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
;D
