“America is a Christian nation. This is accurate in some perceptions.” These are the words from feminist Marilynne Robison’s essay. Many would not argue that Marilynne Robinson merits the reader’s respect by expressing what present-day Americans are losing as Christian people. Robinson depicts the present American as “full of fear.” This is not irrational to propose on her part. She believes that the nation is losing something in the Christian habit of mind. She cries that “some of us” are “linking the beloved Lord with lack of knowledge, intolerance and argumentative patriotism.” And she ties that growing strain of fear in American society with the increasing grip that guns have.
What’s particularly persuasive about those words is that they were printed in 2015. This was before last year’s presidential election, when the winning contender ran on a podium, genuinely advised by fear. It is clear from the essay that she wants to bring up unethical actions as a Christian. However, ultimately, she wants to argue the American government’s irrational decision regarding the amendment. In the essay, Robinson talks about their ancestors and makes the point that it was their tradition to be loyal to God. She goes even further to state they put in the effort to maintain their faith.
On the other hand, the atmosphere is altered after the quotation, “Americans are now buying Kalashnikovs.” These are AK-47s. The government makes individuals permit or just have a gun when they use it in the right way. (nevertheless, people are using guns in a different way compared with the past) to uphold their financial profit. “Fear manages as a craving or a compulsion.” This quotation lets readers comprehend why the writer used the word “fear.” According to the Bible, Christians should not have a spirit of fear but a sound mind.” This is saying that Christians are supposed to be at peace, not dread. This is because fear has a way of bringing violence. Besides that, it is not the attitude that Christians should hold. This is the reason why people are buying guns because of fear. They think that a gun will protect them from their fears. Maybe, therefore, she said, “But no one seems to have an unkind word to say about fear these days, un-Christian as it surely is.” Also, I am confused about her criticism of the American government as being a Christian institution. How is this possible? America is a continent that includes many cultures. At the same time, it is hard to make a perfect decision because everyone’s circumstances are not the same. Plus, everyone does not think the same way, either. I believe there are several ways to give her message, such as not using religious sentiments to provide her thoughts to others, even if they are atheists.
In this country, people like Marilynne Robison tend to put everyone in the same pot, and that should not be the case. America has freedom of religion, so it is not enough to say that people must adhere to just Christian morals. The Robison’s essay seems to, at any rate, not wholly constructed, which is why its parts were listed. As the essay was read, I psychologically supplied a good number of the links among those parts. Nevertheless, I read the piece kindly, if a bit disbelievingly.
However, this much is obvious. Ms. Robinson is uncomfortable with those who would pull Christianity into the aggressive angles of American life in addition to militarizing the faith in an ill-destined, even desperate, effort to guard the faith while apparently defending something or someone otherwise, such as Kim Davis or gender impartiality, or even Cliven Bundy, or whoever has recently misjudged the BiblBible made a public display of their misconception.
Ms. Robinson is impending the gun violence difficulty in America by using her profound wisdom of Christian tradition and history. She is not citing figures; she is not taking on the gun activists; she is not fizzing at the mouth on Facebook with another lobbyist. Ms. Robinson brings a more significant historical context to bear on the issue. It does not fit Facebook. It will not play on Twitter and YouTube because none of those social media networks have any room for it. Nevertheless, what she must communicate and what many like her are speaking about the gun- aggression in America are influencing the discussion.
It appears that Ms. Robinson might suffer from Self-criticism. As stated by Jamaica Kincaid, self-deprecation is the most problematic test for humans. “We want to consider ourselves to be moral and respectable, so we do—regardless of what we are told. Behind a tall s, solid divider, our inner selves are confirmed. Criticizing others, however, is a favorite activity. It is not hard at all to recognize the faults and shortcomings of anyone beyond the safe, secured “me.” These are the words of Jamaica Kincaid in her essay “In History.” I believe this speaks to Ms. Robinson’s situation. Through a presentation of her deepest thought development, Kincaid discloses herself much like Ms. Robinson did in her essay. Kincaid permits herself to be disapproved by readers, who are continually persuaded to judge and scoff at her responses to and explanations about historical stories and people. This susceptibility is anti-intuitive since individuals are continuously so cautious to protect themselves from opinion. So why would she put herself in this situation? It is the same reason why Ms. Robinson does it. Both women appear to share some form of insecurities, questions, and emotional state in a setting so open for disapproval.
The truth is that neither Kincaid nor Robinson truthfully gives themselves to their audience; instead, they perform decisively. They are doing this through irony and ridicule. Both display ignorance and stoppage, and in her subtext, Kincaid is reproving and disapproving of the world. It is with this method that Kincaid nor Robinson bot can persuade readers into first enquiring about her made-up feelings and then, in the end, their own, permitting her achievement in an apparently incredible accomplishment— suggesting self-criticism.
As readers look into her upset mind, Kincaid recurrently asks herself to describe history. Yet, she never truthfully appears to be content with an answer. Kincaid investigates a repeat of Columbus’ escapade to America and his findings, concentrating precisely on Columbus’ procedure of naming individuals, things, and places. Then she bounces to another position in history—that of Carl Linn, as the botanist, who conceived a methodical grouping of plant titles. As exhausting as the majority of this may sound, Kincaid is not conveying a history lesson. She is taking hold of the reader’s neckline and steering him into the coziest account of all. We are invited to a front row where Kincaid’s every inward attention is. She keeps in touch with her inquiries, her ramblings, her impressions and her responses, the greater part of which are relatively indivisible from her projection of supportable events, the author writes, of Christopher Columbus “he discharges the land of these individuals, and then he drains the individuals, he just exhausts the individuals.” (610) What Kincaid’s repeating of history is jam-packed with such additions of her rulings, uncertainties, and influences, much like n the same way that Ms. Robinson’s thought about America being a Christian nation but still full of fear. Both women are sharing, and readers are attending. As each page of her essay advances, fragments of Kincaid’s personality become purer, and the readers find a way to place everything together. The concluding product of the puzzle is not well-intentioned of our much-valued support. We jeer at Robinson. We know her profoundly; she has uncovered everything. Her detachment to detail, her expulsion from history, her weakness to see past simplicity, her cases to comprehend the past while disregarding missing holes of data, her rejection of inquiries to challenge what she hears—every bit of it! When it comes to Kincaid’s considerations amid her dialog, it is an ideal circumstance for her not to see history. Readers know they are unique.
When it comes to the essay on “Fear,” now the audience has two choices: one can leave the essay on their desk, roll his eyes at Robinson’s faults, and do their best to disregard the first itch of worry. Or one can look at the unpleasant, threatening, frightening truth. This truth is unavoidable. There is no way to ignore it, as Ms. Robinson’s words creep into our awareness, tainting our egos and threatening our most valued self-perception. We are forced to understand that Robinson, in fact, has not entrusted us with how she felt about America and religion. She talks about how she excluded other cultures in America. Ms. Robinson has not permitted her real self to be susceptible to and disapproved of by readers. Ms. Robinson directly performed for us by making the point that America is only Christian. Her performance was not for our entertainment but for her readers, who are Christians.
Although readers might be irate with Marilynne Robison for excluding the other cultures in America—for making the point that this is a Christian nation and excluding different cultures—thus making it look like they do not have a voice. By assessing and studying this implementation, we have established that she appears to give all her information from one perspective: hers. We learn through this demanding essay that sometimes, If we do not speak up, then we can be excluded.
