![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Military brat. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Military brat at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed this from the article:
"The term may be an acronym for British Regiment Attached Travelers. Adams, Leah; Kirova, Anna (2006), Global Migration and education, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., p. 263–4, ISBN 0-8058-5838-5"
The cited book does indeed suggest this, but I'm pretty confident it's wrong. Acronymic origins for words are exceptionally rare before the twentieth century, and "brat" as a (perjorative) word for "child" dates back to circa 1500 - it's in William Dunbar's writings, according to the OED. The term may have 'adopted' that meaning, but it's a bit misleading to say it is actually an acronym per se. Shimgray | talk | 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There are now two citations on British Regiment Attached Traveler.
"Traveler" is actually a very old British term and I would argue that resonates with "old British Empire" language. Perhaps the term evolved, with "Traveler" in the originating moniker and then later it got worked into an acronym. That's just a guess though.
I have re-entered the passage (and now the two citations) but with more tentative language then was posted years ago. Since the language is now tentative it's left as an open question, which I think is better than leaving it completely out.
On a personal note: I was called a Military brat as early as 1968 and my mother (also a military brat) remembers being called that in the mid-1940s.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 07:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
There is also the etymology of the usage of the word "military". I will, when I can work out a way to word it sensibly, add to the article. In the United Kingdom the expression "military brat" is not normally used. The equivalent is "service brat", but more normally kids refer to themselves as "army brats" or "air force brats". This reflects the usage of the word "military" in English English where it is still used, especially officially, in its original sense of refereeing to the army only. Hence the Manual of Military Law, the Manual of Naval Law and Manual of Air Force Law. The expression 'service' or 'forces' is normally used as the adjective to cover all three services. DickyP ( talk) 08:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a Wikipedia article (with citations) that dates the use of the term "Trenchards Brats" (British RAF Brats) back to 1922. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brat
That not only places it firmly in Britain, but raises another question. Would the modern American military so easily adapt the term "BRAT" from the British?
Wouldn't the point of entry of the term be more likely prior to the formation of the United States, during the time of British rule?
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 17:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
From National "Geographic Traveler Hong Kong" By Phil Macdonald, Rory Boland, on page 76, "Hollywood Road: Carved along the hillside above Western Hollywood Road was built in 1844 for the British regiment attached there..."
(British Regiment Attached Travelers?)
If anyone else finds anything (stronger) that supports a citation of "brat" in this usage from before 1920, please post it here in this section...
98.245.148.9 ( talk) 19:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You can't prove that the term "trenchards brats" is unrelated. You can only hypothesize.
However there is another academic source claiming that the term "military brat" originated from the same (military community) where the "Trenchards Brats" school was located. The academic source also says that the term "military brat" originated from the same place.
Given however that there is also historical documentation that describes children following regiments as being "attached" to those regiments (cited as early as 1775) I'd say there is a good chance the term may go back a lot farther than 1920.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 21:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This isn't proof, but it's interesting, here is a book on the American Revolution describing 'children attached to a regiment'
(is not the only one about that time period that uses that phrasing)
It actually shows two examples of this, the second one is very interesting because it distinguishes between Children attached to the regiment and children who are just visiting the regiment. That would be a strong implication that the ones who were "attached" were traveling with the regiment.
Also interesting, the first one is a British regiment, but the second one is an American regiment, which shows that the concept of "regiment-attached children" is being applied to both American and British regiments by this historian, http://books.google.com/books?id=hnAy4zEe3SAC&pg=PA67&dq=attached+child+camp+followers&hl=en&ei=8hYdTdaNEY3CsAP4taStCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=attached%20to%20them&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telemachus.forward ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 03:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
There are also blogs out there by Indian "Fauji brats" that talk about being "attached to the infantry" as children. Again, not proof, but interesting.
http://mymindcreeks.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-last-days-being-bratty.html Here's one:
Telemachus.forward (
talk)
04:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Correction. Sorry on my link to the Revolutionary War source, there are 10 sample pages talking about women or children attached to regiments. It is the 4th (fourth) and 10th (tenth) sample page that contain references to children attached to American Regiments. The others are British.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 06:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Does any reliable source say this is a global term, or has significant use outside North America? Otherwise what we have here is original research based on Wikipedians finding the term in one or two sources. That's unacceptable.
"It has been documented" is also weasel wording. By whom? Has a study been done? Or is it simply that wikipedians have found a few usages and drawn a conclusion from their own research? Has any reliable sources documented the various international usages and drawn an independent conclusion that we can record?-- Scott Mac 17:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Scott, on the Category deletion discussion page (for this topic) you have been presented with a list of "military brat" organizations (using that exact term) from several different countries, including New Zealand, the Philippines, Canada, Britain, Australia, America and India.
That alone shows the term to be in use in all of these countries^^.
So you shouldn't comment on something unless you read what has been presented to you thoroughly.
