# Why Did Canada Change Our Salute



## Jonny Boy

i never could understand why exactly we would ever change our salute. and if we did why the American salute?

i know we have different rules and regs about saluting but i think we should of stayed with the British salute. it is sharper and looks better, more Than all that it actually has history behind it. does ours have any history? if so i have not heard it.


----------



## Jonny Boy

ya well i think we should go back to the traditional historic salute.


----------



## Meridian

What recruits/OCdts are instructed is that the way we do it now is the "Navy way" and that the Navy has always done this, back since some noble people found that dirty sailors hands were terrible to look at and as such their hands were flipped down. 

We took over the Navy way in the Army and AF with unification.


IIRC, the Americans based theirs off the Navy too, since it is the Senior Service, and it just made sense. BUt Im sure there is some better historical explanation than mine.


----------



## Torlyn

Um, the historical navy salute isn't really a salute at all.  The "old" one you are talking about has the hand in almost a loose fist, and touching the brow with the side of that hand...  (Horrible description, but if you want the true historical salute, watch Master and Commander)

T


----------



## onewingwonder

Meridian is correct though, in that the current salute comes from the RCN, which flowed from the RN. Has nothing to do with the Yanks.


----------



## Torlyn

I wasn't debating that...  M&C's a movie about, well, the Royal Navy...


----------



## Jonny Boy

but still that does not explain why we changed it. 





			
				Intelligere said:
			
		

> But isn't the effect (and appearance) the same?


no the salute looks pretty slack and ugly. the older British salute looks clean and professional. plus if it came from the navy having to hide there dirty hands than why would we want to adopt that?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Intelligere said:
			
		

> But isn't the effect (and appearance) the same?



Yes.  

As already pointed out to Hutch in this thread, the salute was adopted so as to have one tradition across the Forces, and the naval salute has a long history behind it.

Perhaps Hutch doesn't realize what Unification was - it was the integration of the three services into one force - the Canadian Armed Forces.  We did not have an army, air force or navy any more, just one tri-service concept. A good idea in many ways, the plan was executed poorly and some argue we are still feeling the repurcussions, in many areas not confined to simply uniforms and traditions.


----------



## Jonny Boy

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Perhaps Hutch doesn't realize what Unification was - it was the integration of the three services into one force - the Canadian Armed Forces.  We did not have an army, air force or navy any more, just one tri-service concept. A good idea in many ways, the plan was executed poorly and some argue we are still feeling the repurcussions, in many areas not confined to simply uniforms and traditions.



ok thanks i thought it was something eles   . everyone makes mistakes though. correct me if i am wrong (and i probably am) is that what Trudeau did?  

i don't really like the CANADIAN ARMED FORCES i think if each element had its own identity than i am sure less people would be surprised to find out Canada has a navy or a air force.


----------



## Infanteer

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> ok thanks i thought it was something eles    . everyone makes mistakes though. correct me if i am wrong (and i probably am) is that what Trudeau did?



Nope, it was Defence Minister Hellyer during Lester Pearson's government that enacting Unification.



> i don't really like the CANADIAN ARMED FORCES i think if each element had its own identity than i am sure less people would be surprised to find out Canada has a navy or a air force.



Here is my current take on Unification:



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm not so hard on Paul Hellyer as I used to be.
> 
> While you are at the library and looking up Unification, pick up Douglas Bland's Chiefs of Defence - excellent survey of Unification and its subsequent evolution; the book is strongly helped by the fact that Bland was able to interview almost every Minister, Deputy Minister, and CDS that served since the early '60's.
> 
> I think Hellyer was right in some aspects for ramming home unification in that prior to a Single National Command Element, the Canadian Government was unable to get a single cohesive piece of advice from its military - rather it got Army, Navy, and Air Force empires competing to give advice based along "Service-Based" ideas of National Defence.   This tended to be uncoherent and extremely demanding (Big Army! No Big Fleet!! NO, AIR POWER!!!) - what Hellyer wanted was a National Command element that he could turn to for unbiased advice based upon the requirements of Defence.   Unfortunately, I feel that Turdeau's "brilliant leadership" (cough - Donald McDonald - cough), combined with some systemic failings when Unification was enacted, allowed Hellyer's ideal to become unglued.   I feel that now we have re-gravitated towards a Service Based force which may bring back alot of problems that we should have left behind in the 60's.   I think we saw shades of this with the reaction to General Hillier's call to put Army interests ahead of Navy and Air Force ones.   Hellyer wanted Commanders to view assets of National Defence as one and the same - building on capabilites that furthered National Security rather then supporting independent goals and plans.
> 
> What do I mean by "systemic failings"?   I feel that taking traditions, personal structures, and tactical organization that each service possessed and throwing it in the blender was a big mistake.   Environmental or Service-based "Tribalism" is a strong force and has many valid and important roles to play in the branches of a Military and attempts to either ignore them or do-away with them completely are bound to end up in failure (or, in our case, with some major headaches).   I feel that any attempt to reinforce Hellyer's notion of National Command will have to do a much better job of incorporating and accommodating Service-based requirements into a National Defence Force.
> 
> Incidentally, I believe the American's had this same Defence debate in the 1950's.   Their approach and solution (in the form of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) was different then ours.   You may want to look at that as well.



I believe that inertia has gravited us back to where we started, with Fleets, Army Areas, and an Air Division that report to seperate Service Chiefs.

