Ebookwormy1's Reviews > The Poisonwood Bible

Great review and some great thoughts. This book has been on my bookshelf for some time and I have been meaning to read it. I am glad I will not have to now. I hate when authors cannot criticize any part of other people's culture. Come on! Infanticide? That's nuts.

Wow, I'm saddened by your review, and think you completely missed the mark. You basically made the same mistakes you accused Kingsolver of, particularly when you generalized her points--IN A NOVEL--as if they spoke authoritatively or generally for an entire society. Sad.

Hey TJ,

i was glad to get your comment and read your review. From your review, I can see this book has raised a lot of emotion for you, but i simply didn't experience your warm feelings.

I agree with your praise of Kingsolver's character development, and I was intrigued by the characters, as stated in my review.

However, I just cannot overlook the worldview issues inherant in the extreme situation Kingsolver creates. I recall a page I marked (let me go get it), pg 164 where she states ths missionary and his family were not even trained, and went outside the normal processes. Why create such a situation? What is the author trying to say? what is the point? Knowing Kingsolver's time in Africa was in a medical station, why not feature that? Why create a character she obviously strongly dislikes and wants us to dislike? and then use that situation to speak about the political situation in the Congo? If you can provide a better answer than what I've come up with (to parade her worldview), i'm open to hearing it.

I don't think Kingsolver is trying to speak 'for an entire' society, but i do think she is trying to make compelling arguments for the worldview angles referenced.

I also don't follow your reasoning that my calling her on this involves "making the same mistakes"... could you explain that for me?

Thanks! i love the interaction!

Ultimately, E, it's a novel, it's not a political manifesto. She made choices not just to 'advance an agenda,' which frustrates me that you're coming at it with a pronounced bias. I DO agree with you that she uses poor examples if she's trying ot make a manifesto and not just a novel, but I don't think that's what she's doing.

She does create strongly unlikable characters here. I mean, seriously, only Leah is remotely sympathetic, yet she is also absurdly idealistic and judgmental.

My reasoning in my previous statement that you make the same mistakes is simply, you complain that Kingsolver generalizes to make a political point, and she does so while selecting things (poor marriages, white arrogance, crumbling colonial structures) and in short presents a a very uneven point of view, or a manifesto you find distasteful.

Why must her novel's characters be authoritative archetypes on marriage or relationships or missionaries? I don't think they are. And your conversation on relativism is such a straw man. What about the relativism in the comparative farming techniques? And Brother Fowles is more than just a source of anti-Catholic scorn for Nathan. He's complex and also both inappropriate and approrpiate as a Christianizing force. He's alson one who dangerously 'goes native.' That's fascinating.

Your turn. :)

T.J.

Sorry, I had to be a Mommy for a day or two, but i've been thinking about this and am so eager to write!

I cannot believe you would say the charge of relativism is a straw horse. The theme of relativism, while it appears throughout, is particularly strong in Adah's story (incidentally, I thought Adah was the author's favorite/ most sympathetic/ the one we were supposed to like). Infanticide associated with twins is repeatedly discussed from the American's discovery of the African practice of abandonment throughout the end of Adah's musings. Relativistic themes emerge when the sister's tour the king's palace and discuss how ritualistic sacrifice kept population within limits that that land could support. It is further evidenced in Adah's dislike for the oath she takes when becoming a doctor (i cannot remember how to spell it, so i won't try). This is relativism, the belief there is no ultimate standard for what is right and what is wrong.

I also disagree with you about Brother Fowles. I didn't find him engaging. Sure, there was the revelation that there is more too him than originally thought. He is still a secular character though. His theology is wacky - disconnected from the conservative theology (albiet expressed through is delusions) of Nathan. However, if Brother Fowles had been BIBLICAL in his thinking, I think he would have made a wonderful counterpart to Nathan to show the reader the different outworking of one set of beliefs contrasted to another even within Christendom. I think he also could have given more credibility to the work and overturned the anti-Christian bent of the novel. But this opportunity was missed and the novel remains vigorously anti-Christian.

On another topic, I wish I hadn't used the word "agenda" in the last sentence of my initial review. It is inaccurate and I can see why you are pushing against it. I do think Kingsolver wrote this novel with a view to articulating (and maybe even making sense of) her own experiences in the Congo. However, I don't think she had an agenda per se.

I agree all characters don't have to be authoritative archetypes in a novel. However, when an author goes to the trouble to articulate her research and list a bibiography of references, it does give one the impression that historical facts will be accurate and the environment and characters somewhat typical of the place and time of the novel. Several possibilities arise:
1) The author intentionally deceives (i don't think this is the case);
2) the author is not aware of a bias toward certain interpretations of historical events (I think this is probably the case),
3) the author has not understood her sources, or
4) The author depended too heavily on sources that reinforce her own conclusions about events. I think 2 and 4 are probably at work here.

I will vigorously defend the freedom of the author to write in a way consistent with her worldviews - were I to write, I would do the same. But at the same time, I want the freedom to say I don't like it, I don't agree with it and I don't want to read it again.

This dialogue brings into focus what bothered me about the book. In some ways, I wanted to like it. The characterization and writing are very rich. In the end, I think the problem between the book and I is one of worldview. The worldview issues I expressed prevented me from enjoying it. They are so contrary to my own beliefs and I felt they kept poking me in the eye as I read. Several times I felt like it wasn't worth finishing as these (recurrent) topics were of such annoyance. In the end, I am glad i finished it (otherwise, no discussion with you!), but due to these concerns, it is not the type of book I would like to read again.

I have to say TJ, this interaction, exchange of ideas, and ability to process what I've read is the reason I joined Goodreads and have tried to recruit friends who write reviews. Thanks for enriching my experience TJ!

And that's back to you! :)

Ebook,
I'm glad you found things in the book you liked even though you obviously do not share Kingsolver's worldview (to say the least). Many readers (of any sort of fiction) don't have that ability.

I disagree with most of your arguments, but I do agree that Kingsolver would have made her point more effectively with a little finesse.

Thx for the comment, Greg. I try to be fair, and this was a well written book, but i'm always concerned with what a book is SAYING. I'm glad the review was helpful to you and I liked the way you said it.. "...would have made her point more effectively with a little finesse." Bravo for brevity! i could use more of it! : )

YOU: * Missionaries, particularly protestant missionaries to Africa were entirely the endeavor of egotistic, abusive, colonialists who were merely out to change

ME: No, but this one was. Sheesh.

Although I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, I think the author DID have a bit of an agenda. I think she believed that there is a greater good out there, but that organized religion is for weak minded people. That once you truly learn about the world and yourself you choose what God is to you. I think that is a bunch of bunk. Nice try though.
There is a God and He has a true church, and it is definitely NOT for the weak minded.
That aside, I really liked the character development, and I learned a lot of history. I looked up pygmy's and various historical figures mentioned in the book and really broadened my understanding of what happened in Africa in the last 50 years. Good read, agenda aside.

Melissa, I'm not saying the book was a complete loss, but I do think the author had an agenda in the WAY she told the story. I think she was trying to say something about religious people through her characters, and i don't agree. that is my point.

