A Canadian White Ensign proposal

[dapaterson]

I guess I did omit the Greek philanderer from the mix.

 

[Neill McKay]

I guess I did omit the Greek philanderer from the mix.

All coming together now.

So, you've managed to break your enrolment oath and the Code of Service Discipline in one afternoon, from the comfort and safety of anonymity.  That's pretty disappointing.

 

[FSTO]

I would sooner see new ships be commissioned then worry about what our naval jack is.

We'll be wearing CADPAT at sea before we see new ships.

 

[Scott]

Is this another style/name debate?

Oh! It's BOTH this time

Jesus frigging wept.

 

[Gorgo]

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.

Does anyone know why the Maritime Command flag was made a jack in lieu of an ensign?  The Air Force still has their sky blue ensign using the Maple Leaf flag in the canton, so why not make the MARCOM flag that?

 

[Ex-SHAD]

Though this is an interesting proposal, I have to wonder if the issue is already a little passé for most.

Now admittedly, there still are members of the Canadian Forces who long for the old days of White Ensigns, Square rig etc. but when it comes down to it does restoring an ensign or bringing back the executive curl or any other superficial change, help bring back the old RCN?

For most the Royal Canadian Navy was put on life support in 1965 and passed away in 1968. Now admittedly, Hellyer’s new navy definitely wasn’t the right approach and it did do untold amounts of damage to both moral and the fleet at large, but unification is long past and though we definitely should never forgot the courage of the men that came before us, can we forever be consumed by the past?

Instead of focusing on whether or not we need the White Ensign back, we should instead focus on more pressing issues, such as pay, moral, recruitment and equipment. Once those issues are resolved, then by all means the debate about restoring the Navy’s heritage should be brought to the forefront.

 

[jollyjacktar]

We'll be wearing CADPAT at sea before we see new ships.

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.

 

[Halifax Tar]

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.

100 years of tradition unimpeded by progress!

 

[jollyjacktar]

If I have to choose between a new ship and slowing some tradition, I'll go for a ship.  Especially after seeing Preserver following her "refit".

 

[Michael OLeary]

Once those issues are resolved, then by all means the debate about restoring the Navy’s heritage should be brought to the forefront.

You can't "restore" heritage. Heritage simply exists, what we can change is the attitude we have towards it. Each day we create or sustain the traditions that the service members of tomorrow will look upon as their "heritage."  We can choose to be proud what went before us, that which was created and maintained by our predecessors. We can also choose to be proud of what we have and do today, developing and maintaining that pride so that our own period of service will be looked back upon as equally worthy. Or we can disdain what we do today, pretending that there were "good old days" that were more worthy of our respect than our own service. But even if we do that, dressing up today's service in yesterday's trappings doesn't make us better, it simply shows that we have given up trying to be proud of who we are and what we are doing. Every time someone wants to "restore" heritage they are also saying that something we have, and that many are serving under proudly, isn't worth keeping and should be swept away, replaced by an old version that few remember or will understand why such a change is suddenly "necessary."

While some think they are seeking to restore pride of service by recreating versions of flags and uniforms of the 1940s or 1960s, no-one is looking to restore the pay, (lack of) benefits, living conditions, discipline or service lifestyle. Yet all of those established the conditions under which that much vaunted ship of heritage was laid and launched by those celebrated generations that went before us. Dress doesn't make the man - nor will changing a flag or any other simple attribute suddenly make us better than we are capable of achieving without it. We can be proud of the trappings of our service, but those trappings don't spontaneously generate that pride of service. We have to earn it ourselves, believe in it ourselves, and maintain it ourselves. The Second World War Canadian Navy (or Army or Air Force) didn't achieve excellence because of what flags they flew, they earned it by doing. Let us remember that the CF has been very busy the last few decades, building heritage that doesn't deserve to be swept away or denigrated, not even by subtle suggestions that some of the trappings of our service are less worthy than that which went before.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Bravo, Michael!

The Canadian Navy of 2011, the one in which my son serves, is proportionately bigger and, qualitatively, much, much better than the one in which my father served in the 1920s and 1930s. Although the RCN got very big in the 1940s it was not, according to the history I have read, as good as today's Navy in terms of seamanship and tactical skill.

All of the CF has built and is, right now, still building a fine heritage - in operations at sea, on land and in the air - of which we can all be proud today and which future generations will honour. By all means fiddle at the edges by restoring the executive curl and, if the Navy wishes, swapping the flags at the blunt and pointy ends of the boats, but we can honour the men who fought and died in our bigger wars without having to 'restore' things to a pale imitation of an earlier age.

 

                        Australian White Ensign                                                                  New Zealand White Ensign                                                                                      Canadian Navy Jack (today)

Canadian White Ensign (World War II)

 

[Sailorwest]

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?

Perhaps people don't get it. The unification of the CF into a common rank and uniform, with the doing away of terms like Royal (well for the navy and air force only) was not done to develop and enhance morale for a service going forward. It wasn't to build and develop new traditions. Its only intent was to try and distance Canada and its military from its historical connection with Great Britain. Unification was divisive and abusive towards the people who had served in uniform when it occurred and resulted in huge numbers of members releasing (perhaps another intent of the process).

