# Urban vs Rural recruits. Do similar patterns exist in Canada?



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2005)

I have had some unfortunate experiences with recruits out of the Toronto area (although judging from their dress, attitude etc., I think they would have done poorly in any structured environment), this article suggests differences may be very environmental in nature.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20051107.aspx



> The Real Problems With Urban Schools and Recruiters
> 
> November 7, 2005: The U.S. Department of Defense sees urban schools as ones of its biggest recruiting obstacles. Not because leftist teachers in some of those schools try to keep recruiters out, *but because so many potential recruits have to be turned down because of the poor education they have received in those schools.* While only 21 percent of Americans live in rural areas, 44 percent of the qualified recruits come from these areas. *What's strange about all this is that the rural areas spend much less, per pupil, on education, but get much better results*. Part of this can be attributed to differences in cost of living, but a lot of it has to do with simply getting more done with less. Per capita, young people in rural areas are 22 percent more likely to join the army, than those of the same age in urban areas.
> 
> ...


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Nov 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I have had some unfortunate experiences with recruits out of the Toronto area (although judging from their dress, attitude etc., I think they would have done poorly in any structured environment), this article suggests differences may be very environmental in nature.
> 
> http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20051107.aspx



I'd suggest there might be a difference between the US and Canada in this area. Canadian cities, most especially the cores, don't seem composed of the same types of populations that US cities are. The poor don't flock to the downtown core of Toronto to live because the real estate is too expensive. From what I gather, the residents of core urban areas in the US are generally poor, with those that can afford it preferring to live in the suburbs. If this is true, it's no surprise that recruits from urban cores are often less qualified than rural ones.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Nov 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I have had some unfortunate experiences with recruits out of the Toronto area (although judging from their dress, attitude etc., I think they would have done poorly in any structured environment), this article suggests differences may be very environmental in nature.


yeah, I've noticed the same thing. It seems like the smaller cities produce better troops than the larger ones, the smaller towns likewise, right down to hamlets and villages. The more rural the area a troop comes from, the better work ethic and better education he generally has.

And that has always struck me as odd. I can understand the work ethic part, it goes along with the stereotype. But I had always expected the cities, and the larger ones especially, to have the better education systems.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (8 Nov 2005)

I agree, but for some different reasons.

I don't think its so much education as it is attitude and having stronger character.

Most of the better troops I know have grown up in small towns or in the middle of nowhere etc, while alot of the whiny poor attitude troops seem to be coming from cities.

I blame muchmusic and the overall insane amount of pop culture brainwashing on the youth of those cities. 
Ive lived in a small town my whole life... I was in Toronto for the second time this summer.... wow. Just, holy crap. Its not hard to see why the people would be so much different.

People are constantly bombarded with advertisements and pop culture, everybody is in a hurry and seems to be rude and pissed off, theres alot more crime so people are less trusting.. I could go on, but im not really positive on how to explain further, but I guess what im trying to say is the people from cities are on average, (in my opinion) dont have the same potential as troops from rural areas.

Im not going to name names, but theres a big difference in attitudes between some of the units around here, when comparing urban to rural locations (maratimes).


----------



## Lance Wiebe (8 Nov 2005)

I actually wrote a paper on this, somewhere around 1990.  

I don't have the paper any more, but it was based on my observations that rural recruits had (on average) far better mechanical aptitude, a better attitude, and a willingness to learn.

I also commented on how big city folk has absolutely no sense of direction, especially in the woods or at night.  No nice street lights to follow, I guess.

It was a large mistake, I think, to centralise our recruiting centers in mega cities, instead of spreading them around in areas away from the US border.  I would personally (again, based on average) have had soldiers from Newfoundland or Northern Ontario in my crew than any from Toronto or Vancouver.


----------



## Pte_Martin (8 Nov 2005)

I've lived in a small town all my life and i think it might be a little on how people are raised. For me living in a small town means knowing most of the people living around you and having a bond with them. I think you work harder when you live in a small town, i grew up on a farm so i am used to getting up really early and working hard long days in some of the worst weather. There's less crime usually and less Chance of "getting in with the wrong crowd"   When i was growing up i was always taught hard work is good for you the whole no pain no gain kind of thing. So in a way i do think that Smaller communites produce better recruits. We just need more recruiters to come to our schools or towns. i found that there's never any news or anything about the army, i didn't find out that you could join the reserves through co-op until i one of my friends from a bigger town told me about it.
At least that's what it's like for my town


----------



## DG-41 (8 Nov 2005)

I can't say that I've ever noticed any quality difference between urban and rural troops, in so far that I don't think that one has any sort of systemic advantage over the other.

But I can definately say that troops raised in an urban environment lack a lot of common "living in the bush" skills, plus have little experience with the things that live there.

I have seen a troop run screaming out of a copse of bushes becasue he encountered a porcupine (the fattest, laziest porcupine I ever saw) and was afraid of being perforated "They shoot their quills!"

I had a pair of troops tell me that they left a position near a pond because a beaver slapped the water with his tail and they were afraid that signified incipiant beaver attack.

I have been shaken out of a sound sleep because a troop felt he was being stalked by (what turned out to be) a baby racoon and wanted assistance.

I have woken up with a nose full of racoon ass because my hooch-mate had a huge bag of Twizzlers in her ruck and when Brer Raccoon attempted to libarate same, he backed into my face.

