Conversing Across the Divide: A Meeting Between Opposing Perspectives
Meeting the Participants
One Participant: P., 34, London
Profession Former civil servant, now a learner focusing on community health
Political history Supported the Green Party recently (also a member of the political group); formerly Labour. Identifies as “left, and internationalist instead of nationalist”
Interesting fact A sketch of a teacup Peter did as a kid was once displayed in the National Gallery of Ireland
Second Participant: A., 43, from Harrow
Occupation Risk manager in the infrastructure industry
Voting record Hailing from India, he has resided in the United Kingdom for five years, and supported Conservative. Describes himself as “somewhat moderate right”
Interesting fact Akshat taught himself to read and write Urdu. “I have no use for it, I simply found it intriguing”
Initial impressions
Akshat Over the last two decades, I have resided and been employed in the Middle East, South Korea, the US. The topics we talked about are UK-centric, but they are also universal, because human life largely evolve similarly across the world. I anticipated a staunch liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we engaged in a good, rational discussion. I had a couple of beers, Peter had mojitos.
The second participant We split appetizers – seafood rolls, dumplings, radish cakes with sprouts, which were excellent. I was a little nervous, as I believe Akshat was. Was he going to attack me for being a snowflake? We’re both immigrants. My childhood was in Dublin; I’ve lived in the US and the Iberian Peninsula. We bonded over our affection for London.
Key disagreements
The first participant I view migration like sprinkling salt to a dish. When you add a little bit, the food is delicious. Use too little or too much and the dish is either too bland or too salty.
Peter Akshat had a metaphor about salt. It would be a funny place to exist if the state was selecting some ideal ethnic makeup of the nation.
Akshat There are, sadly, individuals escaping oppression, but a lot of migrants arriving in the UK are those seeking better finances who do not necessarily add significant value and can burden the benefit system. Nobody forces you to go to a different nation for opportunity, so you ought to relocate if you can take care of your own needs and your family.
Peter We became confused with some of the facts. I don’t think it’s like you come over and are employed and then following a half-decade you obtain permanent citizenship. No process is guaranteed. It’s been a hostile environment since Theresa May, visa fees are quite expensive, you pay an NHS surcharge, eligibility for support is limited. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anybody. And regarding the recent changes, under which family reunification is restricted, it is astonishing to state: we want your work, but we reject you as a person. I think we must maintain a certain level of compassion.
Sharing plate
The first participant Peter questions unchecked capitalism. I am, too, but at the same time, wealth creation benefits society and should be encouraged.
Peter We each have global outlooks. And we concurred that some parts of the community – government, the press – thrive off creating conflict. We discovered shared understanding in basic principles and values.
For afters
The first participant Peter is of the opinion that because the UK benefitted from the colonial era, it ought to provide compensation to those countries. I simply think: it is unfair to assess the past with contemporary ethics; eras vary, current society had no control of what happened 50 or 100 years ago. Let’s say the UK had to compensate the Indian nation, it would be a huge amount of money. Is the UK in a position to manage that? Certainly not.
The second participant In the past, I don’t think adequate reflection occurred with colonial history. As an instance, upon my arrival to the UK, the public had little knowledge of the Irish famine and the part that imperial rule played in it. I hold that decolonisation isn’t just about issuing payments, it should be about examining what went wrong and where we should be now.
Takeaways
The first participant It may not alter the way I think, but I appreciate his worries. I converse with individuals every day with opinions are opposite to mine. It’s about uniting people to the same page, in order that all of us can strive for the betterment of society.
The second participant We remained for 150 minutes. Akshat had dessert and I drank a Japanese dessert wine. I didn’t persuade him of any point, but we both enjoyed dinner, so we might become more receptive to having conversations with other people in future.
