No mention of Milk being a Jim Jones supporter
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Milk
Black_Lies_Matter — 12 years ago(June 26, 2013 09:20 PM)
I'm shocked that Hollywood would subvert the truth to try and push a cowardly political agenda. Shocked, I tell ya.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/02/in-defence-of-jim-jones.html
President Jimmy Carter
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Carter:
I am the Supervisor for District Five in the City of San Francisco. The Peoples Temple Christian Church is not located in my District, so I have no political ties or obligations to this church. I am writing to call an urgent concern of theirs to your attention. I am concerned at what I understand is the endorsement of some of our Congressmen for the efforts of Timothy Stoen against Rev. Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple. There are some facts I feel you should be informed of:
Rev. Jones is widely known in the minority communities here and elsewhere as a man of the highest character, who has undertaken constructive remedies for social problems which have been amazing in their scope and effectiveness. He is also highly regarded amongst church, labor, and civic leaders of a wide range of political persuasions. Our own Board of Supervisors has presented Rev. Jones with a Certificate of Honor, unanimously passed by all members, praising the church for its many projects "which have been so beneficial to all the citizens of the Bay Area." On the same occasion, he was also presented with a unanimously passed resolution by a Republican State Senator, Milton Marks representing that legislative body.
Timothy and Grace Stoen, the parties that are attempting to damage Rev. Jones' reputation, and seriously disrupt the life of his son, John, have both already been discredited in the news media here. The most widely-read columnist in the area, Herb Caen, printed Mr. Stoen's sworn testimony that John is not his child but rather Rev. Jones. Grace Stone is reported involved in what could be considered a blackmail attempt against another leader in the minority community, Dennis Banks, reported in the two major dailies with her name also given in Mr. Banks' sworn affadavit about the attempt.
It is outrageous that Timothy Stoen could even think of flaunting this situation in front of our Congressmen with apparently bold-faced lies. I have learned in addition, that he has pressured these Congressmen towards unwitting compliance with promoting State Department intervention in the custody case now pending in Guyana.
Not only is the life of a child at stake , who presently has loving protective parents in Rev. and Mrs. Jones, but our official relations with Guyana could stand to be jeopardized, to the potentially great embarassment of our State Department.
Mr. President, the actions of Mr. Stoen need to be brought to a halt. It is offensive to most in the San Francisco community, and all those who know Rev. Jones to see this kind of an outrage taking place.
Respectfully,
(Signed, 'Harvey Milk')
Harvey Milk -
jstang411 — 12 years ago(July 03, 2013 10:29 AM)
I'm shocked that Hollywood would subvert the truth to try and push a cowardly political agenda. Shocked, I tell ya.
How did Hollywood subvert the truth? I don't remember any mention of Jim Jones in the movie. I'm also guessing that there were a lot of letters that Milk wrote that were not in it as well.
Not arguing that this is something, but where doe the "subvert the truth" come from. -
EmilMuzz — 11 years ago(June 26, 2014 12:06 AM)
The entire first half of the movie was about Milk trying to get elected. Totally omitting the People's Temple's role in getting Milk elected does seem a bit off. Every documentary made about Harvey Milk and Jim Jones all seem to discuss that it was a pretty significant role in Milk's final election.
- or so the Germans would have us believe
-
jstang411 — 11 years ago(June 26, 2014 02:58 PM)
Every documentary made about Harvey Milk and Jim Jones all seem to discuss that it was a pretty significant role in Milk's final election.
There were connections for sure, but isn't a politician supposed to build them? I'm sure he had the support of other groups that weren't mentioned in the film. And except for the later tragedy..would this even be a topic to discuss? -
BlackJack296 — 11 years ago(September 30, 2014 09:43 AM)
"would this even be a topic to discuss?"
Yes, since it is commonly recognized now that Jones and his group perpetrated voter fraud on a large enough scale to swing elections in the area. How is that not a relevant piece of information? I guess it isn't if you want to paint a certain portrait of a guy without acknowledging he was in bed with someone who ended up being one of the most notorious individuals in our country's recent history.
-Hey yo, listen here, Bey. You come at the King, you best not miss. -
BlackJack296 — 11 years ago(January 27, 2015 09:30 AM)
"BlackJack296 I meant in terms of what was and was not in the movie. Do you really think that but for what Jim Jones became infamous for the topic would even hit this board?"
Ummm.yes. Because he did become famous for that. Along the way, he helped Milk and others get elected. If I changed history as you did, and Jones and PT helped get Milk/Moscone's opponents elected instead, would that be noteworthy? I think so.
And there were plenty of warning signs along the way (easier to see in retrospect, granted, but things like the rehearsals took place years before). If you're going to paint a portrait of a man, do the entire thing. Show the kinds of people he consorted with. However, it's the director's right to include what he wants to include in his own film. But I believe it is an incomplete portrayal.
-Hey yo, listen here, Bey. You come at the King, you best not miss. -
jstang411 — 11 years ago(February 09, 2015 10:10 AM)
If I changed history as you did
Please explain how I changed history?
I asked you a question that acknowledged that Jim Jones did hit the public eye. Say it is not relevant in the conversation because he did, but that leaves you with explaining how I changed history..which is a literal and factual assertion on your part. -
BlackJack296 — 11 years ago(February 25, 2015 06:42 AM)
Please explain how I changed history?
You're right, poor choice of phrasing on my part and I apologize to you. One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone says "take away X, and then" to frame a perspective on something. I think that practice is manipulative, but I digress.
What I am trying to say is that perhaps it was unthinkable JJ would be capable of doing what he did. But, there were plenty of warning signs along the way in addition to plenty of accusations, yet Milk was still supportive. JJ was engaged in plenty of illegal activities prior to leaving the country that would have either ended with him in jail or completely disgraced. Bottom line, given who he was and what he did, Jones was going to get nailed and exposed for something, which obviously would have reflected poorly on Milk given his support and would still warrant discussion.
-Hey yo, listen here, Bey. You come at the King, you best not miss. -
jstang411 — 11 years ago(March 01, 2015 08:39 AM)
Thanks for being so readily correcting..a rare act on IMDb.
You obviously know more than me on Milk and Jones. At the same time, if a similar movie was made about JFK, I could forgive if they did not include that he cheated on his wife. And, if anything, that is a bigger insight into his character. Maybe a better example would be his actions that got the US involved in Vietnam, and that includes "the we know how it turned out later" factor. -
ebettman-1 — 11 years ago(November 08, 2014 07:25 PM)
..and Politicians is "there are some things that we Will NOT Do!" Now Jim Jones was a Maniacal Hypocritical SOB who, BTW, would have died of Cancer in a few months, had he not done so by the Kool Aid (and AK47) Death Orgy. But there IS religious freedom, and they were sort of persecuted OUT of San Francisco into a place where they were more difficult to Control. Hell, I hate ALL Fanatics, starting with the Anita Bryants of the World.