Warbird Information Exchange

Winning Versus Awarded

I see posts from time to time, using the verbage that an individual had won the MOH or Navy Cross etc. Pet Peeve of mine they didn't win anything, they were awarded said medal or citation.

To imply that the individual won the medal implies that there was a contest, and that he/she was the winner and the others were the losers. A lot of the recipients of these medals did not survive the action that earned the award. Regardless of awards any person that puts on the uniform of their country and serves is a hero in my book.

Sorry will now get off my soap box and find something constructive to do with my time.

_________________
Mike in Florida
TSgt USAF Retired
Jan 86 - Sept 08
Aircrew Life Support
"Your Life Is Our Business"
(122X0, 1T1X1, 1P0X1)
NRA Life Member

That's a good point and I never really thought of it like that before. I guess it just never came up.

I'll be thinking about what you said next time I write something about a person receiving a medal or citation.

Peace,

David M

Well, I'm feeling ornery this evening so I'll offer a rebutle. The purpose of a medal is to differentiate and to identify certain activity that is beyond default activity. Thus the activity is being singled out as above and beyond.

It's all fine and good to say they are a heroes in the same way its fine to say all the athletes in the olympics are good athletes. However only the few will walk away with a medal because they have gone beyond. I guess what you are debating is more use of the English language in which you may technically be correct however as far as the premise that nobody has won anything because there is no winner and loser. In the olympics medals are "won" because someone has exhibited extaordinary skill at being am athlete in the same way in war a medal could be classed as "won" because someone has greater skill as a soldier or has made a greater sacrifice (injured or dead). In this case I think earn is synonymous with won and it really more a question of semantics.

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding if you are critiquing the language skills on the board or the meaning behind earning a medal.

Ryan

Mike and Ryan...well stated points. I'm gonna' jump in with one of my many "pet peeves". It's about the Medal of Honor. It, more often than not, is referred to as the "CONGRESSIONAL" Medal of Honor, which it isn't. The only association Congress has with the medal is that they must approve the awarding of it. It's a small thing, I know, but it really torques my jaws. I've even seen it described as "Congressional" in articles where the author, being military, should know better. Look at the official list of MoH awardees. It doesn't say anything about "Congressional" in it.
I guess adding the word Congressional makes it sound more prestigious. Makes it roll off the tongue more dramatically.

OK...rant off.

Mudge the pedant

_________________
Land of the free because of the brave

In my experience, the ones who are awarded medals are never the only ones who have "gone beyond" -- they're simply the ones who performed exactly the same as their squadronmates would have, but were placed in extraordinary circumstances that were later recognized by a leader or a military board.



I think it's a significant difference. They're not synonymous, and the OP has it right when he says it's not a competition. Medals aren't won (or even 'earned' for that matter). They're awarded. I assure you that NOBODY is EVER thinking about a medal when they perform acts of valor in combat.

"Language skills" aren't of minor significance -- they just happen to be precisely how we communicate. Words mean things. Use the correct words to convey the correct meaning.

_________________

The source of the term is the medal Citation itself:

Notice the part about, "in the name of Congress"?

_________________

The main difference between soldiers and olympic athletes would be that the athletes are all acting on a 'level playing field' with a known and common goal, rather than in a little pocket of chaos with few rules and often unclear objectives trying to achieve the mission - whatever that may be - whilst supporting their teammates and hopefully surviving.

One common aspect is that award of the medals requires an appreciative audience. The action accounts attached to many medals often makes boring reading, and the actions can be quite mundane in context, but they were observed and reported through proper channels.
In any given conflict that may be hundreds of 'medal-worthy' actions that either go unobserved, or by the nature of a given bit of combat seem less than noteworthy in comparison to another theatre or operation.

It also helps a lot if you win;
'Soldier "X" acting singlehandedly, and without local support, infiltrated the enemy's encampment where he engaged the enemy with explosives killing and incapacitating many before succumbing to his own wounds'

That could just as easily be a semi-successful covert-ops insertion, a lone lost soldier stumbling upon the enemy HQ, or a suicide bomber.
Context is everything.

_________________
Lest Hero-worship raise it's head and cloud our vision, remember that World War II was fought and won by the same sort of twenty-something punks we wouldn't let our daughters date.

Randy I certainly respect your opinion on the matter however I think the athlete metaphor still stands up. If you look at the Heisman Trophy for instance, it has nothing to do with if the athlete is truly the best athlete amongst all others, it simply means they were recognized for being above and beyond others who are recognized, and that someone, somewhere who had an influence nominated them to get the "award." Once nominated it goes through system of arbiters who then decide if the "award" is deserved. Just because they "win" the award it doesn't mean that they are more skilled than all others, or any better than many other athletes out there however, they are being recognized as such. Not much difference in the Olympics. Not all great athletes are even in the Olympics and just because someone wins a gold medal doesn't mean that they are the best athlete in the world, it means that someone recognized them enough to give them an opportunity to be in the Olympics and that the judges decided that they were worthy of the award. It is often a subjective decision.



Yes, Randy I agree you are correct if not condescending . Words do mean things and I listen to Rush too

While I will agree that very most often the case is that those in combat are not concerned with earning a medal when they accomplish an act of valor that earns them a medal. I'll also point out something that you already know (my turn to be condescending ) that not all medals or citations are for acts of valor.