Also, please do not make personal attacks, by using the term "Weasel words", when debating Wikipedia editing issues.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 17:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you haven't read this as thoroughly as you think.
Over there (and here) are cited articles describing "Canadian military brats as an institution", Indian military brats as having "a different way of life", academic citations citing the British use of of the term ("British Regiment Attached Traveler") and a Wikipedia article citing the use of the term "Brat" in (In Britain, associated with the RAF) in relation to this subject as far back as 1922. Also cited are books that focus on the subject of "military brats" in American culture.
This is all in addition to the fraternal organizations in numerous countries that I have mentioned above.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 18:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Also I'd like to mention a common mistake that many people make in failing to understand "military brat" cultures: They will think about children of veterans that they know (and their lives) and assume they have the whole story.
Second, most "military brats" are children of career military families who serve for 20, 30 even 40 years. So (in terms of the "subcultural" use of the term) they are not the children of "Joe" or "Michael" down the street who only served in the military for 4 years. They are the children of career military families who grew up totally immersed in the culture and rituals of the military in a way that many civilians do not understand.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 18:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That's your opinion. There are plenty more sources available as well, academic sources, news articles, literature, electronic media, government studies Telemachus.forward ( talk) 20:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
When there are acceptable sources for referencing the use of the term in several countries then yes, that is proof of International use of the term.
Telemachus.forward (
talk)
22:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Few?
98.245.148.9 ( talk) 03:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The article currently describes common-ground areas, but there should also be a section (or sections) that then outline (cited) areas of difference between "military brat" subcultures".
(In terms of structuring the article), here is an outline of similarities and differences that I have seen (in citation sources not yet posted to the article), including academic, news sources, etc,
Similarities: The primary common ground (in my citation sources) is "militarization of childhood" (in both positive and negative ways, as well as neutral ways). Along with this, (in the citations I have seen, not yet all added to the article), resulting "Feelings of difference" between brats and civilians are in citations I have seen, but have not yet posted, in many countries.
This could also be described as an international pattern of "military brat identity" in many of these countries.
This seems to be the common thread that justifies the article, or stub.
A secondary common ground (which has more variance) is mobility. It happens in a number of these countries, but at varying ranges in comparison to the USA, which is at the highest level and range of mobility--
Canada and USA are at the highest mobility extreme, with India at mid-level (by comparison) and Britain, Australia and New Zealand (current generation of brats) at the lower end.
Along with this are multicultural identities ( Third culture kid patterns) that are described in a number of military-brat countries.
And there are also older British military brats who lived extremely mobile lives.
Differences A (few) more sections could be added on (cited) (and clear) individual differences. For example In India and Pakistan, I have seen academic journals and news articles that paint a wider gulf between officers corps and non-commissioned soldiers, than in more fully industrialized countries.
For example: The descriptions of the lives children of officers corps in India and Pakistan look more similar to American and British military brats, but the (academic and news) descriptions of non-commissioned Indian families are described as often struggling with Third World poverty conditions. There is also a great stigma (particular to India) on absent fathers (in the less educated classes, not the higher classes-- a cultural stigma goes on women who don't have men at home).
In the Philippines there is discussion of corruption in the officers corps and third-world poverty at the non-commissioned level (deeper than American poverty). Also there are a number of news articles reporting AFP (Philippine Armed Forces) pressing children into intelligence and dangerous combat support roles. (More a lower-rank-and-class phenomenon with again officer-corps looking instead much more like Western military brats).
Overall article structure: These patterns suggest an area-heading describing "Common Patterns" and then specific country sections that cover "individual country differences"-- under a second area-heading of "Differences").
Also, in-depth psychological research seems to be almost exclusively American, which is also very extensive, covering a very wide range of studies, certainly requiring the separate (already existing) article (along with the other already-existing descriptions of the US military brat subculture).
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 08:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Boldface (above) only added for clarity.
Thanks!
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. On the issue of pay for non-commissioned India soldiers, I need to do a little more reading to get a clear understanding. I'll get back to the discussion here.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 23:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to put a time stamp on it, http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan%201_2%201900,cd_max:Jan%2031_2%201940&tbo=p&q=%22army+brat%22&num=10 Keith Henson ( talk) 21:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 18:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I've been very busy with other things over the last few days, but something else that I forgot to say before is, I have (not) found any Overseas equivalent to Wertsch or Musil. But I have found enough to add dimension and support to what is currently here. But yes there is definitely more (today) about brats from other countries than was (previously) available just a few years ago.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 03:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
2009 BBC News Article Says that the British "Forces children" change schools up to 11 times while growing up.
[1] I am only focusing on this (mobility related) citation in the article, not agreeing or disagreeing with the headline.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 05:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the delays (I've been extremely busy), I have the citations from three Sociologists specializing in Indian Military families and also Indian "Army brats" (two of the sociologists use the term "Army brat" in their writing) and I'll have them in the next few days, (as time allows).
