I have already set an age range of under 19 for soldiers I will be examining. This was, I thought, the hard part. But now I realize I have a harder task ahead of me. What do I call them? Their are several terms used to describe this young soldiers, boy soldiers, young soldiers, youth soldiers, underage soldiers, and child soldiers. But which would best serve the needs of my paper? I like the term boy soldiers as it implies youth and with my definition of the age for "youth" I believe this will be the easiest and best route. However, does it fit to call someone towards the end of the age range, in other words 17-19, a boy soldier? Would it be best if I had two classifications and describe these classifications in the footnotes. For example a boy soldier might be between the ages of 9-16 while a young or youth soldier might be a soldier between the ages of 17-19? As you can tell I would like feedback from this from multiple people, I feel that it would be best to get several third party opinions on what to call my research subjects.
James Marten, one of my secondary source authors, refers to them as children regardless of age as long as they are under 19 or 20. For William C. Davis, another secondary source I plan to use, naming them was easy. Davis could refer to them as Cadets in his book due to the fact that it was the VMI Cadets that were the larger portion of underage soldiers. He quotes what some of the veterans had said to the Cadets, "Don't you want a sugar rag? . . . Where are you cradles? . . . Better go to your mammy" (Davis 80). All of these quotes by Confederate veterans "of age" imply that the cadets, the youngest of which was around the age of 15, where babies. I would like to have a term for these soldiers that accurately fits. And child soldier fits, for those under the age of 15. However, one would be hardpressed to find a 16-19 year old who would refer to himself as a "child soldier." If I use two terms I risk confusion, if I use one term I risk using a term that may not apply that well to the entire age range I am studying.
Sources:
Davis, William C. The Battle of New Market. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State Press, 1975.
You pose an interesting and important question for the terms used in your paper. I think perhaps that you can vary the terms, youth, young, and boy soldiers, at will as long as you clearly define the age range at the beginning of the paper that you will be looking at. In doing so, I believe it might be possible to use child soldiers only when referring to the youngest examples. Overall, I recommend always specifying the age of particular examples used so as to avoid confusion. Perhaps other people can give alternatives to my suggestions as well, but you show good planning in preparation for writing a clear paper.
ReplyDeleteEvan,
ReplyDeleteWhen I hear the phrase, child-soldier, I envision someone under the age of 17-18. These people would generally have a lack of maturity and an absence of developed reasoning capabilities. Therefore, I think labeling soldiers whom exceed the age of 18 as "child-soldiers" would be misleading to a general audience. However, as Sadie pointed out, this wouldn't matter as much, so long as you voice the specification at some point in your paper. If you can outline a clear distinction in the beginning of your piece, there shouldn't be any issues. Just make sure that whenever you make mention of another authors perspective, you also clarify the distinction for them as well.
My suggestion: "Adult-youth soldiers" (ages 18-22), "youth (or boy) soldiers" (ages 13-18) and "bullet babies" (ages 12 and under).
Good luck with your decision!
Evan,
ReplyDeleteLike Sadie and Cameron, I think using multiple terms to clarify the age ranges of younger soldiers is necessary! As you were saying, there's a big difference between someone who is 13-years-old and 19-years-old; in fact, I would go as far as to say that their perceptions of the war were probably different (correct me if I'm, though).
My opinion: I feel like the age range of 13- to 18-year-olds would be best represented by the term "adolescent soldiers" as opposed to youth or boy, mostly because I associate "boy" or "youth" when even younger ages. Then again, not everyone does, and that's why it's important, as Sadie was saying, to make it clear to your audience since we will all have different perceptions.
P.S. I also feel like you should use Cameron's term "bullet babies."
Evan
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting problem (and reveals so much about the accepted language we use!) I personally would maybe try and avoid an all encompassing label altogether. I think it would be best for a historical audifence if you used descriptors directly related to age (ex. Preteen, teenage, etc.) The less ambiguity the better in my opinion.
But bullet babies is also very catchy. :)
Good luck!
An interesting discussion for everyone's paper! Defining terms is hard--but sometimes necessary to create a cohesive endeavor and avoid putting everything together in one stew. We are really trying to be narrow as much as possible. Looking forward to talking to you more about this--but I lean towards always being able to say what your topic is in a sentence! I did talk to the someone who leads the Civil War Roundtable in SGF about your topic, and he said it was huge--and that you should narrow. His point was that half of all soldiers were under 19-- they were young or old as two divergent age groups. Check your facts on this, define and narrow!
ReplyDelete