Natalie Mendolia

APLAC/Higgins
April 7th 2014

Migratory animals seek the refuge of new territory in order to further their reproductive
lives or just their lives in general as their homeland undergoes changes of some sort, ephemeral
or otherwise. With the ever-changing tides of political, social, and economic barriers and
boundaries of the globe, people like Rushdie agree that such parallel animalistic tendencies to
move to a new place where a fresh start can be found are inherently good for the betterment of
humankind and an antidote for the stagnation of our potential. Yet, to Sanders, who crafts his
argument of logic, this concept is one of utter futility, for the myth of the open road is just
thata myth. Through his emphatic tone comprised from purposive diction and a strong
presence of evidence, he intimates that there are two sides to this contradictory coin, and that his
is right.
As we embark on the journey of Sanderss response, encountering his animate and
descriptive language through relative examples, counterpoint, and ultimately conclusive
argument, it becomes evident that his appeal leans manipulatively yet successfully towards
emotion, capturing his substantive and powerful perspective in word choices such as dead-end
job, unglamorous marriage, and romance of unlimited space that become an amalgamation
of anecdotal offering which builds a bridge of relevance but also intentionally explains his
opponents premise of nation mythology. We do not sit back idly as we ingest these
expressions, but rather we become engaged as the repertoire and lexicon presented to us cultivate
and connect with our potential feelings about aspects of own lives as we begin to understand the
issue at hand. In addition, Sanders use of personal pronouns as he addresses his audience
effectively bolsters the already sympathetic tone he employs to explain that although being
mongrel as a population can lead to tolerance for adversity, settling in one place can lead to
the much needed gentrification of singular ideas, people, and values. His point is accentuated as
this use of pronouns draws in the reader to relate to the assertions about migrations that he makes
about our heroes and Our Promise Land. Fabricating a heady mixture of intentionally
emphatic rhetoric and a unique and appealing voice that connects to ones emotionally-charged
humanity, Sanders develops and underlying backbone for what becomes an evidently refutative
yet sound perspective.
After establishing a solid persuasive tone, Sanders is now free and capable of implicating
historical evidence. His examples answer his preceding rhetorical question that, efficacious in its
strategic placement, begins to debunk Rushdies assertion that we are stronger for our
diversity. A consequent discussion of the worst abuses carried out by such migrants who do
not carry luggage bags but rather cases of destructive ideological implications sets sound ground
for Sanders to argue against Rushdie, since his concession to Rushdies ideas in his opening act
as a blanket of security against being called for overgeneralization or holes in his argument. The
history Sanders provides concludes with his ultimate point, riddled with an evocative metaphor
that even a child would understand, that the mind is not a cookie cutter and the land is not
dough; adventurous and change-seeking individuals do not seem to compromise or assimilate,
but migrate to spread their set mechanical values.
Both methods of diction and evidence cut a clear path for Sanders to assertively,
persuasively, and logically refute uprooting and support the superiority of inhabitants. They
exude a convincing confidence and compliment the pieces chronological structure of ceding to
the opponents idea, gradually implicating expressions that shift the tone to one of justified
offense, swift proof that leaves no room for questioning, and a culminating counterargument. By
the recess of Sanderss writing, one has been presented with a sequential deconstruction of an
erroneous notion and a successfully vindicated quarrel over the generalizations of Rushdies
account.
The main notion that migratory influence and expansion is futile in actually benefitting
the human race resides as a mechanism in Sanderss response that leaves the reader rapt and
convinced for the language employed is precise in intent and the logical argument is self-
protecting in structure. Animals have a need to migrate, to move for their lives sake, and by
Sanderss hopeful conclusion that offers solution and inspiration, we see that unlike these
creatures, we as humans have a choicea choice to live by the myth or stay at home, [settle]
in, and respect where we come from instead of infecting anothers domain with our own
ideological diseases.