Seeing 1
Sanders builds his argument by examining us culturally. He asserts that we have been taught, quite simply, that moving is good, and staying put is bad. He backs up this assertion with examples from his personal life experience, examples of American cultural icons such as cowboys, explorers, and immigrants of all types. He quotes other migrant authors as well as uses current examples of our migrant culture such as our national infrastructure and highway system. Sanders uses all of these things to construct his argument that being rooted in a place and community is better for us individually and for our species and environment as a whole than the migratory philosophy that built our nation. His tornado story at the beginning of the essay is very vivid visual of how determined a particular family was to stay faithful to their home. That kind of dedication and care is what Sanders believes we need to undo the damage that constant mobility has done to the human race and the Earth.
Seeing 2
The tone of Sander's essay is persuasive. He wants to counter our cultural standards of immigration and constant relocation with a lifestyle based on being rooted to a center, a homeland. He cites authors who support the trend he intends to counter, as well as spiritual leaders of both east and west that agree with his argument of community and connectedness. He uses personal experience, cultural trends, and even historical and religious allusions to further illustrate his point. His tone is not dry or scientific, but rather an interesting balance of facts and descriptions explaining where the philosophy of constant migration has taken our world versus where the values and benefits brought on by the care and dedication of those who have the "stay put" mindset can take us.
No comments:
Post a Comment