- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
This is where US and Canadian attitudes seem to part ways.
The Yanks consider anyone who served honourably in their Forces to be a Veteran.
We seem to consider only those who served in War to be so (probably in part due to the aspects of veterans' benefits legislation). However, we consider anyone who pitches up at Remembrance Day with a rack of gongs (the usual WWII rack of four-five) to be a Veteran, regardless of his service. Rightly so, I say. Yet, somehow, we think somone who served in the CF for, say, 25 years and never had a tour is not a Veteran? Perhaps not in the legal sense (i.e allowed legislated vet's benefits) but certainly we should consider the semantic sense.
The nature of the "teeth to tail" ratio means that the vast majority of those who we call Veteran (and who are entitled to WWII benefits) did not see combat. Yet we don't hesitate to allow them the "title."
Does one have to be shot, as Tess was, to be entitled to be called Veteran? What is a former member of the CF who dedicated many years of his life, and his family's stability, to the CF entitled to? The pension alone?
I used to be one of those inclined to refuse to think of myself as a Vet. My career has been unremarkable, I should think. I haven't been wounded, or even shot at (as far as I could tell - I was in the vicinity of the odd angry shot). Yeah, I'm a vet. I don't need a licence plate for my car, or any other visible symbols, other than the medals I have been awarded, including the CD, which I'm more proud of as days go by. But I am a Veteran. And so are most of you, whether you believe it or not.
You served. How many can truly say that?
The Yanks consider anyone who served honourably in their Forces to be a Veteran.
We seem to consider only those who served in War to be so (probably in part due to the aspects of veterans' benefits legislation). However, we consider anyone who pitches up at Remembrance Day with a rack of gongs (the usual WWII rack of four-five) to be a Veteran, regardless of his service. Rightly so, I say. Yet, somehow, we think somone who served in the CF for, say, 25 years and never had a tour is not a Veteran? Perhaps not in the legal sense (i.e allowed legislated vet's benefits) but certainly we should consider the semantic sense.
The nature of the "teeth to tail" ratio means that the vast majority of those who we call Veteran (and who are entitled to WWII benefits) did not see combat. Yet we don't hesitate to allow them the "title."
Does one have to be shot, as Tess was, to be entitled to be called Veteran? What is a former member of the CF who dedicated many years of his life, and his family's stability, to the CF entitled to? The pension alone?
I used to be one of those inclined to refuse to think of myself as a Vet. My career has been unremarkable, I should think. I haven't been wounded, or even shot at (as far as I could tell - I was in the vicinity of the odd angry shot). Yeah, I'm a vet. I don't need a licence plate for my car, or any other visible symbols, other than the medals I have been awarded, including the CD, which I'm more proud of as days go by. But I am a Veteran. And so are most of you, whether you believe it or not.
You served. How many can truly say that?