Class discussion for Intercultural Communication and Leadership today got heated at some points. I would expect this when discussing things like migration, legal or otherwise. Not only did we talk about immigration but also debate in general. How do you have a constructive debate, is it by getting your point across or is it by listening to the other side? These are things that I don’t usually go thinking about on a daily basis and as such I found it highly interesting.
It somehow came up that migration was an example of what “should be” an American moral; after all is America not a country of migrants? To play Devil’s advocate I brought up a situation in which people were staunchly opposed to one another (depending on what view for or against migration). This specif example was I believe one from this past summer where a young woman in San Francisco was killed by an immigrant and I believe an illegal one at that. I mentioned that as a rebuttal to people saying that most everyone of our age group (late teens to twenties) were for immigration. I did not offer my own opinion but I still ruffled some feathers for sure, the majority of people in the class had some sort of outburst directly in relation to what I had said.
Not only does immigration and migration affect the United States but especially the UK, and the EU in particular. As it is, and I hope it is known that there is and has been for a number of years a large influx of people coming to the EU and in particular seeking refuge in the UK in particular. Now as far as how that again relates back to our morality discussion we had a hard time pinpointing what our collective morals are. As it were we later discussed how morals change with time. An example our professor brought up was the Pope. Is he not taking a much more liberal stance than any previous Pope before him has? Morals are fluid and ever changing based on the context to which we apply them.
We took a “field trip” if you will to Kings Cross Rail station to observe people and to look for what we thought were moral wrongs as I understood the assignment. For my roommate and I this came in the form of a charity and it’s collection people. Why is it that they should need to be doing that if the government were to take care of the disabled children–as asked by our professor when discussing it with him. Perhaps these people were paid to collect, or perhaps they were volunteers, we’ll never know but if we did that would change the morality of it for me.
I’m excited to see what else this class has to offer as this discussion in particular while going in circles was particularly enlightening!