Summary Of Rushdie's Argument By Scott Russell Sanders

Scott Russell Sanders responds to a paper by Salman Rushdie by disagreeing with Rushdie’s belief that people should root themselves in ideas rather than places. Sanders argues the complete opposite of that belief, which is that people should root themselves in places rather than ideas. By Sanders structuring his response based on Rushdie’s counterargument, using a respectful tone, and alluding to historical events, he is able to argue why people must begin to root themselves in places in order to have respect for the area in which they live. Sanders structures his essay by first acknowledging and quoting Rushdie’s argument, and then Sanders provides his own counterargument. In lines 37-40, Sanders even copies Rushdie’s syntax by saying, “Lord knows we could do nothing with less nationalism (to say nothing of its ugly siblings, racism, religious sectarianism, or class snobbery).” This sentence is in reference to a sentence that Rushdie wrote, and Sanders mimics it in order to point out one flaw that Sanders believes is in Rushdie’s essay. Sanders uses this structure again in the beginning of the third paragraph when he first uses a quote from Rushdie about “people who root themselves in ideas rather than places”, he then follows this quote with …show more content…
Sanders does not go after Rushdie personally or use any ad hominem arguments, and this shows the respect that Sanders has for Rushdie. Sanders keeps a calm tone throughout his response in order to be civil, and this shows the reader that Sanders is so confident in his opinion that he does not need to submit to getting angry or irrational. Sanders even goes as far as to say that Rushdie “articulates as eloquent as anyone,” which, again, shows that Sanders has respect for Rushdie. When Sanders refutes Rushdie’s opinions, he speaks about Rushdie like he is an esteemed peer, instead of talking down to him as if he were being completely