I'm starting to think that we should be teaching a PO on "Scary things that live in the woods" on DP1.

DG


----------



## paracowboy (8 Nov 2005)

"Raccoon ass in the face" now that's funny!

Getting back to my first post, I think students in smaller communities receive more one-on-one instruction with their teachers, as they have smaller classes, and therefore have more time to devote to those with difficulties.


----------



## sdimock (8 Nov 2005)

I think the lack of anonimity in a small town is a big factor, anything you do will likely get back to your parents who will be holding you accountable.

Teachers in the school are also usually part of the same small community and may golf, curl etc. with your parents, so if jr. isn't behaving an impromptu parent teacher conference can pass that info back to the head of the house.


----------



## boehm (8 Nov 2005)

> I would personally (again, based on average) have had soldiers from Newfoundland or Northern Ontario in my crew than any from Toronto or Vancouver.



I have to disagree with this statement, and frankly I find it rather offensive. To say that you would never work with a soldier just because he is from a large city is a ridiculous notion. Their are many fine soldiers across Canada and I am sure not all of them come from rural areas. To me, now this may seem a little extreme, saying that all urban soldiers are bad soldiers just because some are bad soldiers is no different then saying all Chinese drivers are bad drivers just because some are bad drivers or saying all teenagers are trouble makers just because some are trouble makers.

Now, I may have limited experience in the CF but I have worked with soldiers from the smallest of towns to the largest of cities. Every area of this country has dumb, lazy people and dumb, lazy soldiers. To stereotype all urban soldiers as bad soldiers is just ignorant. 

I believe that you must judge the soldier for how he preforms job, not for where his address is.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Nov 2005)

boehm said:
			
		

> I believe that you must judge the soldier for how he preforms job, not for where his address is.



From someone who grew up in Ontario's version of Newfoundland- [the Sudbury Area] - I agree.


----------



## Armymedic (8 Nov 2005)

While some of the best troops I have worked with come from rural areas like the Prairies and Maritimes, some of the largest wedges I have the displeasure to work with are also from those same areas...but by god, no matter how thick, they would work.....

But like most, I'd have time for a stupid person who works hard, vs a genius who was just darn lazy.

I believe it all goes to quality time...time parents spend with thier children. It tends to be more in rural areas, less in the cities, and the larger the city...


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (8 Nov 2005)

As someone who spent the vast majority of his childhood fishing, hunting, trapping and hiking through the Nova Scotian Highlands with his father, I feel it has a lot to do with simple exposure to wildlife.

For most Torontonians, a weekend to North Bay in the family camper is considered 'roughing it'. The schools really arent that different from Toronto and various locations amoungst the maritime provinces, other than the actual communities involvement in eachother. Everybody knows everyone and their dog within a 50 mile radius, but i really dont see how that relates to ones ability to perform in the Armed Forces any better than a school closely resembling nothing more than a controlled crowd.

Whats to be said for those who have grown up watching their fathers, grandfathers and uncles working earlier than the sun dares to show its face, until the night has well impeded, be it fishing, mining, trapping, logging, farming..etc. I would say that had a bigger impact on my work ethic than any romp in the forest and chat in the schoolyard ever had.

A perfect example of this would be, Auroras squadron to Torontos Squadron within the QYR. I rest my case  ;D


----------



## Infanteer (9 Nov 2005)

Alot of "I thinks...." and what-not on this thread - is anyone going to provide some substantive evidence to show that rural recruits are better off than urban ones, or are we all going to paint with the broad-brush-of-bias?  I know city guys who have went to the pinnacle of the profession while a bunch of thick farm boys couldn't even make it through basic training.


----------



## Glorified Ape (10 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Alot of "I thinks...." and what-not on this thread - is anyone going to provide some substantive evidence to show that rural recruits are better off than urban ones, or are we all going to paint with the broad-brush-of-bias?   I know city guys who have went to the pinnacle of the profession while a bunch of thick farm boys couldn't even make it through basic training.



That might mean not casting asperions on urbanites, apparently Torontonians especially, and that would be simply unCanadian.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Nov 2005)

Gee, I dunno.  Seems to me that a youngster from TO should be a great recruit. After all, he's probably very proficient with small arms and OBUA before his 15th birthday.  Easy enough to teach them to light a stove afterwards.... >


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Gee, I dunno.   Seems to me that a youngster from TO should be a great recruit. After all, he's probably very proficient with small arms and OBUA before his 15th birthday.   Easy enough to teach them to light a stove afterwards.... >



Exactly!  ;D


----------



## Glorified Ape (10 Nov 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Gee, I dunno.   Seems to me that a youngster from TO should be a great recruit. After all, he's probably very proficient with small arms and OBUA before his 15th birthday.   Easy enough to teach them to light a stove afterwards.... >



lol.. that was witty. I'm going to steal that.  ;D


----------



## kincanucks (10 Nov 2005)

I recently reviewed the results from the latest Military Police Assessment Committee and it was interesting to note that the applicants with below acceptable standard for integrity and who responded inappropriately to ethical dilemmas were from the Metropolitan Toronto area.

From the latest BMQ:

Western Canada - 6 VRs for physical fitness and wrong career choice.
Eastern Canada - 4 VRs for physical fitness and wrong career choice.

Two applicants kicked out were from Ontario and NS.

All recourses were from Eastern Canada.