As well, the Americans have long grappelled with the same issue - look at the large re-arranging they did in the 50's creating the Joint Chiefs of Staff (forget the exact name of the Act) and the Goldwater-Nichols Act in the late '80's.


----------



## George Wallace

Just to add my 2 cents worth.....Our current salute, from our RCN traditions, is nothing at all like an "American" salute.   I do think that if you can't see the difference, then you haven't looked at it close enough.   I think that ours is much more professional and snappier in its' presentation.   I think the Americans have a very sloppy salute compared to ours.   If you think that our salute is sloppy also, then those presenting it are at fault for the sloppiness, not the salute itself.   

Just another example of our lowering our standards if the salute is presented sloppily by our younger Service Members (Usually Officers in my memory.).


----------



## Jonny Boy

i cant notice to much of a difference in the the American salute and ours. they are really similar. what are the differances?


----------



## George Wallace

Let's see....a quick movement bringing the right hand smartly up the front of your right breast pocket, bringing you right upper arm and elbow parallel to the ground and ending with your hand straight, level to the ground with the index finger touching your right eyebrow or glasses........as opposed to a slower upward movement of the right hand, away from the body (about two to four inches (for you non-metric types)) quite often ending with the hand tilted away from the person being saluted as if to hide the palm, often in a 'cupped' form, with elbow lowered.   The Canadian salute is ended in reverse order to the way it was initiated - quickly and smartly - all movements to drill timings.   The American salute is quite often ended at a slower speed as if it is being 'thrown away'.   Notice the differences now?


----------



## Jonny Boy

ya i understand the differences. to the untrained eye they still look identical.


----------



## George Wallace

-Hutch- said:
			
		

> ya i understand the differences. to the untrained eye they still look identical.



Time to train your eye.      ;D


----------



## Jonny Boy

ya now i will. but to civilians that have very little to do with military knowledge always salute(when they see me in uniform) the way they see the Americans salute, and what they think is the same way the Canadians do it.


----------



## q_1966

There was a story ive been told, cant remember who or when, and cant validate it as correct but...
apparently the Queen was inspecting a Canadian Naval Ship way back when (probabaly just before unification of the Forces) and the Sea-man had dirty hands when he saluted her the British way, so the queen took his hand and tilted it sideways to what our current salute is now.

Maybe a little bit off topic, but what the hell


----------



## q_1966

Meridian said:
			
		

> What recruits/OCdts are instructed is that the way we do it now is the "Navy way" and that the Navy has always done this, back since some noble people found that dirty sailors hands were terrible to look at and as such their hands were flipped down.
> 
> We took over the Navy way in the Army and AF with unification.
> 
> 
> IIRC, the Americans based theirs off the Navy too, since it is the Senior Service, and it just made sense. BUt Im sure there is some better historical explanation than mine.



Didnt read Meridians Post,


----------



## onewingwonder

> There was a story ive been told, cant remember who or when, and cant validate it as correct but...
> apparently the Queen was inspecting a Canadian Naval Ship way back when (probabaly just before unification of the Forces) and the Sea-man had dirty hands when he saluted her the British way, so the queen took his hand and tilted it sideways to what our current salute is now.


Put that one down as a nice urban legend. The RCN has always used the same salute as the RN which, as has been mentioned, is the same as we use today. Although, said pusser might just have been slack.

What I have noticed in Canada though, is a tendency for pointy-ended army types (usually Officers or SNCOS) to have the thumb held straight out from the hand, as opposed to tight against the hand, with elbow quite a bit lower than parallel to the ground.


----------



## Canuck_25

The RCMP stayed with the British salute. I had the opportunity to use it at RCMP camp    and yes, I did like it. Simple and effective.


----------



## onewingwonder

"Long way up, short way down". Come to think of it, always reminded me of something out of the Kama Sutra.


----------



## ctjj.stevenson

Bite your tongue .... 

That would have been what I would have said if I was one of the first members to answer this thread, and that it was the navy salute, but most people here have already stated that. 


However, I've been noticing many older/senior officers that don't salute correctily. I've seen an officer salute with his hand parallel (and over) the slant of the beret. During the change of command ceremony that made Gen Hiller the CDS, I believe that I've seen most of his fingers separted during the playing of O Canada. Okay, these are two examples of the army, however, I don't understand how come the older a person is, the worse the salute is. ??? I guess that I might understand when I become older. 

Good day!


----------



## Matt_Fisher

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just to add my 2 cents worth.....Our current salute, from our RCN traditions, is nothing at all like an "American" salute.   I do think that if you can't see the difference, then you haven't looked at it close enough.   I think that ours is much more professional and snappier in its' presentation.   I think the Americans have a very sloppy salute compared to ours.   If you think that our salute is sloppy also, then those presenting it are at fault for the sloppiness, not the salute itself.



You have obviously never seen a United States Marine pay respects to colors or a commissioned officer through execution of a hand salute then.


----------



## TCBF

"What I have noticed in Canada though, is a tendency for pointy-ended army types (usually Officers or SNCOS) to have the thumb held straight out from the hand, as opposed to tight against the hand, with elbow quite a bit lower than parallel to the ground."

No excuse for shoddy drill.  In CFRS Cornwallis, the recruits had to pass a saluting test, at the halt and on the march, before getting their 'cornflake' hat badges.  I have also taught officer cadets to salute with swords, which remains one of the most dangerous tasks I have ever performed in the military.

And....

Matt Fisher makes a good point: I have seen some very sharp American salutes.  The general degradation of Canadian dress and deportment over the last ten years should not encourage us to find fault with the militaries of other nations.  Lots of work to do at home, first.

