Rushdie's Argument Summary

Modern discussions of migrations and people seeking refuge in other countries challenge how people view moving, as well as where people move. In his editorial response, Scott Russel Sanders uses appeals to tradition and parallelism in his writing to strengthen his argument against people being rooted in ideas. As Rushdie, an opponent of the idea of people rooted in places, claims that the migration of ideas helps eliminate nationalism, Sanders uses historical trends to create an appeal to tradition. Due to a history rooted in immigration and expansion, but characterized by nationalism and racism, Sanders challenges Rushdie’s ideas by asking “even if, by uprooting ourselves, we shed out chauvinism, is that all we have to lose?” This argument claims that the traditional notion of people characterized by their zip code is not a flawed
As he explains the doctrine that he hopes to refute, Sanders’ repetition invokes his former counterpoints, while restating the ideas. Through his wording of ideas and their counters, he refreshes the reader of his arguments, while appearing to encourage the reader to consider the merits of Rushdie’s claims, as he restates them saying “the belief that movement is inherently good, staying put is bad; that uprooting brings tolerance, while rootedness breeds intolerance…” Sanders uses parallelism to juxtapose the two ideologies, in order to highlight the absurdity of Rushdie’s claims. The comparison and repetition are manipulated by Sanders for their effect to illustrate to the readers the extreme points made by Rushdie in order to discount them. Rhetorically speaking, Sanders use of parallelism in the given instance is positioned near the end of his response. This was done to reinforce Sanders’ main disagreements and refutations before concluding his piece, thus, leaving a strong final impression for his readers to