Dining Over the Divide: A Encounter Between Opposing Viewpoints
Meeting the Individuals
First Diner: Peter, 34, from London
Profession Former government employee, currently a student focusing on community health
Voting record Voted Green last time (also a affiliate of the political group); previously Labour. Describes himself as “left, and internationalist rather than nationalist”
Interesting fact A sketch of a tea cup Peter did as a child was once hung in the National Gallery of Ireland
Other Participant: Akshat, 43, Harrow
Profession Risk manager in the construction sector
Political history Originally from the Indian subcontinent, Akshat has lived in the United Kingdom for five years, and voted Conservative. Identifies as “somewhat right of centre”
Interesting fact Akshat taught himself to understand Urdu. “I have no use for it, I simply found it intriguing”
Initial impressions
The first participant During the past two decades, I have resided and been employed in Qatar, East Asia, the US. The topics Peter and I discussed are UK-centric, but they are also universal, because human life largely evolve similarly across the world. I was expecting someone very liberal, but Peter wasn’t all gung ho – we engaged in a productive, logical conversation. I had a couple of beers, Peter had mojitos.
The second participant We split appetizers – fishy spring rolls, steamed buns, radish cakes with sprouts, which were superb. I was a little nervous, as I believe he was too. 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 love of London.
Key disagreements
The first participant I look at immigration similar to adding salt to a dish. With a small amount, the food tastes wonderful. Use too little or too much and the meal is insipid or overly seasoned.
Peter Akshat had a metaphor about salt. It would be a funny place to exist if the state was selecting some preferred demographic of the nation.
Akshat There are, unfortunately, individuals fleeing persecution, but a lot of migrants coming to the United Kingdom are those seeking better finances who may not add significant value and can burden the welfare system. Nobody forces you to move to a new country for prospects, so you should only go if you can take care of your own needs and your family.
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 get indefinite leave to remain. 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. There is no special treatment for anyone. And concerning the new policies, 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 must maintain a certain level of humanity.
Common ground
The first participant Peter questions unchecked capitalism. I am, too, but at the same time, economic growth benefits society and should be encouraged.
Peter We’re both internationalist. And we concurred that some parts of the community – government, the media – thrive off creating conflict. We discovered shared understanding in fundamentals and ethics.
For afters
Akshat Peter believes that because the UK profited from the colonial era, it should pay reparations to affected nations. My view is simply: it is unfair to assess history with present day morality; eras vary, current society were not responsible of what happened decades or a century ago. Let’s say the Britain was obliged to repay India, it would be a significant sum of money. Is Britain able to do that? No.
The second participant Until recently, I don’t think adequate reflection occurred with the colonial past. For example, when I first moved to the United Kingdom, the public weren’t aware of the Great Famine and the part that colonialism played in it. My view is decolonisation isn’t just about signing a cheque, it should be about looking at what went wrong and where we should be now.
Takeaways
The first participant It may not alter the my perspective, but I understand his worries. I converse with people every day with opinions are opposite to my own. The goal is bringing everyone to the same page, so that all of us can strive for the betterment of society.
The second participant We were there 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 both enjoyed the meal, so we might become more receptive to engaging in dialogues with others in the coming times.
