than me. Well, what do you think? -HavePatience 02:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was Ok, but it could be phrased better. As it reads now, it makes it seem that the question is settled. Not appropriate for Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 03:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above and removed the offending section --Gramscis cousin 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who removed the reference to the Solzhenitsyn quotation? It's fine to include a rebuttal, but to be fair, you do need to include criticism. JKeck (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notoriety Section

The section segues from the death of Jonathon Jackson, George Jackson's brother, to the statement a .38 handgun registered to Angela Davis was found on George. This is a conflation of two incidents. Davis was accused of smuggling a 9mm semiauto pistol into Soledad that George Jackson used in his unsucessful breakout (the real perpetrator was likely an attorney).

Correct. George Jackson's escape attempt was a year later. Fred Bauder 16:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

still a communist?

this is a quote from a speech she gave in 1999, recorded on cd, "The Prison Industrial Complex" (ISBN-10: 1902593227; ISBN-13: 978-1902593227): "i was a member of the communist party. i am not a member of the communist party anymore but i still consider myself very much a socialist." granted, it does not say that she no longer considers herself a communist, but could be evidence in that direction. does anyone know anything about that? Paralysisordeath 02:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is associated with Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. I am not sure if they or her would describe themselves as a "communist" party. Fred Bauder 20:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The case seems pretty clear: Davis no longer describes herself as a communist (apparently she now prefers the term socialist); the CCDS doesn't describe itself as communist. I am replacing the word "communist" with "socialist" in the introductory sentence. Sure, many non-leftists see few ideological differences between (leftist) socialists like Davis and self-described communists, but such an opinion is just that--an opinion. --ThorstenNY 17:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism represented a split in the CPUSA (Communist Party U.S.A.). Disagreements about policy, strategy, and probably some personal vendettas led people in the CPUSA to question its effectiveness in mobilizing the American (U.S.) working class. This event took place after the fall of the Soviet Union, which certainly had something to do with the split. It is not unlikely that agents might have had something to do with the split, considering the Party has always been harassed by the FBI and other U.S. institutions. However, there is no evidence of this and should not be cited. It is more than likely though, that the influence of the two groups (CCDS and CPUSA) by themselves is lesser than if they had remained a unified force. That is, that those persons who left the internationally recognized CP had remained in the Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.91.255.100 (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't explain why she was acquitted of all charges.

The article doesn't explain why she was acquitted of all charges. It should. Right now, the article claims a huge amount of evidence pointing to her supposed guilt and then suddenly states that she was acquitted, with no further comments (apparently implying that the trial was manipulated by a communist conspiracy or something). --91.148.159.4 22:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the reasoning behind her acquittal are not in this article, but I found them here: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/08/home/davis-acquit.html. Interestingly, I think this article is cited in the external links. Basically, she denied any knowledge of the plot, and many witnesses testified that the guns registered in her name were bought specifically for the defense of the organization (2nd Amendment rights, I guess) the hostage-takers belonged to, not specifically for the plot. They just happened to get a hold of them. Also, the bulk of the charges were not just about the guns but being the mastermind of the entire hostage plot, which was unsubstantiated by evidence, at least to the jury. Someone who knows Wikipedia better can cite the NY Times article and make the changes here. Nam1123 10:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought she was aquitted because her jury was a bunch of credulous dupes? Is there more to the story?69.107.95.124 (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article cited above does not give a reason for the acquittal. Perhaps the jurors were interviewed later; I don't know. She was probably acquitted because they were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"She was found innocent of murder" ??? Nobody is ever "found innocent" of a crime. Well... there is a pronouncement of "actual innocence" that can come from a case in which the evidence is clear that the person should never have been accused in the first place, but that is very rare - maybe 1 out of every 100,000 cases. And nobody has ever asserted that this was the case in the Davis matter. Angela Davis' case was dismissed because of prosecutorial misconduct resulting in evidence being excluded. She was certainly involved in the case, and could well have done many years in prison. Even now many people feel that she never really came clean on her involvement, and essentially is REALLY REALLY LUCKY that she got off.

mixed race?

stop these racist comments. Maria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.255.31 (talk) 07:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

she has quite light skin, is she mixed race?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.7.212 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 March 2007.