Top Candidate was from Vancouver and the rest of the top awards went to candidates from NB and NFLD.


----------



## Jason38 (10 Nov 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> I have seen a troop run screaming out of a copse of bushes becasue he encountered a porcupine (the fattest, laziest porcupine I ever saw) and was afraid of being perforated "They shoot their quills!"
> 
> I had a pair of troops tell me that they left a position near a pond because a beaver slapped the water with his tail and they were afraid that signified incipiant beaver attack.
> 
> I have been shaken out of a sound sleep because a troop felt he was being stalked by (what turned out to be) a baby racoon and wanted assistance.



English is a vibrant language, a "living" language, so I hesitate to comment on DG-41's use of the noun "troop".

The Oxford dictionary defines the word as 1) a group of soldiers, 2) a cavalry unit, 3) an orderly group of people (i.e. "a troop of children"

Merriam-Webster: 1) a group of soldiers, 2) a cavalry unit, 3) a collection of people

Cambridge: 1) a group of soldiers, 2) an organized group of young who are scouts.

I realize every generation, especially those in the military, will generate their own slang, but why say "troop" when really the correct term is "trooper'.

I hear this frequently on both Canadian and American news.

Humbug!!


----------



## Blindspot (10 Nov 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Gee, I dunno.   Seems to me that a youngster from TO should be a great recruit. After all, he's probably very proficient with small arms and OBUA before his 15th birthday.   Easy enough to teach them to light a stove afterwards.... >



Naw... they rarely hit their targets with a decent grouping and all they know about OBUA would be running through yards from people in uniform.


----------



## Glorified Ape (10 Nov 2005)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> Naw... they rarely hit their targets with a decent grouping and all they know about OBUA would be running through yards from people in uniform.



So they're experts in suppressing fire and tactical withdrawl.


----------



## DG-41 (10 Nov 2005)

> but why say "troop" when really the correct term is "trooper"



Because "trooper" is a rank, being one of those fine Cavalry soldiers who have mastered all the training that the Queen requires of them and have earned their hook.

"Troop", when used to discuss a single soldier, is generic, and thus does not specify or imply rank.

And it is less formal than "soldier".

So there. 

DG


----------



## pbi (11 Nov 2005)

Considering that by far the great majority of Canadians come from cities, it probably follows that that is where most of our recruits come from. Are there even enough truly "rural" recruits in the CF to be able to establish the truth of the idea that they are better than people from the city? Having served three years in a Res CBG with large "rural" areas in its AO, I would have to say that we seemed to get as many (or more...) "bad" files from rural areas as we did from cities. And, even if you live in a rural area, what does that mean? Go to your average small town (at least in Ontario...) and check out the number of obese, evidently unfit people (especially women, it seems to me). They don't seem to be a whole heck of a lot better off than city dwellers, as far as I can see.

Cheers


----------



## kincanucks (11 Nov 2005)

Depends on how you want to classify the Maritimes and Newfoundland since that is where the majority of recruits come from with rural Quebec a close second.  Toronto and Vancouver produce less than Ottawa.


----------



## pbi (11 Nov 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Depends on how you want to classify the Maritimes and Newfoundland since that is where the majority of recruits come from with rural Quebec a close second.   Toronto and Vancouver produce less than Ottawa.



Really? I would be interested to know more about those figures. Is there somewhere we can see them?

Cheers


----------



## kincanucks (11 Nov 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Really? I would be interested to know more about those figures. Is there somewhere we can see them?
> 
> Cheers



I have only seen them on the recruiting net but I will check next week.


----------



## paracowboy (12 Nov 2005)

several years ago I read an article that said about 60% of the CF came from the Maritimes, and most of them from Newfoundland. I'd be interested to know if that still holds true.

And contrary to what some of you think, I certainly didn't enter this thread to become part of a "city-folks bashing". Is every person from Hicktown a super-soldier? Of course not. Is every city-slicker a "babe in the woods"? Of course not. My statements were just observations I have made based on my personal experiences. Of course they're vague generalities. I haven't made a habit of recording the background of everyone I've ever worked with. Some things just stick out as trends. So go ahead and untwist your knickers.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (13 Nov 2005)

What Para said.

If you're offended by what I said, then you are very thin skinned.  Can't be from Torwanna with a skin like that!  ;D

You will note that I used words like "personally" and "in general".


----------



## sdimock (14 Nov 2005)

Each area/cities population will have it's own characteristics as well.

As I recall Prince George, BC (guess 85 to 100K people) seemed to have a higher percentage of hunter/fisher/woodsmen than I saw in Burnaby or Richmond, (I've lived in all three places).

I am standing on the theory that no matter where they are from "most" woodspersons (gender neutural and all) are more diciplined than the average person and are familiar with the added responsibility that carrying (and using) a firearm entails, so would make a better soldier.

I also believe that if a person is brought up properly (learning to be responsible and all that goes along with it), that will determine what kind of soldier they will make, no matter where they are raised.

That is also not always true, people are funny creatures.

Anyone can turn themselves arround to be better or worse.

There is a saying that goes something like this;

"The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet"

My money would be on a recruit that was well brought up and had spent time in the woods.

Smaller cities, towns and rural areas "appear" to produce more of these type of people but that may be an illusion.

Even if the assumptions are true, unless they join the forces it makes no differance.

