Analysis Of 'Jstaying Put : Making A Home In A Restless World'

Scott Russell Sanders writes an essay to Salman Rushdie explaining his view point on what Salman wrote on how people migrate all over the world. Sanders explains in the essay that people often chase after an idea rather than a place, he believes people cannot stay in one place because they are living for an imaginary world. Sanders uses many techniques in the essay to help get his idea of staying rooted to a location would help society make a better home for themselves. These techniques include metaphors and repetition.

A lack of belonging can destroy a sense of placement in society. This statement is thoroughly explored in the poem, ‘Migrant Hostel’ by Peter Skrzynecki, investigating the concepts of alienation and dislocation through the migrant’s lack of acceptance by the Australian citizens. The migrants are also unable to find a fixed home, and therefore feel no sense of stability or permanence. This transitory nature is best identified in the simile, ‘We lived like birds of a passage/Always sensing a change/In the weather’, where the comparison to birds emphasises the absence of a home. It is clear that the migrants feel unable to adapt to Australian society, constantly moving and never settling. The migrant’s exclusion is further highlighted in the lines,

People who tend to migrate a lot are less applicable of understanding and appreciating new ways of life. In response to an essay by Salman Rushdie on the benefits of moving, Scott Russell Sanders, in his essay “Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World,” claims that people should not immerse themselves into places but rather into ideas and values and also that people should care for the earth rather than for their egotistic desires. Through his use of a nostalgic tone and implied metaphors Sanders critiques Rushdie’s claims about the negative impact of migration and he also demonstrates why it is better for people to immerse themselves to their location rather than old beliefs and habits.

Sanders uses rhetorical questions in the passage to cause the reader to further ponder upon why individuals rooting themselves in ideas posses negative impacts, while individuals rooting themselves in places has positive impacts. In the passage the author notes, “But who would pretend that a history of migration has immunized the United States against bigotry?” (Sanders 40-41). This piece of text in the passage easily displays the use of a rhetorical question because Sanders is

By the late eighteenth century, do to the shrinkage of the Indian population, field abandonment, and reduction in burning a case can be made that the environment will recover across the New World but the pace of the recovery will be varied. Denevan concludes by claiming that the pristine image of the Americas in 1492 was a misrepresentation, in other words, a myth (Denevan,

Immigrants- illegal or not, do not have the first claim to ownership of common stock or common land. Immigration isn’t necessary for the benefit of the host nation’s economy. In any case, one might prefer lower living standards rather than higher living standards in exchange for greater distance from others. Moreover, no multicultural society has ever lasted very long. In fact, diverse neighborhoods report less social cohesion than neighborhoods with a less diversity.

Thus, he evokes the support of his idea that moving is unreasonable and illogical within the reader. In addition, the author opposes Rushdie’s “enthusiasm for migration” by quoting Rushdie’s words on the elimination of nationalism that comes with moving. Sanders then says, “... who would pretend that a history of migration has immunized the United States against bigotry? And even if, by uprooting ourselves, we shed our chauvinism, is that all we lose?” (lines 40-43)

Humanity is ever so much more complicated than one could have ever imagined. Humans can thrive on change, but ultimately look for something to declare as home. In search of this home people travel long distances and risk everything they have. When an American contemplates the word immigrant, one imagines the countless people from Mexico crossing into our country or the refugees that hope to make this country their home. What eludes most of us, however, is the reality that most people were, at one point, immigrants to this country and that our forefathers came here exactly the same as refugees come today. What is brought to mind when I hear the word immigrant is hope and perseverance. I remember the countless people who have traveled here

Since the dawn of American colonization in the early 1600s, the notion of immigrating to America has long been instilled upon various people as a stimulating opportunity to begin a fresh chapter in their lives. Even now, this possibility has brought many variations of people to America, culminating a society that brims with dreams and aspirations to form the diversified nation of today. When speaking of the current state of immigration, it is easy to conclude that immigration is heavily discussed from political standpoints. Though this current condition is composed of highly controversial perspectives, many of the early-century viewpoints found in literature genuinely embrace reality, for these writers were indeed immigrants themselves, thus adding an authoritative standpoint over immigration. The Americanization of Edward Bok (1921) by Edward Bok and The America I Believe In by Colin Powell, display the perspectives of two authors, who have lived as immigrants, through their own personal anecdotes. Both Edward Bok and Colin Powell convey a sincerely grateful tone and develop the idea of Americanization and the quest for opportunity through the use of connotative diction in contrast to the Immigration Chart and Political Cartoon which have a downright concrete and pessimistic tone and supports the idea that immigration exposes various challenges to incoming immigrants.

“Our heroes have been sailors, explorers,... rainbow-chasers, vagabonds,” Sanders states, providing non-specific information relating to the American notion of migration. After describing the fundamentals of mass migrations, Sanders then goes on to compare Salman Rushdie’s steadfast support of human relocation to America’s “enthusiasm for migration.” (Sanders). Nevertheless, Sanders counters this comparison by presenting evidence that refutes Rushdie’s ideals. Concluding this passage, Sanders establishes his thesis: “by settling in, we have a chance of making a durable home for ourselves, our fellow creatures, and our descendants.” (Sanders). By following this inductive structure─moving from broad information down to his thesis─Sanders is able to effectively execute his purpose of challenging Rushdie and supporting “settling in”

“We are nation of immigrants. Some came here willingly, some unwillingly. Nonetheless, we are immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants, one, and all. Even the natives came from somewhere else, originally. All of the people who come to this country come for freedom, or for some product of that extraordinary, illusory condition. That is what we offer here—freedom and opportunity in a land of relative plenty.” (Middletown Journal 2005)

The start of Sanders response shows how the Americans are restless movers and the benefits of moving. Additionally, he agrees with the idea that migration offers many factors to diversify society. However, Sanders brings up some points on how migration has led to some well-known disasters. Sanders alludes to events like the Dust Bowl, Slavery, and the disease the Spaniards brought over. He then begins to show how migration can lead to disastrous events.

Because Sanders’s essay is written in response to Rushdie’s essay, he quotes phrases from Rushdie’s original essay numerous times and then states his own beliefs. Sanders first quotes Rushdie in saying that, “a migrant is perhaps… the only species of human being free of the shackles of nationalism” (lines 34-36). Sanders responds to this point by asking what the world could do with less nationalism. By quoting Rushdie directly, Sanders shows his audience that he really cares about the topic, stating his own belief that moving does nothing to rid us of the unfortunate aspects of

When most people think about immigration to the United States, they think of the U.S. as being the “land of opportunity,” where they will be able to make all of their dreams come true. For some people, immigration made their lives richer and more fulfilled. This however, was not always the case. A place that is supposed to be a “Golden Land” (Marcus 116) did not always welcome people with open arms. Even after people became legal citizens of the United States, often times the natural born Americans did not treat the immigrants as equals but rather as outsiders who were beneath them in some way. In some situations, people’s lives were made worse by coming to the “land of opportunity.” Often times people were living no better than they

In that, Hamid’s novel is both a timely tale about refugees playing out against a global migrant crisis and impossibly prescient. When it comes to the future, he states, we will all be migrants, whether we hop from country to country or stay in one place until the day we die. Either way, the world can become unrecognizable in the blink of an eye. What makes Exit West so striking is the ways in which it maps the breakdown of a society, and how effortlessly the cycle begins to repeat itself even when Saeed and Nadia think they’ve made it to safety.