Kendra, I agree with you wholeheartedly. If you'd like to know more about Africa, I would HIGHLY recommend Martin Meredith's "The Fate of Africa". It is a longer, non-fiction read, but a phenominal overview of Africa in the last 50 years. I also have a review on it if you'd like more details.

Thanks for the reading suggestions! I'm heading to my library right now to pick up "King Leopold's Ghost" and read a more historical account.

I'm sick as a dog right now and not up to expressing my thoughts coherently enough to explain why I disagree with a lot of Ebookwormy's criticism of the book and agree with many of T.J's points -- I just wanted to say I'm really impressed with how the two of you hashed it out without resorting to personal insults or thoughtless name-calling. I initially joined this site simply because I was interested in compiling some sort of total of books I had read, but I'm finding this aspect really interesting. Well done.

Having just finished this book, I am not yet sure of my thoughts, but I do wholeheartedly agree with Allison's praise of the discussion E's review brought about and the respect that was demonstrated amidst major disagreement. Bravo!

Though I consider this book one of the best I've read in years -- for what it says and the things it made me think about just as much as the story, characters and style -- I do agree that it shows the author's views pretty clearly. However, your review takes that to an extreme found nowhere in the book. I agree with TJ that you read it as a manifesto and reacted to it as one in places where it only made sense to view it as a story; yes, I also would have liked more and different examples of certain things, but I don't even know how you came to the idea that the novel is anti-marriage, for example. It shows one horrible marriage and the life of one daughter who's the product of this marriage, who has several failed attempts (or maybe not even attempts) under her belt; it also shows another daughter's marriage, which is probably better than many. If anything, it might be saying that a marriage as bad as Nathan Price's, based on so many harmful things, influences the children born from that marriage just as much as their other experiences.

I also don't think the work says America or Christianity is evil; it says both Christianity and the West have done many harmful things. Again, yes, I'd like more of a variation of things shown, but it would be hard to argue the damage done to Africa isn't real. And the idea that the book ISN'T saying Congo's president was responsible for all the damage he did -- seriously, were we even reading the same book?

And as far as personal responsibility -- the most important thing I found in this book -- yes, personal responsibility exists. I didn't kill any Africans, or put them to work as slaves or support colonialism there, just like I don't employ anyone for wages that are barely enough for food or put children to work in factories where they get hurt. But I'm part of a world that does that, and did that, and I benefit from it; just by being part of the Western world, and then by every personal choice I make that contributes to it. You don't have to shoot a cow to be part of its death; I'm part of its death by the very fact that I'm not a vegeterian. The least I can do is take a breath every once in a while and look at those facts, and try to understand them, even before I try to do anything to counterbalance them a little -- and let's face it, a lot of us don't do anything of the sort.

When someone in Europe makes a decision about investing in diamonds, when someone in the US talks about involvement in Sudan or anywhere else, when anyone in the world buys anything that was made in Africa with or without unfair labor, I want them to have read this book -- just like anyone who looks at what is happening to Africa's water and doesn't think it worth any comment. And more than that, when we think that the way we live is the normal to live for most of the world, and that we've gotten here with no cost, I want them to think about Leah in that supermarket, and what that means. Personal responsibility is the least we can do. It's not enough, but it is the very least.

I take it by your comments that you are on the other side of the political spectrum since you have given a 1 star to the prose in which you, yourself admired because of the politics that the author professed.

I agree that the book does have a political good versus evil bent to it in which the US and missionaries look bad but the author's entitled to it since it is a work of fiction.

Besides there are tons of books out there exhaulting the goodness Chrisitan missionaries and the exportation of Western democracy to the "natives," I think it is great to see the negative effects of policy the US generally thinks is positive. Although I generally think the spreading of Christianity and Democracy is a good think, we have to realize that their are negative consequences to it so we can learn from it and have a more effective policy and we can avoid the cultural miscommunication in the future.

Mehrsa wrote: "Great review and some great thoughts. This book has been on my bookshelf for some time and I have been meaning to read it. I am glad I will not have to now. I hate when authors cannot criticize any..."

I hope your were being sarcastic in your comments. There is no infanticide in the book just babies dying of disease, snake bites, and hunger. If the book interest you, you should read it regardless of any review so you can make your own mind on what to think.

You totally misread this book. Non of your criticisms stack up.

Although scathing in places the novel is fairly balanced (hence why written from the viewpoint of five very different characters).

What is wrong with relativism anyhow? As Adah tries to come to terms with; God made these diseases which struggle to survive as much as humans. The author doesn't condone infanticide (both Adah and Leah struggle with infanticide and Kilanga's treatment of twins throughout the novel), they are saying what is worse? Killing children to preserve your tribe or vaccinating them all and creating overpopulation so everyone starves to death and ruins the land? Which is more morally reprehensible? Both are attempts to 'save' lives it's just one is dressed up as being humanitarian (like the King Leopold's colonization).

Nathan Price may be the example of a 'bad' missionary but Brother Fowles is the very example of an exemplary one. Orleanna's marriage may be a failure but Leah's is a romantic ideal.

Anti-religious? As an atheist I read the religious aspect with much ambiguity. The more naturalistic Christianity as promoted by Brother Fowles for example engages and changes all the characters except Nathan (sure it may not be to your personal view of Christianity but you find me two Christian's who do agree on these things). Even Adah, the staunch atheist, struggles with the question of God at the end. Critical of the blind following of religious dogma? Certainly, very, vehemently. But why is that a bad thing?

Regardless anti-Christian is not a criticism. What if it was anti-Muslim or anti-Atheist (as many pro-Christian books are) or even anti-Greecian would you have found the finer points so disagreeable?

I certainly do not agree with the claim that Kingsolver presents the case that cultures should be preserved after all Brother Fowles educates Tata Ndu on the physical abuse of women. The topic of female circumcistion is not their as a sanction but to illustrate the difference between Fowles and Nathan (who couldn't care less what 'they' do to each other as long as they accept Jesus).

For the claims in paints the US as demons and African's as innocent is laughable. Though legitimately harsh on the US policies, there is plenty of ambiguity: Mbutu is Congolese after all, the visit to the palace made of bones, Leah's insistence that her children are vaccinated against African diseases, Anatole's treatment by his own people, Leah's failure to be fully accepted because she is white.

Personal responsibility. I agree with her. So does your Jesus (did you understand The Good Samaritan?).

The message in this book is not one of who is right and who is wrong. It is about the ridiculousness of forcing your culture onto another. Nathan Price and his Quixotic mission to baptize Kilanga's children without ever attempting to understand anything of the Kilangalize is a allegory used throughout the novel, whether that is the colonization of the Portogeuse or the latter US support of dictatorships.

Of course their are many themes that strong Christian's may be uncomfortable with: Post-modernism, relativism, existentialism, nihilism, humanism (it is an ultimately humanistic novel). But their is a balance in this book (even if it is clear about some of the issues), their is ambiguity. Even as someone who agrees with some of these themes I never felt for certain what the author's standpoint was. That takes a real talent, to raise enough contradictions and questions that you have to answer them yourself. As we are told on the first page "later on you'll have to decide where your sympathies lie".

