By Pat Bryden, Army History and Heritage...... :not-again:
So who is that guy? I heard his name attached to the return of British ranks and to the last new flag of two years ago. Is he an EX-something with a staff and no responsibility but to reinvent the aesthetic?
Army G1 Heritage as a Public Servant.
So, I would guess that makes him an EX-01 or EX-02 with a staff of some size? How much does that consume in the way of SWE, PYs and the attention of senior committees and generals? Where we annually return large sums of Vote 5 Capital, this fashion and bling organization represents an actual operational requirement not staffed, not procured, and not implemented.
I suspect the change has more to do with either an individual's (or individuals') fetish for our colonial roots and a move back toward the Red Ensign, or (and more likely) an attempt to connect with Red Fridays (and potentially usurp that to an Army thing as opposed to a support for all CAF members). Red seemed to start taking more prominence in Army identity while the Conservatives were still in office, including the colour taking a position of prominence in recent past Army Run participant shirts.
I actually prefer the look of the previous flag, I don't think the maple leaf looks very professional. Also maybe I am just a simple soldier but can someone explain to me how this flag does this "reinforcing the link between the brave veterans of Afghanistan and the Cold War period with the heroes of First and Second World Wars and Korea".
Maybe it is not about the soldiers. Maybe it is about a public perception, or simply the whims of someone in Ottawa. I don't know. But just as the info graphic ignores that we have had a new flag for two years (because we would look silly replacing the flag again so soon), it also ignores the flag that we had during the Second World War (because the look of that flag does not really support this newest change at all). An argument could be made that the new flag we are replacing has more connection to the Second World War than the newer flag we are getting.
But the info graphic is brought to us by the same organization that produced a PowerPoint lecture explaining how British rank improved interoperability with the US Army because both systems used a single "superior national symbol" to show the rank of major (while conveniently neglecting to mention that there was actually nothing common between UK and US systems). The truth will be presented only to the extent as will justify the conclusion.
Chris Pook said:
Given that the Canadian Army flag was the Red Ensign, ie the Canadian national flag up until 1968, then shouldn't the Canadian Army flag just be the current Canadian national flag?
So, something more RMC like with an Army badge on a field of white between two fields of red? Maybe that will be next ... and to be more like the national flag, shouldn't we go back to a single leaf?