On the flip side (going very much out on a limb) I understand that a lot of US recruits join the forces to improve their lot in life, which gives the impression that they would be motivated.

I would rather work with a keener, who has a lack of experiance, than an unmotivated know everything woodsperson. 


These are just my observations, I didn't do a research paper on this.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Nov 2005)

I'm really surprised at the amount of kids from rual areas who have been turned away by the CF for failing the drug test. (As seen from being their driver taking them to be tested)

I honestly would have thought city kids would get dinged for drugs more than country kids. For the most part it's the opposite I've found.

It's something else hearing a 16 year old girl from the country talk about doing pot, cocaine, "8balls", extacy and a little meth.  The inner city kids seem to do worse when it comes to the aptitude tests but the country kids seem to have a big substance abuse problem.


----------



## Daidalous (14 Nov 2005)

I will be the first one to say that i am not the smartest person on the CF, but by god i will do my job till it is done right or someone tells me I am all fugged up and they show me the right way so i can do it again.       I do agree with one of the comments about a good majority of the CF members from down east being work horses even if some are hard headed.  My dad( newfie)   drilled into my head that a man is not a man unless he can put in a hard days work.  And that slacking off will only get me the belt.  And a empty fridge and  no respect from the town.


----------



## paracowboy (14 Nov 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I'm really surprised at the amount of kids from rual areas who have been turned away by the CF for failing the drug test.


I'm not. We used to drink more on a Monday night than most city kids I heard talk about drinking on a weekend. My gym teacher used to smoke dope behind the gym with his students. 
Nuthin' else to do, except chores, hunt, and chase the neighbour girls. Who didn't mind gettin' caught. They were bored, too.


----------



## DG-41 (15 Nov 2005)

> We used to drink more on a Monday night than most city kids I heard talk about drinking on a weekend.



Amen, brother. Joining the CF saved me from alcoholism, I'm sure of that.

Think about *that* statement for a second......

DG


----------



## oyaguy (15 Nov 2005)

I wonder when people say Urban/Rural, we really mean Richer versus not so Rich. I know for a fact, that Albertans make up about 9% of the Canadian population and have the highest GDP per Capita in Canada. Albertans make up about 5 % of the CF. I don't know the exact percentages, but Newfoundlanders make up the biggest proportion of the CF versus their percentage of the Canadian population. I think it's equal to Alberta, with a fifth of the population. I have no good numbers, but it is well known in Canada, and the US, that when the economy starts to tank, more people will join/try to join the military.

As for the Rural/Urban divide, I'm less knowledgable. I do know that generally, Urban areas have stronger economies than Rural areas. I also remember reading something that crime is actually higher in Rural areas, but I might be confused (or plain wrong )on that point.
What would be interesting to know, is of those Albertans in the CF, how many of them are from say Calgary, where Major Bronconnier said in a Canadian Business interview that the employment rate in Calgary is effectively zero, baring the hopeless, changing jobs etc...  versus the 20% of Rural Alberta.
Another thing that would be interesting to know is recruits from Calgary versus Edmonton. Both cities have booming economies, but the CF has a much higher visibility in Edmonton than Calgary.
As for education, I would put my Urban-educated intellect up against any Rural mind, but that could be arrogance or pique talking.

As for the Rural values of possible recruits, I have only one Urban versus Rural anecdote. I played a hockey team in High River near Calgary. Rural hockey teams tend to be uneven {smaller pool of people} but have great endurance {lots of ice time, combined with long games}, and their great players are usually much better than any one person on a city team. Well, long story short, my team was losing about 9 to 2, and in the last two minutes of the game the High River team pulled their goalie. Great sportsmanship right there. Mind you one of my team mates was challenging the entire High River team in the parking lot...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2009)

Given that it is _Remembrance Week_ and not finding another suitable thread I am starting a new topic.

Here, reproduced, without comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act is the first of s few article from the _National Post_: 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2197081


> Who fights and dies for Canada?
> 
> Graeme Hamilton, National Post
> 
> ...



More to follow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2009)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_:

 http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2197627


> One Question: What have you ever done for your country?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Our thoughts go out to all the families of all those who have made the supreme sacrifice, in all our operations, across the decades and in three centuries.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Nov 2009)

This is well worth a read and a few minutes reflection after you finish. The CF is a small town force to a surprising extent and it appears the folks from the major urban areas have yet to identify it as a way up. Note the remark this comment from an academic that the military recruits from the lower levels of society: 

"The casualties do tell us something important about the composition of our force," says Christian Leuprecht, a professor at the Royal Military College who is currently a visiting professor of Canadian Studies at Yale University. "There is a considerable over-representation from rural areas, and there has traditionally been over-representation from Atlantic Canada. That's partially a function of how virtually all militaries recruit. They tend to recruit from lower socio-economic strata ... and from areas that economically don't do as well. In those areas the military is an attractive employer and, interestingly, an institution for social mobility within a society."

I would appreciate it if any current or ex-recruiters would comment on whether this is deliberate, just something that happens or even if it is correct. The composition certainly is consistent with what I am finding in my interviews with gunners who have served in Afghanistan. What also is interesting from my research is the number of second and third generation (and more) military in our force.


----------



## mariomike (7 Nov 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Our thoughts go out to all the families of all those who have made the supreme sacrifice, in all our operations, across the decades and in three centuries.



