Conversing Over the Gap: A Meeting Between Opposing Perspectives
Introducing the Individuals
One Participant: P., 34, from London
Profession Ex- civil servant, currently a learner focusing on community health
Voting record Supported Green last time (and a member of the party); previously Labour Party. Identifies as “left, and internationalist rather than patriotic”
Interesting fact A sketch of a tea cup he did as a child was once displayed in the Irish National Gallery
Second Diner: Akshat, 43, from Harrow
Profession Risk analyst in the construction sector
Political history Hailing from India, he has resided in the United Kingdom for five years, and supported Conservative. Describes himself as “slightly moderate right”
Amuse bouche Akshat self-learned to read and write the Urdu language. “I have no use for it, I was just fascinated”
For starters
The first participant During the past 20 years, I have resided and been employed in the Middle East, South Korea, the United States. The issues Peter and I talked about are UK-centric, but they are also universal, because human life largely follows the same curve wherever it is. I was expecting a staunch liberal, but he was quite measured – we engaged in a good, rational discussion. I drank beer, he opted for mojitos.
Peter We shared starters – fishy spring rolls, steamed buns, radish cakes with sprouts, which were excellent. I was a little nervous, as I think he was too. Was he going to attack me for being a snowflake? We each have immigrant backgrounds. My childhood was in Dublin; I’ve lived in the US and Spain. We connected through our love of London.
The big beef
The first participant I view immigration like sprinkling salt to a meal. With a small amount, the dish is delicious. Add too little or too much and the meal is insipid or overly seasoned.
The second participant He used an analogy regarding seasoning. It would be a funny place to be if the state was choosing some ideal ethnic makeup of the nation.
The first participant There are, sadly, people 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 move to a different nation for prospects, so you should only go if you are able to support yourself and your relatives.
The second participant We became confused with certain details. I don’t think it’s like you arrive and work and then after five years you obtain permanent citizenship. No process is guaranteed. The climate has been unwelcoming for some time, application costs are really high, there is an NHS surcharge, eligibility for support is limited. There is no special treatment for anyone. And concerning the recent changes, under which family reunification is restricted, it is astonishing to state: we desire your labor, but we reject you as a person. I believe we have to have a certain level of humanity.
Common ground
The first participant Peter questions unchecked capitalism. I am, too, but simultaneously, economic growth benefits society and ought to be promoted.
Peter We each have global outlooks. And we agreed that certain elements of society – politics, the press – benefit from stoking division. We discovered common ground in basic principles and ethics.
Dessert and debate
The first participant Peter believes that because the United Kingdom profited from the colonial era, it ought to provide reparations to affected nations. I simply think: it is unfair to assess history with present day morality; times are different, current society had no control of what happened 50 or 100 years ago. Suppose the UK had to compensate the Indian nation, it would be a huge amount of funds. Is the UK in a position to do that? No.
The second participant In the past, I believe adequate reflection occurred with colonial history. For example, when I first moved to the United Kingdom, people weren’t aware of the Irish famine and the role that imperial rule contributed to it. My view is decolonisation isn’t just about signing a cheque, it should be about examining past errors and our current responsibilities.
Final thoughts
The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I appreciate Peter’s concerns. I talk to people every day whose views are opposite to mine. It’s about bringing everyone to the same page, so that everyone can strive for the betterment of the community.
The second participant We remained for two and a half hours. He enjoyed a sweet treat and I drank a Japanese dessert wine. I did not convince him of any point, but we both enjoyed dinner, so we might become more receptive to having conversations with other people in future.
