question for US army brats

Anyway, Mark: the whole thing about American "individualism" is that it paradoxically applies to groups, as well. This is why we can be as nationalistic as we are -- all it takes is to extend our sense of individualism onto the nation as a whole in exactly the unilateralist sense we're doing it right now. So I don't think the individualism forms as much of a barried to military training as it might seem; the Army has to break it down mercilessly, yes, but they can also transfer it onto these ideas of "the unit" or "the force" or the nation as a whole.

I mean, American senses of individualism have never held Americans back from conformity, and American ideas about vague, simple "core" beliefs like our particularly ill-considered popular version of patriotism are certainly a big help with this.

As far as unit cohesion, uh no, it doesn't require a great deal of effort to establish it or to overcome any inborn American inclinations toward individualism (attention to detail gets alot more attention in boot camp for example). The fact that your life is in your shipmates' hands and his life is in yours tends to do the trick. I've heard 'unit cohesion' used as an excuse for keeping open homosexuality out of the military, but I don't buy it. Whatever negative effects there would be would be temporary and I don't think would be that great, certainly nowhere near as disruptive as racial integration was in the forties and it isn't like that wasn't worth doing. As far as dealing with the homophobia, you could simply insert a page into the extensive sexual harrassment training (more extensive than Opsec, more extensive than firefighting, more extensive than attention to detail). I would occasionally (although very rarely - maybe twice in four years) hear from old-timer chiefs complaints about females in the military but these were always bullshit, an excuse for an inability to figure out how to manage a sailor who happened to be female. I would always point out some undeniably shithot female sailor and they would act like they were the exception and their problem was the rule when the reverse was true. These people were nearly phased out when I was still in and what with the changes in the past ten years (women at Great Lakes, etc) it's safe to say they're anachronisms.

I like how most of the people on this thread are just guessing based on what they've seen on television or read in magazines.

Naval Academy class of '62, served for thirty years and retired as the highest a captain could go without being an admiral. Worked mostly in the sub service but also served as COS for a carrier group, the big Point Loma sub base and finally commander of an intelligence base near Point Loma. :-)

Anyhow, officers' children and especially wives tend to think that the privileges of rank extend to them

I would like to proudly state that neither my sister nor my mom nor me ever pulled this kind of shit.

(I was heavily recruited by the Marines, for some reason -- they tried to convince me I'd be better off not going to college for a while and doing some training. Hopefully even those who haven't met me will understand what a ridiculous suggestion this was. If they'd tried to steer me into a college ROTC thing I might have thought about it for a whole other half-second: the Marine ROTC kids I knew at school were getting practically magical tuition deals, straight down to quarterly stipends for books.)

anyway it wz you i wanted to answer, mainly

it;s not actually lateral unity (ie unity within a given rank), so much as "vertical" unity, that interests me: being trained to obey orders w/o thinking etc etc, for efficiency of information-transmission (essential to the general's strategy)

Americans are great at team sports, for instance! And the same patterns and rhetoric of this so-called "individualism" come out there as well.

I'd ask boy what he thinks about it, but he'd just give a smartass answer, so I won't bother. I don't think the Coast Guard is as nearly as gung-ho as other branches of the military from what I've seen so far, anyway.

really! i never thought this was the case. take the ryder cup (the only team event in golf) where despite having the better players individually, they were badly beaten by the europeans.

also ice hockey when they were beaten by canada in the olympics finals.

overall though american football, basketball and baseball aren't played by enough ppl around the world at a high enough standard to judge.

Anyway, we shouldn't be talking about heathen sports during cricket season.

(of course full metal jacket is set at a time when the draft was in operation, and raw troops *weren't* necessarily willing troops)

I'm not that well informed on the baseball front but in basketball the teams you mention do not play the sport at anywhere near the standard that the americans do and the reason for that is football (or soccer as you call it) no1 sport. basketball is not well developed around other parts of the world.

''Julio might have a point, although using international team competitions for proof is sketchy since America's best athletes almost never participate (could the Australians beat Sheryl Swoopes or Chamique Holdsclaw? doubtful)''

i was commenting on nabisco's point that americans are great at team sports.

my entire question is based on television not experience, as james guessed: but that's why i wz asking!!