Hello there CHEK...

Positive action is always an attractive mechanism, in which to attempt change in the thinking and direction of governments. And in the ideal world it should work. Trouble is, we don't live in an ideal world, alas ?

The trouble as I see it, post an election - Newly elected, (good) people enter a parliament for the first time, brimming over with idealism and good will. Most with a noble intention of pursuing their political career in a principled and egalitarian manner. And in so doing, serve both their electorate and Party, in equal measure, by ensuring their personal conduct is always honourable, and above reproach.

Curiously though, after being there for a while, and having attended a few caucus or party room meetings, and with several briefings with Finance, apropos their salary, allowances and other entitlements, together with pension and retirement benefits added thereto...

A bizarre, very peculiar and almost inaudible metamorphoses enters upon their thinking ? And words, hitherto standards to live by, like ideals, ethics, loyalty, honour, idealism, and more, seems to evaporate and volatilize completely from their memory. Upon the stark realization of what being, AND remaining a politician means - they quite like the government cars, the perks, first class travel overseas, smart lunches etc etc etc ?

CHEK, I'd have no truck with 'getup' or anyone like them, sorry.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

Certainly, your most affirmative, and propitious words are indeed very welcome and great to hear ! Of course you're absolutely right in what you've said. We humans tend to look at things, people, and events, with a gloomy perspective at times. We've all heard the old analogy, '...the glass is half empty...', rather than the opposite ?

Do you reckon ONTHEBEACH, we humans always tend to look on the side of negativity, rather than trying to be positive ? I reckon I do, more often then I'd like. There again that's what makes us all so very complex I guess ?

Many thanks both of you for your contributions, I do appreciate it.

Lexi,

Why refuse to consider the prevailing conditions at the time? In particular the conditions under which the resident Australian population were living.

History seen through a narrow looking glass is always misleading and 'discrimination' or 'unfairness' is an inevitable conclusion depending on one's mind-set. Stories passed on by family are forever tinged by personal interpretation, often secondhand and anecdotes.

Sure it was tough on Lithuanians who fled and were offered safety and work in Australia in that they did not have the standard of housing and work they had previously. The Australian government had certain work available through pressing need. It was desperately trying to get the economy redirected and up again.

Australians too did not have their previous work and lifestyle. They also were directed to work wherever it was available. Families were split up. On top of that, thousands who left to free Europe, to fight the the rights of others, did not return and those who did were crippled. If you go back to reports at the time, it was impossible to go anywhere without being confronted by the crippled wreck of a returned soldier.

I have a lot of sympathy for Lithuanians at the time and for all people devastated by the ravages of war. But I do not believe there is any evidence to support your belief that Lithuanians were discriminated against or treated unfairly by Australia. Many would wish that their lost loved ones had been so fortunate to escape to safe sanctuary. That they worked in more menial jobs or lived in temporary housing wouldn't matter a jot.

BTW, what the hell is it with the more mundane work anyhow? It is what they were told was available and most would say, so what?

As for temporary housing, the same applied to many Aussies too. But Aussies did not have the advantage of all of those very solid huts and camp facilities left by the Americans.

I'm not sure what you're saying Lexi. Do you think your lot weren't welcome, or were treated differently. Or do you think some here have said something like this.

I believe you were all welcome, & can see nothing wrong in asking migrants for a contribution in labor. It would be a damn good idea to reintroduce a similar scheme with our so called refugees today

I do believe it was a dreadful mistake not to recognise the training & qualifications of most migrants, particularly from advanced countries. I can't know if this was caused by fear in some professions of competition, or that some overseas qualifications were sub standard. A bit of both probably, with a bit too much of the former.

Still most of our post war intake did pretty well, as well as the locals, struggling with a very different world than they or we knew. I certainly hope there is no long lasting unhappiness about the whole deal.

As I mentioned, My mother had to stay in Sydney, while dad & I got some sort of home set up in Bathurst. We were not the only ones living in tin sheds. This was 1950, so you can see, the recovery from the war was not all that swift for any of us.

Actually I think we all did pretty well actually. I'm not sure the kids today will find it any easier to get the same level of security we all ended up achieving.

Dear onthebeach,

I don't want to continue with this discussion
with you because as I stated earlier the main
point that I was trying to make was concerning
the legacy that my parents left me. (I was born
in Australia) and the sort of legacy that I
shall be leaving my children and grandchildren.

If you are really interested in the real facts of
the sort of conditions that existed in Australia
during post-war immigration may I humbly suggest
that you get hold of the following book (just for starters),
from your local regional library:

"Sanctuary? Remembering post-war immigration," by
C. Panich. George Allen & Unwin, Sydney, 1988.

It's only one of many that are now available.

It may help you see what sort of obstacles had to be
overcome before one was allowed to happily call this
country home.

Dear Hasbeen,

I have nothing further to add. I feel that
I've said all that is necessary except to
quote the then Victorian State Minister of
Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Walter Jona,
who stated at a large gathering of Lithuanians
in Dallas Brooks Hall, Melbourne on 26 December,
1976:

"...But the best thing about you Lithuanians is that
on the street you are indistinguishable from
ordinary Australians...and the worst ... is that there
are not enough of you."

Rapid assimilation was the government order of the day.
It was explicit government policy and in 1947 the
"Assimilation Branch of the Australian Department of
Immigration" was created. Assimilation meant blending
into the Australian monoculture, "with everyone living
in the same way and sharing the same aspirations."

Drop the victim baggage and live like Bronson :)