Write 3 pages with APA style on Neil Bissoondaths No Place Like Home. The author uses in his essay almost all the available techniques of argument to prove his point. The title itself is charged with meaning and pathos, an appeal to fellow Canadians coming from someone who is secure enough in his personal heritage to present himself as a model of the integrated immigrant he wants everyone to be. The title is also full of irony because he uses an expression – normally a sigh of relief – to write a tense essay vibrating with a sense of urgency.
Then, without wasting paragraphs on further preliminaries, he goes on straight to his proofs.
Analyzing the body of evidence
Using one argumentative technique after another, Bissoondath logically proves his thesis with examples that show how Canada is not only not yet a nation, but that unless fast action is taken to move from the attitude of tolerance resulting from the state’s flawed multicultural policy, it is not secure for as long as a subtle, simmering bigotry threatens it. He deftly uses amplification techniques as he cites five examples, knowing that perhaps one would not be sufficient. He combines analogy and parallelism every time he uses the word “mosaic” to characterize the attitudes of people in Canada’s multicultural society.
He also uses the cause and effect technique to add urgency and appeal for action by enumerating and explaining the two mistaken premises or fallacies of multiculturalism, the tensions arising from his personal and public examples, the personal and mental sacrifices immigrants need to go through to integrate themselves into the mainstream social culture, and the dire consequences for not doing so. He appeals to his main audience using the technique of the common ground, writing as an immigrant addressing other immigrants to transform themselves from the multicultural mold of foreigners transplanted into a new world of which they tend to be nationals only on the basis of their passports, into a nation of people whose being Canadian should characterize their whole soul, their mind, and their heart.
Another set of techniques to give evidence and prove his point are authority, testimony, and statistics, well-argued to encourage the skeptic that he or she is not alone: many immigrants feel that Canada is a mosaic and that actions must be taken to remove the cement in between (simile) and destroy the mental ghettoes (hyperbole and metaphor) that are being formed. One of the most appealing proofs he uses is to ask what I can call a rhetorical enthymeme illustrating one of the negative effects of multiculturalism: what does being Canadian mean, and what literary and artistic fruits can we show for it These questions do not appear at all, but reading the essay makes you hear and ask the same questions. The absence of an answer makes you realize the validity of his thesis and his preceding arguments.
In calling for acceptance more than toleration (and he defines his terms clearly), he uses several paradoxes: an immigrant legislator whose action proves how shallow their understanding of tolerance is, traditional ethnic dances that instead of deepening an appreciation for other cultures become like folkloric Disneyland encounters, and a grade-school teacher who causes an identity crisis because she neither knows how to ask the right questions nor listen to the answers of a 6-year old.
Closing the case
Having proven his point, the author quickly weaves the main ideas in the essay into an encouraging end by using a warm and emotional personal anecdote of how glad he felt to be home, suggesting to others that, if they are willing to embrace acceptance and integration, they too can experience the same joy and relief.
On the whole, the author’s tone is intelligent, calm, and appealing, a perfect counterbalance to the popular style of the piece and his copious use of the techniques of argumentation that provide an overwhelming sense of urgency. The essay is well structured, logical, and capable of eliciting an emotionally intelligent response.