Citations also coming soon on a sociologist discussing Filipino military brats.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 07:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 05:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
.
Indian forces families also refer to their kids as Fauji Bacchas. Quite literally meaning Forces Children. DO let me know how I can contribute to the wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashmere lashkari ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cashmere, welcome to Wikipedia. To contribute to the article you should start by registering a Username (of your choice) (see upper right corner of this page to register/sign in).
Once you have done that you may help to edit the article. Here are some tips--
1) You will see the word "Edit" above each section of the article and you may click any of those to start editing.
2) Rules of editing: Wikipedia articles follow rules very similar to writing a (simple, not advanced) college or university paper (you must provide footnotes that reference reliable sources for any facts that you claim). You may reference news or magazine articles, books or journal articles, or websites that have high credibility.
3) NOTE: You can freely create/author the wording of your own sentences, but you must then support the facts that you add with a (footnoted) citation reference (as shown below).
4) Here is how you cite a footnote (just as an example):
Lets say you want to add the following sentence (created by you) to the article: "Indian Army Brats are also called 'Fauji Bacchas'."
To add a supporting reference: (required to to prove your new fact), you then (after your sentence) add the tag "<-r-e-f->" (Without the dashes) followed by the information about the source material (authors last name [followed by a comma] then authors first name; title of article or chapter, name of book, magazine, newspaper or journal; then date published; then the name of the publisher; then [if a print source] what city and country published in).
You then must add the closing tag "<-/-r-e-f->" (again, remove all the dashes-- I am just doing that so it doesn't create a footnote here). This will automatically create a footnote and will also automatically add your reference info in the "Notes (or "References") section at the bottom of the article.
That's enough for a good start. But here are just a few more suggestions--
5) Don't worry too much about making mistakes--
It's not the end of the world to make a (technical Wikipedia-rules) error because there are plenty of editors watching the pages to correct you and guide you. So don't let not knowing all of the Wikipedia-editing-rules keep you from contributing, you will be quickly corrected if you make a technical mistake and then you can ask that editor more questions to get your material into the right "Wikipedia" form.
In terms of writing, it's not as restrictive as you might initially think. You still have latitude for what you write, so long as you support your facts with good citations/sources and keep the article in a "news-reporting" writing style (Reporting what is known and prove-able from citations).
The one key thing to always remember, though, is that you must always cite any new facts that you add to the article--
For example, knowing (first hand, from life) about "Fauji Bacchus" is not enough to support your adding it to the article-- you must first (as mentioned above) find a newspaper, or magazine article, or book or journal article that supports your claim that this term is widely used in India.
7) You don't have to go to the library to find sources: Many Newspaper articles, magazine articles and journal articles can now be found online, and you can add the "link address" to the citation (after all of the other info) to put that into a reference (between the <-r-e-f-> and <-/-r-e-f> tags [remove the dashes]).
You can even find the complete text of many entire books online, if you do a search in "Google Books" now fully available on the Internet.
8) Please also keep the main "theme" of the article in mind--
The International use of the term "military brat", and how this represents a life-style (way of growing up) and also a unique subculture. And also military brat subcultures in individual nations, like India.
The article is reporting on two general areas: A) What "Military brat" subcultures from different nations have in common and B) what are also the (unique) differences between these subcultures (what is different and unique to each nation).
So it's discussing both the areas of common-ground similarities between military brats of all nations and also the unique national differences (what is unique and different about the 'military brat' culture of each individual nation).
(That doesn't mean the theme of the article can't be changed)--
But that's where it is now, and you'll need good cite-able materials to change or modify the theme, and it must relate to the the title (according to Wikipedia editing rules).
How to sign your discussion area posts: One last thing, here (in the discussion area) you must always sign your posts with four tildes (four of these "~" in a row-- that will pull, and place, a "signature" from your Username.
However you do NOT sign your contributions in the front (main article) area (Wikipedia will still note you as the source contributor there, but adding four tildes, [four of these-- "~"], in the main article causes an error in the article)-- it is only useful (and required) to sign with four tildes (here in the discussion area).
Regards and again, welcome to Wikipedia,
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. You can also create new sections in the article by typing "=-= Title of New Section =-=" (remove the dashes, and use only equal signs [I have included the dashes here to keep a new section, plus its headline, from being created]). Two of these "=" on each side (of the section title) create a larger section headline than three on each side.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 05:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been meaning to post these, here are some references, (writing by Sociologists about "Indian Army Brats" that I came across some time back). http://books.google.com/books?id=wA5yZfuJ4_cC&pg=PA72&dq=cohen,+army+brat,+India&hl=en&ei=GzImTYPGFoX4sAO20Mj6AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=army%20brat&f=false
(I found these in "Google Books", which has full-text online scans of many books and articles).
There is more out there as well.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 02:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I've also seen sociological and news writing about certain Indian ethnic groups with a strong Forces affiliation, and researching those often military-affiliated ethnic groups also runs up information on Indian military families.