No more than a whole lot of other African Americans. If you're asking if she's a halfie, the answer is heck, no. deeceevoice 12:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"halfie?" Really, "halfie?" C'mon now, that's just foolish. And your incensed "heck, no" is only an appropriate response to an insult. If you're insulted by someone suspecting another person's race, and that insult is because you perceive one condition more desirable than the other, then you might as well put the sheet back on. I feel sorry for people like you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.51.36.67 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 5 April 2007.

"Incensed"? What do you know of my mood? Nada. Every time certain people see a light-skinned black person these days, they want to try to call them "mixed race." That's just hogwash. And, yeah, "halfie." Make of the term what you will. But you feel sorry for me? You who jumps to silly conclusions and indulges in puerile vandalism of people's user pages? Dang, bwoi. Grow up, get some common sense -- and get a clue. *x* User: deeceevoice 09:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I was thinking of adding an infobox to this article, but couldn't decide which to use -- writer, philosopher, person, etc. Any thoughts? Strobilus 20:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A summary seems inappropriate. Fred Bauder 04:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A person. Fred Bauder 15:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

I've nominated this article to be checked for neutrality for the following statements, among others:

"She held the view that nationalism was a barrier to grappling with the underlying issue, capitalist domination of working people of all races." "Again, as at Brandeis, she was socially isolated;" "Initially alienated by the isolation of the campus" "Her solutions include abolishing prisons and addressing the class, race, and gender factors that have led to large numbers of blacks and Latinos being incarcerated"