Amen.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (7 Nov 2009)

I am not sure that it is income that leads to recruitment in small towns.  The small town (9,000) in which I live had 1 1/2 fatal casualties in Afghanistan and large numbers of enlistments.  The 1/2 grew up half way to the next town.  My town is probably in at the high end of income and opportunity in Canada.  I suspect that a greater sense of community might exist in small towns that ends up extending to the larger community.


----------



## gcclarke (7 Nov 2009)

That or joining the military is seen as a sure-fire method of escaping said small town.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (7 Nov 2009)

I don't think it WAS much recruiting in small towns when I joined.Infact I really didnt know we had a army at the time.(I do have my rejection letter from the U.S..seen the recruiting number on football  ;D)

However over the past 3 years I have seen much more recruitment effort on our "shore" billboards (which caused car crashes as people tried to figure out what a billboard was j/k) posters in rural stores etc.So yes I have seen recruitment efforts increased.

I believe word of mouth is the biggest recruiter "down home" in my FOB we had 4 of us from about a 15km radius back in NFLD.We all knew each other growing up.

-Jokes such as yelling "beats Alberta" as rockets came in.... ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Nov 2010)

Rural Canada is paying a heavier price for the Afghan mission than urban Canada TORONTO, Nov. 5 /CNW/ - Research by TVO's 

The Agenda with Steve Paikin reveals that relative to their populations, four times as many Canadian soldiers from rural Canada have been killed in Afghanistan than from urban Canada. 

The findings were the result of an analysis of a new interactive map (http://bit.ly/TVOCDNSTUDY) showing detailed information on Canada's war dead. The map was created for the Agenda's special week of Remembrance programming Monday to Friday November 8 to 12, 2010 at 8 pm. 


http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/November2010/05/c9516.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Nov 2010)

"We'll be looking at who is doing the fighting and dying in Afghanistan," says executive producer Dan Dunsky. "Where are our soldiers from? Is this another example of Canada's rural/urban divide?"  

Trying to manufacture a crisis where none exists. Who hires these donkey lickers? Imbeciles.


----------



## Kiwi99 (5 Nov 2010)

So what is their point?  I agree, making something out of nothing for nothing more than sensationalism of sacrifice.  It matters not where the soldier comes from.  Whats matters is that they are remembered for what they are.  Soldiers, fathers, husbands, son, wives, daughters, etc.  My God, I wish we could slap silly people like the ones doing this.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Nov 2010)

My cynical guess is that it has something to do with the anti-gun registry lobby... but that's just me


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Nov 2010)

ALL 152 are Canadians....none of that crap they spout is necessary.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> ALL 152 are Canadians....none of that crap they spout is necessary.



Well said.


----------



## Dissident (6 Nov 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Well said.



Indeed.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2010)

What's next, that in spite of our diversity as a nation, it's the white male who is dying practically all of the time?  Where is the inquest demanding that more women die over there, you know, for the sake of equality?  Or visible minorities?  Or that the ratio of officers to NCMs is not satisfactory?  Or that more people whose name begins with a "K" die?  :


----------



## mariomike (6 Nov 2010)

Similar story in the U.S. in August 2010:
"U.S. rural areas hit disproportionately by Iraq war casualties":
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/08/rural_areas_hit_disproportiona.html
http://www.news.wisc.edu/18257
http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol23/2/23-2.pdf

2007:
"Rural America bears scars from Iraq war": 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17231366/


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> What's next, that in spite of our diversity as a nation, it's the white male who is dying practically all of the time?  Where is the inquest demanding that more women die over there, you know, for the sake of equality?  Or visible minorities?  Or that the ratio of officers to NCMs is not satisfactory?  Or that more people whose name begins with a "K" die?  :


And we all know who does the majority of fighting and dieing in all our conflicts....don't we?


----------



## CombatDoc (6 Nov 2010)

The program isn't called "The Agenda" for nothing, you know.


----------



## mariomike (6 Nov 2010)

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> The program isn't called "The Agenda" for nothing, you know.



The National Post did a similar story last November:
Topic: "Who fights and dies for Canada?":
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90296/post-888809.html#msg888809

Now merged.
Bruce


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2010)

These maps put the cost of war into perspective for me.

World War One:
This is just one neighbourhood in Toronto known as Riverdale. It shows street by street only the World War One dead:
http://www3.thestar.com/static/googlemaps/091111_riverdale_medium.html
http://thestar.blogs.com/maps/2009/11/nov11-draft.html

World War Two:
These maps show only the World War Two dead. It is just for the former City of Toronto. It does not include the five boroughs of Metro. 
If you click on the poppies, it shows the name and address. My uncle is one of them. 
I am very familiar with those streets. I walk by some of those houses every day. Probably been inside a lot of them on calls. 

Until I saw the map, I had no idea that it was that bad.
It looks like a sea of blood washing across the city:
http://www.openfile.ca/toronto/file/2010/11/remembering-torontos-fallen-world-war-ii
http://www.patrickcain.ca/maps/101111_complete_map.html
http://www.openfile.ca/remembrance_day

"A home pinpointed on the map may be where you now live. Whether you want to know this is for you to decide."


----------



## Greymatters (8 Nov 2010)

If you disregard the potential angle for causing trouble, it was still informative...