For example, this book delves into the sociology of Indian military families of the Gurkha ethnic group (there is more out there as well). As I understand it, Gurkhas are North-Indian as well as some being Nepalese.
By way of example, here is another source on the military upbringing of Gurkha children: http://books.google.com/books?ei=RVY6Tff7K4LSsAOQ1-2BAw&ct=result&id=hChuAAAAMAAJ&dq=gurkha+upbringing&q=upbringing#search_anchor
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 03:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is another good cite-able source.
98.245.148.9 ( talk) 05:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Book on the social history of Anzac (Australia-New Zealand Army Corps) families of war disabled veterans. Includes over 80 references to the affects on/and or lives of, military children living with a war-disabled veteran parent (including those with PTSD). The writer is a social historian (a sociologist and a historian)--
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 04:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Another Australian social history book that has passages describing the lives of Australian "army brats" (Note: although the title has the word "memories" in it, it's really an analysis of social history, by a social historian)--
http://books.google.com/books?id=XsAhAQAAIAAJ&dq=anzac+children&q=brats#search_anchor
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 04:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. with the top source (children of disabled vets book) you have to dig down deeper below the linked citations to see the ones that are more clearly vet-military child related issues. There is also a lot of discussion of TB infection from vets affecting their children, but digging below those references gets to the other stuff.
98.245.148.9 ( talk) 19:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 06:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Again (much like some other sources the sections above), it takes some digging into this report (below the apparent/immediately linked part of the source) to see the full extent of the relevant areas covered. Although not at the level of Wertsches or Musils work, it is comparable to some US DOD studies on different dimensions of brat/military child life. However this British report (to Parliament) is more focused on a range of education issues faced by mobile British brats (although it also does cover some bereavement-counseling issues and some other psychological dimensions of British Forces children populations). It also puts a number on the size of the (non-adult, or in-school) population at (approximately) 186,000 children and teenagers. And it also describes widespread 'high-mobility' lifestyles in the population.
98.245.148.9 ( talk) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I forgot my password for my Wiki-username. I will try retrieving it soon, but for the time being, the IP listed here is also Telemachus.forward (my username).
Sorry, I just have a few minutes today.
98.245.148.9 ( talk) 19:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC) r talk:Awotter|talk]])
On several occassions, the question has come up as to whether this subject needs separate articles ( Military brat and Military brat (U.S. subculture)) to distinguish between a global perspective and the U.S. perspective.
Before moving this page or questioning the need for the split, please review the previous discussions.
I cannot really speak for Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the Republic of Ireland, but term "servicemen's children" or "Forces' children" are commonly, formally and officially used in the United Kingdom by the Ministry of Defence and by the British Army, the British Royal Navy and British Royal Air Force. The term "brat" is always used as more of a "tongue-in-cheek" as an acknowledgment of the American influence on British culture mainly through the medium of the American cinema, as a very informal term, and it is never, ever, used on any formal State or official military or other defence-related civilian contexts. The requisite American cultural context of the "brat culture" is somewhat absent in the closest of the modern remote British equivalent, that of the children of the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR), the Royal Air Force, Germany (RAFG) and the British Armed Forces in Germany (British Forces, Germany (BFG)), chiefly because the British Forces just simply did not and do not, since the end of the Second World War, have the requisite monetary resources within the Defence budget to invest to make and to sustain such an arrangement, in the same way as what the American DoD (Department of Defense) can, and does, in order to replicate life and conditions in middle-class parts of the United States of America as much as possible, in order to make enlisting into the American Forces even more attractive and appealing to young Americans than they already are, especially in the absence of the Draft (Conscription) under the Selective Service System; or, to sum up, in British laymen's terms, children of British Forces didn't and don't "live like kings and queens" in the way that the children of American Forces did, and do (which is what all the talk about the Brat culture is really all about). As much as I hate to say this, but the whole idea of expanding the term "Military Brat" into a global construct (which I claim and contend as false) smells too much like a one-man pet-project by User:Balloonman ( talk), now retired, probably some kind of a (misguided, in my view) Democrat-voting left-wing sociology student (or unemployed sociology graduate) with an agenda or a grudge to bear, probably (but not necessarily) against the United States Military primarily. -- 212.50.167.15 ( talk) 06:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the purpose of that picture. Is Evan Moriarty (in any way typical for) a military brat? If so, it should be pointed out why, as I don't find it obvious. -- 84.75.203.119 ( talk) 17:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I also don't understand these photos of what appear to be East European/Russian troops and their families when the term "military brat" is, in the article, admittedly used in countries that are not Russia or East Europe. It is culturally jarring.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Military brat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The term is Army Brat. Navy kids are Juniors. I suppose Air Force kids would brats too. 68.191.163.50 ( talk) 22:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Military brat. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Military brat at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 12 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed this from the article:
"The term may be an acronym for British Regiment Attached Travelers. Adams, Leah; Kirova, Anna (2006), Global Migration and education, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., p. 263–4, ISBN 0-8058-5838-5"
The cited book does indeed suggest this, but I'm pretty confident it's wrong. Acronymic origins for words are exceptionally rare before the twentieth century, and "brat" as a (perjorative) word for "child" dates back to circa 1500 - it's in William Dunbar's writings, according to the OED. The term may have 'adopted' that meaning, but it's a bit misleading to say it is actually an acronym per se. Shimgray | talk | 13:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There are now two citations on British Regiment Attached Traveler.