Its a real shame you felt your personal Christian ideals under attack and failed completely to find the message of this wonderful novel.

Peter wrote: "You totally misread this book. Non of your criticisms stack up.

Although scathing in places the novel is fairly balanced (hence why written from the viewpoint of five very different characters). ..."

Peter, I have a question for you. From your viewpoint, why are Christians against Humanism?

Patrick wrote: Peter, I have a question for you. From your viewpoint, why are Christians against Humanism?

I don't claim against but uncomfortable. The reason? Humanism does not accept that religion is a positive force, in fact goes further to state that it is unnessasary. Quote from The British Humanist Society (http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism):

"Humanism is the view that we can make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values and that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs."

According to your website, it seems that humanism rises up from atheism. But, my understanding of the source of humanism was from the Italian renaissance era. And, it seems to me that the artist who were from this era were doing their work for the Catholic church.

One can argue that anyone who learns from literature could be called a humanist. As a Christian, I do not think Christianity and Humanism are mutually exclusive. Since I learn from literature/art/movies, I think I am a humanist in that aspect but I also ardently believe in a role of Christian morality in our lives.

Patrick wrote: "But, my understanding of the source of humanism was from the Italian renaissance era"

You are refering to Renaissance Humanism which was a revival in Greek and Latin studies.

This is quite different to Humanism as a philosophy as referred to post enlightenment (which is more inline with Greek Humanism).

It is this humanism I refer to in the novel, not Renaissance Humanism (which is not a theme as far as I can discern).

Patrick wrote: "One can argue that anyone who learns from literature could be called a humanist. As a Christian, I do not think Christianity and Humanism are mutually exclusive. Since I learn from literature/art/movies, I think I am a humanist in that aspect but I also ardently believe in a role of Christian morality in our lives."

Personally I don't believe many philosphers, or humanists, would recongnize that as a definition. Humanism is wholly secular, catagorically rejects the supernatural and rejects ethics based on supernatural beliefs - that is not to say some ethics are not shared (human rights are at the heart of humanism) merely that they are a human enterprise not a deference to a supernatural ethical system. In fact many humanists would go as far to consider all religion as wholly unessasary.

In this context the book is wholly humanist - and I believe that Barbara Kingsolver describes herself as one.

In your definition, humanism seems to be equal to ethical atheism.

Where would you place Christian Humanism then? Is Christian Humanism not Humanism?

I prefer to think of Humanism as a concern for humanity in general and within it, there are your religious (Christian) and secular humanism.

What do you think about this definition?

I have to definitely agree with Ebook. She may be way out there for some, but she makes a lot of valid points, in my honest opinion. I don't know exactly what the author was trying to get us to believe, but I had become disenchanted with certain aspects of the book. Particularly everything concerning Christianity and American.

It's okay not to care for either one, but she seemed to be so in love with Africa and its traditions that she made villains out of the two. Most of the American characters that weren't enthralled by Africa, were ignorant, self-centered, or both. The Africans couldn't put at fault because the Americans were just so manipulative ( as well as Belgiums and other European nations). Then Christianity was just a lost cause and worthless. God either didn't care or wasn't there.

Leah became so disillusion with America that she disclaimed it and never admitted to being American anymore. Then we get criticized for having "useless" things. Or for our grocery store and non-smelling nation (not in an offensive sense). And democracy doesn't work either.

I think the only reason Leah really fell in love with Africa was because she wasn't accepted by her father. Yes, she liked it and wanted to learn more. But, she became disenchanted by rejection and could sense acceptance from Anatole. I sense their love was real, but what I am trying point out is what if things had been different? What if her father accepted her unconditionally and wasn't so stubborn? Would her beliefs be the same? Would she had not changed.

I know plenty of better preachers who can explain the Bible better than how Nathan Price did. And who is to say they really believed. Religion was used as a threatening weapon. Go do The Verse...everything was about being watched by God and guilt. In certain respects, I don't think the characters fully developed. Also, they all rejected Christianity because it reminded them too much of their father--it was too closely tied to him. He perverted the Bible and executed God's messaged in the wrong way.

The book was nice, but I could see where the author was leaning. I'm not saying she had to praise God and America, but she didn't show mercy either. I don't think I heard one good thing about either and they both do some good. They didn't get a tilt or nod--not anything.

2shy wrote: "I have to definitely agree with Ebook. She may be way out there for some, but she makes a lot of valid points, in my honest opinion. I don't know exactly what the author was trying to get us to bel..."


As Americans, we believe that when we export Democracy and Christianity to the world it is a good thing. I think this book questions those assumptions and thus has to be biased. If it were not biased then we would not be able to see the negative aspects of Christian missionary work and Western/US foreign policy. Because it questions these assumptions, I think it is a good book. Do I still think that Christian missionary and American democracy is good for the world even after this book? Yes, I do.
But this book does provide a much needed look to the darker side of those actions that we generally look at favorably.

Patrick wrote: "In your definition, humanism seems to be equal to ethical atheism."

Yes, for the more prevalent humanism around which the majority of humanist organizations are formed. And to a degree the version of humanism that is presented in this book (though there is still much ambiguity around the role of religion: Brother Fowles is a hugely positive force in the novel).

"Where would you place Christian Humanism then? Is Christian Humanism not Humanism?"
I agree that Christian Humanism is a fellow branch of humanism and shares many of the same aims. Though even Christian Humanism isn't quite so well defined - there are Christian Humanists who believe the teachings of Jesus are to be followed but don't believe in any supernatural forces (e.g. that he was NOT the son of a god they don't believe in).

"I prefer to think of Humanism as a concern for humanity in general and within it, there are your religious (Christian) and secular humanism."
Agree. I think a fine example of a Christian Humanist who is highly respected in humanist circles is Dr Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury).

I also think a significant number of traditional Christians (especially in the US) are at odds with the humanist principles. Especially as many (not all) Christian Humanists consider religion a guide to our own capability to make moral/ethical decisions and not so much a dogmatic principle. I think there are elements of this contrast in the book as, after all, Adah is the only character who out rightly declares herself athiest. All the others continue to believe in certain Christian moral values but after human morality and all of them dismiss the blind following of the bible which is characterized in Nathan Price (and Leah in her earlier life).

Patrick wrote: "2shy wrote: "I have to definitely agree with Ebook. She may be way out there for some, but she makes a lot of valid points, in my honest opinion. I don't know exactly what the author was trying to ..."

I understand this point, but how many non-africans were painted in a good picture (excluding Brother Fowles and Leah)? I don't mind that she wanted to show us the darker side of our nation and religion, yet, that was all she showed. Both America and Christianity are complex and she just showed it as simple and straight forward with its evilness.

I feel that true growth and maturity could have been shown if they could weigh both sides or, it wasn't all about Africa getting taken advantage. It showed the Europeans/America taking advantage of weak, vulnerable Africa. I do admit our government is shady at times, but in the book, most of them were. No one outside of Africa who wasn't in love with the continent didn't get cut a break.

Everything that the Africans did was justified, even the questionable things, but not when any other country did it.

