"In a class all of his own..."

[Babbling Brooks]

A post by The Monarchist - a former naval officer - at The Torch laments the lack of tradition and history in our current Canadian honours system. 

Here's the link: http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/our-soldiers-deserve-more-on-which-to.html

And here's an excerpt:

...until Sgt. Tower won the SMV, nobody even heard of it, nobody, including veterans, knew what it was. They still don't. That's because unlike the VC and DFC, there is no instinctive knowledge, no shared experience, no inherent value and no transcendent significance to the order. Sgt. Tower is literally in a class all of his own, which is of course to his immense credit, but with nobody to share it with, the brave sergeant will spend a good deal of his time in the Remembrance Days to come explaining to people the significance of the SMV.

Had he won the Distinguished Service Cross, he would have joined the legions of veterans in Canada and across the Commonwealth who had also won the DSC, he would have been welcomed into their branch societies, he would have mingled and swapped war stories. In this way, the new rejuvenate the old. The heart of the old veteran warms when he discovers that his caste are not a dying breed after all, that the coming new DSC or DFC holders will eventually take their place. The young soldier in turn glows with pride, having been welcomed into their esteemed ranks. Young and old the generations are linked because they share a heritage, are connected by a common history and a common faith for the future.

I'm of two minds about this.  While I understand the desire for uniquely Canadian traditions separate from our British roots, and see the inevitability of enduring a period of "traditionlessness" (for lack of a better word) as we grow into those new honours, Monarchist's post resonates with me.

Right now, Sgt Tower is quite literally in a class all his own, a society of precisely one.  And Flight Lieutenant Christopher Hasler, Canadian DFC winner with the RAF is not - he joins a very distinguished tradition.  It hardly seems fair.

Thoughts?

 

[Haggis]

Nothing wrong with it IMO.

The first VC winner, the first DFC winner, the first medal winner were all "in a class of their own". Traditions have to start somewhere.  Why not start the SMV tradition with Sgt Tower?

 

[Michael OLeary]

So, rather than lamenting the fact that we have a developing Canadian Honours system, why didn't The Torch work at educating rather than bitching?

Try McCreery for some background.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

why didn't Babbling Brooks work at educating rather than bitching?

Sorry I gave you that misimpression, O'Leary.  It certainly wasn't my intent to bitch, and I didn't figure anyone here really needed a lesson - I certainly wouldn't presume to give one in any event.

Just looking for feedback is all.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Between your comments and the blog you are touting, it was hardly a "misimpression".

We have a tradition of recognising the bravery of our soldiers, sailors and airmen - why should that "tradition" be limited only to those specific medals that were in use during the World Wars?  How does creating a new Canadian Honours System detract from the act of recognition?  You are working at confusing the intent of the award and the presented article (the medals) under the guise of a singular "tradition" of recognition.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

You are working at confusing the intent of the award and the presented article (the medals) under the guise of a singular "tradition" of recognition.

No, but it seems you are working at being belligerent and argumentative here.  If you have a problem with me and my blog, spit it out.  And in the meantime, stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I asked the question because I think it's an interesting problem, and one without easy answers.  There is an opportunity cost to creating our own honours system, and I haven't seen a discussion of that cost at Army.ca yet: that while we've gained our own Canadian honours, we've lost the tradition and history of the British ones.

The blog post I pointed you to wasn't written by me, and as I said off the top, I remain of two minds about the issue.

 

[GAP]

In the short time I have been here, I have yet to hear anyone voice the opinion that the British Traditions that were practised in the CF be ignored or changed. I read the article, and I think the fellow thinks everything good is British and we did not need a "Canadian" medal.
His opinion, I beg to differ

 

[Michael OLeary]

No, but it seems you are working at being belligerent and argumentative here.  If you have a problem with me and my blog, spit it out.  And in the meantime, stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I asked the question because I think it's an interesting problem, and one without easy answers.  There is an opportunity cost to creating our own honours system, and I haven't seen a discussion of that cost at Army.ca yet: that while we've gained our own Canadian honours, we've lost the tradition and history of the British ones.

