到国外的人应该accept the new culture，还是form a separate minority with different values and lifestyle.
Recently, the debate over whether people who have been in a foreign country should accept the new culture or form a separate minority with different values and lifestyle has aroused wide concern. People retain diverse attitudes towards this hot issue. Before presenting my view, I intend to explore both sides of the argument.
Many people claim that people living in a new country should accept the new culture and adapt to their new environment. To begin with, by accepting the new notions and lifestyle, you can easily survive and enjoy a comfortable life and be well adaptable. Moreover, it is a necessity for overseas students to adapt to the new culture and society, because it may impose an adverse influence on their living and study if they cannot be socially adaptable. Furthermore, to form a separate minority may bring out negative outcomes such as hostility and resentment. It will undoubtedly exert a negative impact on relationship between people from different nations.
Some other people, however, strongly hold that it is necessary to form a group with their own values and lifestyle for several sound reasons. Firstly, they are in a foreign country and are actually a minority with little power, many of which even have no equal rights. Therefore, it is wise for them to join together to enhance their strength to cope with social problems. Secondly, by helping each other in the group, people can more easily adapt to the new community and society and lead a better life. Thirdly, students in a new environment may more or less have physical or psychological problems, so it is helpful for students to get together to help each other.
From the above discussion, we can see that there is actually some truth in both statements. Personally, I am in favors of the former view. Adaptability is an important quality for people especially students who are going abroad to further their education. After all, even if you form a separate minority, you still have to accept the new culture and adapt to the new settings.
Recently, more and more people believe that a building should serve its purpose rather than looking beautiful. Whether the architects should worry about buildings as works of art has become an issue of controversy. Before presenting my opinion, I would like to probe into both sides of the debate.
Critics argue about the shortcomings of buildings designed as works of art. First of all, it needs a great sum of money to design beautiful buildings with extra decorations. Most people would like to have better infrastructures and recreative facilities rather than a better look. Secondly, the side effects brought by artistic designs also arouse people’s wide concern. They worry about the safety of buildings and they believe the steadiness is more essential. Last but not least, the appearance which is loved by the designers may not be accepted by everyone. Different people have discrepant views. It is easier said than done to settle a proposal satisfying everybody.
Supporters also claim that there are a large number of benefits following the special architectures. For one thing, we can hand down our cultural heritages by constructions. If we fail to build up symbols of our tradition, our descendants may forget it someday. For another thing, it’s also a good way to enhance the embellishment. There is no doubt that a good image of the city could successfully attract the world’s attention and provide the dwellers with more opportunities. Also worth mentioning is that it can give us good feelings. Under such circumstance, people could work more efficiently and rest more comfortably.
Generally speaking, both of their views are rational. But personally, I side with the latter one. Anyway, we don’t want to live in a world with the same buildings, the same colours and the same styles.