{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019682539682539683, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007619047619047619, 'mean_word_length': 5.278884462151394, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
‘But no one can say he was hungry’: Memories and Representations of Bonegilla Reception and Training Centre

This article examines representations of the Bonegilla Reception and Training Centre and the arrival experiences of the non-British immigrants who were processed there between 1947 and 1971. In it I challenge what I see as a drift in scholarly conversations about post-war immigration towards emphasising new arrival discomfort and making harsh judgements about the way the migrant experience was structured. The article was stimulated by Nadia Postiglione’s ‘“It was just horrible”: the food experiences of immigrants in 1950s Australia’. In continuing the conversation she initiated, I give attention to new arrival food experiences, for food is a key indicator of cultural transition and hospitality. The thrust of the article, however, is an extrapolation of Paula Hamilton’s observations on shifts in Australia’s memorial culture and developments in a ‘memory industry’. I worry about untangling conflicting memories and representations of place and times within living memory. I suggest that dystopian representations of migrant accommodation centres may fit an apologetic commemorative culture, but do not always tally with the evidence. This article is part of a long-term endeavour to try to develop nuanced social histories on which to base interpretation of the Bonegilla Migrant Experience heritage park. It starts with a discussion of some of the perils and advantages of writing history at and from a heritage place. This article has been peer-reviewed