The blog post I pointed you to wasn't written by me, and as I said off the top, I remain of two minds about the issue.

And you are apparently not actually looking for feedback at all.

Nor have you presented a case that only keeping the British Honours System is a better option.  Shall they only be conferred by the Queen as well, because the role of the Monarchy has been discussed a number of times?

 

[Gunner98]

From my limited research, we started adopting our own Honours system in the late 1960s (starting around 1967) and expanded on it in the early 1970s and recognized in 1992/33 the absence of Canadian combat-related awards.  (IIRC) Around 1993, we saw the largest commitment of Canadian troops outside Canada since the Korean War. From 1949 until the early 1990's there were not that many occasions where we faced an enemy, we were normally sitting between two or more warring factions.

I agree with GAP and Mr. O'Leary, expanding on the British Honours system over the course of 25+ years does seem to be a rush to ignore our British roots, but the addition of a Canadian flavour to an already good thing.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

Nor have you presented a case that only keeping the British Honours System is a better option.

O'Leary, are you remedial?  I haven't presented such a case because I remain unconvinced which option is better - hence the deliberate ambiguity in both my original post and the replies.

I have no idea what I've done to get your panties in a knot, and at this point I don't particularly care.  Contrary to your feeble attempts at mind-reading, I am indeed looking for feedback, but seeing as you seem to be interested only in rudeness, I no longer care for yours.

GAP, I agree that the Monarchist is inordinately interested in all things British - hence the moniker.  That's one of the reasons I posted his opinion - it's extreme, and sure to provoke some debate.

Gunner98, while I'm sure your rendition of the history is accurate, I'm not sure I understand your last statement.  In order to create the Canadian valour awards, didn't we have to toss out the British ones?  As I recall - and please correct me if I'm mistaken - the Cdn gov't at the time wanted the top honour to be something other than the Victoria Cross, and only a public hue and cry prevented that one last holdover from the previous regime.  Even then, it's not the same Victoria Cross, but a Canadianized one with "For Valour" replaced by "Pro Valore" on the medal itself.

In fact, I'm not convinced we can create a distinctly Canadian tradition without tossing out a great deal of the British roots.  I think that at some point the gov't made a conscious choice to discard old in order to create the new.  That choice came with costs, as well as with benefits.

And don't get me wrong - you can make a decent argument against even retaining the Victoria Cross.  Some of the citations from prior to WWI seem thin compared to later ones, which some have suggested is due to the introduction of the Military Medal in 1916.  With a significant discrepancy between early awardees and later ones, some might argue a clean break would have allowed an undiluted pool to have been started fresh.

Again, no right or wrong answers here, as I see it.  I just thought the discussion itself might be interesting.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Sorry I gave you that misimpression, O'Leary.  It certainly wasn't my intent to *****, and I didn't figure anyone here really needed a lesson - I certainly wouldn't presume to give one in any event.

Just looking for feedback is all.

O'Leary, are you remedial?  I haven't presented such a case because I remain unconvinced which option is better - hence the deliberate ambiguity in both my original post and the replies......

Gunner98, while I'm sure your rendition of the history is accurate, I'm not sure I understand your last statement.  In order to create the Canadian valour awards, didn't we have to toss out the British ones?  As I recall - and please correct me if I'm mistaken - the Cdn gov't at the time wanted the top honour to be something other than the Victoria Cross, and only a public hue and cry prevented that one last holdover from the previous regime.  Even then, it's not the same Victoria Cross, but a Canadianized one with "For Valour" replaced by "Pro Valore" on the medal itself.

In fact, I'm not convinced we can create a distinctly Canadian tradition without tossing out a great deal of the British roots.  I think that at some point the gov't made a conscious choice to discard old in order to create the new.  That choice came with costs, as well as with benefits.

