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

Year of the Veteran Commercial

48th I saw ya on the tube tonight, looks good, were ya moon walking in the background? I liked the commercial read the posts ouch, I can agree somewhat just wish when we get such good press like the coin, commercial, peace keeper monument or the 10 spot only wish it was truly representative of who we all look up to and not a politically correct statement. I would have enjoyed seeing The 48th Regulator in the commercial and it would have been well deserved or Bruce Henwood on the 10 spot or so many more just not the ones they keep picking.
 
Allan Luomala said:
I get it (finally)!!!!!! If you agree with everyone here, you are "in". If you don't, you aren't!!

WTF are you talking about?  Do you feel it is not beneath ones professionalism to act like a teenage girl and trash somebody else in public for their perceived "lack" of service?

There is nothing about being "in".  As I've said many times, this place isn't to be a change-room to stick the knife in the back of others.  If anybody disagrees with the Mint's choice, then do so.  If anybody wishes to criticize Ms Mondou and her service/physical appearance/choice of clothing then do it elsewhere (or better yet, tell it to her face).
 
Is it not amazing how this thread went from talking about an old man (I'm sure Herb would like that expression) to a pair of dangling ear rings. While we are given a description of Ms Mondou's service no one mentioned the "Old Mans" service or Tesse's for that matter.
Herb Pike came up to the 48th in Italy as a reinforcement in 1944 and was posted to "A" Coy as a Sergeant, he was 19 years of age (old man indeed).
Herb stayed with the 48th till the end of the war and ended up as CQMS of "C" Coy in Holland.
When Herb says in the commercial "he would do it again" he is not kidding. Herb is one of the finest soldiers that I have met and has a record in Action second to none.

Aye Dileas
 
Thanks Art,
yours ain't too shabby either, my friend.......
 
Well, this is gonna get me lynched, but having read throught the entire thread I still have a problem with the manifestly "politically-correct" bent of the commercial featuring Ms. Mondou.   Yes, everyone is entitled to their views, and I sincerely respect those views.   Which is why I trust that you will in turn respect my contrary opinion.

As others have duly pointed out (in perhaps not so direct language) I am of the firm belief that Ms Mondou's "counter-point" inclusion in the commercial was a politically-correct sop to countless irrelevant interest groups as specifically regards Remembrance Day and The 2005 Year of the Veteran.  

Allow me to highlight the most glaring "counterpoint" offered to the aged male WW II veteran.   Ms Mondou is a female.   Nothing wrong with that, but does it not strike anyone else as somewhat suspicious that a distinct minority of the CF was chosen as the "poster-child" for modern veteran status?   Hey - I have zero problems with females in military service - including the combat arms.   Do a search - my words regarding female soldiers on combat operations speak for themselves.   But in terms of general representation of the modern veteran?   Females remain a distinct minority.   A lovely contrast to the aged Veteran for sure, but was that truly representative of the majority?   Was it truly necessary?   Or was it just another needless concession to the ceaseless Canadian need for political correctness?   Could we have been better served by having one of the countless first or second-generation immigrant Canadian soldiers representing our visual interests?   How about a true representation of the CF based on the latest multi-million-dollar demographics poll?   Let the chips fall where they may in terms of genuine CF representation, rather than cater to abjectly "PC" (and therefore misrepresentative) "CF representation".

Aside from gender, we have the inevitably sticky question of "been there, done that".   Yes, we all acknowledge that "anyone who serves 3 years and completes basic training with an honourable discharge" is technically a "Veteran".   But those of us who are honest with ourselves also know that the base-line criteria offers no distinction between those who have "been there/done that", and those who have done the minimum qualifying time without risking anything.   Ms Mondou's credentials (or lack thereof) have been thoroughly dissected within this post, so no need to revisit that issue.   All I would point out is that if we (eg. the "royal" we) are endeavouring to make the point that there are also modern day Veterans deserving of recognition, you'd think that we would make the effort to highlight someone who has done a tad more than cumulative Airforce time to qualify for the SSM and CPSM.   As others have already pointed out, we have many personnel who have engaged in post-Korean War combat operations.   People who were in the Medak Pocket with 2 PPCLI (both Reg and Res F), folks who were on Op APOLLO, etc.   If we were seeking representative examples, why wasn't a serving soldier with some serious "put it on the line" credentials" offered up as a counterpart to the WW II Vet?   Heck - if we insist upon having disproportional female representation because that is the "PC" thing to do, I still could have told you where to find a couple of well-decorated female infanteers who soldiered at the pointy-end in Afghanistan....

