History Nightingale vs Seacole Essay

Do you agree with the view that bloody shame Seacole, and not Florence nightingale was the real ideal of mercifulness during the Crimean War I agree totally with the view that Mary Seacole was the real Angel of Mercy although I can project why there may be some bear witness suggesting that Nightingale warranted the title. bases 2C and 2O agree with the view that Nightingale was the Angel of Mercy whereas extraction V gives cause that sharpens Seacole deserved to herald the title.The weight of evidence intelligibly supports the view seen in Source V saying Seacole was the real Angel of Mercy due to the provenance that surrounds the other two sources which support Nightingale. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Mary Seacole in truth was the angel of Mercy. This is very(prenominal) intelligibly supported in Source V which describes her work in simile to that of Florence Nightingale. Source V, which is an extract from a book called The Victorians writ ten dollar bill by A. N.Wilson and published in 2002, states how Seacole was very heedful and was always on hand for the troops so therefore of course armying Seacole in a very good light. The source was produced to show the readers what the modern day revisionist view is in regards to who the real Angel of Mercy was and also how the work Nightingale did was minimal and had no positive effect on the soldiers. The reference has clearly been well informed and has a strong agenda in wanting to play plenty the role of Nightingale in the Crimea.When comparing this to Source O, we can clearly see the difference among the Jingoistic and Traditionalist view of Nightingale being almost angelic and even like the gross(a) Mary compared to the revisionist view where she is criticised hugely. Source O may have a very different status on Nightingales role during the Crimean War, however it is still valid as it shows the view touch of British people of Nightingale being a hit man during Victorian while s.Also, Source 2C is a diehard view and we now know that many of the things stated within it are false such as the statement that she tended the dying. Furthermore, Seacole has to be considered as the real Angel of Mercy due to the great efforts she do just to get out to the Crimea in which she had to pay money herself to get there. She was previously turned bring down a position as a nurse under Nightingales leadership, which it is thought, could be to do with the feature she was black.Her heroism was proven further through her modelting up the British Hotel in Scutari that tended to the troops. As well as giving them provisions when they were in need. In addition, we can clearly see the braveness she possessed from the fact she would minister to the wounded and the dying on the actual battle field of force. She was willing to risk her intent to save others. Seacole gave an honest recollection within her diaries of the things she did out in the Crimea and gave a description of her everyday bearing out there, which clearly involved so such(prenominal) hard work.The Times journalist at the time William Howard Russell, who himself was out in the Crimea, backs up the opinion that Mary Seacole was the real Angel of Mercy, stating how she doctors and cures all expressive style of men with extraordinary success just going to show the extent of the positive impact she had on the troops during the Crimean War. Moreover, Dr Reid, a surgeon in the Army at the time, who states how he met a celebrated individual who did not spare herself if she could do any good to the suffering soldiers, furthers Russells opinion.This in one case again goes to show the nature of the person she was and the impact she had which is seen in Source O. Therefore, there is strong evidence to suggest that Mary Seacole, and not Florence Nightingale, was in fact the reliable Angel of Mercy during the Crimean War. There is also substantial evidence to suggest that Florence Nightingale, and not Mary Seacole was the real Angel of Mercy during the Crimean War. To begin with, both Source 2C and Source 2O show a great deal of support towards the view that Nightingale was a hero and was the true Angel of Mercy.Source 2C states how Florence Nightingale battled as valiantly as any soldier in the field to improve conditions giving us an impression as to the extreme effort she adjust in to dowry out the British troops. It states how she worked with incredible energy once more showing the amount of work she put in. This can be compared to Source 20 which also demos Nightingale as being angelic and care to the men for their every need. We now know that she didnt actually treat the men herself and instead administrate whilst other nurses did this work. Source 2C was compose by Denis Judd and is an extract from the 1975 book The Crimean War.Judd clearly had an agenda to portray Nightingale well and perhaps hadnt got the benefit of receiving all the evidence necessary to p roduce a completely truthful representation. It does however give us a perspective into the opinions people held until about ten years ago. Furthermore, there is a huge amount of evidence to suggest that Nightingale was in fact ineffective and perhaps even had a negative effect on the soldiers in The Crimea. This can clearly be seen due to the death rate rising to 42 per 1000 during her time at the Scutari amidst November 1854 and March 1855.This is clearly down no the filthy conditions that the hospital managed to get into whilst she was there with the floors being cover in muck and crawling with vermin which obviously led to many diseases such as humiliate and in particular cholera. Cholera was the disease that resulted in the most deaths. Before Nightingale arrived, we know that the conditions were much better and were described as sufficiently comfortable and clean and airy, but this changed and rapidly declined spare-time activity Nightingales arrival thus meaning she cannot be considered as being the Angel of Mercy.This view is furthered from the fact that following the arrival of sanitary commission, the conditions changed for the better and the death rate went down to 2 per 1000. In addition Nightingale was very arrogant and jealous of anyone who competed with her and even accused Mary Stanley of plotting to set up an opposition, which never would have happened, had Nightingale not have turned down her help. This once again shows how she was not the hero that Victorian society thought she was as seen in Source 2C and Source 2O. Thus, there is some evidence to suggest that Florence Nightingale was the Angel of Mercy and not Mary Seacole.However that evidence is very weak in comparison to the evidence suggesting that Seacole warranted the title of Angel of Mercy. To conclude, Mary Seacole and not Florence Nightingale was the real Angel of Mercy due to a number of reasons addressed. In Sources 2C and 2O, although they describe and show Nightingale bein g angelic and having a huge impact on the soldiers lives positively, they cant be seen as true because they were written at a time where Nightingale was seen as a hero and people held a much more traditionalist view.This differs to Source V which is a revisionist view and was written by an author who was well informed in comparison to the ill-informed Dennis Judd and the artist who painted Source O. Overall, it is very clear that the evidence for Mary Seacole being the true Angel of Mercy far outweighs that of Florence Nightingale be the name so therefore in my opinion Mary Seacole was the true Angel of Mercy. David Hughes-DAeth