Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread

[lawandorder]

We're not talking about "ordinary" sacrifices though.

We're talking about the fact that there are soldiers who have died via "trauma" (either via ND, vehicle accident or other) while overseas performing duties on behalf of Queen and Country who are not eligible. Many feel (obviously by the threads) that their non-eligibility is a slight to them.

I don't class those as "ordinary" --- then again --- I don't class the guy/gal who dies in a vehicle rollover on an ex in Canada as "ordinary sacrifice" either.

You're right.  Those aren't ordinary at all.  Maybe its just the "best" name they could think of?

 

[George Wallace]

I don't think the name of the medal is intended to slight those who are never awarded it.  While many or should I say all CF members make multiple sacrifices during their career, it is not quite the same IMHP.  The medals name lets those not in the military know that they have sacrificed themselves through injury, and to those in as well.  In no way am I insulted by its name because the "ordinary" sacrifices I make in my duties are ones that pale in compairson.

The name currently doesn't slight anyone.  The criteria that is set to be awarded that medal does.  That is why the name is inappropriate.

 

[George Wallace]

We're not talking about "ordinary" sacrifices though.

We're talking about the fact that there are soldiers who have died via "trauma" (either via ND, vehicle accident or other) while overseas performing duties on behalf of Queen and Country who are not eligible. Many feel (obviously by the threads) that their non-eligibility is a slight to them.

I don't class those as "ordinary" --- then again --- I don't class the guy/gal who dies in a vehicle rollover on an ex in Canada as "ordinary sacrifice" either.

And this topic is not about what we are discussing in quite a bit of depth in other topics.  This topic has nothing to do with the sacrifices CF Members are making.  It has to do with the inappropriateness of calling this medal the "Sacrifice Medal" if it doesn't mean what it says.  It is NAMED wrong and should be changed.  WHAT SHOULD IT BE CALLED?

 

[armyvern]

And this topic is not about what we are discussing in quite a bit of depth in other topics.  This topic has nothing to do with the sacrifices CF Members are making.  It has to do with the inappropriateness of calling this medal the "Sacrifice Medal" if it doesn't mean what it says.  It is NAMED wrong and should be changed.  WHAT SHOULD IT BE CALLED?

That was a response to someone who thought the NAME didn't NEED to be changed because of "ordinary sacrifices". I pointed out to him that "Ordinary Sacrifices" had nothing to do with this medal and that the discussion was about calling it "Sacrifice" yet disallowing some of those who have paid the Ultimate Sacrifice from receiving it. They ALL died while serving DOING their duty and serving Queen and Country <-- that "Sacrifice" (by the criteria) is deemed to be "lesser" for those members. So whether we like it or not, the criteria and the name are all rolled up into one big ball of divisiveness.

As for your "what should it be called?"

I don't think it should even exist as per my first post - "the Wound Stripe" was honourable enough IMHO, and one small change to make that "posthumous" as well. That is the only change to the criteria from the Wound Stripe to this medal.

For the record: I am perfectly fine with the criteria as they now are. Hostile action and/or hostile intent as the line drawn. But we didn't need a new medal for that. We already had the Wound Stripe.

But, since it's suggested -- "The Wound Medal" is the best suggestion I've seen so far - even so, with that name you'll still see a denigration of service in that some would still feel a distinct "lesser service value" in that one only got a "Wound Stripe" while another got a "Wound Medal." The NAME of it just won't change the fact that it's simply a new version of the Wound Stripe, but one which is displayed on the chest vice the sleeve of the arm. So why?

It is my belief that this concept (now a reality) was not very well thought out, nor were the implications of such and the impact it would have upon those who've also served and died for this country prior to 07 Oct 2001.

I suggest we call it the "Divisive Medal" --- because that is exactly what it has served up.

Every time someone tries to screw around with history and tradition ... the same thing happens. It's pretty sad actually.

 

[George Wallace]

Well, someone in their infinite wisdom has created this medal, and done away with the Wound Stripe (once again), so we must now live with it. 

I have nothing against the criteria set for the awarding of this medal.

I do have a problem with the name, as we have seen so many others debate.

Sorry, but "Divisive Medal" will loose its meaning in time, as soon as this current debate becomes history.  It the debate continues into history, then we can assume the name was never changed.

But, since it's suggested -- "The Wound Medal" is the best suggestion I've seen so far - even so, with that name you'll still see a denigration of service in that some would still feel a distinct "lesser service value" in that one only got a "Wound Stripe" while another got a "Wound Medal." The NAME of it just won't change the fact that it's simply a new version of the Wound Stripe, but one which is displayed on the chest vice the sleeve of the arm. So why?

Historically, this is beginning to look like the implementation of the Victoria Cross and the confusion that arose with the knitting of Queen Victoria's Scarves.  Awards have been presented throughout history.  Some have been "updated".  Does that mean that one who held an older award should get their updated to the new award?  Does that now leave us with the dilemma that someone has been awarded two awards for the same deeds?  No.  Does it denigrate the Award that the person got previously?  Again, No.

