How Far Do Sources Suggest That Mary Seacole Was a Great Help to the Men in the Crimea?

500 Words2 Pages
How far do sources suggest that Mary Seacole was a great help to the men in the Crimea? Plan – Intro = partly. P1 = remedies, assistance, kindness. P2= men objected, improper conduct, “some” To some extent, the sources agree that Mary Seacole was a great help to the men in the Crimea but certain aspects of these three sources imply otherwise. Source 1 and 2 agree that Mary Seacole’s way of care was beneficial to the men in the Crimea. Source 2 tells us that Seacole’s herbal medicines were preferred to the doctors and that “her never failing presense...made her beloved by the rank and file of the whole army”. From this, I can infer she did help the army in the Crimea with her medicine. Part of source 1 supports this as it tells us her care was “nourishment they had no other means of obtaining”, showing us that perhaps her care was unlike the hospital’s. The two sources indicate she made a good impression on the men by helping them throughout the war with her presence and remedies. On the other hand Source 3 indicates she didn’t make a difference and source 1 partly agrees. Source 3 tells us Seacole deserved no credit and what she ran was a “bad house” of ”much drunkenness” which we can only conclude that Seacole was maybe disturbance in the Crimea. Source 2 tells us her “nourishment” which could have been alcohol was appreciated but “most soldiers strongly objected to going there”. This shows that Seacole in the Crimea may have been unnecessary. Even Source 1 says the cured only “some” patients, suggesting not all benefitted from her care. Source 2’s claims are questionable though, because it’s from an unnamed source meaning we don’t know if there is a motive as we can’t research the writer to see if they were a first hand witness or if he only heard about Seacole because he only gives a general impression. Unlike source 2, source 3 had such a strong motive
Open Document