Veterans??

[foresight]

See thread 10% of prisoners are military veterans

How do military people view this growing usage in the British media of the term 'veteran'?

It always used to be 'ex-military' or ex-soldier' etc. and I see this usage is common among users on this forum.

'Veteran' has overtones of American culture which is different to ours and for an oldie like me has particular connotations of the Vietnam war. I am also very conscious of its derivation from vetus = old.

I wonder if, by trying to introduce a term from another culture (as a convenient shorthand), the media are not actually doing these people a favour. The British public know what is meant by 'ex-military but 'veteran' is unfamiliar and distances the viewer/reader from the men/women in question, which is, of course, a shame.

[RETDPI]

Looks like we have some parallel thread concepts here. I absolutely agree with "Foresight" s misgivings over the adoption of the term "Veteran" .
In its current implication it has crept into the British consciousness as a subset of the American "Vietnam Vet " hyperbole (Only about 10% of whom ever came anywhere near the opposition). Funnily enough a lot of all the histrionics in the U.S.A. against the morality of "Nam " immediately evaporated when conscription stopped . So one can conclude that it was thus then deemed O.K. for the professionals to get killed -provided the rest didn't have to go.
Nevertheless, the term "veteran" brings with it a subliminal link to the anti-militaristic antics of some of our American cousins during that campaign. Also note dire propagandistic films such as " Born on the 4th July", " Full Metal Jacket" and "The Deer Hunter", all of which allude to "Veterans".
I find this effectively puts a patronising slant on being a so-called "veteran" and certainly wouldn't ever contemplate acquiring one of Tony's trendy lapel badges.
It is yet another seemingly innocuous word that has crept, or rather been introduced, into our vocabulary over the last two decades and which purvey arguably dubious agendas.

[CirrusF]

Personally, I find the adjective "veteran" repugnant, because of its intrinsic association with the shameful US invasion of Vietnam, their disgraceful conduct in that country, and their use of conscripted personnel once they could no longer find enough volunteers.

[Saintsman]

I remember seeing someone at a road junction in the US holding a sign that said "ex vet"

My first though was why is an old animal doctor begging on the streets?

[foresight]

Surely an ex vet would be dead

Seriously though, my concern is with the media trying to foist this alien concept on to our ex-military personnel. Do our serving military really see themselves as future 'veterans'. Not very British, somehow.

[GreenKnight121]

Leaving aside the very biased view of the first two points, I MUST correct the latter.

Conscription (the draft) was a fact of American life from 1940 to 1974, with males being drafted in every year except 1947, due to Congress' slow passage of a re-authorization bill.

From the very beginnings of US post-WW2 involvement in Vietnam (in the 1950s) some of the personnel were draftees... as were those serving in Germany, Japan, inside the US, and everywhere the US military sent personnel.

Government leaders felt the potential for a draft was a critical element in maintaining a constant flow of volunteers. On numerous occasions Gen. Hershey told Congress for every man drafted, three or four more were scared into volunteering. Assuming his assessment was accurate, this would mean over 11 million men volunteered for service because of the draft between January 1954 and April 1975.
The policy of using the draft as a club to force "voluntary" enlistment was unique in U.S. history. Previous drafts had not aimed at encouraging individuals to sign up in order to gain preferential placement or less dangerous postings.

This "join or else" policy was initiated in 1954... before the US sent any forces into Vietnam.

Yes, there was a significant increase in conscription numbers during Vietnam, but there was also a major increase in voluntary enlistments during that time... some to allow the joinee to influence his assignment, but a large number because they felt they should "do their part".

Despite the protests, and contrary to the slanted view presented by the media, most Americans, even late in the war, viewed the US effort favorably... in fact the estimate is that 40% of those who served in the forces during Vietnam did so without the draft affecting their enlistment in any way.

Between 34% (1964) and 50% (1970) of volunteers indicated that the draft influenced their decision to volunteer... this means that only around 1/3 of the total forces were drafted... but most of those draftees were sent to Vietnam as infantry.


Thus, your base premise is wrong... the draft was in force long before the US became directly involved there, and "influencing volunteers by threat of draft" was policy before as well.

[matkat]

GK it is not only the media who are doing it the MoD is not so bad at it either you just have to look at the badge and the dreaded word is already there.

[brickhistory]

GK, it would't matter if you brought up National Service or any of the harsh things other nations' did in their little third world dust-ups.

For that poster, it is only the US who is ever in the wrong.

Facts only get in the way.

To remain on topic, in the US, 'veteran' does not conjure images of deranged Vietnam veterans living in caves and savaging unsuspecting citizens.

In the UK, you prefer "ex-military."

Either way, thanks to those who served.

[jindabyne]

How do military people view this growing usage in the British media of the term 'veteran'?

Personally I don't see this as an issue, and to claim that the use of the term 'veteran' is being subjected to growing usage is highly bogus. Have a look at the the websites of the British Legion, the Normandy Veterans Association, the British Korean Veterans Association, the Aden Veterans Association, the Falklands Veterans Foundation, and others. I think you will find that the term has been subject to much public and media usage over many years. If there is a perception that the term is being used more frequently as a result of current operational activity, well and good: our present day so-called political leaders, most of whom have no military experience (or any other sort outside politics) need a constant reminder of our armed forces' achievements, past and present. The continued reference to UK military veterans is, in my humble opinion, not negotiable.