This medal doesn't denigrate the previous Award.  It starts a new line in history.  Unfortunately, it is named poorly and causes grief where none should be.  The name should be changed.

Someone screwed up big time.

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

The new medal will remedy that by being a permanent fixture on the uniform.

Medals are not permanently fixed on a uniform, they are permanently fixed to the rest of your medals when court mounted but fitted to the uniform by either clutch style pins or a broach style pin

 

[Sito Origami]

Medals are not permanently fixed on a uniform, they are permanently fixed to the rest of your medals when court mounted but fitted to the uniform by either clutch style pins or a broach style pin

The medals do not get fixed to each other; they do get attached to the ribbons, which are themselves permanently attached to some item - perspex or some type of material, to which the pin fasteners or broach is itself attached. If anybody ever took the metal "gongs" and actually attached them to each other, I think the owner would be very upset.

 

[George Wallace]

If we look at the American "Purple Heart" we see that the Name of the Medal alone, does not signify anything.  The criteria for which the Purple Heart is awarded does signify why it is presented.

We on the other hand have come up with a 'glorious' name, "Sacrifice" that in itself describes a wide spectrum of deeds made by members of the CF, but our criteria for the awarding of this medal do not cover that whole gambit, but a much narrower, more specific spectrum of deeds.

Why don't we call it something else.  "Wound Medal" more accurately describes it, but still has connotations of the Wound Stripe. 

Could we name it after a famous Canadian who was wounded in combat?  Perhaps we should call it the VAC Medal as they will be dealing with the living wounded or perhaps the Veterans Medal, of Veterans of Foreign Wars Medal?  I suppose than those Veterans who weren't injured would feel left out.  How about, the LOB (Left out of Battle) Medal?  Maybe a MEM (Medical Evac Medal)?  Combat Casualty Medal?  The CCM may more accurately describe the medal along the lines of the criteria listed in the awarding of this medal.

Surely, someone can find a better name for this medal, that does not create so much controversy due to people not reading and understanding the criteria for which it is to be awarded.  A name that will be fitting and not insulting to any.

 

[armyvern]

Well, someone in their infinite wisdom has created this medal, and done away with the Wound Stripe (once again), so we must now live with it. 

I have nothing against the criteria set for the awarding of this medal.

I do have a problem with the name, as we have seen so many others debate.

Sorry, but "Divisive Medal" will loose its meaning in time, as soon as this current debate becomes history.  It the debate continues into history, then we can assume the name was never changed.

Historically, this is beginning to look like the implementation of the Victoria Cross and the confusion that arose with the knitting of Queen Victoria's Scarves.  Awards have been presented throughout history.  Some have been "updated".  Does that mean that one who held an older award should get their updated to the new award?  Does that now leave us with the dilemma that someone has been awarded two awards for the same deeds?  No.  Does it denigrate the Award that the person got previously?  Again, No.

This medal doesn't denigrate the previous Award.  It starts a new line in history.  Unfortunately, it is named poorly and causes grief where none should be.  The name should be changed.

Someone screwed up big time.

Agree with all your points --- and, please note: my voice was actually dripping with sarcasm when I offered up "The Divisive Medal" ...

As well, I don't think this medal "denigrates" the Wound Stripe either ... but judging by some media and family comments they certainly think this new Medal denigrates and lessens the service of their fallen loved ones who have died as a result of performing their duties and who do not qualify. It does seem to denigrate the sacrifice their loved one has paid for Queen and Country. That's where the controversy actually lays.

Renaming this medal to any other name won't change the fact that it is an "uparmoured" Wound Stripe (and by using the term "uparmoured - I do not mean to infer "better" or "nobler" because I certainly do not think that it is) - to be worn on the chest instead of the arm. You can change the name, but that doesn't "fix" the criteria. Nor will those who are feeling like they've gotten the shaft with this medal ... feel any less shafted with it's being re-named.

I also am left with the distinct feeling in the pit of my stomach that someone wanted to "up" the recognition for today's soldiers from the Wound Stripe to a Medal, but ... of course a new medal couldn't be issued for such a thing (that would be double recognition) because the Wound Stripe already had the criteria covered and was the official recognition --- ergo the addition of "posthumous" criteria which, in effect, made it an award for "something different". And look at the grief that has caused ... all because someone wanted a new medal (it couldn't have been "recognition" they wanted --- we already had the Wound Stripe for that).

 

[armyvern]

The medals do not get fixed to each other; they do get attached to the ribbons, which are themselves permanently attached to some item - perspex or some type of material, to which the pin fasteners or broach is itself attached. If anybody ever took the metal "gongs" and actually attached them to each other, I think the owner would be very upset.

And, I'm thinking that the ribbon is "part" of the medal no?

Even if you don't think so --- I'm quite sure you know wtf he meant and the context that he meant it in. 