"Traveler" is actually a very old British term and I would argue that resonates with "old British Empire" language. Perhaps the term evolved, with "Traveler" in the originating moniker and then later it got worked into an acronym. That's just a guess though.
I have re-entered the passage (and now the two citations) but with more tentative language then was posted years ago. Since the language is now tentative it's left as an open question, which I think is better than leaving it completely out.
On a personal note: I was called a Military brat as early as 1968 and my mother (also a military brat) remembers being called that in the mid-1940s.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 07:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
There is also the etymology of the usage of the word "military". I will, when I can work out a way to word it sensibly, add to the article. In the United Kingdom the expression "military brat" is not normally used. The equivalent is "service brat", but more normally kids refer to themselves as "army brats" or "air force brats". This reflects the usage of the word "military" in English English where it is still used, especially officially, in its original sense of refereeing to the army only. Hence the Manual of Military Law, the Manual of Naval Law and Manual of Air Force Law. The expression 'service' or 'forces' is normally used as the adjective to cover all three services. DickyP ( talk) 08:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is a Wikipedia article (with citations) that dates the use of the term "Trenchards Brats" (British RAF Brats) back to 1922. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brat
That not only places it firmly in Britain, but raises another question. Would the modern American military so easily adapt the term "BRAT" from the British?
Wouldn't the point of entry of the term be more likely prior to the formation of the United States, during the time of British rule?
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 17:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
From National "Geographic Traveler Hong Kong" By Phil Macdonald, Rory Boland, on page 76, "Hollywood Road: Carved along the hillside above Western Hollywood Road was built in 1844 for the British regiment attached there..."
(British Regiment Attached Travelers?)
If anyone else finds anything (stronger) that supports a citation of "brat" in this usage from before 1920, please post it here in this section...
98.245.148.9 ( talk) 19:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You can't prove that the term "trenchards brats" is unrelated. You can only hypothesize.
However there is another academic source claiming that the term "military brat" originated from the same (military community) where the "Trenchards Brats" school was located. The academic source also says that the term "military brat" originated from the same place.
Given however that there is also historical documentation that describes children following regiments as being "attached" to those regiments (cited as early as 1775) I'd say there is a good chance the term may go back a lot farther than 1920.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 21:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This isn't proof, but it's interesting, here is a book on the American Revolution describing 'children attached to a regiment'
(is not the only one about that time period that uses that phrasing)
It actually shows two examples of this, the second one is very interesting because it distinguishes between Children attached to the regiment and children who are just visiting the regiment. That would be a strong implication that the ones who were "attached" were traveling with the regiment.
Also interesting, the first one is a British regiment, but the second one is an American regiment, which shows that the concept of "regiment-attached children" is being applied to both American and British regiments by this historian, http://books.google.com/books?id=hnAy4zEe3SAC&pg=PA67&dq=attached+child+camp+followers&hl=en&ei=8hYdTdaNEY3CsAP4taStCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CE4Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=attached%20to%20them&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Telemachus.forward ( talk • contribs) 03:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 03:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
There are also blogs out there by Indian "Fauji brats" that talk about being "attached to the infantry" as children. Again, not proof, but interesting.
http://mymindcreeks.blogspot.com/2009/07/my-last-days-being-bratty.html Here's one:
Telemachus.forward (
talk)
04:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Correction. Sorry on my link to the Revolutionary War source, there are 10 sample pages talking about women or children attached to regiments. It is the 4th (fourth) and 10th (tenth) sample page that contain references to children attached to American Regiments. The others are British.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 06:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Does any reliable source say this is a global term, or has significant use outside North America? Otherwise what we have here is original research based on Wikipedians finding the term in one or two sources. That's unacceptable.
"It has been documented" is also weasel wording. By whom? Has a study been done? Or is it simply that wikipedians have found a few usages and drawn a conclusion from their own research? Has any reliable sources documented the various international usages and drawn an independent conclusion that we can record?-- Scott Mac 17:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Scott, on the Category deletion discussion page (for this topic) you have been presented with a list of "military brat" organizations (using that exact term) from several different countries, including New Zealand, the Philippines, Canada, Britain, Australia, America and India.
That alone shows the term to be in use in all of these countries^^.
So you shouldn't comment on something unless you read what has been presented to you thoroughly.
