Salman Rushdie is an Indian-born British writer who has experienced movement from his home to a new place. Rushdie expresses the benefits of migration and how it helps create “hybridity” in a place. Russell Sanders analyzes Rushdie’s essay and has a different opinion. In response to Rushdie’s belief about migration, Sanders’s Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World essay, contradicts the opinion of Rushdie’s essay that migration is bad. Through Sanders’s quotes and information he uses in his essay, he argues that we must settle down and stop our movement. Sanders questions the morality of migration and refers to past events that show the overall effects of migration. The purpose of his analysis to Rushdie’s essay is to end people from moving and taking their ideas and practices with them to new places, because it causes destruction to new regions unsuitable to their ways. Sanders’s euphemism, anaphora, and rhetorical questions help support his ideas on why migration is bad for humans and the environment.
…show more content…
He quotes Rushdie several times and then states his own beliefs in similar ways. As Rushdie believes that migration brings diversity, Sanders believes that this brings destruction. The rhetorical question in lines 40-42 condemns the group of people who do migrate, and then criticizes the audience's ethics and humanity's ability to destroy the environment and then simply move on without remorse. He uses this device to question humans selfish ideas and values imposing on new land and help rid of its occurrence. Through the evaluation of ethos, the author displays pathos by also instilling guilt into the reader’s emotions. He questions what we lose by uprooting ourselves, and this applies to all humans who have ever moved rather than staying in one
He quotes Rushdie several times and then states his own beliefs in similar ways. As Rushdie believes that migration brings diversity, Sanders believes that this brings destruction. The rhetorical question in lines 40-42 condemns the group of people who do migrate, and then criticizes the audience's ethics and humanity's ability to destroy the environment and then simply move on without remorse. He uses this device to question humans selfish ideas and values imposing on new land and help rid of its occurrence. Through the evaluation of ethos, the author displays pathos by also instilling guilt into the reader’s emotions. He questions what we lose by uprooting ourselves, and this applies to all humans who have ever moved rather than staying in one