E.t.c. It seems a bit pro-Davis, and it's written in a subjective, overly sensitive tone.Aristotle1990 23:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The offending language is from her autobiography reflecting her reported perspective. Fred Bauder 18:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear I would write a biography of Dick Cheney in the same way. If you can, you need to look at things from the subject's point of view. I realize she could be portrayed as a spoiled snot, but that's not my job. Fred Bauder 00:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

```` Specific language bias: "She first achieved nationwide notoriety when a weapon registered in her name was linked to the murder of Judge Harold Haley during an effort to free a black convict who was being tried for the attempted retaliatory murder of a white prison guard who killed three unarmed black inmates." Tendentious in that her weapon's being used, with or without her knowledge, is not justified by the assertion that it was being used in a righteous vigilante pursuit ("...retaliatory murder of a white prison guard who killed three unarmed black inmates."). As a minimum, such language presumes facts not in evidence (was the white guard charged with murder? was he tried and convicted? had it become standard practice for black racists to take over for white racists? The author may not have time for that in the article, but then should not introduce such inflammatory self-justification). Aside from that, the sentence is run-on.

To Mr. Bauder:<<from her autobiography >> A biography ought not to be a third person autobiography. As to what's your job, that's up to you, imo. But Wikipedia should strive for a disinterested presentation, and if the "spoiled snot" were justifiable by repeated elements in her life and work, that's what should be brought out, particularly when many recent biographies (not just of Davis) are simply springboards for an author's politics.

In Frankfurt, Germany

At the University, weak in German, she had great difficulty following the lectures of Adorno but soon found that her fellow students, native Germans, shared her difficulty.

  • A.D.: "Fellow students, I cannot understand Professor Adorno."
  • Herablassender deutscher Kursteilnehmer: "Ach, Kameradin, it is not a mental weakness of your Kopf. Our Herr Professor is so profound, so deep, that he, in the best academic tradition, can hardly communicate his thoughts!"Lestrade 19:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

I think calling her "weak in German" is misleading. The passage in her autobiography about this refers to her having difficulty understanding Adorno "during the first few weeks" (139). Oskar Negt raved about her learning German fast and there is video of her speaking quite decent German at the Weltfestspiele der Jugend in 1973. Since the statement is otherwise OK, I am deleting "weak in German" from the sentence.Andoryuudesu (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The German translation of "comrade" in a political context is "Genosse" (m) or "Genossin" (f). "Kamerad/Kameradin" would be rather "fellow", "mate" or (colloquially) "buddy". Verity Truth (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it was "Kommilitone" (the traditional title of a fellow student) and not "Genosse", Kamerad as a traditional military expression sounds rather odd.
Davis clearly gets a broader backing in Germany, based on an common anti american sentiment --Polentario (talk) 07:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adorno talking is completely different to Adorno writing (see even his published Vorlesungen), he is clear and even sometimes precise while talking. Angela Davis was probably a Wunderkind, but has she published anything serious in philosophy ever? Which would not mean she is stupid or something, but she is hardly a serious philosopher. Widespread german racism against Angela Davis??? You must be kidding. On her german wikipedia page is a link to an exhaustive day by day protocoll of german leftist, even trade unionist support for her, done by a maoist historian of 68.--- The Davis campaign and even more the Cleaver campaign of Frankfurt radical 68ers was also one of the sources of german (rz, not raf) terrorism--80.137.233.229 (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Jones Connection?

I am reading Deborah Lawton's autobiograghy Seductive Poison that documents her life and escape from Jonestown before the massacre. She reports that Angela Davis was a celebrity supporter of the People's Temple and personal friend of Jim Jones because of socialist ties. Just curious if anyone thinks this is relevant or interesting? Skipdownthestreet 18:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it, but possible. I'd be more comfortable if you can find a second source. Fred Bauder 23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Googling for "angela davis" and "jim jones" yields a 1000 hits. Fred Bauder 23:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The hits show a coalition type relationship. Fred Bauder 23:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although many people might view Jim Jones as a reactionary, he was Marxist. Jones and his functionaries worked very closely with representatives from Yugoslavia, Cuba, the USSR and North Korea for consultation in creating their “workers paradise” in Guiana. On the domestic front they made ties with the Black Panthers, the CPUSA, the American Indian movement and Angela Davis. Although not a member of the Temple, Davis gave several speeches at the Temple and remained a supporter all the way until the end.
It shouldn’t be all that surprising, Jones’ supporters were a veritable “who’s who” of the left in the 1970’s: Daniel Ellsberg, Huey Newton, Tom Hayden, Cesar Chavez, Dick Gregory, etcetera, but Davis stayed in contact with advised the Temple and all the way to mass suicides. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add much, but I did add a few sentences about her close alliance with the Peoples Temple. Mostly a few refs from Reiterman's book. There's A LOT more I didn't add. I did it very NPOV, and had to force myself to do so given the rather sickening nature of Davis' support for Jones' crazy claims. In actuality -- to be perfectly blunt -- prominent outsiders like Davis agreeing with Jones claims of a conspiracy against the Temple helped Jones GREATLY in convincing Temple members of said conspiratorial forces, which was the driving force behind their "revolutionary suicide" in 1978. But I didn't say that, even though I could probably get several sources to discuss the importance of the outsider support. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcuse and Adorno