Also, please do not make personal attacks, by using the term "Weasel words", when debating Wikipedia editing issues.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 17:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you haven't read this as thoroughly as you think.
Over there (and here) are cited articles describing "Canadian military brats as an institution", Indian military brats as having "a different way of life", academic citations citing the British use of of the term ("British Regiment Attached Traveler") and a Wikipedia article citing the use of the term "Brat" in (In Britain, associated with the RAF) in relation to this subject as far back as 1922. Also cited are books that focus on the subject of "military brats" in American culture.
This is all in addition to the fraternal organizations in numerous countries that I have mentioned above.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 18:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Also I'd like to mention a common mistake that many people make in failing to understand "military brat" cultures: They will think about children of veterans that they know (and their lives) and assume they have the whole story.
Second, most "military brats" are children of career military families who serve for 20, 30 even 40 years. So (in terms of the "subcultural" use of the term) they are not the children of "Joe" or "Michael" down the street who only served in the military for 4 years. They are the children of career military families who grew up totally immersed in the culture and rituals of the military in a way that many civilians do not understand.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 18:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That's your opinion. There are plenty more sources available as well, academic sources, news articles, literature, electronic media, government studies Telemachus.forward ( talk) 20:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
When there are acceptable sources for referencing the use of the term in several countries then yes, that is proof of International use of the term.
Telemachus.forward (
talk)
22:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Few?
98.245.148.9 ( talk) 03:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The article currently describes common-ground areas, but there should also be a section (or sections) that then outline (cited) areas of difference between "military brat" subcultures".
(In terms of structuring the article), here is an outline of similarities and differences that I have seen (in citation sources not yet posted to the article), including academic, news sources, etc,
Similarities: The primary common ground (in my citation sources) is "militarization of childhood" (in both positive and negative ways, as well as neutral ways). Along with this, (in the citations I have seen, not yet all added to the article), resulting "Feelings of difference" between brats and civilians are in citations I have seen, but have not yet posted, in many countries.
This could also be described as an international pattern of "military brat identity" in many of these countries.
This seems to be the common thread that justifies the article, or stub.
A secondary common ground (which has more variance) is mobility. It happens in a number of these countries, but at varying ranges in comparison to the USA, which is at the highest level and range of mobility--
Canada and USA are at the highest mobility extreme, with India at mid-level (by comparison) and Britain, Australia and New Zealand (current generation of brats) at the lower end.
Along with this are multicultural identities ( Third culture kid patterns) that are described in a number of military-brat countries.
And there are also older British military brats who lived extremely mobile lives.
Differences A (few) more sections could be added on (cited) (and clear) individual differences. For example In India and Pakistan, I have seen academic journals and news articles that paint a wider gulf between officers corps and non-commissioned soldiers, than in more fully industrialized countries.
For example: The descriptions of the lives children of officers corps in India and Pakistan look more similar to American and British military brats, but the (academic and news) descriptions of non-commissioned Indian families are described as often struggling with Third World poverty conditions. There is also a great stigma (particular to India) on absent fathers (in the less educated classes, not the higher classes-- a cultural stigma goes on women who don't have men at home).
In the Philippines there is discussion of corruption in the officers corps and third-world poverty at the non-commissioned level (deeper than American poverty). Also there are a number of news articles reporting AFP (Philippine Armed Forces) pressing children into intelligence and dangerous combat support roles. (More a lower-rank-and-class phenomenon with again officer-corps looking instead much more like Western military brats).
Overall article structure: These patterns suggest an area-heading describing "Common Patterns" and then specific country sections that cover "individual country differences"-- under a second area-heading of "Differences").
Also, in-depth psychological research seems to be almost exclusively American, which is also very extensive, covering a very wide range of studies, certainly requiring the separate (already existing) article (along with the other already-existing descriptions of the US military brat subculture).
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 08:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Boldface (above) only added for clarity.
Thanks!
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 17:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. On the issue of pay for non-commissioned India soldiers, I need to do a little more reading to get a clear understanding. I'll get back to the discussion here.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 23:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to put a time stamp on it, http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan%201_2%201900,cd_max:Jan%2031_2%201940&tbo=p&q=%22army+brat%22&num=10 Keith Henson ( talk) 21:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 18:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I've been very busy with other things over the last few days, but something else that I forgot to say before is, I have (not) found any Overseas equivalent to Wertsch or Musil. But I have found enough to add dimension and support to what is currently here. But yes there is definitely more (today) about brats from other countries than was (previously) available just a few years ago.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 03:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
2009 BBC News Article Says that the British "Forces children" change schools up to 11 times while growing up.
[1] I am only focusing on this (mobility related) citation in the article, not agreeing or disagreeing with the headline.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 05:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the delays (I've been extremely busy), I have the citations from three Sociologists specializing in Indian Military families and also Indian "Army brats" (two of the sociologists use the term "Army brat" in their writing) and I'll have them in the next few days, (as time allows).