Tom


----------



## the 48th regulator

> What I have noticed in Canada though, is a tendency for pointy-ended army types (usually Officers or SNCOS) to have the thumb held straight out from the hand, as opposed to tight against the hand, with elbow quite a bit lower than parallel to the ground.



odd, never did it myself, nor, seen anyone of my fellow rank use type of salute either.   

Guess I am hanging out with the right kinda saluting SNCO's and Pointy heads..


dileas

tess


----------



## rcd33b

Command and logistical issues aside, the unification of the services, the disposal of historical uniforms and traditions, the visit to Canada by Charles DeGaulle (vive le Quebec Libre), the introduction of the Maple Leaf flag and the domination of government by French-Canadian liberals all took Canada by storm at about the same time.   It was not only about efficiency of command, it was cultural transformation   in the guise of establishing a seperate Canadian identity.   It almost happened to the RCMP, as well.   Trudeau replaced the RCMP wording on car doors with the word POLICE, saying that the RCMP confused people as to whether the car was a police vehicle (as John Diefenbaker said, a black car with white doors and a red light and siren on the roof generally led people to the conclusion they were being followed by a police car, not a taxi cab).   He also spoke about doing away with Red Serge.   It was only because of public protests which greeted Trudeau in the West that the "Royal" in the RCMP was not done away with, both literally and figuratively.   Thank heavens the RCMP retained Red Serge and as of 1981 (when I left the Force) still taught dismounted British Cavalry Drill in Depot Division.

In case you couldn't tell, my vote is for the British style salute.   I know I was being rather subtle in my opinion.


----------



## onewingwonder

> odd, never did it myself, nor, seen anyone of my fellow rank use type of salute either.  Guess I am hanging out with the right kinda saluting SNCO's and Pointy heads..



48th,
my comments were not meant to be derogatory, as that salute does not look sloppy. Just wondering if it was a "style" which tended to be picked up over the years. I was thinking of it later on, and the picture in my mind actually showed that their hands tended to be tilted back slightly, exposing some palm. Thinking of that, it looks like a cross between the current salute and the old Brit salute. Wonder if it may have started as a "protest" post-unification.


----------



## McG

> *Hands up for Queen and country*
> Cadet salute no sign of creeping Americanization
> _The Edmonton Journal
> August 1, 2005
> 
> Re: "Eagle spreads its wings," by Bill Besse, Letters, July 25._
> 
> I am writing to clarify some misunderstandings that Bill Besse has regarding Sea Cadet (and Canadian Forces) drill and ceremonial procedures.
> 
> The salute that Besse observed the Sea Cadets use, which he refers to as a "U.S.-style salute" (with the palm of the hand facing downward) is, according to E.C. Russell's Customs and Traditions of the Canadian Forces (1980), the naval salute. It is the salute that was formerly used by the Royal Canadian Navy and has been used by the Canadian Forces since the unification of the three services (Navy, Army and Air Force) in 1968.
> 
> The form of salute that Besse would have known during his 25 years in the Royal Canadian Air Force, in which the palm of the hand is held flat and faces outward, was formerly used by both the Canadian Army and the RCAF before unification (and is still used by the RCMP). But it has not been used by the Canadian Forces for almost 40 years.
> 
> Both forms of salute are part of the wealth of customs and traditions that the Canadian military services inherited from their British counterparts, going back to the days when "the sun never set on the British Empire."
> 
> The fact that the U.S. military also use the naval salute shows that the Americans have also inherited many military customs and traditions from Britain.
> 
> So please rest assured, Bill Besse, that the form of salute which you saw the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets use at Commonwealth Stadium to honour their Queen and their country is not a sign of creeping Americanization but is, in fact, a time-honoured tradition inherited by the Canadian Forces (and the Canadian cadets) from the Royal Canadian Navy and, ultimately, from that most British of services, the Royal Navy.
> 
> Rick N. McKown,
> Lieutenant-Commander, Commandant, Regional Cadet Instructor School (Prairie)


----------



## Armoured Signaller

Here is a good one, why not go back to the 'old school' British salute from the days gone by of the palm of the hand facing toward the person being paid the compliment.  Always found a warm spot when my old RSM; who was around when Centurion was a rank and not a tank, used it when handing off the Regiment to the Adjudant.  <sigh> The good ol days.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think the CF has more important issues to fix other then how we salute....


----------



## paracowboy

how 'bout we just flash gang signs at each other, and carry on with the friggin' mission?

Beret colours, cap badges, uniform designs, forage caps, and now the salute...nice to realize that our priorities are firmly in place.


----------



## Edward Campbell

paracowboy said:
			
		

> how 'bout we just flash gang signs at each other, and carry on with the friggin' mission?
> 
> Beret colours, cap badges, uniform designs, forage caps, and now the salute...nice to realize that our priorities are firmly in place.



Keep up, young fellow!  We've moved way past that in the other thread; we're now on to regimental marches.


----------



## onecat

It's called forum, so anything game even how to salute. One can't always complain about under funding and frontal attacks. ;D

The one we don't need is bring back british traditions, we're a grown up country now we can create our own traditions.. .


----------



## Glorified Ape

paracowboy said:
			
		

> how 'bout we just flash gang signs at each other, and carry on with the friggin' mission?