The advent of Veterrans Day and the Veterans badge may well be subject to a separate and particular debate, and I can understand the view that the 'veteran ethos' may be seen by some as being diluted by these initiatives. I do have a badge, and I notice that there are many other equally decrepit soles wandering around with it; and for me, on more than one occasion it has been the catalyst for a warm and interesting conversation with a complete stranger. That said, I do find it a little amusing that my son, with all of two years 'service' in his UAS, is also entitled to the badge.

[minigundiplomat]

its intrinsic association with the shameful US invasion of Vietnam,


Surely you mean French Indo-China Cirrus? The problem was there long before the US.

[Gainesy]

My 2p, veteran brings to mind Chelsea Pensioners or the London to Brighton Veteran & Vintage car run.

I prefer ex-Mil/ex-RAF and Bliar can ram his Vet badge. RAF tie is good enough for me.

[minigundiplomat]

Veteran, service leaver, ex-military, former military....it doen't matter what term is used as long as they are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve and have access to the services they require.

Quibbling over their title is semantics.

[Data-Lynx]

Gainsey. Could be a very expensive 2p if you want to upset the men (and one woman) in scarlet. Had the great pleasure to meet and travel with some of these old soldiers. Amongst some cracking and also harrowing stories, I didn't hear them mention veterans. The Hospital website does use the term veteran soldier once and the video mentions a 'future veteran'.

For me, I'll stick with the FAA tie, that bit of pride that I have served and a deep respect for Staff Sgt 'Paddy' who came down from Chelsea recently to support the SW British Legion.

[charliegolf]

MGD:

Quibbling over their title is semantics.

Correct. But it would be good to think that a title conjured in the populace thoughts of the respect you suggest. I think we are getting there.

Sincere political leadership on the matter would ease things along, but I think the public are getting there anyhow.

CG

[foresight]

Quibbling over their title is semantics.

Precisely my original point. Semantics are concerned with meaning. I believe 'veteran' means something different to the UK public and to the US public. This is because of cultural differences. I believe it is difficult for the UK public to view a young man, recently returned from Afghanistan, as a 'veteran'. While in the US this would be natural terminology. I am not judging - just stating a fact.
The poster who mentioned Normandy, Korean, Falklands veterans has a point but this accentuates the fact that the word 'veteran' is rooted in the latin 'vetus', meaning 'old'.
There are people (media and government) who are foisting words on us which, to us, do not conjure up the image that they would like them to.

[Gainesy]

No intention whatsoever in upsetting CPs, trying (not very well) to say that to my mind veteran is really old. And some of us are not--yet.

[Blacksheep]

http://www.veterans-uk.info/new_badge/images/badge.jpg


I wear my Veterans Badge with pride. It was sent to me with a nice certificate signed by the Under Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Veterans and the official website for the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency (SPVA) that looks after our affairs is found here (http://www.veterans-uk.info/).

So, wherever it may have originated or what any of us may feel about it, Veteran is the officially recognised and authorised term for British ex-service personnel.

[mister hilter]

Blacksheep, never had a lot to do with mil/ex-mil/veterans/ex-forces since I left, but what's with the badge? How do I get one?
Wasn't much of a conformist whilst serving and had a bit of a problem with authority, especially when supposed figure of authority was a complete numpty (to my mind anyways). Sorry for straight forwardness, but never was one to suffer fools gladly and I don't seem to be mellowing as I age (mature?) Any hoo had some fun times in uniform and met a lot of top guys and some life long friends. Left it all behind on leaving and flew to the other side of world.
Prefer the term 'ex-forces' which I always took as a British expression. I think ex-mil(itary) is used everywhere else in western world as I've said in conversation 'ex-forces' and tend to get blank looks. Whilst not inducing thoughts of Vietnam, the term 'veteran' (to me) implies war service (be it WW1 or 2/Korea/Dhofar/Falklands/Gulf/other)
Subject of this thread is the high % of ex-forces in prison/trouble with law, and one potential reason has been posited as lack of/insufficient re-settlement training. As I recall (in RAF at least) one had to be in for 9 yrs minimum to receive re-settlement training (for non commissioned). Any less and one wasn't entitled to it, or if PVR was your preferred method of departure (yours truly, I was one of the first 'free PVRs' in 1989) also no entitlement. Maybe that is something that the powers that be could look at. Also have found that I relate better in civvy street to ex-forces than never-have-served, even after 20 years out of uniform. Coincidence or a subliminal 'I know what you've been through'?
Interesting and thought provoking topic

Sorry all, just realised that I've been mixing my threads. Hope no confusion caused as a result.

[PPRuNe Pop]

Blacksheep is right IMHO. I wear my badge and am happy to be referred to as a veteran - the US have been using the name for years with a great deal of reverence.