CanNOT recommend 'King Leopold's Ghost'? Don't you mean I would heartily recommend??

Interesting review.

Thank you for your review - after reading it - I WON'T be reading this book.

I also ignored all the other comments of others who "disagree" with you.....

By the ideals stated in your review, I'm totally not surprised this book was a book picked by Oprah for her book club. Thanks, but no thanks.

(And thank you for your review so I didn't waste my time!)

@Norah, thanks for pointing that out. It's encouraging people are reading to the end of the review! I changed it and thought i tagged you back, but now that i am back up here i see i neglected to close the loop!

@Peter, Patrick, 2shy, well, i guess everyone.

Please read "King Leopold's Ghost". It is a much more balanced view that speaks to many of the issues being discussed. Specifically, that missionaries were at the forefront of documenting and speaking out against European atrocities. True, there are some dark spots in the missionary record, which Hochschild deals with as well. He also talks about Africans who 'sold out' for their own gain. And he names names on the Europeans who were profiting from oppression/ exploitation, as well as those just living in the system who seemed incapable of changing the game even when it needed to be changed. Basically, his nonfiction work presents a much more balanced view.

@ Wendy. I feel a bit torn by your comment. On the one hand, i'm glad my review was helpful to you in deciding what to read.

At the same time, I read this book because it is a popular book that is known to be controversial and of a viewpoint not entirely my own.

My reading tastes are pretty eclectic and I cannot say I read a ton of stuff from a different perspective, but I try to be strategic when I venture into those waters. (Which is why i want to find the time to create a shelf of "Books I've decided not to read" in which I can capture my research about books and remind myself why I've decided to read or not to read). And as far as writing goes, Kingsolver is a less painful wade than something horribly written.

I guess I want you to feel empowered to decide, but also be willing to be challenged every once in a while too.

All of us on this thread would not have come together were it not for my reading and reviewing a book from a perspective markedly different from my own. And for me personally, i wouldn't have been quite as motivated in my non-fiction reading to discover the actual history if Kingsolver hadn't gotten my dander up. Nor as mental acute in my rational if TJ hadn't challenged me.

If you decide to file this under your shelf of books I decided not to read, fine. I guess what i'm trying to say is my dream for goodreads is a community of learners who share and discuss their discoveries together. Thanks to all for making it a great place for a learner to be.

I'm just going to address your review point by point. You don't have to like this book, but you are very off base in your criticism.

* Relativism- the book does not make the point that because everything is relative, anything goes and most certainly does not argue that killing of infants is the right thing to do. That both twins dedicate their lives to bettering the lives of others shines as an example that the practice of murdering twins was a bad idea

* Missionaries- again you have missed the point. Nathan was certainly on the side of deranged when he started and drifted further and further off, but even then, as misguided as he was, he was only trying to do what was best. This isn't an example of missionaries being evil, but of MANY people being frightfully misguided (as further exemplified by the United States' reprehensible behavior in the situation. Brother Fowls was in some ways a counterpart to Nathan, tipping away from mainstream religious thought for a much more lenient worldview. Additionally, however, you have the nuns who are not lax in their Christianity at all and are beacons of good, seeking only to help the Congolese people to convert and also providing physical aid to them as well.

There is certainly a condemnation of the stereotypical American idea that they can rush into a situation and make a new America (something which happens again and again in various ways throughout history), but the condemnation isn't against the desire to help, but the patronizing and incorrect belief that they are all-knowing and divinely led. The book instead pushes for more careful examination and understanding

* Marriage- There is one bad marriage in this book and one amazing one. One is the marriage of lording power and might upon the other and the other is a marriage of give and take. This book is not anti-marriage in the least.

* America- is not made to be the be-all-end-all evil in the book. The most likable protagonist returns to the US to live (and be a woman doctor--something not possible in the Zaire) and Leah and her husband go to the states for relief from oppression and advanced education. This is no simplistic condemnation of an entire country but it DOES condemn not only the actions the country did take (which were reprehensible and there have been MANY similar examples of such behavior) but simplistic nationalism that ignores the facts of US oppression.

You cannot deny that the US in this novel is a safe harbor and a land of extravagant freedom. It is a beacon of light in the terrible policies enacted in the Congo, but that does not mean that it is perfect and the atrocities that was brought to bear needs to see light.

* Cultural traditions- What are Earth are you talking about here? The book condemns the killing of twins and it condemns polygamy and it condemns female circumcision specifically. There is nothing in this book that sets down that because something is tradition it should remain unchanged (and in fact Leah works tirelessly to change things). What I think you are mixing up with your silly claim that the book exhorts not changing anything is the problem of outsiders condemning things they do not understand. The most specific example are the people asking for a gift, as finally understood by Leah--they aren't asking for a gift but covertly establishing contact for an exchange of goods. In other words, there is a difference between what an outsider may at first SEE and what is really going on.

* An "examination of personal responsibility"-- I wonder if you even read this novel sometimes. Mbutu is specifically called out as selling out his country and it isn't that the US is the only problem happening. The problem is Mbutu and it is the counter government forces (who slaughter innocents needlessly) and it is Belgium and it is the US and it is the individual people who took advantage of things. It is not Father Fowels and it is not the nuns and it is not the individual villagers, etc. In other words, the book lays out how complicated of a system of problems there were and how many people simply didn't even know, how many people took part in the oppression and claimed to be free of it and how many people helped to make it a better place. There are so many instances of grace and kindness and goodness in this novel from people of multiple countries--why do you have such a hard time seeing this?

*Christianity-- Again you seem to have ignored the positive Christian influences in this novel who do much good and are beneficially motivated.

Mostly, however, you seem to believe that each character is a representation of a part of the world, and forget that there are many, many characters and that they are all motivated by their own needs and desires and that this book is about the larger thing in that we are all responsible for the way things come about, even if in a small way, and we need to MAKE ourselves aware of that. We cannot just swallow the line that we have to stop the communists and throw our support behind such a devastating personality as Mbutu. Of course this novel doesn't give a 100% fair portrayal of events, in terms of laying out all that happens, but that's because it is a novel, not a history book, and it is concerned with how do people make the decisions that they end up making rather than dealing with the mires of history. It's sad you have such a simplistic view of the world that you cannot understand the many varied levels of things going on here.

@Jason (@ Wendy),
Thanks for your comments.

I was unsatisfied with my response to Wendy, but it didn't seem to be getting better with more work, life was in the way and i had a bit of writers block. Nonetheless, your comments have clarified what I wanted to say to her.

THINKING about what we read is essential to good reading. I am pleased with how you have thought through the book, as well as points in my review. I believe reading a book we don't agree with, thinking about it, and interacting as we are doing here is a valuable activity.

Secondly, Jason, i think you need to get a hold of a logic text or search for "ad hominem abusive" attacks. I bring this up because I see such potential in your reasoning. I understand your frustration that I don't agree with you, and certainly it is tempting to display a bit of emotion, exasperation, sarcasm or snark toward those with whom we disagree. But it doesn't serve your arguments and it communicates a lack of respect for your opponent (and who cares if you best someone unworthy of respect) as well as a lack of respect for the forum (of goodreads) where we want to facilitate interaction about what we read. People may be willing to forgive a bit of this in an extemporaneous interaction, but it is glaring in a written form where your emotion could so easily be edited out.

