...
Show More
I started this book around 4 or 5 years ago and couldn’t get into it. My psyche was trying to tell me not to bother. I decided to finish it (for some reason picked it over a classic like Les Miserables) and I did like the writing style and I did like the story, but it is very much anti-American, anti-Christian, and pro-communist! I should have expected exactly that from an Oprah book club book.
The book praises Patrice Lumumba (the Congo’s first democratically elected prime minister) for being a communist who believes in democracy and conversely vilifies Mobutu Sese Seko (the man who took power after Lumumba was assassinated) for being a dictator who believes in capitalism. Mobutu was not a capitalist. He was a dictator who ran a kleptocracy (a government that extends the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class at the expense of the population). Dictatorships are bad and Mobutu was no exception. He made the people of the Congo suffer enormously, but the book does not make him a villain for being a dictator, it makes him a villain for being a so-called capitalist (Dictatorships are okay for Liberals due to their favorite communist dictator Fidel Castro).
The incessant glorification of communism and the opposing drawl of America (and Christianity) is bad in this book is sickening. The Christian minister is portrayed as a controlling father and husband who puts his whole family in danger by staying in Africa in an unstable political climate and who ends up going crazy. The previous Christian minister is someone who actually lives Christian principles, but was kicked out of position of minister by his own church for cavorting too closely with the natives. Leah defines communists as people who “do not fear the Lord, and they think everybody should have the same kind of house” and from her standpoint “it is hard to fathom the threat” of communism (oh please as if millions of people haven’t died due to communist rule). Rachel, who argues with her sisters against communism, is portrayed as a dumb blonde who misuses words and who also happens to be shallow and heartless. Adah who is seen as the smart one of course agrees with whatever Leah thinks. This theme culminates near the end of the book the sisters get together and go sight-seeing. They go to a palace in Africa where human bones and remains were used as building materials. Leah suggests that we shouldn’t judge the chief for murdering all those people to build his palace just because we are from the West and don’t understand. She says that what looks like “mass murder to us is probably misinterpreted ritual. They probably had ways of keeping their numbers in balance in times of famine”. Both Rachel and the Bible are then made fun of by Leah and Adah when Rachel points out ‘thou shalt not kill’. So … if you are a chief in Africa facing elimination by starvation it is okay to knock off a few people to save the rest, but if you are an American in a world full of nuclear weapons capable of eliminating life on this planet you shouldn’t take out one man who may increase the chances of nuclear holocaust (according to the book Lumumba’s assassination was orchestrated by Eisenhower to eliminate an additional communist threat during the Cold War). If you think one is okay, you have to think the other is too. You can’t justify one just because of where you live or what color your skin is. Nice hypocritical message Barbara Kingsolver.
The book praises Patrice Lumumba (the Congo’s first democratically elected prime minister) for being a communist who believes in democracy and conversely vilifies Mobutu Sese Seko (the man who took power after Lumumba was assassinated) for being a dictator who believes in capitalism. Mobutu was not a capitalist. He was a dictator who ran a kleptocracy (a government that extends the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class at the expense of the population). Dictatorships are bad and Mobutu was no exception. He made the people of the Congo suffer enormously, but the book does not make him a villain for being a dictator, it makes him a villain for being a so-called capitalist (Dictatorships are okay for Liberals due to their favorite communist dictator Fidel Castro).
The incessant glorification of communism and the opposing drawl of America (and Christianity) is bad in this book is sickening. The Christian minister is portrayed as a controlling father and husband who puts his whole family in danger by staying in Africa in an unstable political climate and who ends up going crazy. The previous Christian minister is someone who actually lives Christian principles, but was kicked out of position of minister by his own church for cavorting too closely with the natives. Leah defines communists as people who “do not fear the Lord, and they think everybody should have the same kind of house” and from her standpoint “it is hard to fathom the threat” of communism (oh please as if millions of people haven’t died due to communist rule). Rachel, who argues with her sisters against communism, is portrayed as a dumb blonde who misuses words and who also happens to be shallow and heartless. Adah who is seen as the smart one of course agrees with whatever Leah thinks. This theme culminates near the end of the book the sisters get together and go sight-seeing. They go to a palace in Africa where human bones and remains were used as building materials. Leah suggests that we shouldn’t judge the chief for murdering all those people to build his palace just because we are from the West and don’t understand. She says that what looks like “mass murder to us is probably misinterpreted ritual. They probably had ways of keeping their numbers in balance in times of famine”. Both Rachel and the Bible are then made fun of by Leah and Adah when Rachel points out ‘thou shalt not kill’. So … if you are a chief in Africa facing elimination by starvation it is okay to knock off a few people to save the rest, but if you are an American in a world full of nuclear weapons capable of eliminating life on this planet you shouldn’t take out one man who may increase the chances of nuclear holocaust (according to the book Lumumba’s assassination was orchestrated by Eisenhower to eliminate an additional communist threat during the Cold War). If you think one is okay, you have to think the other is too. You can’t justify one just because of where you live or what color your skin is. Nice hypocritical message Barbara Kingsolver.