 

[the 48th regulator]

The challenge I see with the medal, was the fact that the Wound Stripe was only considered a dress distinction, not a recognition.

Further, it separates members serving, and veterans that are still living to those that were wounded in the Sandbox, as if this is a special war that we are fighting.  To me, no consistency.

Either give it to all that were wounded, or keep what we already have in place, the Wound Stripe.

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

The challenge I see with the medal, was the fact that the Wound Stripe was only considered a dress distinction, not a recognition.

Further, it separates members serving, and veterans that are still living to those that were wounded in the Sandbox, as if this is a special war that we are fighting.  To me, no consistency.

Either give it to all that were wounded, or keep what we already have in place, the Wound Stripe.

dileas

tess

Nothing wrong with your Wound Stripe Tess ... and it's no lesser than this Medal despite what some would think.

And for those who think it is because they are "at war", the new Medal is not just applicable to the sandbox ... even though some seem to think it is. They are quite erroneous in that respect.

"Hostile Intent" is not limited to Afghanistan.  Major Paeta Hess Von Kreudner. "Hostile intent". In a blue beret. Those that are thinking "need to be at war to get it" or "in the face of the enemy" need to read the criteria again ... because that is NOT one of the criteria.

 

[George Wallace]

Let's not get derailed by going into the Medal, the Suspender, the Mounting, the Pin, the Claw, the Clip, the Ribbon Roller, Bars, Clasps, etc. or we will have to start a whole topic on terminology of Medals.    ;D

 

[Sito Origami]

And, I'm thinking that the ribbon is "part" of the medal no?

Even if you don't think so --- I'm quite sure you know wtf he meant and the context that he meant it in. 

ArmyVern, I hadn't expected anyone to take my use of "permanently" literally. I can't imagine anyone expecting another human being not to know that medals detach from the uniform so I assumed it had to be a joke. If you reread his post, I am sure you will come to the same conclusion. Since I simply assumed he was attempting some humour with his response, I attempted some similar dry humour in return. I hope he took it in the spirit it was intended. Best advice on internet communication is to assume the best of people and things will go smoothly. Have a great day.

 

[armyvern]

ArmyVern, I hadn't expected anyone to take my use of "permanently" literally. I can't imagine anyone expecting another human being not to know that medals detach from the uniform so I assumed it had to be a joke. If you reread his post, I am sure you will come to the same conclusion. Since I simply assumed he was attempting some humour with his response, I attempted some similar dry humour in return. I hope he took it in the spirit it was intended. Best advice on internet communication is to assume the best of people and things will go smoothly. Have a great day.

Actually I wouldn't (& didn't) come to the same conclusion. But then, I'm a dinosaur. I was around in the day when indeed our ribbon bars etc were "permanently" affixed (a mere 10-12 years ago too) to our tunics and shirts instead of the push-pin type we now wear.

 

[aesop081]

Because..OHHHH My heaven forbid that we actually had peacekeepers wounded on peacekeeping duties and it would tarnish our image on the international or national version of what has actually happened over the years.. in peacekeeping?? Cover up me thinks??

What cover up ?

Those folks i know who were wounded on peacekeeping operations were awarded their wound stripes on parade. So please tell me, what was covered up ?

 

[Sito Origami]

Actually I wouldn't (& didn't) come to the same conclusion. But then, I'm a dinosaur.

But not dinosaur enough to realize that the metal part is indeed called a medal?  ;D Thank you to George for the clarification. And apologies to all for the sideways trip.

Whatever the new medal is called or how it is worn, I hope it is not issued too often - unless it is retroactively to those that have merited them.

I wonder if the challenge in making it retroactive would be in accurate record keeping; for example, would older medical documents accurately categorize or record neuropsychiatric ailments and other types of stress ailment, particularly to the standard called for in the terms and conditions of the award of the Sacrifice Medal?

 

[pizzathahut]

???

You are one confused puppy.  You want to give the medal to anyone in a War Zone who is under direct fire, friendly or not, should get the medal, and then you turn around and say that someone in a FOB who is wounded by a mortar (Fired by the enemy, I assume) is different and not deserving of the medal, only a mention in dispatches.

You obviously don't have a full grasp on what the criteria are, nor what is going on in Afghanistan.  Not with that statement anyway.

lol, think you hit the nail on the head. I do not posses much of a grasp on the criteria. I've been in Cadets growing up but that's it. I want to enlist but have too many personal matters to deal with right now. Maybe in a year or two I can look back into it. Until then, I want to do my part in supporting the troops in the only way I can right now (the website cftoday.info). If you have any links to some learning sources & resources. I'm game.

 

[aesop081]

. I do not posses much of a grasp on the criteria.

Do some reading then, it will help you alot on this subject. The specific criteria for this award has been posted here repeatedly.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Enough. It would appear that serious discussion has run its course.  Locked with the usual caveat.  If you have something useful and factual to add, please contact a Moderator who may unlock the thread.

Milnet.ca Staff