Close

SPECIAL OFFER FOR OUR CLIENTS! CLICK TO ORDER WITH 5% DISCOUNT: CLICK TO ORDER WITH 5% DISCOUNT: FIRST5

Disclaimer: This essay is not an example of the work done by the EssayPay© service. Samples of our experts work can be found here. All opinions and conclusions belong to the authors, who sent us this essay.
If you want to pay for essay for unique writing Migration as Anthropocentric in Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, a Book by Scott Russell Sanders, just click Order button. We will write a custom essay on Migration as Anthropocentric in Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, a Book by Scott Russell Sanders specifically for you!

Migration as Anthropocentric in Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, a Book by Scott Russell Sanders

In Scott Russell Sanders’s book, “Staying Put: Producing a Residence in a Restless World”, Sanders addresses Salman Rushdie’s and the mass majority of the American public’s views on how migration brings tolerance in order to exemplify his point that migration is anthropocentric, that claims that migration lead to tolerance are overblown and idealistic. Sanders also gives an option viewpoint in order to additional his viewpoint. In order to establish his viewpoint on migration, Sanders starts the passage by describing the American “hero”. The archetypes he describes, “sailors, explorers, cowboys…” all have a single issue in frequent: They all seek a “Promised Land”, and they are all glorified in American mythology. Sanders claims that even soon after century, in the course of which technology has advanced and taken more than practically every element of all American’s lives, American mythology nonetheless captivates the American people, top them to idealistically think that migration brings tolerance. Sanders writes that regardless of the cultural and technological alterations that have occurred, Americans still think that the “worst fate is to be trapped on a farm, in a village, in the sticks, in some dead-finish job or unglamorous marriage or played-out game”. Sanders is criticizing Americans for believing in an archaic and overly idealistic belief that migration brings tolerance and need to consistently be strived for. Sanders then addresses the irony of Americans believing that migration brings tolerance. Each Rushdie and Sanders agree upon the truth that nationalism, patriotism, and its “ugly siblings racism, religious sectarianism, [and] class snobbery” are all unfavorable qualities that we must aim to get rid of. Nonetheless, Sanders points out that hating nationalism and patriotism and then supporting migration is a contradictory action. By performing so, he undermines the reader’s trust in Rushdie, and therefore Sanders effectively convinces his audience that his viewpoint is appropriate. Sanders points out the ironic fact that even though Americans themselves take pride in their nationalism and patriotism, they nonetheless overglorify migration and its supposed benefit of tolerance. By undertaking so, Sanders additional establishes his point of view that migration brings harm, not excellent. Sanders furthers his perspective by addressing the anthropocentric harms of migration. He writes that Rushdie’s viewpoint that migration causes men and women to change is incorrect rather, Sanders posits that men and women strive to keep the same, even amidst main alterations. Sanders refers to a few distinct historical examples in order to exemplify his point of view. Sanders writes about how the Spaniards desecrated Central and South America by trying to impose their own cultural practices onto the New World, how the colonists brought slavery and illness upon the Native Americans, and, far more recently, how American farmers brought on the Dust Bowl when their greed and refusal to acknowledge that the environment was drastically different from the regions that they came from. By addressing the anthropocentrism harms that are brought on when people move away merely since “a neighbor’s chimney begins to crowd the sky”, Sanders efficiently refutes Rushdie’s philosophy that migration is good for each the atmosphere and the men and women. Ultimately, Sanders offers an option viewpoint in order to additional his point of view. He writes that staying place, alternatively of frequent migration, is far better for both the individuals and atmosphere. Sanders hypothesizes that by staying place, folks will be capable to appreciate the environment that surrounds them. By staying put, men and women will be in a position to root themselves, and their identities to a certain place, which makes it possible for for far more growth than frequent migration. At some point, folks will have a sense of identity in the location they live, and will strive to take care of the environment, which would counter the harms that are caused by migration. Consequently, in Scott Russell Sanders’s book, “Staying Place: Creating a Home in a Restless World”, Sanders addresses Salman Rushdie’s and the mass majority of the American public’s views on how migration brings tolerance and solves problems in order to exemplify his point that migration is anthropocentric and that claims that migration cause tolerance are overblown and idealistic. By delivering an option viewpoint to address the harms that Sanders claims frequent migration result in, Sanders effectively conveys his point that frequent migration is each detrimental towards humans and the environment.

What are you waiting for?
Thousands of students choose us!