“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 readers’ respect by expressing what present-day Americans are losing as Christian people. Robinson depicts present Americans 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 wherein 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, at the same time, she wants to argue the American government’s irrational decision regarding the amendment. In the essay, Robinson talks about their ancestors in making the point that it was their tradition to be loyal to God. She goes in 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 as different way compared with the past) to uphold their financial profit. “Fear manages as a craving or a compulsion.” This quotation permits readers to comprehend why the writer used the word “fear.” According to the bible, “Christians should not have a spirit of fear, but of 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 for fear. They think that a gun will protect them from their fears. Maybe, therefore, she said that “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 circumstance is not the same. Plus, everyone does not think the same, either. I believe there are several ways to give her message by not using religious sentiments to provide her with 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. 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 Bible and 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 is bringing 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 has any room for it. Nevertheless, what she must communicate, and what many like her are speaking about gun- aggression in America is 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 solid divider, our inner selves are confirmed. Criticizing others, however, is a favourite 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 the essay she wrote called “In History”. I believe this speaks to the situation of Ms Robinson. Through a presentation of her deepest thought-development, Kincaid disclosures herself much like the way Ms Robinson did 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 states in a setting so open to disapproval.
The truth is that Kincaid nor Robinson are truthfully giving herself to her audience, but instead decisively performing. They are doing this through irony and ridicule. Both display the ignorance and stoppage that, 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 her made-up feelings and then, in the end, their own, permitting her achievement in an apparently incredible accomplishment— suggesting self-criticism.
As readers are looking into her upset mind, Kincaid recurrently enquires herself to describe history Yet, but 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 Linnaeus, 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 cosiest account of all. We are invited to a front row of Kincaid’s every inward attention. 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 dialogue, it is an ideal circumstance of how 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 and disapproved 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, that 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 point of view, which is on hers. We learn through this demanding essay that sometimes, if we do not speak up, then we can be excluded.