Mary Seacole and Lynn McDonald’s ‘Scholarly’ Revisionist Prejudice
June 9, 2012 in Florence Nightingale, Guardian, mary seacole, Uncategorized
Right, so according to Lynn McDonald, a Canadian Sociology professor and Florence Nightingale enthusiast, Mary Seacole doesn’t deserve to be recognised for her medical services during the Crimea war, especially not with a statue that will tower over that of recognised white British nurses Florence Nightingale and Edith Cavell. Writing for the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ page, McDonald ridicules Mary Seacole and her achievements, favouring the legacy of Florence Nightingale.I haven’t heard such pretentious ignorance since David Starkey’s infamous BBC Newsnight comments during the UK riots. What is with these ‘distinguished’ and ‘educated’ types asserting their ignorant, racist and classist views onto the rest of us?
McDonald believes honouring Mary Seacole is doing a disservice to Florence Nightingale and goes on to say that Seacole wasn’t a proper nurse, she also brands Seacole as an opportunist who profited from servicing war soldiers and that the accepted history of Seacole is all ‘whoppers’. To add further insult to injury she has the cheek to tell black people Seacole isn’t worth commemorating as being mixed race (Seacole was half Jamaican and half Scottish) she didn’t like to acknowledge her black roots!
This isn’t true, there are many well documented historical examples of Seacole acknowledging and showing respect for her black people. Though considering that Seacole was born during slavery, where, sickeningly, the ability to ‘pass off for white’ would have allowed her to escape the horrid conditions of black (slave) life and offered economical opportunities, makes it understandable that she would down play her black lineage.
While, yes, Seacole was not a ‘proper’ nurse McDonald fails to mention that either really was Nightingale. Nightingale did briefly study in Germany though nursing was not a regulated or extensively trained profession since the role carried little credibility before Nightingale’s stint in the Crimea. Also missed by McDonald was how Seacole, who had learnt herbal medicine from her mother, was rejected several times to join Nightingale’s team of nurses and also rejected to work in the Crimea hospitals beacuse she was black.
Seacole, who had been a successful business woman in Jamaica, travelled to the Crimea at her own expense and established a hotel close to the front line selling food and drink to the British soldiers with which the finance was used to provide the medical treatment she offered the soldiers. While Nightingale is known as the ‘lady with the lamp’ for checking on her patients at night, Seacole provided a very personal and attentive care with many of the soliders referring to her as mother Seacole.
This it is not a competition, the two women’s accomplishments are very different much due to their race and social positioning, as a middle class white woman Nightingale had to overcome the social stigma of ‘a woman’s place is in the home’ where as Seacole despite hash racial inequality and set backs still managed to persuaded her ambition of helping people. Both women have contributed to British history making Seacole just as deserving of recognition as Nightingale.
As a black Brit, Canadian McDonald’s article deeply offends me. Who gave her a right to question a British institute’s decision to honour a much deserving historical figure? The article clear bias exposes McDonald’s racial prejudices and lacked any academic integrity; while I was pleased to see from the comments that most disagreed with McDonald, sadly there were still a few comments that accepted her dribble using her academic background to validate her awful view.
- Donalea Scott
Paul Atherton said on June 9, 2012
Firstly, can we get this fundamental fact right.
Nightingale invented nursing as a profession.
She was an administrator not a Nurse.
The Lady with the Lamp imagery was created by her family to assist with her lobbying Government for a training school to be set up at “ST THOMAS’ HOSPITAL” Plates, thimbles etc. were all sold with this imagery raising money for the cause (the first self-publicity of this manner recorded in Britain and the first time a non-royal was represented in this way).
She barely went to the frontline and was never seen with a Lamp in the way she’s portrayed.
Seacole was Heroic, Nightingale was Historic.
The distance between beds in Hospitals to prevent spread of disease, washing of hands & hygienic conditions and the training of Nurses is directly attributable to Nightingale. She set the curriculum of Nurse training and lobbied government to ensure it’s introduction and continued practice. It could even be argued she was the precursor to the NHS when she introduced Professional Nurses into Workhouses.
All of which is the same today.
In addition she invented the Pie Diagram (Polar Area Diagram) – she was a statistician too.
Seacole saved lives on the frontline. As far as I’m aware her contribution ended there. Seacole in her own words never believed she was prevented from joining Nightingales team because of colour. She was, after all, married to Nelson’s Godson.
Macdonald curates the Florence Nightingale Museum at St. Thomas’s Hospital which included the Mary Seacole exhibition 2005 – 2007. So to dismiss her so frivolously is a little foolish.
The reason for the annoyance around the statue for anybody who knows the histories of these two women is that the statue of Seacole is being placed at St. Thomas’s Hospital. Seacole had no connection whatsoever with St. Thomas’ which was where Nightingale set up the worlds first Nursing School and in so doing gave birth to Nursing as a profession (it was located at London Bridge then).
Therefore it’s the statues location that has upset MacDonald and indeed myself.