And then there's the whole dress thing.   Is she still serving or is she retired?    I'm pretty sure that Ms Mondou is wearing Airforce DEUs in the commercial.   If she is still serving, what's with the whole "dangly ear-ring" thing?   Whatever happened to adherence to Dress Regs?  And what about the UN Beret, which (at least in my unit) we've been told is not authorized for wear at this year's proceedings?  Call me a dinosaur, but c'mon.   Either she's "in" or she's "out".   Last time I checked, there was no provision to wear your service dress post-retirement. If she's out, then so is the service dress uniform.   Unless of course she has already been elevated to the illustrious heights of some unit's Honorary Colonel....

All of the above to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the intent of the commercial.   The idea of portraying modern veterans alongside the stereotypical example that (regrettably) resides firmly within the delusional Canadian psyche was both long overdue and well-considered.   Unfortunately, the execution sucked - as is entirely typical of publicly-funded pap for the Canadian masses.   We could have done far, far better. But we typically opted for politically-correct bumpf.   Worst of all, the "pap" wasn't even remotely well considered in view of the readily available alternatives.  

Yes, "something" is better than nothing.   But is what we currently have honsestly the best that the "royal we" can do?   If so, then I lament our current state of affairs.

By all means, feel free to lambaste me for the above comments.   I am a "binge poster" who comes on line a couple of times per week as time permits.   That leaves you plenty of time to crucify me on the altar of political correctness.   Chances are, I won't be back until after Remembrance Day to respond - if indeed a response is warranted.   In that vein, I simply offer my personal views as food for thought.   "PC" can go too far, and in this particular instance I am inclined to believe that it has.

FWIW.   Just one "dinosaur's" perspective on the matter.

Cheers,

Mark C




 
Holy lord tundering..... It's a coin people, it's not that big, you can't fit every tom dick and harry on the thing. So what they put a woman on it, so what she didn't fight in some major war. Everyday there is a post on here about how the Canadian public doesn't understand you, they don't care about you. Well now the government is doing this small thing to try and recognize those who have served and those who serve and all you do is whine about it. I think the coin is sapposed to represent veterans young and old, male and female. This is not the work of the big powerful PC police force that so many think is out there trying to change everyone into a tree hugger. Why can't a commercial be a commercial and a freaking coin be a freaking coin. Be proud that the forces, and our great veterans, are getting some recognition.  >:D
 
Mark C said:
Well, this is gonna get me lynched, but having read throught the entire thread I still have a problem with the manifestly "politically-correct" bent of the commercial featuring Ms. Mondou.  Yes, everyone is entitled to their views, and I sincerely respect those views.  Which is why I trust that you will in turn respect my contrary opinion.

As others have duly pointed out (in perhaps not so direct language) I am of the firm belief that Ms Mondou's "counter-point" inclusion in the commercial was a politically-correct sop to countless irrelevant interest groups as specifically regards Remembrance Day and The 2005 Year of the Veteran. 

