Journey to Nowhere: A New World Tragedy by Shiva Naipaul
Many thanks to Doubleday Books and NetGalley for sharing an
advanced copy of Shiva Naipaul’s complicated observations and investigation
into the 1978 massacre in Guyana titled Journey to Nowhere: A New World Tragedy.
I was not aware of this book, originally published in 1980, that examines the
factors that Naipaul claims helped to facilitate the deaths of nearly 1000
followers of Jim Jones. While the book documents the tragedy from an outsider’s
perspectives through travels to both Guyana and the Bay Area that served as a
home to the People’s Temple, Naipaul’s analysis appears to be biased, engaging
in major generalizations about the ways in which Jim Jones’ followers were led
from the 1960s countercultural and Civil Rights fights of California to the
jungles of Guyana, a post-colonial nation that had recently attained its
independence. In the first part of the book, Naipaul, who grew up as an Indo-Trinidadian
British subject in colonial Trinidad, travels to post-colonial Guyana to
examine the site of the mass suicide. I thought that possibly his own
experience as a British subject might influence his views on colonialism, but I
almost felt as if Naipaul’s journey through the jungles of Guyana was like
reading Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. As Naipaul prepares to visit the site,
he encounters other journalists and bureaucrats who all look to take advantage
of the tragedy, whether it is capitalizing on the increased interest in the
island or looking to sensationalize the story. Although Naipaul highlights
letters and testimony from some of the members of the People’s Temple, bringing
a sense of humanity to this story, he also seems to dehumanize some of the
Guyanese, never giving a voice or any kind of individuality to those who seem
to observe from a distance. It would have been interesting to learn more about
how these indigenous members of Guyana and some of the oppressed classes felt
about the events that transpired there. Rather than interviewing these
citizens, Naipaul recounts the political history of post-colonial Guyana and the
two opposing factions that battled for power. This was not something I new much
about, but basically Forbes Burnham sought to implement a kind of socialism in Guyana
by nationalizing some of the industries like bauxite and sugar in the developing
nation. While some of Burnham’s policies had the outer sheen of socialism,
Naipaul (and Burnham’s opposition, Cheddi Jagan’s People’s Progressive Party)
critique the rigged elections and accumulation of wealth that marked Burnham’s
true motives in consolidating his power. Further observations of the kind of surveillance
that Naipaul observes both in Georgetown and at the People’s Temple site
indicate the kind of conspiratorial and paranoid leadership that Burnham
engaged in. However, what I found problematic was that for Naipaul, this kind
of socialism is seemingly what led Jones’ group to Guyana, promising a socialist
paradise with large land plots that they could develop and farm, bringing some much-needed
development to the jungle areas. Naipaul also notes that the People’s Temple
also investigated moving to Russia and took trips to Brazil and Cuba as sites
that were socialist. Nevertheless, it was the shared beliefs in socialism that
led the People’s Temple to Guyana and that allowed them to have, more or less,
carte blanche to develop the land and commit human rights violations among
their followers. There was little oversight or observation as to what was
actually happening at the site by the Guyanese government. While I can see how
the Burnham government was permissive with Jones, it also seemed like this was
more like what happened with Jones across the different places he lived and
ministered. Whether it was his own magnetism or his manipulation, Jones seemed
to be able to convince others and develop a sense of trust that allowed him to
commit atrocities among his followers without any kind of accountability. Even
in San Francisco, Jim Jones and the People’s Temple were lauded by politicians,
officials, and other institutions, until they were eventually forced out not
too long before the tragedy occurred. Naipaul seems to overextend the analysis
and criticisms, failing to recognizing the unique situation of the kind of
corruption that may have been endemic to Burnham’s leadership and
administration. While Naipaul takes some time to recount the political history
of post-colonial Guyana, he also seems to suggest that most Caribbean nations
experienced similar levels of corruption in their post-colonial independence
and search for a national identity, implying that socialism-communism was to
blame for much of the ills, including the Jonestown tragedy, in the Caribbean. Nevertheless,
readers can tell how much visiting the Jonestown site affected Naipaul; his
descriptions of decay and death that remain at the site months after the tragedy
are haunting. In fact, his descriptions of all of the surrounding areas are evocative
and haunting, creating a sense of degradation and death all around. I was able
to see how fitting, at least with this section, the title is. Regardless,
Naipaul rarely explores the history of exploitation and terror that were visited
on the original inhabitants of these islands and lands, and fails to connect those
aspects of history to the events of Jonestown.