HA! Awww, that had me in stitches. Gold... pure gold.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Armoured Signaller said:
			
		

> Here is a good one, why not go back to the 'old school' British salute from the days gone by of the palm of the hand facing toward the person being paid the compliment.   Always found a warm spot when my old RSM; who was around when Centurion was a rank and not a tank, used it when handing off the Regiment to the Adjudant.   <sigh> The good ol days.



Because we're not British would be my guess.

The good old days?  You mean the 1960s when the Canadian Militia was stood down from warfighting training and used only for civil defence duties?  When armoured regiments stopped training on tanks and trained with picks and shovels and gasmasks instead?

Or the good old days of the 1970s, when post-Vietnam fallout and a Prime Minister who loathed the military unified the military (not a bad idea in its self) and stripped everyone of all their traditions, leaving the remaining few to soldier on mostly ignored and mildly detested?

Or did you mean the 1950s when we used WW II vintage kit like bolt action rifles and Sten Guns  while our enemies trained with submachine guns and assault rifles?

Let's be careful what we wish for, eh.


----------



## Infanteer

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Or the good old days of the 1970s, when post-Vietnam fallout and a Prime Minister who loathed the military unified the military (not a bad idea in its self) and stripped everyone of all their traditions, leaving the remaining few to soldier on mostly ignored and mildly detested?



Unification was in the 60's under Pearson, not the 70's under Trudeau.


----------



## McG

"Civillianization" was under Trudeau.


----------



## Haggis

paracowboy said:
			
		

> how 'bout we just flash gang signs at each other, and carry on with the friggin' mission?



Yeah, great freakin' idea, Paracowboy.  I flashed a gang sign at my new OC and yelled, "Yo, holmes!"

He fired four rounds at me!!!

How was I supposed to know he was from Toronto???


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Unification was in the 60's under Pearson, not the 70's under Trudeau.



In theory but not in fact; some of the major corps (RCOC etc) soldiered on until after Trudeau took the helm; many of the new branches came into existence on Trudeau's watch.  The "old" uniforms and traditions also soldiered on into the 1970s in reserve units.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organization/structure.htm


----------



## Infanteer

The Act was signed into law in February of 1968, a few months before Trudeau came into power.  So in fact it was a law that came into effect (ie: no more RCN) in the 60's under Pearson.  Of course, 2 months later Trudeau would take over as Prime Minister so the implementation was, as you state, largely executed under his mandate.  However, as Douglas Bland's Chief's of Defence points out, the ideological battles between the military and DND was fought and won by the Unification Crowd in the 60's under Hellyer - the point is that you can't stick all the blame for the CF's problems on Trudeau.


----------



## Danjanou

Haggis said:
			
		

> Yeah, great freakin' idea, Paracowboy.   I flashed a gang sign at my new OC and yelled, "Yo, holmes!"
> 
> He fired four rounds at me!!!
> 
> How was I supposed to know he was from Toronto???



Lucky for you he received his small arms training in Jane/Finch or Regent Park. Missed all four times right. 8)


----------



## DG-41

> How was I supposed to know he was from Toronto???



He missed.

 :threat: ;D

DG


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The Act was signed into law in February of 1968, a few months before Trudeau came into power.   So in fact it was a law that came into effect (ie: no more RCN) in the 60's under Pearson.   Of course, 2 months later Trudeau would take over as Prime Minister so the implementation was, as you state, largely executed under his mandate.   However, as Douglas Bland's Chief's of Defence points out, the ideological battles between the military and DND was fought and won by the Unification Crowd in the 60's under Hellyer - the point is that you can't stick all the blame for the CF's problems on Trudeau.



I wasn't sticking any blame on anyone, I was pointing out the perils of calling soldiering in any specific era "the good old days".   The fact remains that to the soldier in the forces in the 1970s, that was when many first started seeing the real effects of unification.   I worked with an air force guy - regular force - who held on to his dress blues until the 1970s until he finally had to give in.   Couldn't care less for purposes of this thread whose idea it was or who argued what when, if you get my drift.   In many ways the 70s was a shitty time to be in the CF compared to today, full stop.   If you were in the RCOC or a reserve infantry regiment, Unification was one of many contributors to that because you wouldn't have seen the direct effects of it yet.   There were good things about it too - postings to Germany, training on the brand new Leopards, but I still say it would be better to be in today's CF than in the 70s.   Or 60s, especially for reservists who had to abandon their raison d'etre altogether.


----------



## Infanteer

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Couldn't care less for purposes of this thread whose idea it was or who argued what when, if you get my drift.



I was just picking shit out of the fly-paper and pointing out a minor error in the statement - it's a specialty I learned from a guy named "Michael Dorosh".


----------



## hooky

Sailors traditionally, had stained hands from handling ropes which were tarred etc. (as a form of preservative). Saluting with an open palm showing was ugly to say the least. I was told that we turned our hand inboard so as to present the back which understandably looked better. I notice that the AF and Army however do not do this correctly, if indeed it was taken from the senior service, and not from the yanks. It should be turned slightlyy inwards ( the Lcdr's correct comments notwithstanding) also please notice that sailors wear their decorations higher on the breast than either their ground or airbound bretheren.
I am not inclined to dismiss the orginator's comments out of hand either and suggest that we exercise some caution that we are not throwing out the trappings of one form of colonialsim for another!