Allow me to highlight the most glaring "counterpoint" offered to the aged male WW II veteran.  Ms Mondou is a female.  Nothing wrong with that, but does it not strike anyone else as somewhat suspicious that a distinct minority of the CF was chosen as the "poster-child" for modern veteran status?  Hey - I have zero problems with females in military service - including the combat arms.  Do a search - my words regarding female soldiers on combat operations speak for themselves.  But in terms of general representation of the modern veteran?  Females remain a distinct minority.  A lovely contrast to the aged Veteran for sure, but was that truly representative of the majority?  Was it truly necessary?  Or was it just another needless concession to the ceaseless Canadian need for political correctness?  Could we have been better served by having one of the countless first or second-generation immigrant Canadian soldiers representing our visual interests?  How about a true representation of the CF based on the latest multi-million-dollar demographics poll?  Let the chips fall where they may in terms of genuine CF representation, rather than cater to abjectly "PC" (and therefore misrepresentative) "CF representation".

Aside from gender, we have the inevitably sticky question of "been there, done that".  Yes, we all acknowledge that "anyone who serves 3 years and completes basic training with an honourable discharge" is technically a "Veteran".  But those of us who are honest with ourselves also know that the base-line criteria offers no distinction between those who have "been there/done that", and those who have done the minimum qualifying time without risking anything.  Ms Mondou's credentials (or lack thereof) have been thoroughly dissected within this post, so no need to revisit that issue.  All I would point out is that if we (eg. the "royal" we) are endeavouring to make the point that there are also modern day Veterans deserving of recognition, you'd think that we would make the effort to highlight someone who has done a tad more than cumulative Airforce time to qualify for the SSM and CPSM.  As others have already pointed out, we have many personnel who have engaged in post-Korean War combat operations.  People who were in the Medak Pocket with 2 PPCLI (both Reg and Res F), folks who were on Op APOLLO, etc.  If we were seeking representative examples, why wasn't a serving soldier with some serious "put it on the line" credentials" offered up as a counterpart to the WW II Vet?  Heck - if we insist upon having disproportional female representation because that is the "PC" thing to do, I still could have told you where to find a couple of well-decorated female infanteers who soldiered at the pointy-end in Afghanistan....

And then there's the whole dress thing.  Is she still serving or is she retired?  I'm pretty sure that Ms Mondou is wearing Airforce DEUs in the commercial.  If she is still serving, what's with the whole "dangly ear-ring" thing?  Whatever happened to adherence to Dress Regs?  And what about the UN Beret, which (at least in my unit) we've been told is not authorized for wear at this year's proceedings?  Call me a dinosaur, but c'mon.  Either she's "in" or she's "out".  Last time I checked, there was no provision to wear your service dress post-retirement. If she's out, then so is the service dress uniform.  Unless of course she has already been elevated to the illustrious heights of some unit's Honorary Colonel....

All of the above to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the intent of the commercial.  The idea of portraying modern veterans alongside the stereotypical example that (regrettably) resides firmly within the delusional Canadian psyche was both long overdue and well-considered.  Unfortunately, the execution sucked - as is entirely typical of publicly-funded pap for the Canadian masses.  We could have done far, far better. But we typically opted for politically-correct bumpf.  Worst of all, the "pap" wasn't even remotely well considered in view of the readily available alternatives. 

Yes, "something" is better than nothing.  But is what we currently have honsestly the best that the "royal we" can do?  If so, then I lament our current state of affairs.

By all means, feel free to lambaste me for the above comments.  I am a "binge poster" who comes on line a couple of times per week as time permits.  That leaves you plenty of time to crucify me on the altar of political correctness.  Chances are, I won't be back until after Remembrance Day to respond - if indeed a response is warranted.  In that vein, I simply offer my personal views as food for thought.  "PC" can go too far, and in this particular instance I am inclined to believe that it has.

FWIW.  Just one "dinosaur's" perspective on the matter.

Cheers,

Mark C

As always, well said.  I wrote in to the Sentinel back in the day, and told the editor that if some members couldn't be bothered to wear their uniforms correctly (they published a photo of a  Major in the RCA wearing his Garrison Dress incorrectly - and on foreign soil no less) then perhaps they shouldn't get the honour of having their pictures published.

The UN blue beret is a loaded political statement in itself.  To my mind, it is an operational piece of kit.  If you're in a combat zone, you wear a helmet.  If you're on UN ops, you wear the blue beret. 

