Do You Agree with the View That Mary Seacole Was the Real 'Angel of Mercy'?

693 Words3 Pages
Do you agree with the view that Mary Seacole, and not Florence Nightingale, was the real ‘angel of mercy’ during the Crimean war? Both Mary Seacole and Florence Nightingale could be pictured as pioneers for female nursing and care, saviours in the horror of the Crimean war, or even an ‘angel of mercy’. The phrase ‘angel of mercy’ could be perceived in different ways; the word ‘angel’ is biblical and holy and the word ‘mercy’ is defined as an act of compassion. Mary Seacole and Florence Nightingale were both very different in their efforts in the Crimea which has in turn changed the way historians analyse them today. Some historians may argue that Florence Nightingale was the ‘angel of mercy’ because of her influential systems that she inputted in healthcare, however, it is clear to me that Mary Seacole is the real ‘angel of mercy’ because of the kind acts she did. Mary Seacole was a Jamaican healer who set up a boarding house for the British troops. Seacole was denied the role of a nurse for the British troops, but it is not certain why. Some historians argue that it was because she was a creole so experienced racial prejudice and some claim that it was purely because she had no real medical training. It is important to remember that Seacole went to the Crimea at her own expense as it emphasises her role as the ‘angel of mercy’ because she went there to help others in spite of the racial prejudices she face. Seacole had a big impact on the morale of the troops in the Crimean war by giving them personal care. Seacole was often referred to as ‘mother’ and many would choose her medical help over the unsanitary hospitals. It is clear that Seacole did not offer the best medical help in the Crimea, but because of her previous experiences of cholera outbreaks, “she treated patients suffering from cholera and dysentery” (source V). Similarly, Seacole “was attentive to
Open Document