As it has been 2 years since I read this book, I am ill equipped to respond to your comments specifically. Nonetheless, I stand by my review.

Hold on. Where in the book is it said all missionaries are abusive colonialists? In fact, the other major missionary character in the novel, Brother Fowles, is actually portrayed quite sympathetically. Same response to your characterization of the novel's stance on Christianity - see sympathetic Christian Missionary Brother Fowles. Kingsolver herself said, "I happen to think religion is a wonderful thing—I'm only opposed to arrogant proselytizing." (http://www.harpercollins.com/author/m...) Where does the novel hold forth that all marriages are oppressive? In fact, Leah's relationship with and subsequent marriage to Anatole - one of the major plot lines - is portrayed quite positively. And where exactly do ANY of the characters endorse female genital mutilation?

@Jason. Thanks for accepting my friend request. I continue to think on your comments. I am intrigued by your perception of America as a counterpoint land of extravagant freedom. This is a different perspective than I had, and it is ALMOST making me want to read it again, but the to-read list is so long!

Two other themes from the more recent responses:

Leah and Anitole. While Jason and others were enchanted by their relationship, i just didn't share your satisfaction. It's not that I found their relationship distasteful (like the parents), but I didn't see it as beacon or example. The author takes such pains to paint the horrors of the parents, I didn't find similar attention or eloquence regarding Leah and Anatole as a contrasting perspective that highlights the wonderful blessing a strong marriage can be. Hence my perception of an anti-marriage perspective.

Brother Fowles. I definitely was not impressed by Brother Fowles, nor did I find him to be sympathetically portrayed. I recall finding him somewhat distasteful. He is not a main character and his presence is rather sparse, so it's more challenging to figure him out, and as he doesn't play a role in the overarching plot, somewhat irrelevant. While I had no problem with his identification with Africans, his theology was screwy, and I questioned his beliefs. He is a good example of what I think nonbelieving liberals WANT Christians to be: non-proselytizing docile humanitarians who aren't really Christian. But though my memory is clouded by time (having been a couple years), I didn't not find him a counterpoint to Nathan in any way. Now, if she had made Brother Fowles a TRUE BELIEVER (along the lines of the sparsely mentioned nuns) with a passionate evangelical impetus, the complexity of a previous minister wronged to bring in Nathan would have been more powerful and served to provide some balance to the story line. The desire to share the gospel is significant. True Christians who want to become more like Jesus want to share the gospel with others. Because Jesus did (and paid for it with His life) and because they believe the gospel is a precious treasure. We sin and are screwed on our own. God loves us. Jesus came to take our place in satisfying God's righteous wrath against sin. We can have a relationship with God through Jesus! This is the essence of being a Christ follower, the source from which humanitarian work flows. For nonbelievers, consider if you had a cure for cancer. It could change humanity and lead to better lives for everyone. Certainly it should be shared, and it would even be wrong, selfish, unjust NOT to share it. Once you have cured cancer, it would also be a natural follow through to minister to other health needs.

@Ginny, I found Kingsolver's quote laughable. Basically she is saying, I don't mind religious people, as long as they keep it to themselves. She mentions "arrogant" proselytizing, of which her Nathan character certainly is typical. She chose a religious domain for her writing (and believers have every right to evaluate her portrayal). I think her work would have been enhanced if she could have illustrated what NON-arrogant proselytizing would look like, because Brother Fowles is a nice guy who wants to help people, he doesn't seem too concerned with people actually coming to know Christ -- which is one thing that ignorant, unbalanced, inadequate, unequipped, uneducated, ineffective, defeated Nathan got right.

This is especially regrettable in light of all that little known missionaries in the Congo did to share the gospel AND help the local people, many in opposition to the colonial powers. Again, I cannot commend “King Leopold’s Ghost” enough.

Finally, to those who cannot find Female Genital Mutilation in the book, I don't believe it is there. I used it as an EXAMPLE of practices innate/traditional in cultures (you'll notice I selected some from our culture as well), but which most can agree should be eliminated because they are harmful and destructive. For more on this topic, my Goodreads friend Mehrsa has written an excellent review of Poisonwood Bible in which she discusses "exoticfying" cultures. Though I think she viewed this work more favorably that I, I think she had some great points. check it out.

Strange, maybe there are 2 different books? The one I read was about family, struggles with reality, isolation, the difficulty of belonging. And it was well written with an almost dream like consciousness. Was i looking too deeply?

I, too, think we must have been reading different books. This book is about choice, and the effects those choices have on each and every person it touches. Along with the world as a whole.
It also is about relationships. Relationships of family, siblings, lovers, community, politics, religions and the world.

This was an amazingly complex book woven together in a way that brought that little piece of time, that part of the Congo, to your hands.
This is a work of fiction. If you are reading fiction to find historical facts, or to be free from the writers personal belief systems, then maybe fiction isn't for you.

ah Mondrian, you flatter me! I am accustomed to most criticizing ME that I am thinking too deeply! in your case, I would speculate that your worldview runs in closer alignment with the authors than mine, so many of the things that bothered me didn't hit you.

@Jen. I'm afraid fiction is my thing. But I like an author to be honest about the setting in historical time and place. I'm not a great non-fiction reader, but this novel stirred up an interest in Africa that stimulated non-fiction reading.

I am fine with your enjoyment of the storyline, as long as you realize the "little piece of time, that part of the Congo" is, in fact, a mirage. If you want to truly understand the REAL Congo, the REAL place in time, Kingslover is misleading you.

Okay I greatly disagree with many of your points.

1. She was not advocating infanticide. She was pointing out that it occurred in this one culture and explained the reasons why.

2. Missionaries greatly upset cultures in Africa by indirectly spreading diseases such as smallpox that wiped out almost entire tribes.
a. Missionaries as a whole come to a land such as Africa with a disrespectful intention from the get go. They come to spread Christianity, claiming it to be superior to the existent religion of that culture. That is arrogant. That is dismissive and disrespectful to different belief systems.

3. The author was not making a commentary on the institution of marriage. It was about one marriage that is it. No more.

4. This is the point you made that I disagreed with the most. Let me run you through things that the American government has done in other countries.
1. Financially supported dictators in the late 20th century in Chile and Argentina. These dictators made people disappear (aka: most likely killer) for suspicion of being communist. Mothers in Buenos Aires still, every day, march in one park at 4 pm for the return of their sons that disappeared under the Argentinean dictatorship.
2. Financially funded and provided military trained to the Haitian military. This military overthrew the first democratically elected president of Haiti and established military rule. This military tortured and raped innocent people for years.
3. In the early 20th century the US companies had a massive interest in banana plantations in places such as Colombia. So when the workers of a plantation in Colombia began to peacefully protest for a 6 day work week and for better pay the US government pressured the Colombian government to end the protest at any means necessary. Troops were sent in while the protesters waited to hear the president of the plantation speak. The troops opened fire and slaughtered women, children, and men.

