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.

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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.