• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Military Making Pitch to Aboriginal Youth ($1,200 bonus for aboriginals)

Mistrust is created when a people who are to protect "us", doesn't comprise of "us".

"Us" in this case, is any demographic group in Canada. Poor. Rich. White. Black. Immigrant. Indigenous.  When armies aren't comprised this way, things get out of control. For example, I wonder how many Jewish people were in the SS?

I think "mistrust" is a non-issue. My unit isnt representative of the demographic, but I see no mistrust there. I think it would be the vast, vast minority that would "mistrust" the military because of such an issue. The ones that do? Well, on the other side of the fence, I can see a bit more people distrusting an establishment that treats people different based on their race.

I suppose then the the general public doesn't trust us then?  Of the 138 deaths in Afghanistan, only nine were either not Caucasion or not male.  So, logic says that 129 white males died in Afghanistan, 3 women (again, white), six were visible minorities.  I could care less what gender or race they were.  "They" were  "us".  Fellow Canadian citizens. 

Indeed. Ask any person off the street what "race" any of those dead soldiers are. I doubt any of them would care, nor had even thought of that before you asked the question. The only thing important is that they're Canadian soldiers. They're not identified as "White Canadian soldiers" or "Black Canadian soldiers" or "Aboriginal Canadian Soldiers", just Canadian soldiers.

Mistrust is created when a people who are to protect "us", doesn't comprise of "us". ...

Which is not an issue. We're not recruiting people in Africa. We're recruiting Canadians, therefore, they are "us", no matter what their skin colour. If someone "mistrusts" the military because they dont see enough "Aboriginals" in it, well, I'd think of them the same as if they said they mistrust the military because there's not enough "white" people in it. I'd consider them racist.

But if we can hire the best person for the job and get the advantage of having that diversity then why not?

If we can hire the best person for the job, then "diversity" has no say in this.

 
Technoviking said:
As a side bar, I would argue "yes", and it wasn't just Germans either.  The Waffen-SS, the armed wing of the Schutzstaffel, was comprised of a number of volunteers.  These volunteers consisted of Germans, Ethnic Germans living in foreign lands ("Volksdeutsche"), Germanics (eg: Dutch, Scandanavians) and "others" (Croats, Bosnians and so forth).  It was, in effect, the first pan-European armed force in modern times.
EDIT TO ADD: The Wehrmacht (including Heer, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine) was comprised of almost exclusively Germans only, with some notable exceptions, such as the "Blue" Division, comprised of Spanish volunteers.  The Waffen-SS was, ironically, the most ethnically diverse armed force fighting for the Germans in WW 2.

Now, back on topic ;D
Offtopic a moment.
I love when someone introduces something to do with Nazi's in an internet debate for shock value then pointed out various inaccuracies of their statement.
This is probably the first time I've even heard mention of the "races" of the fallen soldiers from Afghanistan. That's saying something about Canada- right on.
 
For reference.

Canadian Forces Employment Equity Regulations:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Regulation/S/SOR-2002-421.pdf
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/SOR-2002-421/index.html

CF EMPLOYMENT EQUITY (EE) PLAN:
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/ps/we-mt/eep-pem/eepl-peel-eng.asp
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/ps/we-mt/eep-pem/doc/letter-lettre_eng.pdf

CF Employment Equity (EE) Plan - Annex B:
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/ps/we-mt/eep-pem/eep-pee-ann-b-eng.asp
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/ps/we-mt/eep-pem/doc/annexes-eng.pdf

Annex C:
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/ps/we-mt/eep-pem/eep-pee-ann-c-eng.asp
http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/ps/we-mt/eep-pem/doc/annexes-eng.pdf

CF:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6972/is_2_10/ai_n28128731/
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/239095
http://www.nato.int/ims/2006/win/pdf/canada_national_report_2006.pdf
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo8/no3/jung-eng.asp





 
Technoviking said:
Reductio ad Hitlerum.  Oi vey!
I suppose then the the general public doesn't trust us then?  Of the 138 deaths in Afghanistan, only nine were either not Caucasion or not male.  So, logic says that 129 white males died in Afghanistan, 3 women (again, white), six were visible minorities.  I could care less what gender or race they were.  "They" were  "us".  Fellow Canadian citizens.

Half hour of writing a response ... gone with that last lag in the site.

:mad:

 
ArmyVern said:
Half hour of writing a response ... gone with that last lag in the site.

