Why Did Canada Change Our Salute

[George Wallace]

... 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]

... 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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.