We do tend to do tales of tragedy though. She was the victim on two different counts, as well as being the hero (recruited as a child soldier, and defending against hostile invasion. Heroic for shooting Nazis).
Depicting someone defending against the bad guys while being taken advantage of by the good guys and meanwhile shooting pedophile Nazis feels like a shoe in.
Also, it wasn’t technically a war crime at the time. The conventions around not using child soldiers are shockingly recent. Was still a bad thing to do, but only by modern standards.
We also tend to glorify war crime stories depressingly often, so I’m not sure that point even stands.
You know that people speaking out against child soldiers aren’t condemning the children, right? They’re condemning the people who take advantage of them.
That’s sort of why most criticism is directed towards warlords and drug cartels.
Really wasn’t a situation that needed race injected into it, particularly when no one was saying that white child soldiers are somehow okay.
I don’t know how often discussions of the issues with child soldiers focus on discussions of historical instances, since caring at all is a relatively modern phenomenon, but I don’t think I’ve heard people speak positively of it.
I don’t think the US used child soldiers though, even in the home defense category the ones who did did.
To my knowledge neither axis nor allies engaged in the coercive type of child military service most condemned today.
I don’t think anyone is on the pro-child soldier side of things like you seem to be implying. Like all bad things there’s a gradient. Abducting children, giving them drugs and guns and using them as canon fodder is far worse than equipping them as part of a civil defense force, which is worse than allowing enlistment at 16 rather than 18.
…because she was a child soldier. She was doing this aged 14.
We tend not to glorify tales of the WW2 where war crimes were committed.
We do tend to do tales of tragedy though. She was the victim on two different counts, as well as being the hero (recruited as a child soldier, and defending against hostile invasion. Heroic for shooting Nazis).
Depicting someone defending against the bad guys while being taken advantage of by the good guys and meanwhile shooting pedophile Nazis feels like a shoe in.
Also, it wasn’t technically a war crime at the time. The conventions around not using child soldiers are shockingly recent. Was still a bad thing to do, but only by modern standards.
We also tend to glorify war crime stories depressingly often, so I’m not sure that point even stands.
So Kick-Ass it, make it about her going and out killing these SS pedos who are following a 14 year old into the woods.
And we totally do, look at Inglourious Basterds.
Because they can’t make her movie character older than what it was?!
So Kick-Ass it, make it about her going and out killing these SS pedos who are following a 14 year old into the woods.
Child soldiers are fine in ww2. They weren not brown people fighting for their lives. They were white people.
You know that people speaking out against child soldiers aren’t condemning the children, right? They’re condemning the people who take advantage of them.
That’s sort of why most criticism is directed towards warlords and drug cartels.
Really wasn’t a situation that needed race injected into it, particularly when no one was saying that white child soldiers are somehow okay.
So they condemn the Brits and Americans for using child soldiers to fight Germany?
I don’t know how often discussions of the issues with child soldiers focus on discussions of historical instances, since caring at all is a relatively modern phenomenon, but I don’t think I’ve heard people speak positively of it.
I don’t think the US used child soldiers though, even in the home defense category the ones who did did.
To my knowledge neither axis nor allies engaged in the coercive type of child military service most condemned today.
I don’t think anyone is on the pro-child soldier side of things like you seem to be implying. Like all bad things there’s a gradient. Abducting children, giving them drugs and guns and using them as canon fodder is far worse than equipping them as part of a civil defense force, which is worse than allowing enlistment at 16 rather than 18.
Nazi Germany was drafting kids in the early teens by the end of the war. Japan was planning on it.
Well gross. I had only known they got as far as the civil defense force, not that they were actually drafting for combat roles.