----------



## onecat

It also depends on which branch your in.  The 50's and early 60's would of been the best time to be  in the RCN.  We still had carriers that had planes on them, and a  large and strong navy. Of once the cuts starts coming in, mid 60's the navy might be worst branch as it was losing so much so quickly and add to that losing your uniforms and your ranks.. not a happy time.  Air Force wise the 60's and 70's weren't too bad, most the kit was still new C-5's 101's, starfigthers even the herc's and seakings were less than 20's years old.  If your an Air Force guy right now would be the worst time to be in, with less 50 C-18's flying and talk of replacing them with unmanned one's.


----------



## RangerRay

Bring back the old Army salute!


----------



## Armymedic

I find that someone saying that we use one sort of salute instead of another a form of "Americanization".

Are we (as a Canadian society) that neurotic that we can't have or do anything that even remotely look American? Even when the US actually borrowed the idea from OUR ancestors?


----------



## Kirkhill

As a society Canada is that neurotic.

Hooky has the history of the salute correct. Though there was the additional note that as sailors at sea routinely went bare-headed they had no visors to lift nor hats to doff.  The traditional salute of sailors, farmers and civilians when bare-headed was to "tug the fore-lock" or reach up and grab ahold of your bangs and give a tug.  This gesture, obviously, was done with the palm in, just as lifting visors and hats would be done.  The Navy and the Yanks and virtually the entire western world all salute the same way with variations.

The British Army is the "odd man out" and the RAF, as an outgrowth of the Army's Royal Flying Corps and the Navy's Royal Naval Air Service, inherited the Army salute with the palm outward.


----------



## daniel h.

Armymedic said:
			
		

> I find that someone saying that we use one sort of salute instead of another a form of "Americanization".
> 
> Are we (as a Canadian society) that neurotic that we can't have or do anything that even remotely look American? Even when the US actually borrowed the idea from OUR ancestors?




The U.S. also borrowed the imperial system of inches, miles and gallons from Britain. Ironic that under Trudeau Canada abandoned this while the U.S. still has the imperial measurements.....We can thank the E.U. socialists in Brussels for that I guess.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

daniel h. said:
			
		

> The U.S. also borrowed the imperial system of inches, miles and gallons from Britain. Ironic that under Trudeau Canada abandoned this while the U.S. still has the imperial measurements.....We can thank the E.U. socialists in Brussels for that I guess.



Considering most of the world has gone to the metric system I don't see your point....I grew up when they were making the switch and I think metric makes more sense.


----------



## George Wallace

daniel h. said:
			
		

> The U.S. also borrowed the imperial system of inches, miles and gallons from Britain. Ironic that under Trudeau Canada abandoned this while the U.S. still has the imperial measurements.....We can thank the E.U. socialists in Brussels for that I guess.


In Name only.  An Imperial Gal. is larger than a US Gal.


----------



## Fishbone Jones




----------



## sweeney

Hello

Sorry for this basic question but people with a little knowledge are the worst. If you know nothing you aren't interested and if you know if all....you know it all and don't need to ask! I'm from over the water (UK) but love Canada. People were friendly. My Grandfather served in the RAF during WW2 at Moose Jaw and Swift Current and spoke of the lovely locals so I feel as if I'm almost an honourary Canadian! Finally to my question which is perhaps a little dull. I wonder why Canadian soldiers salute in the "USA" way. I know that although Canada is a proud independent nation some ill-informed people from abroad say the country is the same as the USA (nothing wrong with the USA either!). It seems that some of things that differentiate Canada from the US are those that are permanent constitutional/legal and inherited from the UK and France rather than the transient popular cultural matters which to be frank are very similar to the USA. To ill-informed Brits (me!) the accent, the cars etc are the same but you do notice the U in colour, the fact that officially you have leftenant (not lootenant) governors although I suspect most people say lootenant, subtle crowns and not big eagles on crests etc etc.

Sorry this has become a real epic. back to the question. I know the military was merged in the 60's and that it wasn't popular. Then the distinction was partially put back. Why didn't they bring back the much loved RCN/RCAF name and why don't soldiers salute as they used to with the open palm?

Thanks all.

Thanks!


----------



## Kirkhill

Hi sweeney, (or is that Todd)

Welcome aboard.

As you might gather from the thread that your topic has been attached to this has been the subject of previous discussion.  

The short answer is this:

With unification a decision had to be made as to how to salute.  Tarry hand in to hide the dirt (Royal Navy fashion) or open hand out to prove there were no concealed weapons and that the saluter had washed recently (Army fashion).  I am not sure which way the RAF salute they seem to just wave in the general direction of their caps.  Our commanders opted to reduce the requirement for washing by adopting the RN/RCN salute.  

No need has been found to change that recently.

Cheers


----------



## Michael Dorosh

sweeney said:
			
		

> the fact that officially you have leftenant (not lootenant) governors although I suspect most people say lootenant,



I suspect your suspicions are wrong, in this case, at least among those in the know here.  I'll add my welcome as well.


----------



## Spencer100

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/27/the-curious-history-of-the-salute/

In the National Post.

I did learn something from the comment section, that the CF at the time 1967 adopted the palm down salute or navy salute because the of the navy's senior service.

It is all so true that "Royal" Regiments were the ones that salute palm front?


