Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Military brat (U.S. subculture) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Good articles Military brat (U.S. subculture) (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
More information...
 This article is currently undergoing an A-Class review.
PEER This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on November 1, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
  • /Archive 1 Primarily older material before efforts to make this an FA.
  • /Archive 2 Primarily discussion around the withdrawn FAC.

Contents

[edit] BRAT ACRONYMN

Since BRAT has no official meaning, I thought it would be nice to have a place where people could post the variations that they've heard of someplace. These acronymn's don't belong in the main article and don't warrant their own page, thus I'm creating a space here at the top of the talk page. Please do not put crude or offensive variations here:Balloonman 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"British Regiment Attached Travelers"
"Born Rough And Tough."
"Born Raised And Trapped."


[edit] Defending the Brat

Ok, here is a question for you all (namely Sandy,) do you think this article needs a new section elaborating upon the usage of the term "Brat." EG a full section looking at the history of the term and the acceptance in the military community?Balloonman 19:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That might be a way to introduce the article, in terms of reorganization. (I archived the old nom - when you resubmit to FAC, you should link to it.) Sandy (Talk) 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't directed really at me, but I think that if you can actually fill up a section on that, that it would answer a lot of questions and concerns. We grew up with the term and don't give it a second thought, but others might be confused as to why it's used and how and when it applies, more than what is laid out in the article. Oh, and it's the 65th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. Happy PH Day. --ScreaminEagle 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic Reclamation

I think I have it. Brat undoubtably was used negatively towards military brats years and years ago, but there is a term used to discuss how groups reclaim those terms that are used against them. Linguistic Reclamation, we have redefined the term so that we have taken control over it... kind of like how Queer/Nigger/Gay/Nerd/Geek and many other words aren't insults (when used in the proper context.) Some words have long lost their insulting meaning,

"To reclaim literally means to make one’s own, to regain, retrieve, recover, repossess, salvage, or rescue. We reclaim terms, words, specific phrases, so that we refashion their meanings to correspond to our particular goals, we rescue or salvage them from their earlier, often derogatory, meanings, we repossess them so that we make them our own, so that their meanings have the authority of our ownership behind them. Thus, the immediate target of “reclamation” is language. However, language alone is not the ultimate goal of reclamation—linguistic reclamation is usually a tool for disarming the power of a dominant group to control one’s own and others’ views of oneself. The point, as Lynne Tirrell says, is to reshape the social landscape. So in the end, by taking control over a term that has been used against oneself and one’s group, one takes greater control over one’s self-image, self-conception, or self-understanding, and limits the ability of others to categorize oneself or one’s group in a totalizing way." [1] see also [2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 06:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Some names that were originally insults, but were later adopted by the group they were intended to insult: Chicano, Whig, Tory, Quaker, dude, Cowboy, Tar Heels, Anabaptist, Sooner, Methodist, Yankee, and Mormon.

[edit] Images

Here is an image in the public domain that I think could flesh out the photos for this article, military brats on a ship for family day.[3] Military families overseas would be good, also base housing photographs, and an image of the commisary PX, etc., complex on a base, and maybe a military school. Here's a picture of a female servicemember helping her son at a base school.[4] And its source site, as I only assume it is in PD.[5] The ribbon cutting honor guard for base housing.[6] Here's one with a whole group waiting for the return of their servicemembers.[7] & [8] Military family housing destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.[9] & [10] I would like to see a bit more variety incorporated into the images. [11] & [12] [13] & [14] KP Botany 02:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't see these pictures... I'll take a look at them alter and possibly add some!!!Balloonman 21:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PubMed Research

Digging up all the PMID abstracts I can find on military families (if you can give me the names of the authors, or the titles of the papers, quoted by Wertsch, I can find the studies) - based on what comes up, apparently child abuse is some kind of an issue (??) - sometimes you can get the full text for a fee:

From Google Scholar (you can get some of these for a fee):

A lot of this doesn't look helpful, but while searching for info, I realized that the Wertsh work is pretty old - a 1991 publication would be based on studies done in the 80s ?? Sandy (Talk) 02:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks I'll have to figure out how to get some of these... perhaps through the library? Child abuse and alcoholism are two factors that Wertsch talked about, but that I couldn't find any other sources for... The only place where I saw either one of those mentioned was in Wertsch... I didn't even see it discussed in non-authoritative sources, but I personally believe both are legitimate factors. Wertsch is pretty old, but she is still highly regarded. I used her book primarily for historical facts or where the issues have been fairly well established.Balloonman 04:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
For research in sociology, however, 15 years is not as old as research in medical sciences or other areas, because the researchers look at long term impacts. Newer sources, yes, add, but don't totally dismiss older sources, especially books by respected researchers. KP Botany 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
She's not a researcher, but rather an author... who has garnered a lot of respect in the field. Her book is highly quoted and referenced in the literature that I've seen, but it would be stretch to say "reasearcher." She interviewed a number of people and did a fair amount of research into the subject before writing her book, but it is not a scientific "research."Balloonman 19:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

