What the US Navy means by “Union Jack” is the blue field with the 50 stars. “Union” here doesn’t refer to the United Kingdom, but rather the Union of the United States of America. During my tenure aboard the USS INDEPENDENCE, that ship became the oldest operating warship (excluding the USS CONSTITUTION) in the US fleet and thus flew the First Navy Jack instead of the Union Jack.
Of course, had “Reference A” and “Reference B” (not to mention the originator and subject line of the message) not been deleted, you’d probably have gotten this info already.
Oh, you’re giving the Navy a bit too much credit on the communications angle. I have the entire communique in my inbox. Nowhere does it say anything like what you described.
Well, having retired in the not so distant past as a Personnelman First Class, I’m fully aware that such a “communique” has no force whatsoever unless it’s either a NAVADMIN, ALNAV, or message from the SECDEF or the President.
How about posting the entire thing here? Or you can check out the US Navy Regulations available as a link from http://bupers.navy.mil which is quite likely what “TO SECTION 1258 OF REF B” is part of.
The “Union Jack” (the UK one) isn’t called that in any official capacity. It’s properly referred to as the Union Flag, “Union Jack” is a nickname, akin to “Old Glory”.
The Roral Navy don’t fly the Union Flag, but the White Ensign (which incorporates it).
I’m intrigued to find out the USA has a “Union Jack” as well.
Of course some people might think it ironic to commemorate the “War against terrorism” by flying a flag aimed against the forces of the only nation guaranteed to fight along side you in any actual war.
Only some people would find that ironic of course.
That message says exactly what I described, JC. For one thing, it’s a NAVADMIN message. For another, it references both the Secretary of the Navy instruction (although they did fail to indicate which particular instruction as the Navy uses a numerical Standard Subject Indicator Code (SSIC)) and the Navy Regulation Manual.
Also for your edification, from Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary:
&
So, you will see that what I said above is exactly what the “communique” (actually Navy Message Traffic) says.
Anyhoo, why are you being so contentious about it? The United Kingdom is not the only country on this planet composed as a union. There are, after all, Mexico and the United States of America, to name two others.
Actually, “contentious” is the wrong word. For some odd reason, I completely forgot the connotation of the thing. Basically, I meant “Why can’t you accept what’s presented when it’s backed up?” I’m sure there’s a nicer way to say that but I can’t think of it. Anyway, I mean it in the nicer way to say it (whatever that way is).
Well, I didn’t think I was disputing it. I was just goggling at the Navy’s use of a term, while being technically correct, that is vastly open to misinterpretation. I don’t think there’s any doubt that in popular parlance the phrase ‘union jack’ is identified with one flag and one nation. After all, you could refer to the american flag as the ‘stars and bars’ but I don’t think you’d be communicating properly.
In popular parlance, you’re right. But in the communication in question, the Navy was employing a phrase for a specific meaning that its own people understand in context. Any field has some specialised terms and language – you can call it “jargon” or “terms of art” – that is useful and necessary in context.
To a seaman, a “jack” is a flag flown from the jackstaff of a ship and the only union jack people associated with the U.S. Navy have ever flown from their own ships is the American union jack, not the British Union Jack (which is not a jack). So in this context, it was perfectly correct to use the term “union jack” in this manner.
I just wanted to pipe in and add that when I saw the message excerpt, I knew exactly what the message was referring to (that is, the blue pennant with 50 stars).
It is a jack with the union of the U.S. flag on it. I seriously doubt any U.S. sailor would wonder for which country they were to display the union of.
BTW, the U.S. flag is always referred to as the “National Ensign.” (Not to be confused with the U.S. Navy officer rank of ensign.) Again, the nation in question is understood.
No sweat, JC. Here’s another interesting tidbit for you: Navy ships don’t have ganglplanks. We Sailors[sup]*[/sup] refer to the thing you walk on to get from the pier to the ship and vice versa as the ship’s brow.
Regarding “Stars and Bars”: Nah, I think it’s pretty well known that’s the affectionate title of the Confederate flag. It does raise an interesting question in my mind: What exactly is the cut off point before a stripe becomes so wide that it’s referred to as a bar? (A similar question was posed by my Linguistics teacher in class this morning.)
[sup]*[/sup]robby: Sometime back in the 1980s, the SecDef issued a directive that Soldier, Sailor, and Airman would all be capitalized as Marine always has been. Of course, feel free to disregard.
I was all ready to say mea culpa, but have decided not to, for several reasons.
First of all, I seem to recall this campaign to get folks to capitalize “sailor” was far more recent than the 1980s. It had to have been within the last five years–it’s far too polically correct for the 80s.
Second of all, I don’t believe it was ever a directive.
Third, IMHO, it always smacked of pandering by the brass to our hard-working enlisted men. (i.e. “If we capitalize “Sailor”, they won’t notice they’re being dumped on.”) Similarly, it also smacks of Marine Corps envy.
But finally, I see no evidence that capitalization usage has ever officially changed. My admittedly brief web research came up with:
In any event, notwithstanding my feelings on the matter, I certainly intended no disrespect to any sailor or Sailor who may have been offended by my failure to capitalize the term.
Hey, robby, no offense intended nor taken. I can tell you that the campaign (hey, maybe it was the SecNav & not the SecDef) was before I transferred to Japan. That event happened near the end of 1990. IIRC, it was caused by some hullaboo about the papers, such as the Army Times and the Navy Times, using AP style abbreviations for the military ranks.
Oh, and I completely agree with you that the modus operandi is to dump on the Enlisted Member, especially on the single Enlisted Member.
There are different types of directives: regulations, instructions, orders, ALNAV, ALMAR, etc.