:mad:

It is for days like today where you compose your work in a Word Doc, checking spelling and grammar and then copy and paste to army.ca.      ;D
 
George Wallace said:
It is for days like today where you compose your work in a Word Doc, checking spelling and grammar and then copy and paste to army.ca.      ;D

The site seemed absolutely fine when I logged in after class today.

Had I read the "another upgrade" thread prior to reading this one & writing my response here ... I just may well have done that.

But, my ESP was not working as it usually doesn. Ergo, I'm now heading out to supper; don't know what the Mess has in store for me tonight. I'll work at re-writing a response after dinner because I'm damn well starved to death waiting for the page to load!!  8)
 
I could care less what gender or race they were.  "They" were  "us".  Fellow Canadian citizens.

To add to that, when I see a soldier I think he is "one of us" because he's a Canadian citizen, regardless of his skin colour. Sounds to me that if someone doesnt see someone as "one of us" because he's not White, or not Black, or not Aboriginal, its that person thats putting up walls between races...
 
armychick2009 said:
Thanks for your comment... I suppose though the best way I can reply to this is, Your national protective forces (DND) should consist a fair representation of the demographics from the lands at which it is to protect the absolutely best possible people that can and are willing to do the job

Having a demographically representative army prevents a lot of issues... which, I won't delve into because they are infinite. Everyone use their imagination!

What [non-political] issues would/does/could this solve?  You know, I've been in for 20 or so years, and I have never seen the benefits/drawbacks to this so-called "demographic representation".  I have, however, seen the results of not having the best person for the job.  It didn't matter what their sex/religion/race/favorite ice cream flavour was.  It only mattered that they were/were not the best person for the job.
 
Crantor said:
I get where you are coming from.  However the CF should be a reflection of our society.  And yes a more diverse CF is a better one.

Great.  Anything to back that up (other than your opinion)?  You've said it...substantiate it please.  I've been in effective/ineffective units/sub-units before...it was never based on our cultural diversity.  It was never even considered so I see your statement as very polished BUT also misleading and not the way it really is.

The CF is more than just "the job" because "the job" may require more than what "the job" says it is on paper.

Huh?
 
Technoviking said:
Hi Crantor
I understand that.  That was not my issue.  My only issue was with the assertion that a diverse forces is "better" and by great extension, important, in the CF.  The job is the job.  If right handed heterosexuals aren't attracted to the MSEOp trade, then so be it.  I don't think it's worth the effort to pander to them.  Just show the job for what it is, and they will come, whoever "they" are, and I could care less, so long as they can perform, left-handed or right handed.  That's all.

All righty then, here I go with the response that I attempted earlier ... My response is in "ref" to the "mis-trust" brought up earlier in this thread - and frankly, I'm just too damn lazt to go back to find that particular post ...  ;D
___________________________________

Here's my thoughts on "mistrust". I don't believe that the intention of Armychick's earlier post was to infer that the majority of average Canadians "mistrusted" their military which is how you took it; the internet has a funny way of doing things like that.

I don't believe that the "majority" of Canadians "mistrust" their military/govnt, but of those Canadians who DO mistrust their military --- I'm willing to wager a strip-tease on the odds that MOST of them belong to Canadian visible minority groups.

I say that because a great many immigrants to this country came from war-torn nations or otherwise previously lived in areas subject to dictatorships, martial law etc. If I were one of them - I'd "mistrust" those "authority" figures too. No, they do not have to fear their military here in Canada and we don't live in a dictatorship, but it can be a very long time before persons new to Canada are "comfortable in actually believing that".

As for our aboriginal peoples, they too have experienced items in the past which created a "mistrust" of the government. Although land claims issues etc are still being disputed to this day, the government has issued an apology to our aboriginal peoples on behalf of all Canadians regarding items like Residential Schools. This apology was much required in order to begin the healing process. Many aboriginal elders today are those whom were removed from their families by the govnt. I'm quite sure that some of their "mistrust" factually based upon what actually did occur to them in their lifetimes has been passed down to the following generations.

It seems to me that Canada is now over this hurdle and is striving to go forward in a posotive manner. Regardless of whether or not there remain outstanding issues to deal with, and regardless of whatever side of the fence you may be on regarding those particular issues - the CF is attempting to attract "the average Canadian" to join our midst. We are not seeking to attract the far-right or the far-left "Canadians" on any issue.

That brings us to "average Canadians". "White versus Minority". I'd wager another pole dance on an idea that the overwhelming majority of immigrants in Canada reside in urban areas. Large urban metropolis' to be exact. That is not the case however with our aboriginal peoples. A great many of them live in isolated areas and regions within this huge country.