I wouldn't wear my helmet to Rememberance Day any more than I would my toque...
 
"Camochick",

Okee dokee, and thanks for that.  I reckon that some of us misguided mysogynists have a problem with our "public representation" being unduly slanted.  Yes, "a coin is a coin", and a "commercial is a commercial".  I quite clearly stated as much.  Although I don't personally buy into the misguided mantra that "any representation is GOOD representation", I will reluctantly take whatever we can get.  But that doesn't make it truly representative, and by extension nor does it make it right.  

That said, you are fully entitled to your opinion.  That is what it is all about, yes?  So thanks for adding your opinion.  I don't personally agree, but I will certainly acknowledge your right to hold that opinion.  And at the end of the day, that is the tangible result within our society that we attribute to those we remember not just on Friday, but year-round.  N'est ce pas?

I'm off to sleepy-time.   See you in a few days' time.   I'm sure that the debate will continue in my absence, and perhaps I will have more to add after my 26th year in uniform at a Remembrance Day ceremony.  

Cheers,

Mark C

 
Mark C said:
Nothing wrong with that, but does it not strike anyone else as somewhat suspicious that a distinct minority of the CF was chosen as the "poster-child" for modern veteran status?

They forgot to make her an Inuit though.... ^-^

I agree with your sentiments Mark - it is obvious that the Mint was gunning for a "PC" look to the coin; it is the same reason that the 10 doller bill features two females (1 with binos on a UN mission and the other at a war memorial).  Oh well, we have some kid playing hockey on our 5 while other countries put landmarks or historical buildings on theres.

My comment on Ms Mondou's service still stands - sure, there may have been others with a more storied claim to represent the modern "veteran" (Tess with his scars and tattoos would have went well!), but it doesn't mean she needs her service ridden into the ground for it.
 
Infanteer said:
I agree with your sentiments Mark - it is obvious that the Mint was gunning for a "PC" look to the coin; it is the same reason that the 10 doller bill features two females (1 with binos on a UN mission and the other at a war memorial).   Oh well, we have some kid playing hockey on our 5 while other countries put landmarks or historical buildings on theres.

Finally ---

Look yes the CF has women - but when you do the math -- what is the percentage - especially what percentage are cbt arms...
Now if you look at a gov't article, picture, coin, presentation or whatever - you'd swear
1) All male infanteers are black
2) 50% of the Cbt Arms are female.
3) 75% of the CF is non caucasian.
4) For the SHARP folk - he can't be gay - he's a native...  :eek:

I dont begrudge anyone anything - but lets stay grounded in reality.
I does not do anyone any favours when people starts skewing with "census data" in order to fit in with the warmer fuzzier and fresher smelling world we seem to be living in these days
 
If you look close ,Ms Mondou is wearing a suit that is similar to DEU in cut and style
 
This reminds me of when people wanted to alter that one 9/11 memorial of the 3 firefighters who put the flag on the wreckage - some people wanted to "correct" history by putting a black man in the picture; they didn't like the fact that the 3 FF's were all white.... ::)
 
Mark C, extremely well said. Don't think I need to add anything except "Opinions are like a##holes, everyone has one!" People on both sides of the issue will say/believe what they do and no amount of arguing or common sense will change what their belief is.
Have a nice day.
 
Speaking of "altering"....a few years back I posed for some pictures that were going to be drawn into the Army Fitness Manual.  Imagine my surprise when one of the pictures in the draft copy came back as a poorly copied female.  Credit to Kelly Dukeshire for the male version...who knows for the female version of me:



 
and I see the vile phallic symbol of a magazine had to be editted too...
 
Dirt Digger said:
Speaking of "altering"....a few years back I posed for some pictures that were going to be drawn into the Army Fitness Manual.   Imagine my surprise when one of the pictures in the draft copy came back as a poorly copied female.   Credit to Kelly Dukeshire for the male version...who knows for the female version of me:

I have a copy of that manual - I seem to recall that the figures were male, as in the first drawing (I actually thought I might adapt some of the line drawings for my own website on uniforms which is why I remember it).  Is it possible there were two versions of the manual - male and female?
 
