Return to Index  

Re: Relevance

July 25 2011 at 6:27 PM
Alex Itenson 


Response to Relevance

Ah .... but we've come a long way from the days when Canadian Army nomenclature was soooo English, like "petrol, tin, caravan, lorry, etc.," And for those of us who were around in the 1950s and 1960s, that wasn't very long ago. You don't have to go as far back as WW2 and Korea. We were very, very English in our military terminology.
We're much more "Canadian" now but WTF, more home-grown to those Canadians who have an insecurity complex or insecure national identity, often means more overpowering American influence. However, a hundred years after WW1, it's a move in the right direction. We're much closer to the Americans now than we were in 1914, and much farther from the English, so what's so very wrong about us being able to understand each other? What's so wrong with common Canadian/American terminology?

Take a good look at some of the recent photos of Canadian soldiers in combat, and pray tell whether they look so very different from our American counterparts. Then look at photos of the Brits. If you add sound into the mix and listen to the accents ....... it's another ballgame, isn't it?

 
 Respond to this message   
Responses

canadiansoldiers.com