Areas where having access to cable television can not be taken for granted, nor can internet access. Nor, for that matter, are these aboriginal people availed of same availibility of many other things that "we" (and by using "we" - I'm now including us "white folk" AND Canadian immigrants) take for granted. Such as accessibility to daily newpapers on a regular basis. Such as access to programming on television where they can see what their nation's military is doing and what we "really are like". Heck, some of them have a hard enough time accessing clean drinking water.

I also suspect that CFRCs, or even recruiters at their schools during job fairs, aren't exactly "known" in these communities so that they are aware of what we can offer. We certainly just can't say "go to your nearest CFRC & find out what we're about" or "google CF Recruiting". I don't know too many of "us" who would be able to afford to just fork out the dough to travel up to 1500km to hit the nearest recruiting centre - let alone a young "average Canadian" living in an isolated community who probably "mistrusts" us in the first place.

Let's not kid ourselves, these opportunities (that we take for granted because they are SOOOOOO accesible and known to the rest of "us" have to be presented to those who would otherwise NOT be availed or even aware of the opportunity.

Bold Eagle goes along way towards that achieveing that goal. It ensures that this program is both "communicated to" and "accessible" by those who just don't have the same resources that you & I enjoy and seem to assume that they enjoy also.

We offer them the opportunity to learn about us, sometimes for the very first time; the opportunity to learn for themselves that we can be trusted; the opportunity to build their self-confidence all with the possible goal of attracting that "average Canadian" into our midst. Hopefully, passing it along to their friends.

IF these aboriginals who attend Bold eagle are successful, THEN they have opportunity to apply to enrol into the Canadian Forces if they so choose. That is ALL that they are guaranteed - the opportunity to apply. Upon submitting an application they have to complete and meet every single requirement that every other one of us "average Canadians" has to meet. IF they meet those requirements, they then get merit listed amongst all us other "average Canadians" - they compete amongst those other applicants exactly as everyone else does. They get merit listed wherever they deserve to be (after having "earned it") and are enrolled in order of merit listing exactly as every other Canadian applicant is (no matter to creed, race, sexuality etc).

Mostly for Eye in The Sky:

If they are hired, it is because their number came up and they WERE the best person for the job IAW the merit list. Someone behind them on the merit list has no reason to blame anyone hired ahead of him/her ... they earn their spot on that list just as everyone else does.  They don't skip over anyone because we DO NOT have quotas (exactly as many recruiters on this site have prepeatedly stated). No "better" people do not get hired because an aboriginal Canadian does.

Average Canadians come from all walks of life. Average Canadians are representative of our society. When there is a portion of those "average Canadians" who do not have ease of access or who possess a limited knowledge of the CF and who very well inherantly "mistrust" us, we HAVE to show them differently. We have to ensure that WE present them with an opportunity to learn differently, to see us for themselves, to avail them of the same accesibility that we others take for granted. That's what Bold eagle does.

A pro-Bold eagle, pro-Aboriginal stance does NOT equate into pro-quota, anti-white man, anti-fairness position. It simply ensures that a portion of our population is afforded the ability to makes themselves familiar with "us" and who we are and what we are about, to learn that "we" are not to be feared ... an as an added bonus ... if they actually DO like us - we may gain a potential applicant who may successfully enrol who then may go on to become a successful soldier/sailor/airman/airwoman.

To my way of thinking: There ain't nothing wrong with that. Both sides win. Canada wins. Isn't that what it's all supposed to be about?

There is a bigger picture out there people, and there's a whole lot of "best" Canadians who don't have the access and info or opportunity that we take fro granted.
 
Eye In The Sky said:
Great.  Anything to back that up (other than your opinion)?  You've said it...substantiate it please.  I've been in effective/ineffective units/sub-units before...it was never based on our cultural diversity.  It was never even considered so I see your statement as very polished BUT also misleading and not the way it really is.

Huh?

EITS: recruiters have flat-out stated in this very thread that the CF does NOT hire based on quotas or minority status. We enrol based upon merit list. Each and every one of us.

Any insistance that the "best person" is somehow NOT being hired for the job is actually what is misleading.
 
AV,

That has to be one of the best posts in any thread I've read on here in a long time.

And, to be clear (maybe what I am saying in this thread is coming across incorrectly), I don't have any concern other than the best person for the position gets it.  I say that as both a serving member and a tax payer.  I feel the same way about all people in government service, military, civilian employees of DND and contractors we pay to do our biding inclusive.