Michael Dorosh said:
I have a copy of that manual - I seem to recall that the figures were male, as in the first drawing (I actually thought I might adapt some of the line drawings for my own website on uniforms which is why I remember it).   Is it possible there were two versions of the manual - male and female?

Nope.  All of the large, uniformed line drawings are of me.  The smaller ones in the "alternative exercises" section are myself and two other members of the Canadian Scottish (in 1999).  I got the "job' because I was working in the OR on a Class B contract.

I was actually very surprised when the final version came out with the hatchet job to his picture, because I personally would never allow anyone to alter my artwork like that (but when it's a contract, who knows).  I'm sure that somebody noticed that the male/female ratio of the pictures was off (even though I believe Kelly's wife is the female in the shots) and decided to make a change.  You can cleary see that they added a huge amount of facial detail that none of the other pictures have.

What really bugged me was that one picture was the one that I insisted he take.  Originally, the only "moving with a rifle" photo is one later in the guide that has the sling around the back of my neck.  I told him that nobody would ever carry a rifle that way and showed him the alternate method.  So I got morphed into a women for the good shot, and the weird sling carry still made it onto page 92...sheesh. 
 
I'm kind of disappointed that nobody has lambasted MarkC. It must be the delivery.... It's that officer edumacation that makes the difference   :salute:   ;D

As to be expected though, excellent points brought out. I finally looked up what the difference between "dogmatic" and "pragmatic" was the other day: you definitely fall under pragmatic in your assessment of this issue. Others though......

I got to thinking about all the "it's just a coin" comments: unless I'm mistaken (which seems to be fairly often) no living person, other than the Queen, is USUALLY placed on currency (or is that stamps???). So, in reality, it is a big deal, and an honour. And seeing as how my "old man" comment seems to have been taken out of context (my point was/is, when Joe Six-Pack looks at the the coin, he no doubt thinks "hey there's an old man and a chick on that coin". Unless, of course you topped your Diversity and Sensitivity Trg course, and thought to yourself "There is a gentlemen of age beside a womyn on that coin" (womyn of course being the feminist version of woman - no 'man' in it..... don't ask me why I know these things).

So, all things considered, if I were in charge of the selection for the coin, to keep things simple, I would have opted for Mr. Pike alone. Or, as a nod to Smokey Smith, Mr Smith (a true Canadian hero) to represent deceased vets, and Mr Pike, as a surviving vet, and yes, a true Canadian hero, for serving his country when it, and the world, needed him.

If anybody doubts the respect that I have for Veterans (that's capital V veterans, not 20 year old veterans zooming around a base near you in their Fast and the Furious Civics), feel free to PM me (or phone me... look me up on the DIN) and I can discuss it with you, without the subtleties that get lost via posts on the 'net.

I just wanted to get that bit straight.....

Al

Editted: for spelling and grammar
 
I have to admit that I am starting to become frustrated towards the social engineering that continues to rear its head, each and every time the military is showcased in some fashion. 

For example, the peacekeeping monument in Ottawa depicts 3 persons conducting various "peacekeeping" duties. One soldier happens to be a female.  Ok, no problem there. 
$10 bill comes out with a very nice poem, old vet with a couple of children at the war memorial in Ottawa, and a soldier (blue beret IIRC) observing with binoculars.  The soldier happens to be female.  Recruiting ads a couple of years ago, female soldier/sailors and aircrew prominately displayed.  Canadian Mint comes out with a commercial advertising its new coin. ex CF officer (who the discussion has been focussed on), who happens to be female, plays a prominent role.

Now, I support women in the CF in any trade or classification.  Doesn't matter to me.  However, lets stop showcasing them in our own version of reality TV, move on past the social engineering, and treat everyone like soldiers, sailors and aircrew.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 
Back
Top