In Scott Russell Sanders' book, "Staying Put: Making a Home in a Restless World," Sanders addresses the view of Salman Rushdie and the vast majority of the American public on how migration brings tolerance in order to illustrate his view that migration is anthropocentric, claims that migration causes tolerance are exaggerated and idealistic. Sanders also offers an alternative viewpoint to further his point. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay In order to establish his views on migration, Sanders begins the passage by describing the American “hero.” The archetypes he describes, “sailors, explorers, cowboys…” all have one thing in common: they all seek a “Promised Land”, and they are all glorified in American mythology. Sanders argues that even after a century in which technology has advanced and taken over nearly every aspect of Americans' lives, American mythology still captivates the American people, leading them to idealistically believe that migration brings tolerance. Sanders writes that despite cultural and technological changes, Americans still believe that "the worst fate is to be stuck on a farm, in a village, in the woods, in a dead-end job, in an inglorious marriage, or in a drama. game". Sanders criticizes Americans for believing in an archaic and overly idealistic belief that migration brings tolerance and must be constantly pursued. Sanders then addresses the irony of Americans believing that migration brings tolerance. Rushdie and Sanders agrees that nationalism, patriotism and its "ugly siblings, racism, religious bigotry and class snobbery" are all negative qualities that we should get rid of. However, Sanders emphasizes that hate. nationalism and patriotism and then supporting migration is a contradictory action. In doing so, he undermines the reader's trust in Rushdie and Sanders therefore effectively convinces his audience that his view is correct Sanders points out the ironic fact that, even though. Americans themselves are proud of their nationalism and patriotism, they always excessively glorify migration and its supposed benefit of tolerance. In doing so, Sanders confirms his view that migration brings harm, not good. Sanders deepens his point of view by addressing the anthropocentric harms of migration. He writes that Rushdie's perspective that migration causes people to change is incorrect; Instead, Sanders posits that people strive to stay the same, even in the midst of major changes. Sanders refers to a few distinct historical examples to illustrate his point. Sanders writes about how the Spanish desecrated Central and South America by trying to impose their own cultural practices on the New World, how the colonists brought slavery and disease on the Native Americans and, more recently, how American farmers caused the Dust Bowl when their greed and refusal to recognize that the environment was radically different from that of the regions from which they came. By attacking the harms of anthropocentrism caused when people move away simply because "a neighbor's chimney begins to clutter the sky," Sanders effectively refutes Rushdie's philosophy that migration is good both for the environment and for people. Finally, Sanders.