with “white slavery,” the coercion of young white girls into prostitution. In “The White Slave: AmericanGirlhood, Race, andMemory at the Turn of the Century,” Micki McElya argues that Progressive-era reformers drew on popular memories of antebellum slavery to equate commercial sex in urban centers with slavery and to claim all white sexworkers, regardless of age, as enslaved childrenwho needed the public’s protection, a consideration that was never extended to enslaved black children. According to McElya, the popular memory of slavery not only propelled American modernity in the form of sweeping reform and the emerging genre of white slavery novels and films, but also “set the contours of subsequent understandings of slavery and abolition to the present day” (p. 82). David M. Rosen’s “Slavery and the Recruitment of Child Soldiers” is especially noteworthy, if not controversial, because it cautions against hastily labeling vilified practices, such as child labor, marriage, and soldiering, as child slavery. In doing so, Rosen argues, scholars fail to account for the individual experiences of children and youths, as well as the historical “malleability of the age of consent” (p. 198). Plainly speaking, Rosen challenges the idea of a universal childhood. He starts by tracing the use of child soldiers from the American Revolution through World War II to illustrate that child conscription was not considered child enslavement in these eras. Shifting attention to Sierra Leone’s use of child conscription during its civil war in the late 1990s, he argues that taking seriously those children who testified to their willingness to go to war dismantles what amounts to “‘constructive slavery,’” which results when child conscription is used as a proxy for slavery (p. 198). Child Slavery before and after Emancipation holds slavery scholars accountable for their selective engagement with childhood. For those who find comfort in their scholarly boxes, this volume will challenge them to consider the implications their work might have on the present day. Scholars who use oral histories will feel a sense of validation when reading this volume. The emphasis placed on valuing children’s voices and experiences is also very poignant. Scholars of antebellum slavery will especially appreciate the call to use Works Progress Administration (WPA) oral interviews to insert children into “the calculus of who counts as a slave” (p. 5). Karen Sánchez-Eppler argues that once we recognize childhood as a crucial characteristic of the U.S. slave regime, “those very traits and conditions that have seemed to undermine the reliability and relevance of the WPA Slave Narratives become instead a source of insight” (p. 30).

中文翻译：

---

黑帮之人：奴隶制和解放时代的巴尔的摩警察亚当·马尔卡

用“白人奴隶制”强迫年轻的白人女孩卖淫。在“白人奴隶：世纪之交的美国少女、种族和记忆”中，米基麦克埃利亚认为，进步时代的改革者利用了战前奴隶制的流行记忆，将城市中心的商业性行为等同于奴隶制，并要求所有白人性工作者，无论年龄大小，作为被奴役的儿童，都需要公众的保护，这种考虑从未延伸到被奴役的黑人儿童身上。根据麦克埃利亚的说法，奴隶制的流行记忆不仅以彻底改革的形式推动了美国的现代性以及白人奴隶制小说和电影的新兴流派，而且“为后来对奴隶制和废除奴隶制的理解设定了轮廓”（第 82 页）。大卫 M。罗森的“奴隶制和招募儿童兵”特别值得注意，即使没有争议，因为它告诫不要草率地将诸如童工、婚姻和当兵之类的诽谤行为贴上儿童奴役的标签。罗森认为，这样做时，学者们没有考虑到儿童和青年的个人经历，以及历史上的“同意年龄的可塑性”（第 198 页）。坦率地说，罗森挑战了普遍童年的想法。他首先追溯了从美国独立战争到二战期间对儿童兵的使用情况，以说明在这些时代征募儿童不被视为儿童奴役。将注意力转移到塞拉利昂在 1990 年代后期的内战期间使用儿童兵役，他认为，认真对待那些证明他们愿意参加战争的儿童会消除相当于“建设性奴隶制”的东西，当儿童征兵被用作奴隶制的代理时就会产生这种情况（第 198 页）。解放前后的儿童奴隶制要求奴隶制学者对他们选择性地参与童年负责。对于那些在学术盒子里找到安慰的人来说，这本书将挑战他们思考他们的工作可能对今天产生的影响。使用口述历史的学者在阅读本书时会有一种肯定感。强调重视儿童的声音和经历也非常令人心酸。战前奴隶制的学者们会特别欣赏使用 Works Progress Administration (WPA) 口头访谈将儿童插入“谁算作奴隶的微积分”（第 5 页）的呼吁。Karen Sánchez-Eppler 认为，一旦我们认识到童年是美国奴隶制度的一个重要特征，“那些似乎破坏了 WPA 奴隶叙事的可靠性和相关性的特征和条件反而变成了洞察力的来源”（第 15 页）。 30)。