TOW #21: The American Boy (Written Text)

In May of 1900, before taking becoming the United States’ president, Teddy Roosevelt wrote an essay in a popular youth periodical, St. Nicholas Magazine For Young Folks. His “American Boy” was one in a series of essays on boyhood, and Roosevelt wrote to inspire each young boy to develop into a “good American man.”

Roosevelt repeatedly juxtaposes opposites in his writing, beginning with the first line: “Of course, what we have a right to expect of the American boy is that he shall turn out to be a good American man.” In this case, boy and man are the figures he is contrasting. He follows this with a series of sentences that make similar juxtapositions, like “he won’t be much of a man unless he is a good deal of a boy,” or “coward” and “weakling” versus “work hard and play hard.” Ultimately, the repeated contrast of opposites is meant to highlight the importance of boyhood to the development of a good man. In the first few paragraphs Roosevelt makes clear that this is his position, but does not give much evidence to back it up. He instead relies on the audience accepting what he says as truth. The juxtaposition has much to do with why Roosevelt’s stance is so easily acceptable. When opposites are proposed, one sees two distinct options, one of which often is more preferable, and the audience can clearly follow the logic of the preferable options to the author’s intended conclusion. For Roosevelt, that is the characteristics of a good boy from which a good man can develop.

Another interesting tactic Roosevelt employs is appeal to the lower class. He writes: “Of course boys who live under such fortunate conditions that they have to do either a good deal of outdoor work or a good deal of what might be called natural outdoor play do not need this athletic development.” He is not-so-subtly stating that the lower class laborers have an advantage over the upper class in becoming real men. This is a unique approach, and to some degree an accurate one, if the characteristics of a man really are the ones he defined. However, I wonder about the effectiveness of his strategy, because while most American boys would fit the description he is giving, would most of the audience of a magazine be poor or wealthy?