- Reaction score
- 26,878
- Points
- 1,090
I guess I did omit the Greek philanderer from the mix.
dapaterson said:I guess I did omit the Greek philanderer from the mix.
Ex-Dragoon said:I would sooner see new ships be commissioned then worry about what our naval jack is.
Pusser said:Prior to 1965, Canada followed Tradition #1, with a variation. We used the White Ensign as an ensign and the Canadian Blue Ensign a jack (since we technically didn't have a national flag). Australia and New Zealand used the White Ensign as well and their national flags (which were blue ensigns anyway) as jacks. The Canadian Red Ensign was only used by merchant ships. In the early 1960s foreign policy in the Commonwealth Realms (i.e. those that have the Queen as Head of State) began to diverge to the point where it became a concern that one Realm would be involved in a conflict that the other Realms were not, yet their warships all wore the same ensign (e.g. Australia was a combattant in Viet Nam, whereas Canada and the UK were not). This was one of the driving factors in getting a (new) national flag for Canada and new White Ensigns for Australia and New Zealand. With the introduction of the Maple Leaf flag, canadian warships used the same flag for both the ensign and the jack (complete with jokes that Canadian ships didn't know if they were coming or going ;D). The Maritime Command Jack was, therefore, introduced in 1973ish. for whatever reason, we chose to follow Tradition #2 at that point.
(snip)
Although I am intrigued by this proposal for a new Canadian ensign, I think the best we could ever hope for would be a swapping of the current ensign and jack.
FSTO said:We'll be wearing CADPAT at sea before we see new ships.
jollyjacktar said:I fear you might be right on that. And as such, I am with Ex-D and Ex-S in that I would prefer to see new ships and other more pressing concerns before a new ensign. We have put enough time and energy towards bells and whistles already (SSI, CNC pins, E-curl). While pretty, they don't float worth a damn and a new ensign won't either.
Ex-SHAD said:Once those issues are resolved, then by all means the debate about restoring the Navy’s heritage should be brought to the forefront.
100%Michael O'Leary said:You can't "restore" heritage. Heritage simply exists........
Sailorwest said:Clearly it's time we reverted to the 'Historically important' period between 1968 an 1988 and reacquire our CF green uniforms and traditional and happy CF rank structure of corporal, sergeant, major and colonel. Why give any consideration to the history and tradition of a service that existed prior to that. Many of us joined while 'proudly' wearing the glorious green uniform and we need to revert back to it. The Maritime Command of 1968 had lots of newer ships with other new ships being built and so everyone was happy, happy at the time, right?
Michael O'Leary said:The point, which you took such pains to point out that you missed, is that there are not just two choices. We are not limited to a decision between "change nothing" and "return to an earlier era." There is always the third option of moving forward with change, justifying it within the context of current need and projecting how it will improve the organizational foundation for further evolution and growth. But to argue for change on the sole basis that things were better "before now" is a flawed assumption. If you presume there is no pride in current service (because of Unification or whatever you choose to blame for your dissatisfaction), then changing the window dressing will not change the attitudes you have already allowed to permeate the organization. In this, as in so many things, you can't go home again.
FSTO said:So using your logic a futrue MND could come in and change our DEU's, Ensign and name to whatever he/she wants. It all could be somewhat similar or can be radically different to what was here before but since it would be portrayed as an improvement you would be okay with it?