kratz said:
Not to hijack the thread, but I wanted to add to the other posts re: distancing from the military uniform mentality out there. For the past few years, St John Ambulance volunteers are asking for more everyday friendly uniforms vice the black and white style they currently use. Despite more than 125 years of service to the community and a close association with the military, people are wanting to distance themselves from the military these days.
I do not agree with SJA or the cadet movements gradually wearing away their links and history from their origins. Sadly, this is what is happening in an attempt to appease and appeal to those who object.
There is a some confusion in this thread about "military uniforms" and what a uniform is. I think you have to go back to the very beginning to get a very basic understanding of how the whole thing has evolved in our country, and by that, I really mean in the British system from where Canada has evolved.
The British Army's uniform was really just an evolution of civilian clothing. The famous 'redcoat' was nothing more than that - a red coat adopted for field wear by His Majesty's troops in the field. Along the way, certain distinctions were adopted in order to better identify certain status - knots on the shoulder were worn by corporals, officers wore a metal gorget at the throat, and the lining of the coat was sewn in specific colours to identify the wearer as belonging to a certain regiment - which in the 1600 and 1700s was usually identified by the name of the colonel - Blakeney's Regiment or Pulham's Regiment or the like - The Green Howards and The Buffs came from the fact there were two Colonel Howards, one who had green linings sewn to the inside of their men's redcoats, and the other with buff linings.
At the very root of things, then, from the beginning, uniforms were just clothes. Civilian and military fashion has always gone hand in hand (by the way, Maclean's Magazine has an article this month announcing the new U.S. Army line of clothing at Sears - I'm not making it up - the RCMP had done something similar, apparently).
If you look at British officer's uniforms of World War I, they are very similar to civilian lounge suits of that period, with the exception of being in Khaki. For military campaigning, of course, they added the Sam Browne belt and various equipment, and later the shrapnel helmet, respirator, revolver, etc. But away from the front, with the breeches and puttees and riding boots removed, the officer might reasonably pass for a businessman, with necktie and collarpin in place. Certainly shirts continued to be made by first line firms on Saville Row for officers.
Things changed in World War II as military dress became utilitarian - but then, civilian fashion did also. Jean jackets were inspired by the battle jackets of World War II, and the US Army inspired the world's militaries with a range of comfortable combat clothing in cotton duck. The Italians were the first to make heavy use of camouflage printed material; the Germans later became famous for it. Today the fad continues and everyone uses camouflage material - you can't walk through a shopping mall without seeing it in the trendiest clothing stores. Again - civilian fashion and military styles go hand in hand. Uniforms are really just clothes.
The "demilitarization" of uniforms has been observed in every organization in Canada - most notably the prison service, but also Canada Post, local police services, etc. Sometimes the move has been for practical reasons - rubber soled running shoes replace stiff leather boots which are better for delivering mail or chasing "perps" in. Hats have been disappearing from men's civilian fashions since at least the 1970s. Perhaps Christopher Pike is to blame; his hat is clearly visible on his television set in his quarters - but he's never seen wearing it. I doubt the answer really lies there though.
There should be no alarm when military uniform changes to match the changing norms of civilian fashion; the two have always been closely linked, one inspiring the other. Clothes may not make the man, but the uniform does act as a recruiting tool. I can understand the argument that a 'less aggressive' uniform is a 'less attractive' uniform, but there is also the danger of appearing outdated - cadet corps still wearing woolen battle jackets may appeal to some as a paean to tradition, but to most it would come off as either a fashion disaster or worse, child abuse. If the issue gas spectacles are referred to as birth control devices, there reaches a point also at which point outdated uniforms become a deterrent to recruiting also. In the natural order of things, uniforms evolve, in the civilian world as in the military world, and the two usually go hand in hand.
) in Sussex, NB during his Royal Visit. That was as a Cadet though. Then there was the school side of 'me'. I got posted to Gagetown upon my return from Op Apollo in Oct 2003 to stand up MASOP at this location. In 2004, when we launched Haiti, I got double hatted as the IC Clothing because their Sgt & MCpl both launched with 2RCR. While giving my very first O Group to those Clothing Stores personnel, in walked the Det Comd of the RCSU(A) Det Gagetown ... Capt P. D. ... I recognized him immediately as the CO of 2647 from 21 years before. 