----------



## Nauticus (8 Nov 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> "We'll be looking at who is doing the fighting and dying in Afghanistan," says executive producer Dan Dunsky. "Where are our soldiers from? Is this another example of Canada's rural/urban divide?"
> 
> Trying to manufacture a crisis where none exists. Who hires these donkey lickers? Imbeciles.


Don't be stupid. The fact appears that there is a disproportionate amount of casualties in smaller towns in Canada then there are elsewhere. Dunsky is saying that he would like to "look into" it, and you're calling him out on manufacturing a crisis? Seriously, come on. He's interested in gathering information on this matter and you think that's a bad thing?

Nobody's saying there's a "crisis" here, but I don't see harm in having it looked into.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Nov 2010)

If the casualties can be taken as a microcosm of the Forces as a whole, then there is an interesting point to be made that Canada's defence is disproportionately carried out by a certain segment/area of society - asking why seems to be a legitimate question.


----------



## SevenSixTwo (8 Nov 2010)

It seemed odd to suggest what the research meant rather than just reporting the numbers found.

Yes, you could say more rural Canadians fight/die in the war but you could also suggest that rural Canadians die more often than the City folk for other reasons.

The numbers could mean 1000 different things (wasn't intending to insult any country folk).


----------



## GrimRX (9 Nov 2010)

What might be a more interesting question is who fights and Lives?  This perhaps has more to do with reserve units than reg force, but I'd like to see the ratio of who volunteers for service (and to go to Afghanistan) between the rural/urban and between the different ethnic groups.


----------



## ArmyRick (9 Nov 2010)

Damn Canadian Bears! Seriously, has any even seen one of these free loaders at least try and join up at a recruiting center? I mean they have no problem picking through our garbage or stealing our game when we hunt or showing up in the arctic for splendid photo ops. 

But I have yet to see a single bear (Black, grizzly or polar) enroll in the CF and get over and start fighting. Really makes you think whats going on in the bear community?


I know its ridicolous but its about as usefull as the other statistical garbage being thrown around.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2010)

???


----------



## dimsum (10 Nov 2010)

GrimRX said:
			
		

> What might be a more interesting question is who fights and Lives?  This perhaps has more to do with reserve units than reg force, but I'd like to see the ratio of who volunteers for service (and to go to Afghanistan) between the rural/urban and between the different ethnic groups.



That would be a good one for an article, as people back home (I'm a visible minority and a 2nd-generation Canadian) generally first ask "are there many XYZ-Canadians serving there?"  Since the MSM doesn't seem to be doing it, perhaps it's something that PAO could tackle?


----------



## mariomike (11 Nov 2010)

More on the topic today:
http://twice-immigrant.livejournal.com/17398.html


----------



## pbi (13 Nov 2010)

This whole thing makes me uncomfortable. 

My fear is that, no matter how worthy the intent of the investigators, the result will do no good. In fact, it will play into the hands of the stereotype-mongers we have in the chattering classes and _literati _ who will exploit (and distort...) the information to support their POV that only "dumb, redneck hicks" and "trailer trash" join the Army voluntarily, and, hey--who cares about them, anyway?

After all, 80% of us Canadians are the cool ones who live in cities, right? Serves those  small town losers right for being hicks in the first place-why don't they smarten up and move to the city?

To me, there is a hidden implication here that, somehow, being from a smaller place means that recruits are less aware, less well educated, and not quite as "with it" as their peers from cities. I have never seen any proof that urban youth are in any way superior to people from towns of 60,000, or 20,000, or 5,000.

 This can be readily translated into the insulting thinking that I parodied above.Because, after all, why would a "normal" Canadian want to be a soldier? I mean, all that patrotism, and discipline...and taking a stand about things...yucky!=so un-Canadian! 


But how will this investigation reflect the fact that the military is far  more diverse than it was 20 years ago? How will it address that there are thousands of very urban and very diverse Canadian soldiers-called Reservists-who also serve, and among whom many have served in Afgh, and some have died? If I'm not mistaken, the great majority of Res units in Canada are located in cities of 100,000 or more, which I believe is the population criteria for an urban centre.

And, anyway, are we talking about "the military" as a whole here, or about those who enlist in the Army, specifically in the Cbt Arms where the fatalities have overwhelmingly been taken? 

Cheers


----------



## mariomike (14 Nov 2010)

Urban / Rural divide: Canada:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tvontario/5146775642/

Studies on the topic from the U.S.:
http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=%22rural+america%22+iraq+

New York Times:
"The Rural War:  Which American communities pay the highest price for the war in Iraq? A look at the demographics of soldiers killed reveals that Iraq is not the war of any one race or region. Rather, it is rural America's war.":
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/opinion/20bishop.html

University of New Hampshire:
"War Death Rate Higher Among Soldiers From Rural Areas":
http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/nov/as09war.cfm?type=n

"Since the beginning of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, soldiers from rural communities have made up a disproportionate share of the casualties, as young men and women seek opportunities in the military they don't find at home.":
http://www.dailyyonder.com/iraq-war-deaths-concentrated-rural-america


----------



## pbi (14 Nov 2010)

I was wrong on my  criteria for "urban" centre. Currently, Statistics Canada defines "urban" as:



> Part B – Detailed Definition
> 
> _An urban area has a minimum population concentration of 1,000 persons and a population density of at least 400 persons per square kilometre, based on the current census population count. All territory outside urban areas is classified as rural. Taken together, urban and rural areas cover all of Canada._



For example, a town of 5,000 persons, or a town that has 500 pers living in a sq km (relatively easy to find) is not "rural".
Based on this, I would suggest that very few of our soldiers, and thus even fewer of our casualties, come from "rural" areas as Canada defines them. There may be some "city-centricism" going on here: the mentality that says that if it isn't a big metropolitan city it's Hicksville.

