I recently met up with a friend who just moved to study in London. And while I sat there listening to how cool it was to have European friends and purported higher social status therefore, avoiding unfriendly asians in a clique, how I didn't seem to be making any friends of my own etc., I was torn between amusement and exasperation.
Other than the fact that I was thoroughly insulted, I am surprised at how that incident persistently annoyed me. I wasn't affected by the sweeping fallacies, the stereotyping of races or the very negative impression of my supposedly sad life, but the argument used to support the behavior – being a good expat.
According to said friend, being a good expat in a new country involves making new friends and adopting the local culture.
Fairly said. But it was strung along and mutated into
being a good expat involves making new friends based solely on their race/nationality
(so you can classify them as 'look at my international friends!')
adopt the local culture by trying your best to impersonate their accent
You can draw your own conclusions here.
I still wonder what does being a good expat mean and the idea verges on spatial territories and the psychological conditioning of adopting a different set of behaviour when in a different territory. Isn't it interesting how the change in space can infect the psychology of someone so deeply?
In a small scale, the 'rules' of behaviour is easier to understand. Walking from the bedroom to the bathroom, there is a sudden urge to associate with the different territory by activating the objects in the room or taking off your clothes. But in a much bigger scale like flying across the globe, what defines the 'rules' of behaviour?
To end off, this is a blog posting by an American lady staying in Singapore:
http://expatbostonians.com/2011/03/04/bad-expat-part-1-ur-doin-it-rong/