In 1993, Scott Russell Sanders responds to an essay written by Salman Rushdie, to counteract the idea of “people who transplant themselves in ideas rather than places.” Sanders provides the American public with acknowledgements of counter-arguments, historical references, and patriotic appeals to convey his message that “movement is inherently good” isn’t as it seems from Rushdie’s point of view. Sanders respects Rushdie’s views on migration and uses them to strengthen his argument through countering Rushdie’s views. Sanders cites Rushdie’s claim that “migrants must, of necessity, make a new imaginative relationship with the world, because of the loss of familiar habitats” (47-50). Sanders acknowledges Rushdie’s view on migrants opening up to new ideas due to them leaving their homelands. Sanders counters the argument by stating that “migrants often pack up their visions and values with the rest of their baggage and carry them along” (50-52). Even though migrants create new relationships with their new homes they integrate part of their earlier homeland into their new one. To Sanders, the transplanting of the old homeland defeats the purpose of the new one if it still lives inside the person. By using the counterclaim, Sanders is …show more content…
Sanders argues that “when we cease to be migrants and become inhabitants, we might begin to pay enough heed and respect to where we are,” (73-75). According to Sanders “by settling in, we have a chance of making a durable home for ourselves, our fellow creatures, and our descendants” (78-80) compared to migrating. The only way to secure a durable home for ourselves and our descendants is to settle down and take care of our home. Without migration, we take care of our home and country without endangering it. Sanders uses patriotic appeals to convince the audience against