The posts you provided are interesting, but we might want to be careful about drawing direct parallels to US demographics. For example, the UNH piece suggests that "lower education" is a prime motivator in young rural Americans joining the military.  Is this true of Canadian recruits? And what does "lower education" mean here? Not finished high school? Didn't get good grades? Didn't go on to post secondary? My impression has always been, especially in the last few years, that the education level amongst Canadian Regular Force Combat Arms NCMs was higher than that for their US Army peers, (but I certainly stand to be corrected on this one.) I have sat on a few NCM selection and promotion boards at the national level, and I was struck by the number of MCpls/Cpls with community college diplomas and in some cases partial or complete degrees, which appeared to have been obtained before entry.  I believe it is also true that our soldiers are generally about 2-5 years older in rank than their US peers, which might mean more time to get that education. On the other hand, the US Army was offering educational incentives to its NCMs long before we started to take it seriously, so perhaps I'm wrong.

Second, the issue of "low income" (shorthand for "poverty"?). Again, my impression is that our military, including the RegF CbtA, is overwhelmingly middle class, with some lower middle class. I do agree that there was a time when the Army was a refuge for the poor and poorly educated in Canada  (keeping in mind that some of those people became excellent soldiers...), but I am having a hard time squaring that with what I have seen and experienced over the last few years.

I'm happy for currently serving folks to challenge me on this.
Cheers

DJB


----------



## Infanteer (14 Nov 2010)

I agree that the qualification of 1000 people for a urban area probably makes for skewed statistics.  I've always held about 100,000 to be the benchmark divide between urban and rural areas - this is when you get a Costco!

I'm from a town of 10,000 people and I don't consider it at all to be an urban area.


----------



## mariomike (14 Nov 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I've always held about 100,000 to be the benchmark divide between urban and rural areas - this is when you get a Costco!



It also gets you on the target list:
"In 1938 over 22 million Germans lived in 58 towns of over 100,000 inhabitants, which, with modern equipment, should be easy to find and hit.":
http://books.google.ca/books?id=t-wh0-dtWi0C&pg=PA56&dq=%2258+towns%22+easy+to+hit&hl=en&ei=42XgTOHWNoTdnAfqytTCDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%2258%20towns%22%20easy%20to%20hit&f=false


----------



## Greymatters (21 Nov 2010)

The real impact of this article that I see is the relation between the origniating points of soldiers and post-service resources like VAC offices and medical staff. 

If most of those soldiers came from small towns and returned to small towns after their service (but no statistics to prove that), it's more difficult for them to access VAC and other offices that tend to be located in metropolitan downtown areas.


----------



## Gronk (6 Jan 2011)

The terms rural and urban realy are relative. Here in the Yukon, we have a pop. of approx. 33k, 28k of which live here in the capital Whitehorse. In the communities, Whitehorse is "the big city" but, you're never more than a 5 min. walk away from the bush and there's all kinds of wildlife walking around.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jan 2011)

;D

There's wildlife in Toronto as well.  Perhaps not the same kind, but wildlife just the same.


----------



## GrimRX (8 Feb 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> There's wildlife in Toronto as well.  Perhaps not the same kind, but wildlife just the same.



Guess it depends wheither you'd wanna be mauled by a bear or by a cougar.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Feb 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I agree that the qualification of 1000 people for a urban area probably makes for skewed statistics.  I've always held about 100,000 to be the benchmark divide between urban and rural areas - this is when you get a Costco!
> 
> I'm from a town of 10,000 people and I don't consider it at all to be an urban area.



Infanteer: Does this mean that we have one province without any urban area? P.E.I.?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Feb 2011)

Large portions of the Canadian Forces are from rural Canada.  This is no surprise as the CF provides good jobs and a way for rural Canadians to get a higher education as well as a career with good pay and benefits  I would say another reason for the disproportionate representation is that the lifestyle of a Canadian Forces member is far easier to relate with rural society then urban society.  I mean realistically, if your from a place like Toronto, is their really a strong appeal to enroll in the CF?  Where you will move to small towns, and live a humble but sometimes hard lifestyle.  I mean are the Cbt Arms really all that appealing to the average city slicker?  I would think not.  Soldiering attracts a certain type of individual and IMO it seems only right that this lifestyle is more attractive to rural Canadians.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2011)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> Large portions of the Canadian Forces are from rural Canada.  This is no surprise as the CF provides good jobs and a way for rural Canadians to get a higher education as well as a career with good pay and benefits  I would say another reason for the disproportionate representation is that the lifestyle of a Canadian Forces member is far easier to relate with rural society then urban society.  I mean realistically, if your from a place like Toronto, is their really a strong appeal to enroll in the CF?  Where you will move to small towns, and live a humble but sometimes hard lifestyle.  I mean are the Cbt Arms really all that appealing to the average city slicker?  I would think not.  Soldiering attracts a certain type of individual and IMO it seems only right that this lifestyle is more attractive to rural Canadians.



