armychick2009 said:
...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...
I'm curious about this. What are these "solid relationships with the elders" that you're talking about? I'd think of programs like Bold Eagle being a sort of a scatter gun project funded in lieu of opening up CFRC's in metropoli like Fort Vermilion or Churchill.
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.
I'm not panning it, but some parts of it rub me the wrong way. Bold Eagle's been around at least since I was on course in Wainwright in 99. I recall reservist QL2 being a six week course at the time and that they stretched it out with some prep that included some cultural stuff. As I understand it, and Army Chick has confirmed, it was (is) Status-only.
Fine, it's discriminatory against non-status aboriginals. And there are cases like the individual who was freaked out by the trees. Not every native-cultured individual is a Status Indian. And this new program is intended to offer something for those that aren't Status. There's still that 1/16 rich kid from downtown Toronto.
The screening tool bit seems iffy to me. Ok, no-trees girl could have been at St Jean when she discovered her condition, but... Folks VR anyway. I'd rather see the money put into retention programs, identifying and addressing why experienced people are leaving than spending money on targetting demographics for recruitment.
You say that you got something out of it, great. You're admitting its imperfect, and I have a hard time disagreeing with you being less deserving of getting in on a Bold Eagle type opportunity. I'm not trying to trash talk your program, but I've got issues with it.
What I've got ifurther issues with is this "diversity for diversity's sake" stuff.
These programs are not, thank god, a slippery slope towards units being obliged to have a wheelchair-ridden, french-speaking, female african canadian quota. That's a dead letter, and Army Vern's absolutely right in that these programs aren't eliminating merit for selection for positions.
For the rather blatant Oka scenario that the now-departed Otis brought up, yes, I can imagine that aboriginals may have trust issues in a domestic ops situation. If a situation gets down to troops facing off with Natives, I don't see three more aboriginal corporals in an infantry company making a spit of difference. Those troops wouldn't be there for relaxed, intimate negotiations.
Outside of that particular scenario, I don't see any minority communities that are going to be in a comparable situation. Somali immigrants? Might affect recruiting of second generation in their families. But how much of an impact are a couple of dozen pers going to make after being diffused through the entire CF? They're in the big cities, and how much social exposure is there of immigrant populations to troops?
If I saw or heard unacceptable behaviour regarding minorities, I'd address it with the people involved. If a coworker or subordinate, particularly a private untrained, was having a rough time and it involved some sort of cultural issue, I'd be willing to listen and be supportive. If there were some sort of institutional issue that was causing members of a group to relase, I'd expect the CF to take a look at it. That's as far as I believe "diversity" needs to go.