These were very helpful... and thanx outriggr for getting me some of themBalloonman 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse in Military Families

Hey there Sandy, I'm reading through some of the literature that you pointed me to... and I probably will not have a section on Abuse. Apparently, it is an area with a lot of debate. Some studies show higher levels of abuse and others lower levels. The results are very mixed with little being known definatively. To quote the Rentz article, "Studies comparing military and nonmilitary families in terms of child maltreatment or spouse abuse show mixed results, with some reporting higher rates in the military and others finding lower rates in the military." 94 This coincides with what I observed elsewhere.Balloonman 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you mention the issue though? If there's that much research, conclusive or not, it's apparently an issue in the military that readers may want clarification on. –Outriggr § 01:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
already done... I decided to mention it for the exact reason you brought it... but I'm going to expand the section some more.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman (talk • contribs) 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] New form

I like this better now, espcially the linguistic part. I'd be surprised if it didn't make FA. Rlevse 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's the goal. I think it could have made it to FA under the old version, but with the explicit change to focus on US brats, some observations that I made, and advice from Sandy/Outriggr I decided to revamp it some. I'm not a believer in significant revisions while in FAC status. Balloonman 15:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied comments from ScreamingEagle's talk page RE request for review

Hey There Screamin, I just finished my major revisions on the article... significantly more coverage of the Post-Cold War Brat... and I think a little better organized. I was hoping that you could take a look at it and let me know what you think? I know the intro needs to be expanded, but that was going to be my last thing...Balloonman 08:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I found a couple of things that you can adjust on your next edit (since you edit it frequently enough).
  • "because truly random samples on adult brats is impossible." Perhaps explain why the logistics of a truly random sample are difficult to achieve?
  • "Non-military personnel may find the term “brat” insulting, and not may understand...." Switch "not" and "may"
    • This is a comment that I don't follow, the others make sense... but I don't see what you are recommending here.