I've worked for, with, and had subordinate from always walks of live and backgrounds.  I always knew 2 things for sure:

1.  They were Canadians.
2.  They volunteered to serve Canada.

:cdn:
 
Eye In The Sky said:
AV,

That has to be one of the best posts in any thread I've read on here in a long time.

And, to be clear (maybe what I am saying in this thread is coming across incorrectly), I don't have any concern other than the best person for the position gets it.  I say that as both a serving member and a tax payer.  I feel the same way about all people in government service, military, civilian employees of DND and contractors we pay to do our biding inclusive.

I've worked for, with, and had subordinate from always walks of live and backgrounds.  I always knew 2 things for sure:

1.  They were Canadians.
2.  They volunteered to serve Canada.

:cdn:

Seen. And thanks for the compliment.

Fuck was I ever pissed off the first time I attempted to post it and got the server error and lost everything ...

Nothing is a good the 2nd time.  >:D
 
AV,
Thanks for putting that. I also lost a post that was long and pretty much had all of that in there.

"Mistrust" stems from residential schools. It's not an "excuse", it's the truth. I won't sit here and defend it but I will offer to anyone who wants this, a trip to a reserve and other types of native communities, to take you on a tour to talk to elders, to the middle generation and the youth. I offer you first-hand experience to truly see, how this affects people. Elders are afraid of the government (ANY branch... health care, Indian Affairs, DND, etc.) taking their children again, as they did before with schools. The DND has had awesome foresight and have established solid relationships with the elders of the community, to ensure their "children" (which is ANY youth, say up to roughly age 25) in a community leave under their own free will and volition. For example, when we are done our course, we go home for 2 weeks. This shows the elders we have come back... this allows us to decide if we want to REALLY join... and only THEN do the recruiting staff finish processing the application. When the 'children' leave, the elders see it really was their choice and that no one was coerced to do this.

Please give your employer some credit for this awesome (and thoughtful) relationship they have built. This program is helping to ease the mistrust which has bred for many years.

Now to clarify a few things...

PRETC is a three-week introductory course where we receive the $1200 upon completion for our training. No age restriction. (This is the one I took part in.)

Bold Eagle/Black Bear/Raven is a 7-week program which allows the youth (it's limited to ages 17-25ish) and they are paid approximately $3500 upon completion for their training. Their training during this time, is actually the same training someone in the reserves gets and upon completion, they have the option to join the Reserves OR they could also go Reg Force. There is no commitment, it's their choice to make at the end.
 
Eye In The Sky said:
Great.  Anything to back that up (other than your opinion)?  You've said it...substantiate it please.  I've been in effective/ineffective units/sub-units before...it was never based on our cultural diversity.  It was never even considered so I see your statement as very polished BUT also misleading and not the way it really is.

Huh?

I can explain exactly how a diverse CF is better ... without personal opinion ... by using an example:

Imagine yourself in a scenario where you were protesting something you felt was unjust.
Imagine now that an armed force was deployed to 'control' your protest, and that armed force consisted of nothing but little green martians. The martians speak your language, but have never experienced any of the conditions you have found yourself in nor do they have any background with the current cause of your protest.

How would you react to them telling you to calm down and disperse? Granted, as you are a lawful, law-abiding citizen, you would do as you were asked, but you would not feel in any way that your protest was heard or understood.

Now imagine the same scenario, only deployed with the little green martians are people of your race or sex or background or religion, equally trained and qualified as the martians. If they were to approach you to address your concerns, the compliance and satisfaction you felt would be heightened and the situation diffused much more easily and with less chance of 'misunderstanding' ... is this not a better, more effective use of resources?

If the enforcement arm of the government reflects the population of the people being governed, it WILL be a more effective force, better able to handle situations and do what the government asks of it.
 
Armychick (damn, that username is almost as beautiful as ArmyVern  ;D),

Thanks for the clarifications on both programs. My insight on the subject is incomparable to yours - you originate from the communties of which I spoke; I was simply offering my .02 cents worth - I'm glad that I got it mostly right.

Vern
 
Yeah!  I remember my Diversification Training.  All those "X's" and "O's" and how they were all different.  Funny thing was, the majority of the Sqn taking this training wondered WTF.......Why are we pointing out all our differences, when we should be pointing out all the things we were the same .......... We were all Green. 


And we have been down this road of Diversification before, as have we covered the various programs like Raven and Bold Eagle before. 
 
I think, with that last post, Kat has just solved the age-old never-ending hand-wringing question of "what is a Canadian?"

Answer: All Canadians can hum the old HNIC theme.
 
Back
Top