Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Again Thank You for understanding the situation
so well.

My parents were ones who experienced
the Australian Government's official policies of those
difficult times after World War II when Australia increased
its migrant intake considerably and invited the Displaced
People to come to Australia with their families. My parents
came along with older brothers, and my mother's parents.

The conditions that I write about are
based on my family's personal experiences, and those of
many migrants who travelled with them - and these are also -
historical facts that can be verified through government
records, books, Immigration Museums, State Library -
archival records, Oral Recordings, films, and other primary
sources - including holding camps like Bonegilla that now
have museums established.

Social history involves learning about, and
understanding how people lived, behaved, and why. It helps
us understand and learn from the past and
take what's relevant out of it - to us today - and how we
can improve on things. Historians record
what happened, however as we know,
the minute they begin to look critically
at motivation, circumstances, context, or any other such
considerations, the information may become unacceptable for one
or another camp of readers.

Well over twenty per cent of all Australians today were
born in another country, more than half of these have
come to Australia from non-English-speaking countries
in Europe, the Middle East, South America, and Asia.
More than 7 million (42 per cent) were born
outside Australia or had a parent born outside Australia.

However, the concept of multiculturalism as we've seen
from this discussion continues to have different meanings
for different people. Some people still believe that a
unique Australian society and identity emerged with
Federation and...this identity should be the basis of
immigrant assimilation.

These people are entitled to their opinions.
What they are not entitled to do however is stoop to
making personal attacks on those that disagree with them.
That is unacceptable.

Again Thank You and I hope to see you on another discussion.

Take care.

Dear Shockadelic,

Before I go there are a few things that need to be
corrected. You've made quite a few statements
that are absolutely wrong. Firstly you referred
to "people with few skills and poor English."
Absolute nonsense! My father spoke eight languages.
And managed to learn English with few problems.

Let me tell you that on arrival in this country, the
10,000 Lithuanians and other migrants,
joined in the
rebuilding of Australia's capital structures that were
to serve the nation for many decades to come.

The same
migrants could have accomplished a great deal more, if
the Australian authorities had made full use of their
skills and knowledge, instead of treating them all
as unskilled labour.

Nevertheless, their economic
contribution was significant at a time when Australia needed
it most. Also for your information, Lithuanian migrants have
always greatly valued education and training. Many of them
entered professions, mostly after years of arduous study
and sacrifice. Doctors, dentists, lawyers, and others
whose qualifications were not recognised in Australia,
went back to universities and qualified again.
Some laboured during the day and studied at night. In some
families, wives worked long hours while husbands studied
full time, or vice versa. Other Lithuanian immigrants
continued working well below the level of their training,
while some became self-employed in new fields. All were
self-reliant and none expected any welfare payments.
That would have been considered a disgrace.

I am not trying to dismantle the "Australian" identity.
On the contrary, I am presenting it, as it really is.
You are the one doing the dismanteling. BTW - I speak also
several languages. How many do you speak?
Only English?

You really are locked in a narrow time warp.

cont'd ...

Dear Shockadelic,

Some more information for you:

In our history books you get
"The First Fleet arrived. It brought 1000
English convicts."

It brought 1000 convicts but they came from a
dozen different countries. As somebody put it
so delightfully, "English jails were no respecters of
nationality." The first Italian arrived on January 26, 1788 -
Giuseppe Tuso. There were people from South Africa,
there were people from Ceylon, from India, from Spain,
from Portugal, from Hungary. So when you keep referring
to "Whites" you are espousing a myth.

"If my skin was coloured
And yours was starkly white
Would you start putting me down
Till I'd have to turn and fight

If I prayed to a god
And it was different to yours
Would you reason it out
As a good cause for war?

If men are truly brothers
Though we can't live in peace
Should we obey the rules and fight
Or Try and make the fighting cease?"

Brenda Krenus (1978) Form 3, Richmond High, Victoria

Before going to sleep for the night I Googled
the words to the song - "We are One, but we are many,"
and found the entire wording. I suggest that those
who don't know the entire song - to look it up.
There's more to the song than I realised. And the words
are very meaningful and relevant and beautiful.

Here's just the first verse and the chorus, but there's
so much more:

"I came from the Dreamtime, from the dusty red soil plains
I am the ancient-heart, the keeper of the flame
I stood upon the rocky shore, I watched the tall ships come
For fourty thousand years I've been the first Australian.

We are one, but we are many
And from all the lands on earth we come
We share a dream and sing with one voice
I am, you are, we are Australian..."

Well worth a read.

"The people who would become "Australians" were White in 1788, White in 1888 and White in 1988.
They will still be White in 2088."

Did your history book forget to mention the Negroes on the First Fleet?

Sorry, my mistake, they must have been white Negroes.

Foxy,

Again, you need some facts to balance your negative rhetoric and personal 'factoids' that disparage Australians and the Australian Government at the time.

The bulk of Lituanians arrived in Australia very soon after WW2. They were overwhelmingly young and single, Catholic and very few had any English language at all, or any similar cultural exposure. While you no doubt have disrespected Labor PM Arthur Caldwell in the past, it was Caldwell as Minister for Migration, who visited the DP camps in Europe in 1947, was dismayed by the conditions there and offered sanctuary to them. Contrary to what you imply, there was one surge of Lituanian migrants and bugger all later. They were the early arrivals post WW2. [Taken from the Sydney Lithuanian Society briefing papers]

It is unrealistic of you to expect that they could be offered a similar lifestyle, jobs, housing, cultural and sporting pursuits, entertainment and recreation to what they might have expected in good times in pre-war Europe.

In fact they were offered what contract work was available, which was rather generous considering the sanctuary they were offered, with housing and no commitment was demanded of them to stay. It was rather obvious that in post-WW2 Australia the job opportunities of pre-WW2 developed, intensively populated Europe could not apply. The arrangement was flexible for them and their choice was paramount.

However, if things were as bad as you make out and would like people to believe, how come very, very few ever left?

There is a gap the size of the Carnarvon Gorge between you with your modern Left expectations and the migrants whose experiences and expectations you claim to represent. Back then they got on with life, thankful they survived, were out of Europe and had a future. The 'locals' did the same.

BTW, there was no ESL for the Lituanians in 1947 either. You would see that as shocking and discriminatory, huh?

Honestly, get some balance and get on with your life.