Balloonman 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

      • I meant it should read "Non-military personnel may find the term “brat” insulting, and may not understand...."
        • It's times like these where I wish I could say I was dyslexic... I read that section numerous times in the article itself... I read it here as you wrote it... and I couldn't see what was wrong with it. I continually read it as "may not" despite it actually saying "not may." WowBalloonman 21:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Military culture has its own norms and expectations, which are so different that military brats can find civilians very different and often incomprehensible." It seems like that's one too many "differents" in a sentence, and also kinda redundant, actually. First it says they're so different (different from whom? Civilians) and then it again says the brats find civilians different. You see what I'm getting at.
  • "Yet, the one constant where they find comfort is the order and regiment of military life." I think it should be "the one constant in which they find...." Military life is a thing, not a location. Also, the statement suggests they find comfort in nothing else. Is this true?
  • "Even though the faces and geography have changed, the "base" remained recognizable because the rituals are consistent." Everything in the sentences leading up to that have been in present tense, then it switches to past tense there. I would say, "Even though the faces and geography change, the "base" remains recognizable, etc."
  • Either define "Retreat" (as part of lowering the flag) in the article or link to it within Wikipedia--non-military aren't going to know right off what that is.
  • "The Pledge of Allegiance will be recited every morning and patriotic/militaristic songs may be sung at military schools. " Switching tenses again (present to future). I would say "the PofA is recited every morning and ... songs may be sung...etc." Either the PofA is currently recited each morning, or it isn't. Predicting the future and stating it as fact isn't always a good idea.
  • "Prior to movies at the base theater's, everybody stands for the national anthem and often another patriotic songs such as "God Bless the USA"." A wording preference. I would think it would sound better if you replaced "everybody stands" with "patrons and staff stand." Also, Switch "another" with "other."
  • "Disciplinary expectations, however, extends beyond the military family." Should be "extend" not "extends."
  • "...authoritarian, democratic, and mixed, inconsistent way." "And a mixed, inconsistent way?" I'm wary of correcting direct quotes, but you should double-check that since it sounds wrong.
  • "For example, on base housing for officers will be significantly nicer...." "Nicer" sounds less professional. Of a higher quality? Something like that. Also, is there supposed to be a hyphen between on and base?
  • "Senior officers housing may be slightly larger and nicer than their lower ranking counterparts." Again with the "nicer." Also, either put an apostrophe after the 's' in officers, or say Senior officer housing.
  • "On the largest bases, there might be a row of opulent houses referred to "Colonels' Row" or "Generals' Row."" Referred to as.
  • "On the other end of the spectrum, are the enlisted quarters. Oftentimes enlisted personnel might be assigned apartments and only then if space was available." Take out the comma in the first sentence. Second sentence, "only then if space is available" to match to present tense.
  • "The Officer Clubs are nicer than the Enlisted Clubs. Officers may even have nicer recreational facilities than their enlisted counterparts, such as a nicer swimming pool or recreation halls. Historically, base chapels and movie theaters would have designated seating for officers and their families." Nicer, nicer, nicer. Time to dig your thesaurus out!
  • "Some bases even had two Boy Scout and two Girl Scout troops — one for officer children and one for enlisted children." When? It's in the past tense, so say, even something like "at one time" but I doubt people would go for that. Aim for a time period. Also, is there evidence stating brats are more likely to be involved in Scouting? Just curious.
    • I haven't seen any, I'll ask Rlevse because I personally believe that to be a true statement... might have something. As for timing, I know it happened as recently as the the 60's and perhaps 70's, but I don't really know.Balloonman 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, then I would say "For at least the first half of the 20th Century and possibly as recently as the 1970s, some bases even had two Boy Scout and two Girl Scout troops...." And I asked about scouting because my brothers and my husband (all brats) were heavily into scouting, encouraged by our AD fathers (mine was Scout Master even). So I'm guessing it would make sense, too, given the order and such. --ScreaminEagle 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Wertsch describes how children of enlisted personnel perceived their officer counterparts to receive specialized treatment." Worded a little awkwardly. I'll have to think more on how to make it simpler. Or you can.
  • "The children of officers socialized with other officers' children. The children of enlisted personnel socialized with those of other enlisted personnel. Even if an officer brat and an enlisted brat became friends at school, this friendship rarely carried over to the home life. The physical separation and differences between available activities made it very difficult." This is all said in past tense as if it happened in the past, but it doesn't happen now. Is that the case?
  • "This separation is by design. According to the U.S. Code of Military Justice, it can be illegal for an officer to become fraternize" Take out "become"
  • "...it could be akward to have friends whose parent worked together." Awkward is misspelled. Also, the wording needs to be better. "It could be awkward to have two friends whose parents worked together..."
    • Yeah, this was a sentence that I struggled with...Balloonman 16:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Military brats often develop a sense that allows them distinguish the rank of another child's father." I've often found this to be a little funny. They develop a sixth sense or something? I would think they would just have to ask or look at the uniform. I'm assuming you mean that they develop a sense of the necessity to distinguish the ranks or something like that rather than some supernatural power that tells them the ranks of people they've never met.
  • "...rivalries don't just end at the end of the branch of service, each branch of the service has its own...." That comma should be a semicolon to avoid a run-on sentence.
  • "where it was actually against military law to make a racist remark or not intervene when someone else does." Switching tenses, mid-sentence. "...when someone else did."
  • "With strict guidelines based upon the rank in the military member" Rank of the military member.
  • "smaller than the off base community" Again, should off and base have a hyphen?
  • I copyedited a whole section because there was too much to put here. See if you agree with the changes.
  • "Two of the common themes in Wertsch's book were abuse and alcholism." They still are those themes, so change were to are.
  • 1980's and 1990's should be 1980s and 1990s.
  • " The impact on the military's efforts remains inconclusive. Some studies report higher rates of abuse in military families others report lower rates." The impact of the military's efforts. And stick a dash or a comma + "while" between military families and others to avoid a run-on.
  • "serving in the armed forces, this opens up the possibility of both parents being deployed at the same time...." Run-on. replace comma with semicolon, or add another connecting word after the comma such as "and" or "as"
  • "Military members can be deployed for days, months, even years without their family." "Or even," or "and even."
  • "With the increased demands on the U.S. military, many reservist..." reservist should be plural.
  • Death in Combat "agressive" is misspelled. Two Gs.
  • "Because they identify so strongly with other brats, they are curious about famous brats and the depiction of military brats in fiction." I know it sounds repetetive, but the second "they" should also be "brats" to make it clear that it is the brats who are curious and not, I don't know, researchers or something silly. English is funny that way.
  • "Brats have more in common with each other than they do with non-brats." I would say they "often" do, not that they absolutely do.
  • "Others join brat groups because they feel disconnected from civilian culture or want to be able to share their story with other brats who can appreciate their story" How about "want to be able to share their story with other brats who can identify with it."? "Their story" twice sounds funny.
  • Also, I finally figured out what makes it sound so much like a research paper: all the direct quotes. A few quotes here and there are good to stress a point I think and to mix it up, but continually quoting these authors makes it look like the article can't speak for itself. Referencing them is one thing, but the quotes make it seem like the whole article may be just one big paraphrase. I might look for quotes that could be edited out or paraphrased. If the sentences around the quote basically say the same thing as the quote, then take it out--there's no real need for it (the citation to it will do just fine).
Oh yeah, and an excellent job on all the new information! --ScreaminEagle 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Awesome... I'll take a closer look at these later and try to incorporate them... thanks Balloonman 15:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Made just about all of these edits... including getting rid of most quotes. I left a few in where I felt that it was important to cite the original speaker/document, but got rid of 2/3rds of them.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/l/Talk%7EMilitary_brat_%28U.S._subculture%29_9017.html"