----------



## Spencer100

Oh I see they threw the Navy...ops Maritime Command a bone by making everyone else use their salute and then put them in "green"


----------



## Eland2

sweeney said:
			
		

> Hello
> 
> Sorry for this basic question but people with a little knowledge are the worst. If you know nothing you aren't interested and if you know if all....you know it all and don't need to ask! I'm from over the water (UK) but love Canada. People were friendly. My Grandfather served in the RAF during WW2 at Moose Jaw and Swift Current and spoke of the lovely locals so I feel as if I'm almost an honourary Canadian! Finally to my question which is perhaps a little dull. I wonder why Canadian soldiers salute in the "USA" way. I know that although Canada is a proud independent nation some ill-informed people from abroad say the country is the same as the USA (nothing wrong with the USA either!). It seems that some of things that differentiate Canada from the US are those that are permanent constitutional/legal and inherited from the UK and France rather than the transient popular cultural matters which to be frank are very similar to the USA. To ill-informed Brits (me!) the accent, the cars etc are the same but you do notice the U in colour, the fact that officially you have leftenant (not lootenant) governors although I suspect most people say lootenant, subtle crowns and not big eagles on crests etc etc.
> 
> Sorry this has become a real epic. back to the question. I know the military was merged in the 60's and that it wasn't popular. Then the distinction was partially put back. Why didn't they bring back the much loved RCN/RCAF name and why don't soldiers salute as they used to with the open palm?
> 
> Thanks all.
> 
> Thanks!



As others have noted, the current method of saluting is the Navy salute. I sometimes wonder if the salute was changed not because the RCN was the senior service, but to placate Quebecers, who might have seen the former open-palm salute as 'too British' for their liking. 

Canadians would today probably be speaking with something like a British accent if it hadn't been for all the United Empire Loyalists fleeing the United States during the Revolutionary War and taking over the educational system in Canada and teaching Canadian children to speak with an American accent, and use American spelling and grammatical conventions. 

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation produced a documentary on this very subject. It's called Talking Canadian, and you can see it on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIoTpkM5N64 As you'll see in the documentary, the British exported many people to Canada in an effort to stop the spreading Americanization of Canadian culture, an effort that proved to be somewhat unsuccessful.

With the exceptions of the accents heard in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and New Brunswick to a lesser extent, the standard Canadian accent does sound a lot like a standard American accent. But if you stay in Canada for a while, and listen carefully, you will find there are differences between Canadian and American accents. Yes, they're subtle, but they are there. If anything, a standard Canadian accent will tend to sound fairly neutral and uninflected, devoid of regional influences, and this is one reason why major US TV networks have tended to hire Canadian news anchors and reporters in the past.


----------



## Canuck_Jock

As an addendum to the forgoing debate on the saluting tradition, the palm down version is properly titled the 'Naval salute' and the palm forward version the 'Military salute'. The former is a sloppy karate chop-style movement to the head, the latter a smart military drill movement indicating respect to the recipient. 

The Naval salute is generally used by the likes of the yanks, Greeks, Turks, Russians, etc. and a lot of other random countries with whom we have absolutely no historical connection with whatsoever. As a rule, it looks a bit goofy and tends to be used by armies that also think white shoe laces on black combat boots looks smart, but that is just my humble opinion...

The Military salute is retained by almost all Commonwealth armies and air forces and is indicative of the continuity of the British military ethos. It is also employed, interestingly, by the French armed forces, and by random individuals who wish to look smart (e.g. the late Yasser Arafat of the PLO).

There is certainly strong evidence that unification had 'kultur-kampf' against overt British traditions as a strong, secondary objective. The change of salute for the Cdn Army and RCAF is proof. The RCN (as with many other Commonwealth navies) had drill that was distinct than the other Services; it largely involved shuffling the leg around and not raising it off the ground (not a bad thing on a moving ship), different timings as well as the command 'Ho!' in lieu of 'Atten-sha!' Army drill was adopted for all Services with the exception of just one, single drill movement...the Military salute. Hmmm, what a coincidence.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> As an addendum to the forgoing debate on the saluting tradition, the palm down version is properly titled the 'Naval salute' and the palm forward version the 'Military salute'. The former is a sloppy karate chop-style movement to the head, the latter a smart military drill movement indicating respect to the recipient.
> 
> The Naval salute is generally used by the likes of the yanks, Greeks, Turks, Russians, etc. and a lot of other random countries with whom we have absolutely no historical connection with whatsoever. As a rule, it looks a bit goofy and tends to be used by armies that also think white shoe laces on black combat boots looks smart, but that is just my humble opinion...
> 
> The Military salute is retained by almost all Commonwealth armies and air forces and is indicative of the continuity of the British military ethos. It is also employed, interestingly, by the French armed forces, and by random individuals who wish to look smart (e.g. the late Yasser Arafat of the PLO).
> 
> There is certainly strong evidence that unification had 'kultur-kampf' against overt British traditions as a strong, secondary objective. The change of salute for the Cdn Army and RCAF is proof. The RCN (as with many other Commonwealth navies) had drill that was distinct than the other Services; it largely involved shuffling the leg around and not raising it off the ground (not a bad thing on a moving ship), different timings as well as the command 'Ho!' in lieu of 'Atten-sha!' Army drill was adopted for all Services with the exception of just one, single drill movement...the Military salute. Hmmm, what a coincidence.



A salute is just an outward show of respect for a higher rank.There's no need to change back to be more "British" and less "American". We have a Canadian salute, lets just leave it at that.


----------



## George Wallace

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ...... We have a Canadian salute, lets just leave it at that.



And it definitely is not "American".


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Wow  Reopening a discussion from 2009. :facepalm:

That's got to be some sort of record.


----------



## McG

Somebody merged an old thread to a new one of the same topic.  It is not that uncommon.


----------



## Infanteer

Is there an issue with reopening discussions?  I don't see it mentioned in the conduct guidelines.