The second half of the book finds Naipaul in the United
States, primarily in California, investigating the various groups and movements
of the early and late 60s that were developing in a response to social issues
in America. I found this part of the book to be more biased. I read another review
that noted Naipaul’s condescension throughout this section, and I agree. The
level of condescension towards groups like feminists, environmentalists, Civil
Rights groups, students, and Vietnam protesters made this part of the book feel
like Naipaul had some kind of personal animus towards anything progressive.
There are some fascinating parts, like when he meets with Huey Newton of the
Black Panthers, but Naipaul’s description of Newtown and his twitching legs and
laconic speaking are not really journalistic and paint Newton as a kind of
faded and false freedom fighter, a flawed remnant from the social unrest of the
60s who was now relegated to backroom hideouts on the margins of a run-down
Oakland. In fact, he paints Oakland as a decrepit city with shacks all around,
frequently referring to it as a ghetto. I wasn’t aware that Jones and Newton
met in Cuba, and while Naipaul tries to get Newton to admit to some kind of
alliance between the People’s Temple and the Black Panthers, Newton doesn’t
acknowledge any connection beyond the admiration of attracting followers and
critiquing the racism and inequality of American society. Nevertheless, Naipaul
links the People’s Temple to all kinds of radical groups including The Weather
Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and even the Mason Family,
suggesting that there was something about California that attracted radicals and
violent demagogues. In one chapter, Naipaul visits some kind of convention or
market where various community groups have set up shop. He critiques the
feminists, homosexuals, those who are interested in organic food and improving
the environment, and even a group practicing a kind of polyamory, lumping all
of these together and bundling them with the People’s Temple. I found this
chapter to be particularly troubling since Naipaul seemed to generalize all of
these groups. While he does make some important points about the nature of
consumerism and how some of the groups were looking to sell products with the
hope of making people feel better, it seemed like he was blaming the people
rather than examining other factors that might have influenced the kinds of
social change and development occurring in American society. Other chapters in
which Naipaul reviews Jim Jones’ journey from an Indiana preacher who cared
deeply about injustice and inequality were more relevant and seemed to offer
Jones some more grace and understanding about his foray into religion or at least
his use of religion to achieve political ends. If anything, this book takes on
political relevance today to possibly see how religion is co-opted to attract
followers to secular and political ideologies, seeing how overpromising and
creating a kind of messiah who has immense and supernatural powers creates a
dangerous and potentially fatalistic situation. The introduction by Hua Hsu
notes one of the more powerful quotes from the book about how through Jones,
Naipaul sees how “the language of religion could be transformed into the
language of politics.” If anything, I took away some similarities from the past
and today, recognizing how charismatic and determined leaders who see the world
in black and white can often lead their followers on a road to nowhere, but
also seeking a kind of mutually assured destruction or revolutionary suicide
before exiting the scene. However, I also wondered what Naipaul would think
about the world today, and how he might view movements for diversity, equity
and inclusion today. Although he was critical of the People’s Temple, he blamed
social movements rather than looking at individual differences and possibly Jones
willingness to prey on those who were vulnerable or needy. There certainly is a
need for assurance and fellowship, and to have a sense of purpose and meaning
in the world. While some people are able to attain these things, others
struggle with them, especially as American society has become more individualistic
and competitive. Yet, these ideas or factors are not a part of Naipaul’s analysis.
Rather, he makes an easy (almost lazy) assumption that Berkeley and the free
speech movement helped to radicalize Patty Hearst, and this same movement also
led to the deaths of nearly 1000 followers in Guyana. For Naipaul, it’s more
about the movements that people follow without questioning, just blindly
accepting, not recognizing the underlying mechanisms that lead people to
blindly accept. Rather, he just assumes these people are lazy, thoughtless, or
weak, and just want to be accepted by the crowd.
Naipaul’s Journey to Nowhere is a unique,
fascinating, and frustrating book. While the book explores one of the 20th
centuries greatest tragedies, Naipaul makes many generalizations and
assumptions about what movements influenced the People’s Temple and led to
Jonestown. The second half of the book is particularly frustrating due to
Naipaul’s willingness to lump seemingly disparate groups together because they
were alternative or non-mainstream. Furthermore, his condescending descriptions
of the group demonstrate more of his bias rather than his ability to connect
them to the People’s Temple. I can see how Journey to Nowhere is an
important book that provides some insights into this tragedy, punctuated by
some elegant descriptions of the surrounding Guyana environment, yet it is also
a frustrating condemnation of the wrong factors that impacted the tragedy of
Jonestown.