These are a few examples. there are many many more. Trust me, the American government is not the force of good in the world, contrary to what you have been led to believe.

4. I agree with this point but remember that it is accepted for males to be circumcised in western culture. I definitely am 100% against female circumcision, but remember our culture can be held up to the same lens. And yes people please eat more veggies and less processed foods and refined grains.

5. All interesting questions. I respect this point.

6. My view of religion is this: Respect other people beliefs as you would have them respect yours. (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) No belief system is higher than another because when it comes down to it, know one can really know for sure. Just believe whatever gives you peace and leave others in peace with their beliefs.

I do agree she had an agenda, but some of your points I fundamentally disagree with.


I might read King Leopolds Ghost based on your recommendation

@Nikki. Thanks for your comments. I've been thinking about them since you posted. It's wonderful to see people contributing to the community of Goodreads by THINKING about what they are reading and sharing it.

I found the time today to respond to #1-3… I will get to the others...

"She was not advocating infanticide. She was pointing out that it occurred in this one culture and explained the reasons why"
I disagree. Again, my remembrance on this is funky because it’s been a while since I read this book. But I recall the infanticide/ ritual sacrifice was a way to keep the population in balance and protect the environment argument when they were visiting the skull walled fortress, and in reference to the twins policy.

2. “Missionaries greatly upset cultures in Africa by indirectly spreading diseases such as smallpox that wiped out almost entire tribes. Missionaries as a whole come to a land such as Africa with a disrespectful intention from the get go. They come to spread Christianity, claiming it to be superior to the existent religion of that culture. That is arrogant. That is dismissive and disrespectful to different belief systems.”

This charge against missionaries is completely unfounded.

A) If the missionaries didn’t come, do you really think the rest of the Europeans (and their diseases) would have stayed away?

B) Let’s not judge them by things we have learned since their time. First, looking at what they knew: They were just as exposed to African diseases as Africans were to European diseases. They went knowing medical care would not be as advanced in primitive cultures, how many do you think died of African diseases? Second, looking at what they didn’t know: No one in that time knew they were spreading disease, this is something we have learned since then. How can missionaries be uniquely culpable for unintended consequences about which they had no knowledge at the time?

C) Yes, they did claim that Christianity was a superior religion to that culture. And if you believe infanticide, ritual servitude/ religious prostitution of women (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_s...) medical care provided by a witch doctor and that a rainmaker is the best way to find water when your family is dying, THEN you can assert that traditional religion is superior. Your argument is based on a belief that all religious practice is equal, which necessitates a lack of moral basis for evaluation.

What IS arrogant is condemning a group of people to living out these practices (which you would not want to live in yourself) for the sake of preserving a culture that is destructive to them. This is particularly heinous when you know that the gods do not require infant sacrifice or prostitution of women (Christianity’s alternate religious belief), and that health and water can be found through scientific means (technology of the west applied to Africa). This is not to say that there are not very valuable and, from a Christian point of view, more Biblical ways of living embraced by Africans. While I don’t think you want to get into theology, I would just say that the African concept of community is more Biblical than the western concept of individuality, and we western Christians have a lot to learn from African Christians.

D) Who can meet this standard of not believing they have something to offer native people? Are you saying that doctors who went to share superior medical training are wicked or arrogant in their intent to save or improve lives? Or that engineers are arrogant in their desire to provide more viable means of securing water? Or that teachers are arrogant in seeking students who can contribute to their country’s development? Even the pathetic character in this story tried to find ways to improve agriculture. True, he needed to see what they were doing first, but his intention to provide knowledge so that more people could be more effectively fed wasn’t wrong. In this story, he didn’t succeed, but many missionaries did succeed, and are still succeeding today.

E) You see Christianity as arrogant, because you don’t believe it. But when you take what Christians believe and get into their head, their motives are (for the most part) not wicked. Otherwise, why leave the comfort of their way of life to put themselves and their families at risk, for what? Not for profit (economic) or recognition (fame) or politics (power) but because they actually believe that without Jesus people are going to hell. And although I cannot remember Poisonwood Bible so well, what is it that the missionary family did that was actually so destructive? They made a feeble attempt to know the people? They taught English? And they prepared the tribe for exposure to the imperial powers? Sure, Kingsolver made them look pathetic, but I cannot see that even they, whipping board for her agenda, caused harm. Maybe I’m forgetting something from the story? These missionaries went sacrificing a life that was far more comfortable in a ‘home’ country, to be uncomfortable (economically, socially, culturally, separated from family, the anxiety of unknowns, etc) somewhere else because they believed the people there needed to hear about Jesus. How many of us would or even are doing something similar for what we believe?

F) How many cultures do you think have been destroyed in the history of the world through the natural course of human experience? What do you think the life expectancy of those cultures was? Considering the average life expectancy in Ethiopia TODAY doesn’t exceed 60 (taking from the middle of the CIA Factbook), I would guess not high. And if we could somehow dig up, say, 100 of them, would you like to pick one to live in for the rest of your (considerably shortened) life? Probably not, but I bet some Christian missionaries would, as well as some anthropologists. If we could bring those cultures back in the form of people who were native to them, what percentage of the people would chose to live in that culture instead of trying to connect with the modern world? My point is that culture is not something to be worshipped. It is transient and malleable. Sure, we can learn from other cultures, but reserve your worship for something or someone more enduring.

G) Why do you think there are so many cultures about which we have no knowledge? The biggest single factor in our understanding of cultures is their ability to leave a WRITTEN record. Who do you think has been the driving force in training native people to write since the middle ages? Missionaries (be they the religious orders of the catholic faith or the more individual pursuits of protestants). And in fact, many missionaries were instrumental in setting out ahead of imperial empires and documenting native cultures and practices prior to their penetration by business, politics or economy (this is certainly not true every place, but again, a factor not to be ignored). An example of this is the ministry of missionaries in Hawaii. In wikipedia, I clicked on the first name, “Hiram Bingham” and found this typical reference.

“Bingham and his wife arrived first on the Island of Hawaii in 1820, and then sailed on to Honolulu April 19. In 1823, Queen Kaʻahumanu and six high chiefs requested baptism. Soon after, the government banned prostitution and drunkenness, which resulted in the shipping industry and the foreign community resenting Bingham's impact.[4] Bingham was involved in the creation of the spelling system for the Hawaiian Language and also translated some books of the Bible into Hawaiian. [5]”

The government made positive changes as a result of their ministry. The foreign community resented the missionary (they rather liked the dissipation of the natives, apparently it suited their goals). And he created a spelling system for the language as well as translating the Bible. If you read Hiney’s “On the Missionary Trail” you will find this pattern documented all throughout their travels, and quite a bit about Hawaii in particular. If you read “King Leopold’s Ghost,” a publication with a more secular view, you will find the same pattern in the Congo. And you will notice how often the ‘other’ westerners RESENT the missionary’s advocacy for native populations.

