Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread

[the 48th regulator]

Even the VC is a Canadian VC, with no connection (aside from the name) to the UK version, which, admittedly, it perpetuates historically.  The medal is superficially the same, but the motto is in Latin.  The Australians also have an Australian VC, with much the same intent.

We have not had a "British" honours system for many, many years and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

No,  It is  deceitful to imagine that becasue it has the words Canadian stamped on it, that it is Canadian.  The VC is A British award, that we and Australia have adopted to a tee.

It is not Canadian.

The Cross of Valour on the other hand is;

dileas

tess

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

So, because a medal has the same name and appearance, it must be British, despite the fact that the UK has nothing - zero - to do with the criteria for the award or for the selection of those nominated for it?  Or the fact that the decoration was in limbo for over 20 years and was only added - as a Canadian award - to the system after a ground-roots campaign to allow for historical perpetuation?

Perhaps we should replace cap badges and titles of certain Reserve regiments simply because they look the same...and have the same name.   >

 

[the 48th regulator]

So, because a medal has the same name and appearance, it must be British, despite the fact that the UK has nothing - zero - to do with the criteria for the award or for the selection of those nominated for it?  Or the fact that the decoration was in limbo for over 20 years and was only added - as a Canadian award - to the system after a ground-roots campaign to allow for historical perpetuation?

Perhaps we should replace cap badges and titles of certain Reserve regiments simply because they look the same...and have the same name.   >

Teddy,

The fact that people were posting with disdain in adopting a new type of medal, because it made us too American, and claiming our system is distinctly Canadian was why I began to be critical.

Bottom line is all the examples given by you, or Recce soldier derive from Britain.  Full stop.

An adoption of a Wounded Medal, or a Combat badge, would indeed make our system "Canadian".

Until we do that, we can still lie to ourselves and say "oh the Canadian V.C is Canadian not British".  What is the history of this medal then, and why is it distinctly ours.  I am saying not that we should deny our heritage, but recognize it for what it is. But to stand here and say it is completely our own and no one else’s is actually disingenuous.

As for the cap badges you may have a point.  Look at our regular force, we did get rid anything that smacked of British thought, with regards to the infantry....

dileas

tess

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

But none of our current gongs, VC aside, are even remotely connected to the UK.  I'm failing to see your point.

However, my point is that we are adopting a US mindset - partially because of American-informed public pressure - on many, many things military and I don't agree that this is always a good thing.  I've pointed out examples earlier where we've leaned towards the American example, precisely because this is what people - including soldiers - know. 

You cannot tell me that civilian agitation for a "Canadian Purple Heart" ("What? Our soldiers don't get a medal for being wounded?  It's a travesty!") or a Canadian version of the CIB don't stem almost entirely by wanting to follow the US example and US tradition.  I would argue that because US tradition is the only thing the general public (and, alas, some of our soldiers) knows, it is the only thing deemed worthy. To wit:  we'd better have an equivalent, or we're doing our soldiers a disservice otherwise.  I don't buy it for one second.

 

[the 48th regulator]

But none of our current gongs, VC aside, are even remotely connected to the UK.  I'm failing to see your point.

However, my point is that we are adopting a US mindset - partially because of American-informed public pressure - on many, many things military and I don't agree that this is always a good thing.  I've pointed out examples earlier where we've leaned towards the American example, precisely because this is what people - including soldiers - know. 

You cannot tell me that civilian agitation for a "Canadian Purple Heart" ("What? Our soldiers don't get a medal for being wounded?  It's a travesty!") or a Canadian version of the CIB don't stem almost entirely by wanting to follow the US example and US tradition.  I would argue that because US tradition is the only thing the general public (and, alas, some of our soldiers) knows, it is the only thing deemed worthy. To wit:  we'd better have an equivalent, or we're doing our soldiers a disservice otherwise.  I don't buy it for one second.

Well then Teddy you have me beat on two fronts.

If none of our modern gongs are derivatives of a British medal, then I stand corrected.

As for the American slant, again you have me there.  So we have created medals and badges similar in line to the Americans.  We have tried to make them distinctly Canadian (ie it is not the Canadian Purple heart).

So if we leave our system as is, we are British Canadian, if we go forward and adopt new ideas we are too close to Americans.

dileas

tess

 

[dapaterson]

Aha, not the Prime Minister, our politically elected leader.

Tess:

The PM is not an elected leader.  I never voted for the man - only people in one riding do so.  He is - get this - appointed by the GG as the individual able to form a government (Google King / Byng for a little history).

 

[the 48th regulator]

Tess:

The PM is not an elected leader.  I never voted for the man - only people in one riding do so.  He is - get this - appointed by the GG as the individual able to form a government (Google King / Byng for a little history).

So therefore we are still ruled by the Queen.