As a Black Britain I first came into contact with Seacole through a book about her, a friend’s husband had written & The Florence Nightingale Museum is one of London’s best kept secrets and I’ve visited many times.
Why not have the statue in the park where Londoner’s tried to raise money when Seacole returned to Britain bankrupt or near a site where she lived as opposed to somewhere that she has no association with whatsoever?
Elizabeth said on June 9, 2012
Florence Nightingale and Mary Seacole (plus so many other nurses) have all made various contributions to the history of nursing. Lynn McDonald, according to the Guardian profile, is editor of the Collected Works of Florence Nightingale & a professor emerita of sociology and anthropology at a Canadian university – there is no mention of her being a curator at the London Nightingale museum. She appears to be conducting an active media campaign opposing the siting of the statue and pitting Nightingale against Seacole which, as a retired professor of nursing, I find quite sad.
Paul Atherton, above, includes some interesting historical information but erroneously states that “Seacole in her own words never believed she was prevented from joining Nightingales team because of colour.” The following quotes are taken from chapter 8 of her 1857 autobiography ‘Wonderful Adventures of Mrs Seacole in many lands’: “Once again I tried, and had an interview this time with one of Miss Nightingale’s companions*. She gave me the same reply, and I read in her face the fact, that had there been a vacancy, I should not have been chosen to fill it.” [*Mrs Elizabeth Herbert, wife of Sidney Herbert, Secretary at War, who co-ordinated the recruitment of nurses, according to Alexander & Dewjee, editors of the 1984 edition of Mary's autobiography.] Mary goes on to recall standing in the London twilight wondering: “Did these ladies shrink from accepting my aid because my blood flowed beneath a somewhat duskier skin than theirs? Tears streamed down my foolish cheeks as I stood in the fast thinning streets; tears of grief that any should doubt my motives – that Heaven should deny me the opportunity that I sought”.
Atherton makes a couple of alternative suggestions for the location of the statue including the park where Londoner’s tried to raise money when Seacole returned to Britain bankrupt. On 27-30th July 1857 Punch magazine organised a four day military gala in her honour at the Royal Surrey Gardens Music Hall, London attended by an estimated 80,000 people. It is somewhat ironic that from 1862 to 1871 this site became the temporary home of, guess what?, why St Thomas’ hospital!
As Vice-Chairperson of the Mary Seacole Memorial Statue Appeal I think that St Thomas’ hospital is to be congratulated for the gift of a site for the proposed Mary Seacole Memorial Statue. Lambeth Council has now granted planning permission so all that is needed is to raise the outstanding funds to see this statue erected, the first to a named Black woman. If you would like to support this you can make a donation via: http://www.justgiving.com/maryseacolememorial or, for a minimum of £20 per year, become a Friend of Mary Seacole via: http://www.justgiving.com/friendsofmaryseacole
Finally, you can follow our progress on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SeacoleStatueAppeal and on Twitter: https://twitter.com/seacolestatue
Paul Atherton said on June 11, 2012
Perhaps Elizabeth would be kind enough to explain, why the statue was chosen to be cited at Nightingale’s St. Thomas’s hospital in the first place?
Surely, Seacole’s historical contribution if any could be found, would be with tropical diseases and therefore if a hospital was the preferred choice for the statue, why not The Hospital for Tropical Diseases near Tottenham Court Road (http://www.thehtd.org/History.aspx)?
I appreciate Elizabeth giving the quote that I would have used to make my case that not once did Seacole say she’d failed to get a job because of her colour. She merely pondered the question of whether that could be one of the reasons, with no evidence to answer it whatsoever. She was clear about the racism she had encountered in America and considered whether it was having an influence here in Britain. But not once did she confirm that.
But common sense would have told anybody these two women would never have been selected to work together.
Seacole dressed colourfully, was gregarious & full of self importance. In stark contrast to the austere, demurely dressed & didactic nature of Nightingale, who very few people liked. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2005/jan/15/featuresreviews.guardianreview6).
And of course the real irony, had Seacole been selected, nobody would have ever heard of her – can anybody name the other 38 nurses that worked under Nightingale?
Seacole was one of 1,000′s of women who were rejected for the nursing roles and there is no evidence whatsoever it was to do with her colour (though racism was clearly rife in some quarters at the time). Her social influence allowed her different routes to the role through the War Office, Quarter Master General & Medical Department, access that other less connected applicants were not offered.
Nonetheless, this doesn’t change the fact that Nightingale invented Professional Nursing & Seacole Nursed.
Nor that Seacole has anything whatsoever to do with St. Thomas’s Hospital in any shape, form or fashion – which begs the question why the decision to place the statue there was made. Especially with so much opposition from members of the Hospital itself and Medical Historians (http://www.london-se1.co.uk/news/view/5967)?
Jonas said on January 12, 2013
Apparently there is also debate about Mary’s presence in the national curriculum. Please, read this: https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/michael-gove-secretary-of-state-for-education-keep-mary-seacole-on-the-national-curriculum?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=url_share&utm_campaign=url_share_after_sign&alert_id=GLCpcOmCTb_hGIvCcHHSu