Citations also coming soon on a sociologist discussing Filipino military brats.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 07:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 05:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
.
Indian forces families also refer to their kids as Fauji Bacchas. Quite literally meaning Forces Children. DO let me know how I can contribute to the wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cashmere lashkari ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello Cashmere, welcome to Wikipedia. To contribute to the article you should start by registering a Username (of your choice) (see upper right corner of this page to register/sign in).
Once you have done that you may help to edit the article. Here are some tips--
1) You will see the word "Edit" above each section of the article and you may click any of those to start editing.
2) Rules of editing: Wikipedia articles follow rules very similar to writing a (simple, not advanced) college or university paper (you must provide footnotes that reference reliable sources for any facts that you claim). You may reference news or magazine articles, books or journal articles, or websites that have high credibility.
3) NOTE: You can freely create/author the wording of your own sentences, but you must then support the facts that you add with a (footnoted) citation reference (as shown below).
4) Here is how you cite a footnote (just as an example):
Lets say you want to add the following sentence (created by you) to the article: "Indian Army Brats are also called 'Fauji Bacchas'."
To add a supporting reference: (required to to prove your new fact), you then (after your sentence) add the tag "<-r-e-f->" (Without the dashes) followed by the information about the source material (authors last name [followed by a comma] then authors first name; title of article or chapter, name of book, magazine, newspaper or journal; then date published; then the name of the publisher; then [if a print source] what city and country published in).
You then must add the closing tag "<-/-r-e-f->" (again, remove all the dashes-- I am just doing that so it doesn't create a footnote here). This will automatically create a footnote and will also automatically add your reference info in the "Notes (or "References") section at the bottom of the article.
That's enough for a good start. But here are just a few more suggestions--
5) Don't worry too much about making mistakes--
It's not the end of the world to make a (technical Wikipedia-rules) error because there are plenty of editors watching the pages to correct you and guide you. So don't let not knowing all of the Wikipedia-editing-rules keep you from contributing, you will be quickly corrected if you make a technical mistake and then you can ask that editor more questions to get your material into the right "Wikipedia" form.
In terms of writing, it's not as restrictive as you might initially think. You still have latitude for what you write, so long as you support your facts with good citations/sources and keep the article in a "news-reporting" writing style (Reporting what is known and prove-able from citations).
The one key thing to always remember, though, is that you must always cite any new facts that you add to the article--
For example, knowing (first hand, from life) about "Fauji Bacchus" is not enough to support your adding it to the article-- you must first (as mentioned above) find a newspaper, or magazine article, or book or journal article that supports your claim that this term is widely used in India.
7) You don't have to go to the library to find sources: Many Newspaper articles, magazine articles and journal articles can now be found online, and you can add the "link address" to the citation (after all of the other info) to put that into a reference (between the <-r-e-f-> and <-/-r-e-f> tags [remove the dashes]).
You can even find the complete text of many entire books online, if you do a search in "Google Books" now fully available on the Internet.
8) Please also keep the main "theme" of the article in mind--
The International use of the term "military brat", and how this represents a life-style (way of growing up) and also a unique subculture. And also military brat subcultures in individual nations, like India.
The article is reporting on two general areas: A) What "Military brat" subcultures from different nations have in common and B) what are also the (unique) differences between these subcultures (what is different and unique to each nation).
So it's discussing both the areas of common-ground similarities between military brats of all nations and also the unique national differences (what is unique and different about the 'military brat' culture of each individual nation).
(That doesn't mean the theme of the article can't be changed)--
But that's where it is now, and you'll need good cite-able materials to change or modify the theme, and it must relate to the the title (according to Wikipedia editing rules).
How to sign your discussion area posts: One last thing, here (in the discussion area) you must always sign your posts with four tildes (four of these "~" in a row-- that will pull, and place, a "signature" from your Username.
However you do NOT sign your contributions in the front (main article) area (Wikipedia will still note you as the source contributor there, but adding four tildes, [four of these-- "~"], in the main article causes an error in the article)-- it is only useful (and required) to sign with four tildes (here in the discussion area).
Regards and again, welcome to Wikipedia,
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 18:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. You can also create new sections in the article by typing "=-= Title of New Section =-=" (remove the dashes, and use only equal signs [I have included the dashes here to keep a new section, plus its headline, from being created]). Two of these "=" on each side (of the section title) create a larger section headline than three on each side.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 05:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I have been meaning to post these, here are some references, (writing by Sociologists about "Indian Army Brats" that I came across some time back). http://books.google.com/books?id=wA5yZfuJ4_cC&pg=PA72&dq=cohen,+army+brat,+India&hl=en&ei=GzImTYPGFoX4sAO20Mj6AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=army%20brat&f=false
(I found these in "Google Books", which has full-text online scans of many books and articles).
There is more out there as well.