----------



## mariomike

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is there an issue with reopening discussions?  I don't see it mentioned in the conduct guidelines.



I use this as a guideline. It was posted by a Moderator.

Necroposting - Not always a bad idea
http://army.ca/forums/threads/87278.0/nowap.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is there an issue with reopening discussions?  I don't see it mentioned in the conduct guidelines.



Certainly not. Just a simple observation on necro posting. I simply thought the amount of time was outstanding. IIRC, you've made somewhat of the same comments in the past.

Don't get your panties all twisted up trying to get something going where nothing exists.

Thanks for reminding me MCG, I'd forgotten about that.


----------



## daftandbarmy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And it definitely is not "American".



I have to agree. 

Although, having served in the British Army, I'm partial to the palm out 'Big Five Eff You Jimmy', it's pretty clear that we have a pretty sharp, palm down salute... as compared to the Septic Tanks' version. 

Which is just .. er... um...not right. ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Ah! Just use this one and be done with it …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al5bErqFrDQ


----------



## Spencer100

Winner!


----------



## McG

I like this one:
http://youtu.be/13FcmlAZEAc


----------



## geo

hmmm
we've gone bascvk to the distinctive uniforms
we've gone back to the distinctive element rank titles
we've "royaled" everything that can be royaled
One of trhe only thing still to be done, to dispose of liberal unification vestiges, would be to go back to the military salute......


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> ....... go back to the military salute......



Ummmm?   What kind of salute other than a "Military" do we have already?


----------



## cphansen

I have been thinking of the salute and would like to suggest that we use the pre unification salute when paying complements to our pre unification veterans. 
After all, it's the salute they were trained to use and using it would be a powerful symbol of respect and show we do take them seriously.
I understand there may be a certain reluctance to do this.


----------



## George Wallace

SherH2A said:
			
		

> I have been thinking of the salute and would like to suggest that we use the pre unification salute when paying complements to our pre unification veterans.
> After all, it's the salute they were trained to use and using it would be a powerful symbol of respect and show we do take them seriously.
> I understand there may be a certain reluctance to do this.



Carry on.

Don't forget to now salute Ladies as well.


----------



## medicineman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Don't forget to now salute Ladies as well.



The Navy still does when they come aboard...

MM


----------



## Old Sweat

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Don't forget to now salute Ladies as well.



I was instructed to do this during recruit training in the RCA Depot in 1958.


----------



## medicineman

I seem to remember it was a potential question for our saluting test in 1988 in Cornwallis.


----------



## geo

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ummmm?   What kind of salute other than a "Military" do we have already?


... Military salute (old preunification high five) vice naval salute (flat hand)


----------



## cphansen

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Carry on.
> 
> Don't forget to now salute Ladies as well.
> [/quote
> 
> That's always one of the fun perks.
> But if you're the one having respects paid to.
> I would prefer the drill movements from 1867
> My troop sergeant and corporal had spent the summer 1967 as part of a period drill guard.
> I had gotten them involved in a garden party for the officer's mess since I was responsible for the party, I came early
> Along with my young lady. So my two ncos decided they would surprise me with the salute from 1867.
> However the one who was most surprised was my. Young lady.  I had to explain their 1867 uniforms and drill
> 
> 
> B]


----------



## George Wallace

geo said:
			
		

> ... Military salute (old preunification high five) vice naval salute (flat hand)



So?  In your mind, the Navy is not military?  And really, I would find us 'high fiving' each other, other than on the Sports Field or in the Bar, as being very unprofessional and "Gangsta".


----------



## jollyjacktar

geo said:
			
		

> ... Military salute (old preunification high five) vice naval salute (flat hand)



You go on ahead without me.  I'll stick to what I know, thanks.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ummmm?   What kind of salute other than a "Military" do we have already?




It used to be normal to speak of "naval and military" as two quite separate things ... I'm not sure why: did the matelots dislike being thought of as _military_ or did the army (and later air force) folks not want to be confused with sailors?

Anyway, see, just for example:

     The CFB Equimalt Naval & Military Museum; and

     The Naval & Military Clubs in the UK and elsewhere.


----------



## ModlrMike

Maybe it comes from an historical perspective?

The Navy was an organ of the Crown, whereas the England's first standing army was an organ of Parliament. The Navy didn't see themselves as military, so much as explorers and protectors of sea routes.


----------



## Navy_Pete

geo said:
			
		

> hmmm
> we've gone bascvk to the distinctive uniforms
> we've gone back to the distinctive element rank titles
> we've "royaled" everything that can be royaled
> One of trhe only thing still to be done, to dispose of liberal unification vestiges, would be to go back to the military salute......



So arbitrarily change a drill movement that people have been doing their entire career that has become instinctual, just because?
 :facepalm:

Anyone that had learned the 1967 drill movement when they joined would have aged out years ago.  This is our own distinct salute, and when done properly, looks pretty sharp.

People in uniform that suggest these ideas seriously should be used to plug some of the many empty billets on top of their current jobs, as they clearly aren't busy enough. People that are retired suggesting these things should go play a round of golf and remember they are retired.

If folks want to change stuff that we do in the military, start with the new veterans charter, or the 17 approval gate procurement process, now with 50% more other government departments involved!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

+1 Navy_Pete.



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> now with 50% more other government departments involved!



That sounds like a soap commercial


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Additional: If Geo thinks the salute is now the only thing that distinguishes the current situation from the pre-unification one, he/she is sorely mistaken. And I don't think that any of us who do have some knowledge of those days want to go back there, now that all the bugs have been worked out and we made unification a system that works as well as any military system could.