Under the San Diego heading, who are Marcuse and Adorno? It's not explained anywhere else on the page, and the citation doesn't seem to be correct. Thanks.Fillanfloppy 14:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a puff piece

Typical left-wing slop from Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.181.77.174 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was useful. Bravo, good sir. 72.152.230.36 (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communism/ Socialism

Granted I don't claim to know much difference between the two... Com- "all have the same" vs Soc - "all have nothing". But if Angela went to Communist and socialist countries how could she possibly see that it is a better life! Democracy gives us to be what we want to be (despite color, sex, religion, etc.). Is America still so backward as tho hold back those who are different than WASP. If one works harder than another they should receive better compensation. If one is smarter than another he should receive better than the other. I say this as a white hotero female with no college degree; and yet I feel better off than those whose lives are determined for them. I want to uderstand butam having difficulty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.143.249 (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You basically said it in the opening statement, "I don't claim to know much difference between the two..." Perhaps you should read about it, and or even better, travel to experience these societies. In Cuba, and now in Venezuela, things are radically different than here. Health care and education are free. And in fact, a friend of mine (from Chicago, IL) is currently studying to become a doctor, in Cuba, for FREE. Cuba offers, I think 100 hundred or so, scholarships for U.S. citizens (not to mention dozens of other countries) to study there, for free. Almost everyone I know who works hard does not get ahead in this system, which really isn't "democratic," but a capitalist republic. Understanding basic economic principles could help you understand things better. Think about it, is it really true that if one is smarter than another he receives better pay? In the U.S. teachers are LOWEST paid profession, and I would consider this to be a pretty intelligent part of society. I think your ideas of what democracy is in the U.S. are highly idealized, and not supported by the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.91.255.100 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later career

Instead of saying "Davis remains a prominent figure in the struggle against the death penalty in California" could it be revised to say "Davis remains a prominent opponent of the death penalty in California"? The existing language sounds like communist propaganda.Bobdeckerbob (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Bob. This is certainly one of the places where the language could stand a rewrite. JKeck (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Peoples' Temple

This is completely overblown in Davis' bio here, and all taken from one source. Many people supported the Peoples' Temple for what they thought were the "right" reasons, as is noted in this source:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/jonestown/peopleevents/e_ca.html

"Middle Class Progressives While many Peoples Temple members in Indiana had come from lower income families, the organization's new incarnation in California attracted middle class progressives of all races. Among the members were blacks who had been active in the civil rights movement and whites who had been involved in the antiwar campaigns of the late 1960s and early 1970s. All were drawn to Jones' message of equality and community.

An Active Community San Francisco's liberal civic leaders also found this new community attractive. The temple grew quickly and Jones bought an abandoned synagogue in San Francisco to house an urban branch of his church in 1971. Jones donated money to local causes -- a fund for police widows, the NAACP, the Ecumenical Peace Institute -- and had the organization and manpower to fuel a political operation. Peoples Temple volunteers could blanket a neighborhood with fliers, produce a mass mailing or populate a campaign rally at a moment's notice. The fact that members of the group were diverse (young and old, black and white), only added to the appeal for politicians.

Political Connections Member Deborah Layton remembered then California State Assembly Speaker Willie Brown comparing Jones to "Martin Luther King, Angela Davis, Albert Einstein and Chairman Mao." Peoples Temple helped elect George Moscone in 1975 and in return, the new mayor appointed Jones to the city's Housing Authority Commission. In a rally for Rosalynn Carter, more than half the crowd consisted of Peoples Temple members." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.182.182 (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is a lot longer than that, but that's not exactly helping your argument, to put it mildly.
Also, the Temple members in Jonestown killed themselves in a "White Night" -- an emergency meeting called by Jones where he claimed conspirators were after them and they had to take action, such as revolutionary suicide.
Here's the list of all of the influential outsiders who actually spoke to those 900+ people in Jonestown, backing Jones claims of a conspiracy against them:


Angela Davis


By the way, Davis' speech backing Jones conspiracy claim to the Jonestown residents was also AFTER Jones' cult activities had been outed in the Chronicle and the Examiner and he'd fled permanently to Jonestown. All Jones had left at that point was pretty much Angela Davis, Harvey Milk and Willie Brown.Mosedschurte (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin Peace Prize

She was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize. Roughly equivalent to the Nobel Peace Prize, and yet that's not mentioned anywhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_Peace_Prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin_Peace_Prize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.226.23 (talk) 06:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just put it in, with a source. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angela_Davis&oldid=341396070"