Conversing Over the Divide: An Meeting Among Opposing Perspectives
Meeting the Individuals
First Participant: P., 34, from London
Occupation Former civil servant, now a learner studying community health
Voting record Voted Green recently (also a member of the party); previously Labour Party. Describes himself as “progressive, and globalist rather than patriotic”
Interesting fact A drawing of a tea cup Peter created as a kid was once hung in the National Gallery of Ireland
Second Participant: Akshat, 43, from Harrow
Profession Risk analyst in the construction sector
Voting record Hailing from the Indian subcontinent, he has resided in the UK for half a decade, and voted the Conservative Party. Describes himself as “slightly right of centre”
Amuse bouche He self-learned to read and write the Urdu language. “I have no use for it, I simply found it intriguing”
Initial impressions
The first participant Over the last two decades, I’ve lived and worked in Qatar, East Asia, the US. The topics Peter and I talked about are focused on Britain, but they are also global, because human life more or less evolve similarly across the world. I was expecting a staunch liberal, but he was quite measured – we engaged in a productive, logical conversation. I drank beer, Peter had mojitos.
The second participant We shared appetizers – seafood rolls, dumplings, radish cakes with sprouts, which were superb. I felt somewhat anxious, 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 United States and Spain. We bonded over our affection for the capital.
Key disagreements
The first participant I view immigration like sprinkling salt to a meal. With a small amount, the food tastes wonderful. Add too little or too much and the dish is insipid or overly seasoned.
Peter Akshat used an analogy about seasoning. It would be a funny place to exist if the government was selecting some preferred demographic of the nation.
Akshat There are, unfortunately, people fleeing persecution, but many migrants arriving in the United Kingdom are economic migrants who do not necessarily add significant value and can burden the benefit system. No one compels 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 relatives.
Peter We became confused with some of the facts. In my view it’s like you come over and work and then after five years you obtain permanent citizenship. No process is guaranteed. The climate has been unwelcoming since Theresa May, visa fees are really high, there is an healthcare levy, eligibility for support is limited. The red carpet isn’t rolled out for anyone. And concerning the new policies, under which family reunification is restricted, it’s incredible to say: we want your work, but we reject you as a person. I believe we have to have a degree of compassion.
Common ground
Akshat Peter questions unchecked capitalism. I am, too, but simultaneously, wealth creation benefits society and should be encouraged.
The second participant We’re both internationalist. And we agreed that certain elements of society – government, the media – thrive off creating conflict. We discovered shared understanding in basic principles and ethics.
Dessert and debate
Akshat Peter believes that because the United Kingdom benefitted from the colonial era, it ought to provide compensation to affected nations. My view is simply: you cannot judge history with contemporary ethics; eras vary, current society had no control of events 50 or 100 years ago. Let’s say the UK had to compensate the Indian nation, it would be a significant sum of funds. Is Britain able to do that? Certainly not.
The second participant Until recently, I don’t think adequate reflection occurred with the colonial past. For example, upon my arrival to the UK, the public had little knowledge of the Irish famine and the part that imperial rule contributed to it. I hold that decolonization isn’t just about signing a cheque, it should be about examining what went wrong and where we should be now.
Final thoughts
The first participant It won’t change the my perspective, but I appreciate Peter’s concerns. I converse with individuals regularly with opinions are opposite to my own. It’s about bringing everyone to the common understanding, so that all of us can strive for the betterment of society.
Peter We remained for two and a half hours. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I had a Japanese dessert wine. I did not convince him of anything, but we each liked dinner, so we could hopefully be more open to having conversations with others in the coming times.