And don't get me wrong - you can make a decent argument against even retaining the Victoria Cross.  Some of the citations from prior to WWI seem thin compared to later ones, which some have suggested is due to the introduction of the Military Medal in 1916.  With a significant discrepancy between early awardees and later ones, some might argue a clean break would have allowed an undiluted pool to have been started fresh.

Again, no right or wrong answers here, as I see it.  I just thought the discussion itself might be interesting.

Am I getting confused here, or is everyones feeling the same way?

dileas

tess

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Am I getting confused here, or is everyones feeling the same way?

dileas

tess

Nope, me too.

BB,

I suggest you reel in your neck a bit, and don't take so much offence where there really isn't any.

 

[Gunner98]

I guess it is not Sgt Tower that is in a class of his own, I guess it is you BB.  Have fun talking to yourself, I am done with this one.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

After reading that article I'm glad the writer wasn't around some 150 years ago,......because the men that committed the acts of bravery that led to the awarding of the VC at that time would be just  "Empty. Disconnected from history" relics not "welcome into their branch societies".

Must suck to love the past so much that one is afraid to make a future.........

 

[Michael OLeary]

From the Foreword of The Canadian Honours System, Christopher McCreery, 2005:

Canada did not adopt its own honours system until 1972, one hundred and five years after Confederation, and it might be said that doing so was but one of a series of steps - including the 1917 Battle of Vimy Ridge, the 1931 Statute of Westminster, the delayed 1939 declaration of war, the 1965 Maple Leaf flag, and the 1982 repatriation of the Constitution - that changed Canada's colonial and Dominion status to one of independent nationhood. - General John de Chastelain, O.C., C.M.M., C.D., C.H.

And from page 153:

In the spring of 1993, Cabinet agreed to the creation of the Canadian VC, the SMV and the MMV, which were subsequently approved by the Queen on 2 February 1993, and the award of the decorations was made retroactive to 1 January 1993."

Thirteen years after their creation and approval, and while we should be praising the actions of Sgt Tower, is no time to be denigrating the system of awards.

Sergeant Patrick Tower, 9 Platoon, Charlie Company,
First Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry,
Star of Military Valour​

These are the words of his citation:

Following an enemy strike against an outlying friendly position that resulted in numerous casualties, Sergeant Tower assembled the platoon medic and a third soldier and led them across 150 metres of open terrain, under heavy enemy fire, to render assistance. On learning that the acting platoon commander had perished, Sergeant Tower assumed command and led the successful extraction of the force under continuous small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire. Sergeant Tower's courage and selfless devotion to duty contributed directly to the survival of the remaining platoon members.

http://www.army.dnd.ca/lfwa/valour_tower.htm

(Edit to add link to Sgt Tower's story.)

 

[Babbling Brooks]

I wasn't looking to take a position either way, just provoke some discussion.  Any time one creates something new, something old is lost.  Look at Diefenbaker and the Legion versus Pearson on the flag debate.  I'm not saying what's lost isn't worth what's gained in as far as Canadian medals are concerned, just noting the fact that we don't talk much about what was lost.

And when O'Leary decided to criticize me right off the top for supposedly b****ing and not being interested in feedback when in fact I was, I got touchy.

Either way, sorry to have offended - consider my neck reeled in.

 

[Magravan]

We lose something, but I believe that it is a step in a positive direction... He is not a member of an illustrious group with a vast past, but he is a man starting a new tradition. I highly doubt that when he thinks about it, he laments what he isn't. The respect from his country, the peers that he fights/fought with, are shown in his medal.

I suspect, if anything, he is more concerned with making sure that he is a shining example of what a recepient of the Star of Military Valour should be. While not directly connected, it is the Spiritual Successor, as people are prone to saying, of the awards that the British gave out... If the people involved with either award wish a deeper connection, they can open up their gatherings to those who have received the similar award.

That is their choice though, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Infanteer]

I suspect, with the large amount of work we have left to do in Afghanistan, that Sgt Tower will be joined sooner rather than later....