----------



## TCM621

I have almost 20 years I  uniform and I could really care less about pre-unification salutes, buttons or ranks.  I joined the Canadian Armed Forces and like it just fine.  It has been damn near 50 years since unification,  leave it be and concentrate on more important things.


----------



## geo

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I have almost 20 years I  uniform and I could really care less about pre-unification salutes, buttons or ranks.  I joined the Canadian Armed Forces and like it just fine.  It has been damn near 50 years since unification,  leave it be and concentrate on more important things.


Too late.... Our masters have been tweaking things back for years, one small step at a time.

Note that I joined in 1970,  just after Mr Hillyer made his changes in 1968/1969.....
I served in CF greens and was quite happy with my environment thing.... 

Didn't need to do anything... But they did.

Not sure if changes are for the better


----------



## geo

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> So arbitrarily change a drill movement that people have been doing their entire career that has become instinctual, just because?
> :facepalm:
> 
> Anyone that had learned the 1967 drill movement when they joined would have aged out years ago.  This is our own distinct salute, and when done properly, looks pretty sharp.
> 
> People in uniform that suggest these ideas seriously should be used to plug some of the many empty billets on top of their current jobs, as they clearly aren't busy enough. People that are retired suggesting these things should go play a round of golf and remember they are retired.
> 
> If folks want to change stuff that we do in the military, start with the new veterans charter, or the 17 approval gate procurement process, now with 50% more other government departments involved!


I was not advocating changing the salute, I did not advocate for the changes in uniform, ranks & titles, nor for the re-royaling on the various corps that compose the three service branches. 
I proudly served for 40+ years and don't need anyone to work harder OR play golf


----------



## geo

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Additional: If Geo thinks the salute is now the only thing that distinguishes the current situation from the pre-unification one, he/she is sorely mistaken. And I don't think that any of us who do have some knowledge of those days want to go back there, now that all the bugs have been worked out and we made unification a system that works as well as any military system could.


Nope, not the only thing that distinguishes things from back then, from the present.... Just another small useless step sideways/backward/forward. & back again


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It used to be normal to speak of "naval and military" as two quite separate things ... I'm not sure why: did the matelots dislike being thought of as _military_ or did the army (and later air force) folks not want to be confused with sailors?
> 
> Anyway, see, just for example:
> 
> The CFB Equimalt Naval & Military Museum; and
> 
> The Naval & Military Clubs in the UK and elsewhere.



When I was in the Naval reserves it was explained to us that the term "Navy" initially meant any group of sailing ships, whether they were used for war or for merchant fleets. So in the early days of the nationalization of war the royal family paid for 2 arms of the fighting force only-the Navy, or the king/queen's personal group of ships (warfighting and merchant) and the artillery. So the term "military" was used to describe the armies of the time to which the Royal Artillery would support, or before that, the king would bankroll (nobility made up the knights and the counts provided the "private soldiers" to form the military) the the army. Because the 2 services were viewed differently the Navy (which contained non-warfighting ships) remained seperate from the Military for nomenclature.

So, that's the story we were told back in 2002.... has some logic but cannot confirm 100%


----------



## Monsoon

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> When I was in the Naval reserves it was explained to us that the term "Navy" initially meant any group of sailing ships, whether they were used for war or for merchant fleets. So in the early days of the nationalization of war the royal family paid for 2 arms of the fighting force only-the Navy, or the king/queen's personal group of ships (warfighting and merchant) and the artillery. So the term "military" was used to describe the armies of the time to which the Royal Artillery would support, or before that, the king would bankroll (nobility made up the knights and the counts provided the "private soldiers" to form the military) the the army. Because the 2 services were viewed differently the Navy (which contained non-warfighting ships) remained seperate from the Military for nomenclature.
> 
> So, that's the story we were told back in 2002.... has some logic but cannot confirm 100%


This convention is "the way it is" in the UK - "military" is army and air force (in recognition of its roots as the army's Royal Flying Corps) and "navy" is the RN and Fleet Air Arm. Hence the "Naval and Military Club" of London.


----------



## Pusser

The word, "military" comes from "militis," which is Latin for "soldier.  Throughout history, "military" has been used strictly to describe, soldiers, soldiering and land operations (and by extension, air operations as most modern air forces were born within armies).  However, English is an evolving language and usage tends to change over time (e.g. "gay" today has more meanings than it did during the "Gay (18)90s").  While it is certainly true that "naval" and "military" were distinctly different at one time, usage in the last few decades has changed that.  Thus, while it is still correct to make a distinction between the two, it is no longer incorrect not to.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I love a


----------



## Monsoon

Pusser said:
			
		

> The word, "military" comes from "militis," which is Latin for "soldier.  Throughout history, "military" has been used strictly to describe, soldiers, soldiering and land operations (and by extension, air operations as most modern air forces were born within armies).  However, English is an evolving language and usage tends to change over time (e.g. "gay" today has more meanings than it did during the "Gay (18)90s").  While it is certainly true that "naval" and "military" were distinctly different at one time, usage in the last few decades has changed that.  Thus, while it is still correct to make a distinction between the two, it is no longer incorrect not to.


Actually (and this is most definitely a tangent) my point is that in the UK the _common usage_ is the strict traditional definition: if you told a UK civilian that you were in the military, they would ask "army or air force?". Obviously, the North American usage is different and I have always described myself as being in "the military". Just an interesting(?) factoid.


----------