What is being proposed by many is to right a horrible wrong. It is not to suggest that the people who wore those crappy uniforms did not do their jobs well or serve the country any less but to recognize that Canada is still a part of the Commonwealth, with a Queen as a head of state and therefore the term Royal is entirely appropriate and should be significantly important in the description of the service. Why the Army was allowed to retain the term in so many of its regimental organizations is beyond me.  Perhaps it was because the revolt that would have occured at those regiments would have actually resulted in a complete destruction of the Army as a viable organization.

I am interested in knowing what traditions have been established for those of us in a dark blue uniform that people feel are important and that they value going into the future. Anything that I associate with tradition dates from well before 1965 but maybe I'm just being cynical.

 

[Acer Syrup]

Well said Mikey O... That nailed my feelings right on the head.

 

[a_majoor]

Perhaps a bit of a sidebar here, but the reason the Navy and Airforce are "Royal" is they are for the external defense of the realm and thus the perogative of the Crown. The Army belongs to Parliament after Charles I used it to abuse and supress his subjects, so there is no "Royal" Army. The Royal warrent can be awarded to units for outstanding service (or in the old days, because the Colonel could pay a big bribe to the Crown), but this does not change the relationship between the military and Parliament. Even the "Household" troops are not under the direct control of the Crown.

Of course, the relationships hammered out after the English Civil War are no longer in effect (the entire military establishment is under control of Parliament, and the Crown is now a symbolic office), so the loss of "Royal" in Canadian usage is more symbolic as well. We have an intersting thread in Canadian Politics where Edward Campbell has suggested after HRH Queen Elizabeth passes away we create a vacant "Canadian" throne and elect a Governor General as Head of State in a sort of Regency arrangement (I hope I got that right). If that ever comes to pass there will have to be new traditions created to reflect the new arrangements of State.

 

[Pusser]

I would like to add my kudos to Michael's comments as well.  There is a great deal of wisdom there.  Heritage is not a policy statement.  It is an evolution and Canadians of all sorts (sailors and those who wish they were  ) have every right to be proud of what our navy is today and from whence it came.  Unfortunately, our road to this point has not been been entirely evolutionary. 

The RCN was the smallest of the three services at the point of unification and was overwhelmed in the process.  As a result, it also lost the most in terms of heritage.  I would argue that our heritage not only ceased to evolve for a moment, but that it was effectively stolen from us.  We had just lost our flags and then we lost our uniforms and rank titles.  The most galling part was that these particular things did not solve any problems.  They were simply the musings of a whack-job (and his collaborators) who was trying to score political points on his quest to become prime minister.  A failure on all counts!  Don't get me wrong, as much as I hate what happened to our heritage, I will still argue that unification did a lot of good things for the Navy and the CF as a whole.  The CF treats its members better than the RCN did.  If you talk to some of the old guys, who were in the RCN at the time (especially the NCMs), they will tell you that the shift to better treatment was almost instantaneous.  However, I don't think you'll find many who were thrilled with the green uniform or being called "Sergeant." 

Fortunately, due to the efforts of many, the heritage evolution kicked in again fairly quickly and we have seen the reintroduction of things we never should have lost (e.g. rank titles, a uniform of the proper colour, the executive curl (I have to mention that because I love it!)) and the introduction of new things that continue to build our heritage (e.g. our new blue uniforms, our new jack, new badges, etc).

As I said before, heritage is an evolutionary process and it is necessary to let it evolve.  Even the RN of today is very different to that of Nelson's day, but the differences are not confined to technology.  However, problems arise when external influences seek to steal our heritage without a second thought to it's importance.

I would like to see a distinct ensign for the Navy, but that's just my personal opinion and I'm not losing any sleep over it.  I would support it, but I'm not going to put an effort into it.

 

[57Chevy]

You can't "restore" heritage. Heritage simply exists........

100%
That was well worth the read and could easily stand as an example of what heritage is all about no matter the service.

Those things past should remain in their state with the exception of being brought forward for
exposition and the remembrance thereof. Military personnel and people from all walks of life take great pride in the preservation of their heritage. Lets keep it that way.

 

[Michael OLeary]

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?

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.

 

[Pusser]

The Navy isn't what it used to be and never was. - Old sailor's proverb.

This isn't to say, however, that you can't look to the past in order to form the future.  We don't sacrifice goats on the quarterdeck anymore, because that is no longer appropriate, but that doesn't mean we stop showing reverance to the quarterdeck as a mark of respect to the ship and the service.

 

[FSTO]

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.

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?

 

[Michael OLeary]

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?

You allude to changes made on whim. I would suggest that, in order to convince those being subjected to the change that it it a worthy evolution, that a rationale with more basis than "because it looks more like what we used to have" would be essential to any change, otherwise it merely creates more potential for bitterness among the current and future generations who must endure it. If the only context used to justify a change is embedded in the past, and based on bitter perceptions of something that happened years before most serving members were born, where is the foundation for them to understand its purpose, and to willingly carry it forward with pride? If you would fault the changes made at Unification because they are perceived to be the decisions of one man foisted upon others, why would you now promote change without justification (in a current context) on a new generation?

By all means promote change - but change in moving forward is something different from trying to revert to something that was, and will be equally unfamiliar to todays young service member.  The energy needs to be put into convincing all that any change is a move forward, not a regression. It should be motivated by the desire to build pride, not to wipe out an era in our history, no matter how much we might dislike elements of it.