Conversing Over the Divide: A Meeting Among Different Perspectives
Introducing the Participants
One Participant: Peter, 34, from London
Profession Ex- government employee, currently a student focusing on community health
Voting record Voted the Green Party recently (also a member of the political group); formerly Labour Party. Identifies as “progressive, and globalist instead of patriotic”
Amuse bouche A sketch of a teacup Peter created as a child was once hung in the National Gallery of Ireland
Second Participant: Akshat, 43, Harrow
Profession Risk analyst in the infrastructure industry
Political history Hailing from India, he has lived in the UK for five years, and supported the Conservative Party. Describes himself as “slightly moderate right”
Interesting fact He self-learned to understand Urdu. “I have no use for it, I was just fascinated”
Initial impressions
Akshat Over the last two decades, I’ve lived and worked in Qatar, East Asia, the US. The issues Peter and I discussed are UK-centric, but they are also universal, because human life more or less evolve similarly wherever it is. I anticipated someone very liberal, but he was quite measured – we engaged in a productive, logical conversation. I had a couple of beers, he opted for mojitos.
Peter We split appetizers – seafood rolls, steamed buns, daikon cakes with beansprouts, which were superb. I was a little nervous, as I believe Akshat was. Would he criticize me for my sensitivity? We’re both immigrants. I grew up in Dublin; I have resided in the United States and Spain. We bonded over our affection for the capital.
The big beef
The first participant I look at immigration like adding salt to a dish. When you add a little bit, the food is delicious. Use too little or too much and the meal is either too bland or too salty.
Peter Akshat had a metaphor about salt. It would be odd to be if the state was choosing some ideal ethnic makeup of the nation.
The first participant There are, unfortunately, individuals escaping oppression, but many migrants arriving in the United Kingdom are economic migrants who may not contribute much and can burden the welfare system. Nobody forces you to go to a new country for opportunity, so you should only go if you can take care of your own needs and your relatives.
The second participant We got lost with some of the facts. I don’t think it is the case that you come over and work and then following a half-decade you obtain permanent citizenship. No process is guaranteed. It’s been a hostile environment for some time, application costs are quite expensive, there is an NHS surcharge, eligibility for support is restricted. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anyone. And regarding the recent changes, whereby you can’t bring your family over, it’s incredible to say: we want your work, but we reject you as a person. I believe we have to have a certain level of humanity.
Common ground
The first participant Peter’s sceptical of unchecked capitalism. So am I, but simultaneously, economic growth helps communities and ought to be promoted.
Peter We each have global outlooks. And we agreed that some parts of society – government, the press – benefit from creating conflict. We did find common ground in basic principles and ethics.
For afters
Akshat Peter is of the opinion that since the UK profited from the colonial era, it ought to provide compensation to affected nations. I simply think: you cannot judge the past with present day morality; eras vary, current society had no control of events decades or a century ago. Suppose the Britain was obliged to repay India, it would be a huge amount of money. Is Britain able to do that? No.
Peter In the past, I believe adequate reflection occurred with colonial history. As an instance, upon my arrival to the United Kingdom, people had little knowledge of the Great Famine and the part that colonialism played in it. I hold that decolonisation isn’t just about issuing payments, it should be about examining past errors and where we should be now.
Takeaways
Akshat It may not alter the my perspective, but I appreciate Peter’s concerns. I talk to individuals regularly whose views are opposite to mine. It’s about uniting people to the same page, in order that everyone can work towards the improvement of the community.
The second participant We remained for two and a half hours. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I had some sweet Japanese wine. I did not convince him of any point, but we each liked the meal, so we could hopefully be more receptive to engaging in dialogues with other people in future.