H) I am not saying that all that is good about Africa came from Christians and I am not saying that Christians don’t make mistakes and are somehow not fallible like the rest of humanity. But, I am saying that the Christian motivation to teach people about a unique God DID have positive impacts in primitive cultures, and there is a tendency to find the weakest example to vilify while denying the powerful impact of many unrecognized people of faith who accomplished amazing things. Furthermore, I am saying the Christian embrace of a rational, orderly creation, stemming from a rational, orderly God who has revealed Himself to creation via the Bible has given rise to much in scientific achievement, whether people want to acknowledge its foundations or not. In other words, while Christianity is not the sole cause for European ascendance in the post-middle age world, you cannot extrapolate it out and discount it as a factor. Europe was shaped (for better and worse) by Christianity, and Christianity was shaped (for better or worse) by Europe. Just as India and Hinduism, Persia and Islam, and Thailand and Buddhism molded each other. I didn’t see this for a long time, and am just now starting to wrestle with the question of “what are the cultural/ societal contributions of religion beyond the spiritual realm?” Thomas Woods, Jr.’s “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”, a somewhat immature exploration of this little addressed topic, has expanded and challenged by thinking on this. I would be interested in any other works that examine this topic.

3. The author was not making a commentary on the institution of marriage. It was about one marriage that is it. No more.
A) This has already been thoroughly discussed in previous posts. I am persuaded by other writers that the Anatole-Leah union, though secondary, does present some positive aspects of marriage.

Yeah colonialism did lots of good things...for the colonizers.

Sounds like a great book. I'll have to read it!

@ Nikki. I didn’t forget about you! Here is my response to your comment: “This is the point you made that I disagreed with the most. Let me run you through things that the American government has done in other countries.”
Part 1

My initial response to this item was that I was surprised your list was so short! You neglected to mention USA’s refusal to allows Jews to immigrate prior to WWII, even though we knew Hilter was systematically persecuting them and suspected he was exterminating them. I thought that one was very well known. What about the Vietnam War? Somewhat of a disaster, don’t you think? Or the Iranian coup of the 50’s? I’m sure Iranians paint a picture of grievance to rival Congo. Surely the list of mistakes is far longer than either of us have referenced.

My second thought was: I expect non-believers to attack Christianity. It makes sense. They don’t get it, they cannot see it, they have not lived it, and don’t understand it. I get it. But why is it that Americans find attack America? I’m not talking about loving criticism that we all might be better. I’m talking about vengeful, spiteful, willing to destruction, arrogant assault upon the country by her own children. I’m talking American self-hatred. I remember the hope and joy of Reagan’s “City on a hill” (a Biblical allusion, by the way) and the “Dawning of America” – how much we need that hope and inspiration, that reminder, that though America has her flaws and failings, she still represents something this world needs. Michael Medved’s “10 Big Lies about America” in which he wrestles with this disdain for America by her own children also comes to mind.

And then my thoughts turned to the rest of world….

Where is the perfect nation? Where is the perfect leader? As long as men are involved, we shall be prone to error. What is the alternative to the imperfect exercise of power? Doing nothing? Like when the world stood by as Rwandan’s were massacred? No, that counts against us to.

What counts for the United States?

Is there no credit for a nation founded on a group of principles that had never been united before and SUCCEEDED? This was not a given when our nation was formed. Many had their doubts. And now there are many countries that have adopted a Constitutional form of government in America’s wake. Are they wrong to model themselves after America’s greatness? And what wonderful, transformational, principles they are! I am currently reading “The Five Thousand Year Leap” by Skousen and it is reminding me how groundbreaking our Founding Fathers were in their thinking and execution of a nation that was wholly different from all others.

How many countries fought wars, spilling their own blood, to emancipate slaves? If you haven’t encountered the tremendous sacrifice that was made to preserve the union of this country and prevent North America from taking a step toward fragmented Europe, parceled into warring states, read a book about the civil war. There are so many good ones. It is America and her struggle that shaped one of the world’s greatest leaders, Abraham Lincoln, who is still honored the world over for the tremendous accomplishment of holding the Union together. What other countries have this heritage? And how much do we benefit from the unity of the United States today?

Is there no recognition of the American participation in winning two world wars, both of which we were hesitant to enter? There are still some, but maybe the old ones, in France, Poland, Yugoslavia (Serbia, Croatia), Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, (all of which were liberated and/or established after WWI) not to mention England, remember the assistance of the United States. Although the eastern european states were lost to Stalin (what a pact with the devil to win WWII!!) – they were still encouraged by the light that was America. More on them under the fall of communism. Do you think the French and English remember WWII, and the dark days of fighting alone before the Yankees joined in? Was the execution of either war without blemish, no. Was the peace of either war perfect, no. But there were defining moments of bravery, heroism and sacrifice that are consistent with the ideals of the USA and should be lauded. God bless my grandparents who fought in those wars – both at home and abroad. And still today, the many requests the USA gets for assistance are indicative of it’s power, but also it’s compassion and history of responding in times of need.

@ Nikki. I didn’t forget about you! Here is my response to your comment: “This is the point you made that I disagreed with the most. Let me run you through things that the American government has done in other countries.”
Part 2

Can it be said that America is cruel to the vanquished? How is it that Germany and Japan, the enemies that forced us into those wars, enemies we paid dearly to defeat are now allies? Did not America contribute millions to their rebuilding? In fact, USAID was established after WWII and has been the vehicle for American government donation of BILLIONS to our friends and former enemies across the globe. You can look at their finances here:
http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/data/...
Sure, I doubt all that money has been handled without stain… but I think the child in Africa is grateful for the mosquito net – not to mention their parents. Wells have been dug, people have been fed, land has been reclaimed for agriculture, and the list goes on and on. What countries and individuals have been impacted by those contributions? What would the world be like without those programs?

Furthermore, Arthur C. Brookes has a couple of books examining PERSONAL (above and beyond government) giving. I have only read summaries, but I think it interesting that his research (surprising considering the ‘word on the street’) shows the generosity of Americans. His books are on Goodreads if you’d like to check them out.

Lets move from money to manpower. What about all the volunteers this country has sent overseas to help others? What other country has a peace corps, celebrating 50 years? People who volunteer to build sanitation systems, teach special education, bring hope in so many tangible ways. And then, to celebrate, they ask people to give more….
http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?s...
Even though on a per believer basis, we are not in the top ten of missionary sending nations – American’s don’t like to leave home, wonder why? – we still send more missionaries by number than any other country in the world. Of course, reading Poisonwood Bible, you wouldn’t understand the tremendous contribution that makes to the world. Who do you think supports those missionaries by giving them money, providing training and sending encouragement? You can read about missions here:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2...

Is there no appreciation for the fall of communism? Have we forgotten the powerful moment of Reagan demanding, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Do we remember when Germany was divided, and there was a wall to keep people in? Or all of Eastern Europe cloaked behind an Iron Curtain? Do you think those people who were imprisoned and today live in freedom remember their torture? Or the Americans who broadcast on Voice of America to encourage them? Or the American journalists who made their stories known? Remember, America had the SAME opportunity as Stalin to annex land after WWII and chose to bring liberation instead. Many of the mistakes we talked about were made in effort to control communism. The government took risks, they tried stuff that failed. We have the benefit of hindsight in knowing what failed, and I hope we lay hold of the benefit of hindsight in knowing what SUCCEEDED! Because communism as a global force was severely curtailed with the fall of the Soviet Union. The Reagan administration itself wasn’t perfect. Yet, do you think people who can now raise the children in a radically different environment are grateful for American leadership – even though it’s imperfect?

