Dining Across the Divide: An Encounter Among Opposing Perspectives
Introducing the Individuals
One Diner: P., 34, from London
Occupation Ex- government employee, now a student focusing on public health
Political history Voted the Green Party last time (also a affiliate of the political group); formerly Labour. Describes himself as “left, and internationalist instead of nationalist”
Interesting fact A sketch of a tea cup Peter created as a child was once displayed in the National Gallery of Ireland
Second Participant: A., 43, Harrow
Occupation Risk manager in the infrastructure industry
Political history Originally from the Indian subcontinent, he has lived in the United Kingdom for five years, and supported the Conservative Party. Identifies as “slightly moderate right”
Amuse bouche Akshat taught himself to read and write Urdu. “I have no use for it, I was just fascinated”
Initial impressions
The first participant During the past 20 years, I’ve lived and worked in the Middle East, South Korea, the US. The topics Peter and I talked about are focused on Britain, but they are also global, because human life more or less follows the same curve wherever it is. 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 split appetizers – seafood rolls, steamed buns, radish cakes with sprouts, which were excellent. I felt somewhat anxious, as I think he was too. Would he criticize me for being a snowflake? We’re both immigrants. I grew up in Dublin; I’ve lived in the United States and Spain. We connected through our love of London.
The big beef
The first participant I look at migration similar to adding salt to a meal. With a small amount, the food is delicious. Use too little or too much and the dish is either too bland or too salty.
Peter He had a metaphor regarding salt. It would be odd to be if the government was selecting some ideal ethnic makeup of the country.
The first participant There are, sadly, people escaping oppression, but a lot of migrants arriving in the United Kingdom are economic migrants who do not necessarily contribute much and can burden the welfare system. Nobody forces you to go to a different nation 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. In my view it is the case that you arrive and are employed and then after five years you obtain permanent citizenship. No process is guaranteed. The climate has been unwelcoming since Theresa May, visa fees are quite expensive, there is an NHS surcharge, eligibility for support is restricted. There is no special treatment for anybody. And concerning the recent changes, whereby you can’t bring your family over, it is astonishing to state: 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’s sceptical of unregulated markets. I am, too, but at the same time, economic growth helps communities and ought to be promoted.
The second participant We’re both internationalist. And we agreed that some parts of the community – politics, the media – thrive off creating conflict. We did find shared understanding in basic principles and values.
Dessert and debate
Akshat Peter believes that since the United Kingdom benefitted from the colonial era, it should pay compensation 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 decades or a century ago. Let’s say the UK had to compensate India, 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. As an instance, when I first moved to the United Kingdom, people had little knowledge of the Irish famine and the role that colonialism played in it. My view is decolonization is not merely about signing a cheque, it should be about examining what went wrong and where we should be now.
Takeaways
The first participant It won’t change the way I think, but I appreciate his worries. I talk to people every day with opinions are opposite to my own. The goal is bringing everyone to the common understanding, in order that everyone can strive for the improvement of society.
The second participant We were there 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 engaging in dialogues with other people in future.
