In Stay Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, an essay that serves to respond to an essay by Salman Rushdie, Scott Russell Sanders used parallelism and metaphors to emphasize his beliefs that migration causes “disastrous consequences for the earth and for ourselves.” Sanders believes that “by settling in, we have a chance of making a durable home for ourselves, our fellow creatures, and our descendants.” The use of parallelism throughout Sanders’ essay was to emphasize his counter argument made by Rushdie. Rushdie articulates “that uprootings brings tolerance, while rootedness breeds intolerance; that imaginary homelands are preferable to geographical ones; that to be modern, enlightened, fully of our time is to be displaced,” showing that migration is good,in Rushdie’s perspective. Although we don’t know Sanders’ background, it is easy to speculate Rushdie’s perspective since he is a writer who migrated from India to England. If Rushdie believed that he disliked migration and had the same beliefs as Sanders, he would be contradicting his own actions. Sanders believes Rushdie’s beliefs are an “orthodoxy that... [Sanders]... wish[es] to encounter,” stating his belief that migration only harms the environment, not only to the creatures around us, but to ourselves as well.
Salman Rushdie is an Indian-born British essayist who migrated from his native homeland of India for Britain at a young age. In one of his more popular essays, Rushdie expresses the importance of migration as something that should be done by all; however, American essayist, Russell Sanders, has a different opinion. In the passage, “Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World, Sanders uses several strategies and techniques to refute Rushdie’s claims as well as develop his own. The historical evidence found in the response serves a dual purpose. The first is to provide examples for his audience in order to further his credibility.
It does not settle the west. It does not educate.” Thoreau also uses powerful imagery in order to persuade his readers towards his ideals. He believed that one must be conscious of the laws they choose to obey and disobey, whether or not they are in the minority. The people should not be tricked into believing that neither the government nor the majority will know what is right and what is wrong. Instead, Thoreau remarks that it is up to every man to decide for himself what is right based on his moral standards and ethics.
Baba just came to America for the sake of Amir for he thought he gave a gift to Amir when they were in America and for Baba it would be something that he would have to suffer for Amir. 3. a) Amir 'embraces' America because it is "someplace with no ghosts, no memories, and no sins."(144). Is Amir right to feel he can leave his past behind? b) Do you feel this idea of "beginning over" is part of the immigrants view of America? Discuss.
Hughes is describing America as this “great strong land of love,” which triggers readers’ emotions and makes them feel a desire to go to America in order to seek this love. Contrarily, by saying words like “let it be,” he is saying Americas has not come to the point or has strayed away from the point of love and he wants it for the future. From these two points, Hughes paints a picture of optimism and patriotism but reveals the harsh reality of America by giving the description of America as a place where “king connive… and man be crushed by ones above,” for the immigrants and the poor. This confirms that the current standard of living in America is not acceptable, and he hopes that in the future things will be different. Another example of juxtaposition shown is through man vs. environment, that is, in a society of poverty, greed and power of wealth: I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek, and finding only the same old stupid plan of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak, I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Chapter 1 Chapter 1, entitled Columbus, the Indians, and Human Progress depicts the Europeans’ initial encounter with the Arawak Indians of the West Indies . The Arawaks greeted Columbus and his crew with hospitality, but little did they know they would soon be taken advantage of and have their culture virtually destroyed. Columbus’s journal entries about this first meeting indicate his feelings of superiority to the Arawaks, which led to enslavement, murder, and rape. The Arawaks were forced to work in gold mines and were killed at the will of the Europeans. Millions of natives were killed in slavery, war, and, mining.
After that, future President Andrew Jackson promoted the wholesale slaughter and mutilation of natives in the 1830s, ordering his men to cut the noses off hundreds of slain natives to provide accurate body counts. This mentality of brutality isn’t limited to early American History. As late as the 1890, future President Theodore Roosevelt was declaring that in nine out of ten cases, the “only good Indian was a dead Indian.” All four of the individuals mentioned not only served as President of the United States, but three of them are celebrated with their likenesses carved into the Mt. Rushmore National Monument. That we describe the practitioners of such brutality as ‘heroes’ can only be described as shameful.
Welfare of the American citizens? The answer is all the above. Roosevelt’s New Deal ventured to save what Americans already knew and that was Capitalism, but he also intended to give Americans hope and confidence to keep that American Dream in reach, whatever that may be. Because of the Depression, he now had to devise a plan that would help protect American citizens and their dreams for a better
He also communicates his ideologies regarding conformity, happiness and most important of all – beauty. He comments and condemns society’s tendency to be narrow-minded when it comes to beauty and reveals that we should not conform to society’s perception of beauty as it does not exist- instead we should find our own happiness within ourselves. American Beauty does not seek to encourage social stereotypes; rather it attacks them for their limitations. In the film American Beauty, happiness exists as a myth, as a goal and as a disguise. Through the use of camera angles and position, the film critiques the self – repressing values of American society by showing the life of an unsatisfied, emasculated man, who tries to change his life by breaking out of the shackles that have held him captive by society.
He also argues that the reason for anti – Americanism is more than the refusal of some policies. He is presenting this view by giving examples of Latin America and Japan, stating that their hostility towards the United States is because of the long and troubled history. I think that Russell A. Berman is confusing with this article because he agrees that United States policy has impact on anti – Americanism, but he also states the examples of Japan and Latin America and with that he is proving that hostility to the US is not linked to any current policy. Correlation between them is hard to understand because the link between them troubles today’s policy and historical aspects of hostility. German anti-Americanism by the author’s opinion is because of the troubled past (e.g.