Disticntly Canadian.

dileas

tess

 

[Michael OLeary]

For anyone wanting to learn more about Canadian honours, I highly recommend:

The Canadian Honours System

 

[Greymatters]

Isn't muddled up & confused between US/British typicly Canadian regarding our 'identity' though?? I'd think that's what makes the Awards System distinctly Canadian.  >

Hmmm.. Ive made enough bad posts for one day, so hopefully no one takes this the wrong way...

but, it would seem to me that we followed a historically British tradition towards the creation and sitribution of medals and ribbons up to that period.  But since then we seem to be establishing our own system that borrows from tradition and a bit from the US system.  It would be open to different opinions if this is a unique identity in itself...

 

[the 48th regulator]

Hmmm.. Ive made enough bad posts for one day, so hopefully no one takes this the wrong way...

but, it would seem to me that we followed a historically British tradition towards the creation and sitribution of medals and ribbons up to that period.  But since then we seem to be establishing our own system that borrows from tradition and a bit from the US system.  It would be open to different opinions if this is a unique identity in itself...

Now that is the best summary that I was trying to say, with all of my marble mouthing.

Maybe that is what is Candian. 

dileas

tess

 

[c4th]

...a bit from the US system.  It would be open to different opinions if this is a unique identity in itself...

I'm curious as to which bit is from the US system?  Aside from the international medals, I see either uniquely Canadian or a British parallel in every honour and award on our chart.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think the US concern relates to giving medals for being wounded e.g., the Purple Heart, apparent pressure to award multiple medals for a single tour, and the desire of some to award medals for reasons other than campaign service.

If I'm wrong (which happens at least once per decade!) someone please straighten me out.

 

[geo]

OK D&B, meet ya out back of the Barracks at 22:00Hrs.
If I'm late, start without me! 

 

[Reccesoldier]

I am unaware of any official pressure to award multiple medals for the same operation, as a matter of fact it is expressly forbidden in the Cdn Honours system.  

Having said that there have been cases in the past where missions have been re-rolled in mid tour and therefore some people have been eligible for more than one medal in a six month period but this is recognition for two operatioons or missions not for a single mission.

When some people see this happen they wonder why Joe Blow gets two gongs but what they fail to recognize is that the criteria for the medals is formulated independantly of any other mission.  In the case of UN or NATO missions Canada doesn't even have a voice in the criteria, only in accepting the medal into the Canadian Honours system and administering it on behalf of the originating organization once it is accepted.  The absolute WORST whining is done in these cases by those who did not qualify for one of the medals or the other.

As the CF medals distribution supervisor I personally denied a Korean War vet the CD because he was days short.  There are no if's, but's or or's.  Honours are regulated by orders in council and anyone that believes there is some secret cabal cherry picking entitlements for this Roto or that is deluded.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

that said, would the new sacrifice medal replace entirely the wound stripe, a canadian distinction that goes back as far as WW1

 

[Reccesoldier]

that said, would the new sacrifice medal replace entirely the wound stripe, a canadian distinction that goes back as far as WW1

That too would be decided by the Honours commission and spelled out in the OiC

 

[geo]

Artienewbie.... the wound stripe came out of the Brits' honours and awards prior to WW1 (Boers)... so, not entirely a Cdn distinction - just one we have continued to award.

The fact remains, once you have retired or are invalidated out of the CF, how do you display your wound stripe then?
Would you sew a wound stripe onto your civy suit jackets?  Wouldn't that be a little presumptuous of you if you did?

A wound decoration, worn alongside the CD would do just as well - displayed only on occasions when you chose / have been chosen for you.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

as per  ADM(HR-MIL) Instruction 03/03 at link http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/instructions/engraph/0303_admhrmil_e.asp wound stipes may continue to be worn on civillian clothing once retired.

 

[the 48th regulator]

as per  ADM(HR-MIL) Instruction 03/03 at link http://www.forces.gc.ca/hr/instructions/engraph/0303_admhrmil_e.asp wound stipes may continue to be worn on civillian clothing once retired.

Did you bother to read Geo's post??

Would you sew a wound stripe onto your civy suit jackets?  Wouldn't that be a little presumptuous of you if you did?

I personally do not wear my Wound stripe, as I will not damage my Civvy Suits by sewing it on.  Plus I do not wish to advertise it weverytime I put a suit on.

dileas

tess

 

[daftandbarmy]

Did you bother to read Geo's post??


I personally do not wear my Wound stripe, as I will not damage my Civvy Suits by sewing it on.  Plus I do not wish to advertise it weverytime I put a suit on.

dileas

tess

The wound stripe was discussed heavily in the UK following the Falklands War. It was discarded for many reasons, not least of which they didn't feel it was a good idea to force injured soldiers to have to tell the story of how they were wounded, and where, again and again. Knowing many who have been wounded, some with very serious burns for example, not many of them wanted to talk much about it to strangers.

They also wanted to avoid the hassle, experienced by the US, of deciding what types of wounds to award it for. Bullett? Shrapnel? PTSD? Falling off a truck just behind the FEBA?