I am sure that if you polled the respondents to this thread, the majority of them are not from rural areas, but metropolitan areas, perhaps not as large as Toronto, but still not 'rural'.  You would also be quite surprised as to the number of CF members who are from Toronto.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Feb 2011)

Lets do the math George.

GTA: 5 millions
Canada: 33 millions

When we find that 15% of CF members come from Toronto, then they will have met their "fair share".  

I know many members from Toronto, but I have never run into a CF unit (other than Toronto based reserve units)  that had anywhere near that 15% of Torontonians.

I am pretty sure the same would proportionally hold  true for Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City if we did the calc.

As for the rest, I get a feeling from the thread above that most of us consider the smaller canadian towns to fall in the rural category by their nature and lifestyle.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Feb 2011)

I'm going to ask a question that needs to be asked. If it offends anyone, that's too bad.

*Does it really goddamned matter where our soldiers are from? * This ridiculous assertions that the urban areas aren't doing their "fair share" is a distraction, pure and simple. I've served with soldiers from all over Canada - soldiers from Vancouver to Fogo Island, Newfoundland. 

We have more pressing issues to deal with.


----------



## mariomike (9 Feb 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am sure that if you polled the respondents to this thread, the majority of them are not from rural areas, but metropolitan areas, perhaps not as large as Toronto, but still not 'rural'.  You would also be quite surprised as to the number of CF members who are from Toronto.



For what it is worth to the topic, Statistics Canada reports that only 20 per cent of Canadians are "rural":
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo62a-eng.htm


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Feb 2011)

I am with Jim on that one.


----------



## Danjanou (9 Feb 2011)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> The real impact of this article that I see is the relation between the origniating points of soldiers and post-service resources like VAC offices and medical staff.
> 
> If most of those soldiers came from small towns and returned to small towns after their service (but no statistics to prove that), it's more difficult for them to access VAC and other offices that tend to be located in metropolitan downtown areas.



This does have the potential to be an issue down the road. Mind it used to be the case that Legions were more prominent in rurla than urban areas, and while a Legion's Veteran's Service Officer is usually more a well intentioned volunteer than a trained professional social worker, at least there is a base that could possibly be built on should the need arise.



			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm going to ask a question that needs to be asked. If it offends anyone, that's too bad.
> 
> *Does it really goddamned matter where our soldiers are from? * This ridiculous assertions that the urban areas aren't doing their "fair share" is a distraction, pure and simple. I've served with soldiers from all over Canada - soldiers from Vancouver to Fogo Island, Newfoundland.
> 
> We have more pressing issues to deal with.



Well said and I think that should end this discussion at least for those of us who  have had the priveledge of serving our nation.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Feb 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm going to ask a question that needs to be asked. If it offends anyone, that's too bad.
> 
> *Does it really goddamned matter where our soldiers are from? * This ridiculous assertions that the urban areas aren't doing their "fair share" is a distraction, pure and simple. I've served with soldiers from all over Canada - soldiers from Vancouver to Fogo Island, Newfoundland.
> 
> We have more pressing issues to deal with.



It does matter from a recruitment/retention perspective... whether we like it or not Canada is undergoing a population shift and those rural/small town white folk are not producing nearly as many offspring as they have in previous years.  This is troubling from a recruitment perspective as this is largely the pool that the CF draws its recruits from.  If I polled my platoon right now I can tell you I would be hard pressed to find many members of my platoon from Toronto or many other major urban areas in Canada.  The vast majority are from smaller cities and towns, this may not be the case in certaint trades but in the Infantry it is definitely the case.  

Finding recruits right now is not a problem; albeit, there is a war on the go... this is going to change in the coming years as more and more of the Canadian population is made up of immigrants who in all reality have no historical or natural ties to the Canadian Forces.  Its not a problem now but in 20 years time it may very well be a problem.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Feb 2011)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> It does matter from a recruitment/retention perspective... whether we like it or not Canada is undergoing a population shift and those rural/small town white folk are not producing nearly as many offspring as they have in previous years.  This is troubling from a recruitment perspective as this is largely the pool that the CF draws its recruits from.  If I polled my platoon right now I can tell you I would be hard pressed to find many members of my platoon from Toronto or many other major urban areas in Canada.  The vast majority are from smaller cities and towns, this may not be the case in certaint trades but in the Infantry it is definitely the case.
> 
> Finding recruits right now is not a problem; albeit, there is a war on the go... this is going to change in the coming years as more and more of the Canadian population is made up of immigrants who in all reality have no historical or natural ties to the Canadian Forces.  Its not a problem now but in 20 years time it may very well be a problem.



And I understand it matters to recruiters. It should NOT be used to point fingers at certain cities or areas. 

We are ALL Canadians and I don't care one bit where they are from. Nor do I care if they are straight, gay, poly, bi or one horned one eared flying purple people eaters.

Rant ends.


----------



## mariomike (9 Feb 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> For what it is worth to the topic, Statistics Canada reports that only 20 per cent of Canadians are "rural":
> http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo62a-eng.htm



I should add that Stats Can reports only one in five "urban" Canadians actually live in city neighbourhoods. The rest come from suburban "bedroom" communities.

"However, of this metropolitan population, in 2001 nearly half lived in low-density neighbourhoods, with only one in five living in a typical "urban" neighbourhood.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#Canada

"...the trend in Canada has been of steady suburbanization." 

"The suburban population increased 87% between 1981 and 2001..."


----------