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 02:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I've also seen sociological and news writing about certain Indian ethnic groups with a strong Forces affiliation, and researching those often military-affiliated ethnic groups also runs up information on Indian military families.
For example, this book delves into the sociology of Indian military families of the Gurkha ethnic group (there is more out there as well). As I understand it, Gurkhas are North-Indian as well as some being Nepalese.
By way of example, here is another source on the military upbringing of Gurkha children: http://books.google.com/books?ei=RVY6Tff7K4LSsAOQ1-2BAw&ct=result&id=hChuAAAAMAAJ&dq=gurkha+upbringing&q=upbringing#search_anchor
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 03:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is another good cite-able source.
98.245.148.9 ( talk) 05:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Book on the social history of Anzac (Australia-New Zealand Army Corps) families of war disabled veterans. Includes over 80 references to the affects on/and or lives of, military children living with a war-disabled veteran parent (including those with PTSD). The writer is a social historian (a sociologist and a historian)--
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 04:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Another Australian social history book that has passages describing the lives of Australian "army brats" (Note: although the title has the word "memories" in it, it's really an analysis of social history, by a social historian)--
http://books.google.com/books?id=XsAhAQAAIAAJ&dq=anzac+children&q=brats#search_anchor
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 04:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. with the top source (children of disabled vets book) you have to dig down deeper below the linked citations to see the ones that are more clearly vet-military child related issues. There is also a lot of discussion of TB infection from vets affecting their children, but digging below those references gets to the other stuff.
98.245.148.9 ( talk) 19:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Telemachus.forward ( talk) 06:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Again (much like some other sources the sections above), it takes some digging into this report (below the apparent/immediately linked part of the source) to see the full extent of the relevant areas covered. Although not at the level of Wertsches or Musils work, it is comparable to some US DOD studies on different dimensions of brat/military child life. However this British report (to Parliament) is more focused on a range of education issues faced by mobile British brats (although it also does cover some bereavement-counseling issues and some other psychological dimensions of British Forces children populations). It also puts a number on the size of the (non-adult, or in-school) population at (approximately) 186,000 children and teenagers. And it also describes widespread 'high-mobility' lifestyles in the population.
98.245.148.9 ( talk) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I forgot my password for my Wiki-username. I will try retrieving it soon, but for the time being, the IP listed here is also Telemachus.forward (my username).
Sorry, I just have a few minutes today.
98.245.148.9 ( talk) 19:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC) r talk:Awotter|talk]])
On several occassions, the question has come up as to whether this subject needs separate articles ( Military brat and Military brat (U.S. subculture)) to distinguish between a global perspective and the U.S. perspective.
Before moving this page or questioning the need for the split, please review the previous discussions.
I cannot really speak for Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the Republic of Ireland, but term "servicemen's children" or "Forces' children" are commonly, formally and officially used in the United Kingdom by the Ministry of Defence and by the British Army, the British Royal Navy and British Royal Air Force. The term "brat" is always used as more of a "tongue-in-cheek" as an acknowledgment of the American influence on British culture mainly through the medium of the American cinema, as a very informal term, and it is never, ever, used on any formal State or official military or other defence-related civilian contexts. The requisite American cultural context of the "brat culture" is somewhat absent in the closest of the modern remote British equivalent, that of the children of the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR), the Royal Air Force, Germany (RAFG) and the British Armed Forces in Germany (British Forces, Germany (BFG)), chiefly because the British Forces just simply did not and do not, since the end of the Second World War, have the requisite monetary resources within the Defence budget to invest to make and to sustain such an arrangement, in the same way as what the American DoD (Department of Defense) can, and does, in order to replicate life and conditions in middle-class parts of the United States of America as much as possible, in order to make enlisting into the American Forces even more attractive and appealing to young Americans than they already are, especially in the absence of the Draft (Conscription) under the Selective Service System; or, to sum up, in British laymen's terms, children of British Forces didn't and don't "live like kings and queens" in the way that the children of American Forces did, and do (which is what all the talk about the Brat culture is really all about). As much as I hate to say this, but the whole idea of expanding the term "Military Brat" into a global construct (which I claim and contend as false) smells too much like a one-man pet-project by User:Balloonman ( talk), now retired, probably some kind of a (misguided, in my view) Democrat-voting left-wing sociology student (or unemployed sociology graduate) with an agenda or a grudge to bear, probably (but not necessarily) against the United States Military primarily. -- 212.50.167.15 ( talk) 06:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand the purpose of that picture. Is Evan Moriarty (in any way typical for) a military brat? If so, it should be pointed out why, as I don't find it obvious. -- 84.75.203.119 ( talk) 17:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I also don't understand these photos of what appear to be East European/Russian troops and their families when the term "military brat" is, in the article, admittedly used in countries that are not Russia or East Europe. It is culturally jarring.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Military brat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The term is Army Brat. Navy kids are Juniors. I suppose Air Force kids would brats too. 68.191.163.50 ( talk) 22:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)