Why is it that persecuted individuals from all over the world seek asylum in the United States?
Does America get no credit for being a place of freedom for her citizens and a place to which the likes of Albert Einstein, Carl Djerassi, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Marc Chagall, Georg Solti, Joseph Stalin’s daughter, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Sergei Fedorov, Nadia Comăneci, Martina Navratilova, Henry Kissinger, Madelyn Albright (with her parents), Salmon Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali have all fled, and there are thousands more.

If there is a better nation, with less faults than ours, surely the world is dreaming of living there. Yet the United States receives the highest number of asylum applications every year from refugees all over the globe – ordinary people we may never hear about in the papers. Why do they want to come here? Is it possible America has something better than the countries they are fleeing? This story from Canada states 1 in 6 applications for asylum are submitted to the United States:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/20...
Is it a flawless system? No, but people still apply. Why?

How many people has the United States educated? SEVIS reports that one million people in the last YEAR have active visas to attend one of over 10K schools.
http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/q...
Yet we also can theorize that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who were educated in the United States and returned to their home country. Is that not a valid contribution to the world? And that does not even take into consideration their ability to have a further reach in their home country as a result of their education here.

What of America’s significant contributions to invention and technology? Could so many things have been invented somewhere else? Yes, but it takes 4 separate pages of Wikipedia documentation to BEGIN to capture all that was invented here. Is not some of that due to the uniqueness that makes America great? What would our world be like without electricity? Numerous lifesaving pharmaceuticals? Bifocals? Toilet paper? Flight? Not to mention computers and telephones… You can look through 4 pages yourself here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline...

Is there a reason Nobel Prizes have been won by 326 citizens of the United States, more than any other? Are all of these people without their foibles? And yet they have the United States in common… Certainly the US isn’t the only factor, but it would be reasonable to assume it is A factor. Why the leadership?

I am concerned that American’s no longer recognize how great and unique our country is. I think it is a tragedy. Sure, it is fashionable to be belligerent and cynical and disappointed and attack the country that gave you stability, education and opportunity. Certainly a commitment to excellence means we need to figure out what went wrong when, but this is done in a spirit of love and hopefulness, not prideful spite. And, ultimately, aren’t so many of these criticisms directed at the people who came before us? What do we know of their challenges and limitations? What credit do we give them for making due and succeeding in many areas with less advantages than we ourselves have inherited by their success? We have the substantial advantage of hindsight to help us pass judgement, but does that say more about them or about us? What would our forefathers, be they immigrants or those blessed with citizenship from birth, think of our belittling the nation they built? And what are we doing to make sure their successes are not left to fall by the wayside as we speed along in criticism?

Who are we, in this generation going to be? Will we continue to grow the country they invested in by serving our neighbors and the world? Or are we becoming a generation who is either eager to cut down their failed attempts at living up to our American ideals or simply a generation that is ungrateful for the sacrifices of those that have brought us to where we are today? Why is it that those who have been nourished by an America of generations before us are the least appreciative?

I believe this longing for an ideal is connected with our innate desire to worship. It is a dangerous thing. If you look for it to be satisfied in humanity, you might end up relating to the countless masses of people who have placed dictators with an aura of splendor into power only to find that you were deceived. So until the LORD establishes a PERFECT kingdom (a feat of which only God is capable), I’m thankful to have the privilege of being an American. I know people who have worked for years to gain the ridiculously lavish benefits of being a citizen of the nation I was born into by no act of my own! America is not perfect, but even with all her flaws, she is still the best thing going today, and I’m proud to defend her!

@ Nikki. I didn’t forget about you! Here is my response to your comment: “This is the point you made that I disagreed with the most. Let me run you through things that the American government has done in other countries.”
Part 3

And this is why I have a problem with ‘cautionary tales’ like Kingsolvers. Cautionary tales are, for the most part, easy to plot. I can turn on the news and see 3 or 4 before they even go to commercial. There are plenty of famous actors, politicians, writers, musicians and scientists who have made a mess of their lives or simply made mistakes in their endeavors. There is plenty of squander of the American dream. Kingsolver is obviously a gifted writer, but does she use that to examine the complexities of what happened in the Congo? No, she gives us a slanted storyline. Does she contrast for us the bad and the good? No, she only illuminates the ‘cautionary tale.’ And what does her book inspire in readers? Perhaps a review of the discussions on Goodreads can give us a picture? It’s true, there are stories of tragedy all over the world because of poor decisions made by Americans individually or collectively, as there are because of poor decisions by others. But if we are really going to examine the issues and make wise decisions going forward, we also need to factor in all the triumphant stories of regeneration and deliverance that have come about by American efforts as well. Kingsolver, for whatever reason, is only telling part of the story.

We are best when we are closest to the ideals upon which our country was founded. I think of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, or Kennedy’s famous “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” or Reagan’s “City on a Hill”. All of which can be read online.

Whose responsibility is it to defend and propagate these ideals in our day? Is it right that the great thinkers and writers about liberty should come from Canada or Russia or England or China or Eastern Europe, great nations though they are? To let others carry the light is to admit destruction of America.

Let us close with what is universally recognized as one of the great statements of the sacred trust that we hold as citizens of the United States of America. On a field of battle, with graves all around, Abraham Lincoln confronted the physical battle for liberty much as we need to confront the ideological battle, lest we come to those battle fields again. It is important to note that he spoke these words when victory was not certain, when America and her dreams looked weak and tattered and poor and on the verge of flaming out after less than a century of existence. His speech, carved into the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC is a challenge not only to those of yesterday, but to us, of today:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Abraham Lincoln, 1863

@Lady. I believe I have dealt with your questions in other posts, specifically in response to Nikki.

marykate wrote: "Yeah colonialism did lots of good things...for the colonizers."

We are discussing America, which was never a colonial power. In fact, America WAS a colony.

As for Belgium, the colonial power in the Congo, I would recommend King Leopold's Ghost as an excellent work that puts their role in perspective, as well as dealing with the themes of missionaries, native African culture in the Congo, slavery (or as they called it indentured servitude), and independence.

Tenderfoot wrote: "Sounds like a great book. I'll have to read it!"

Great! I encourage you to read it if interested. Please see my response #34 to Wendy.

@ lady. And yet you keep trying!

I find myself searching for a point? Perhaps it makes you feel better to state that you disagree, and attacking others personally is an added bonus?

Maybe it is a laziness thing? Shooting off a quote of someone else's is so much easier than doing your own thinking?

Or a media thing, searching for the 'zinger' that cues the laugh track?

Have you singled out every 1 star rating for such accusation or is it just me? Is your problem with my opinions that I didn't like the book, that I love America or that I am a Christian?

What do you think such comments contribute to the community of goodreads?

Questions, Questions, Questions.

Nonetheless, the ad hominem attacks are rather tiresome. And since they lack no argument whatsoever for discussion, I will not be responding to them.