I'm curious, do you think the same of military badges? Are they awarded or earned? I have seen them often refereed to as "awards" however they are most certainly earned with most typically prior motivation to receive the "award."

Badges are earned! Basic Jump Wings are earned for successful completion of jump school, Senior and Master jump wings are earned for the number and types of jumps.

Basic Aircrew/Pilot Wings again are earned for successful completion of Aircrew training or flight training etc, Senior wings and Command wings are earned based on total hours of flight time, and time spent as a pilot or aircrew member.

Specialty Badges are earned differently, Basic badge upon completion of technical school/training in chosen career field, Senior badge upon upgrade to 7 level, and Master badge after promotion to Master Sergeant (E-7).

Military Medals are awarded for various reasons, medals for valor are awarded for a specific event or action that was approved for recognition with the award of a medal. We don't compete for them like athletes. The way a military member and an athlete see medals or are given medals is like comparing apple to oranges. Athletes set out to win trophies and medals as a measure of their abilities. Military members are awarded medals for their actions. Audie Murphy said in interviews that he always considered them as tributes to all who served, and in particular to his buddies, especially those who did not return. He was a humble man, as most are that are awarded such high awards.

So those who serve in the Armed Forces are awarded medals, we don't compete for them, never have never will. We don't hold competitions to see which one of us will get the MOH or AF/Navy Cross etc.

_________________
Mike in Florida
TSgt USAF Retired
Jan 86 - Sept 08
Aircrew Life Support
"Your Life Is Our Business"
(122X0, 1T1X1, 1P0X1)
NRA Life Member

The meaning of the word "win" doesn't include the sentiment behind it. Just because I am humble and don't feel I'm the best actor, didn't put forth the best effort, that my acting was the result of a big team effort, I didn't even care to be honeored, didn't want to be nominated, or didn't have a motivation to be recognised doesn't change the fact that I may have "won" an Academy Award.

As Randy said, words mean things. If you look at the definition of the verb "win" I believe it supports my claim that it is not inccorect to use the term "win" when discussing a medal.

To quote various definitions of the verb "win:"

"4. to succeed in reaching (a place, condition, etc.), esp. by great effort: They won the shore through a violent storm.
5. to get by effort, as through labor, competition, or conquest: He won his post after years of striving.
6. to gain (a prize, fame, etc.).
7. to be successful in (a game, battle, etc.).
8. to make (one's way), as by effort or ability.
9. to attain or reach (a point, goal, etc.).
10. to gain (favor, love, consent, etc.), as by qualities or influence.
11. to gain the favor, regard, or adherence of.
12. to gain the consent or support of; persuade (often fol. by over ): The speech won them over to our side."



Again, simpliy because there is a different sentiment about the action of recieving the medals doesn't change the definition of the word win, as nothing in the defniiton of the word win descriminates upon the sentiment of the action.

While I agree that the word awarded is more appropriate, and the term that I would use becuase it more precisely describes the actions behind recieving a medal I don't believe that it makes the word win as incorrect when used in the context described in this thread.

Ryan

Ryan, good explanation. In a similar context how the contemporary meaning of 'gay' has changed since those old Bing Crosby movies.
VL

Well here's my .02 cents which is probably worth 1/4 of a cent.
Maybe opinions differ if you served. I rec'v a few medals but no
decorations. I was awarded my EAWS wings. My CO said that he
was " proud to award these to me" To me they were something
I just earned. But, Randy's right and usually is. There's no contest just a
team effort. I was figured those who rec'v awards are also standing for those
who didn't.
My dear friend Cy Gladen was a P-40 ace and he hated that term. To him it
implied that he was some super star hero fighter pilot. To him he was
just a squirrel shooting farm boy from MN who was just a average pilot
who when having the oppturnity to engage Japanese a/c did did so. Many
others who he felt were much better pilots never ever saw a Japanese a/c.

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Again, I'm not debating how veterans feel about the medals. The way that you, Randy, Audie Murphy, or I feel about medals doesn't change the definition of the word win.

Ryan

I never served in the military but being involved in its preservation, I have come close with many vets who served in Vietnam. They have taken me under their wing and often consider me one of their own. But as a "outsider" when I hear the word "WIN" in a metal given I just cringe. I think of a friend who was on a road riding the back of a Guntruck with his crew and protecting the convoy. He and his friend had seen the RPG comming, it hit the side of the gun box and instantly killed his friend and knocked him to the floor. With his flak vest still smoking and his neck and arms full of schrapnal,(he still carrys some today) he got up and started to supress fire to the enemy until another Gun Truck arrived on scene. He was eventually awarded the Silver Star for his actions that day. He is very humble about what he did and I am sure that he would give it back for his friends life.
I know many like him and if anyone wants to use the term "WIN". After all the BS that these guys go through to recieve the basic VA benefits that they deserve. All the loop holes and issues that they battle with our govt and the years of waiting. Once they finally see justice, they should "WIN" a medal for that because it definatly fits the #4 definition above!!!!! They definatly earned it. I just wish it was not that way.

_________________
Long Live the N3N-3 "The Last US Military Bi-Plane" 1940-1959
Badmouthing Stearmans on WIX since 2005

The most interesting part about this conversation is that I hate the term win in this context as well. It seems like a lazy, simplified and childish way of describing it. On the other hand when someone broadcasts their unsolicited and unprovoked letter to the editor it appeals to the devils advocate inside me. I'm not debating one bit of sentiment over medals, only the use of the language.

Ryan