'History Nightingale vs Seacole Essay\r'

'Do you agree with the sop up that bloody shame Seacole, and non Florence nightingale was the strong number ‘ backer of tenderness’ during the Crimean War I agree tot totallyy with the examine that bloody shame Seacole was the palpable ‘ angel of forbearance’ although I shadowernister downstairsstand why on that point may be to a greater extent or less separate signaling that nightingale warranted the title. quotations 2C and 2O agree with the view that nightingale was the ‘Angel of leniency’ whereas writer V flags manifest that founds Seacole deserved to herald the title.The burden of severalise all the way supports the view seen in Source V saying Seacole was the accepted ‘Angel of Mercy’ payable to the rocker that surrounds the other two sources which support nightingale. at that place is a lot of evidence to suggest that bloody shame Seacole really was the angel of Mercy. This is really clearly suppo rted in Source V which describes her work in resemblance to that of Florence Nightingale. Source V, which is an extract from a concord callight-emitting diode â€Å"The puritanics” written by A. N.Wilson and published in 2002, states how Seacole was actually(prenominal) ‘attentive’ and was always ‘on hand for the troops’ so so of course tapering 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 likewise how the work Nightingale did was minimal and had no convinced(p) effect on the soldiers. The rootage has clearly been substantially informed and has a strong agenda in abstracted to play down the eccentric of Nightingale in the Crimea.When comparing this to Source O, we can clearly see the difference amongst the Jingoistic and Traditionalist view of Nightingale universe almost angelic and up to now like the Vi rgin Mary compared to the revisionist view where she is criticised hugely. Source O may beget a very different persuasion on Nightingale’s role during the Crimean War, however it is still valid as it shows the view point of British heap of Nightingale macrocosm a hoagy during Victorian judgment of convictions.Also, Source 2C is a conservative view and we now know that umpteen of the things stated within it are phony such as the statement that she ‘tended the last’. Further much, Seacole has to be considered as the real Angel of Mercy due to the great efforts she make notwithstanding to get out to the Crimea in which she had to pay money herself to get on that point. She was previously turned down a dapple as a nurse under Nightingale’s leadership, which it is thought, could be to do with the occurrence she was black.Her attack aircraftism was proven advance through her setting up the ‘British Hotel’ in Scutari that tended t o the troops. As well as giving them provisions when they were in need. In addition, we can clearly see the prowess she possessed from the concomitant she would minister to the weakened and the dying on the actual battle surface area. She was willing to risk her life-time to save others. Seacole gave an full recollection within her diaries of the things she did out in the Crimea and gave a description of her eitherday life out there, which clearly involved so much hard work.The Times diarist 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 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 psyche ‘who’ did not spare herself if she could do both good to the suffering soldiers, furthers Russell’s opinion.This erstwhile again goes to show the nature of the somebody 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 accredited ‘Angel of Mercy’ during the Crimean War. There is alike 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 dish up of support towards the view that Nightingale was a hero and was the avowedly ‘Angel of Mercy’.Source 2C states how ‘Florence Nightingale battled as valiantly as any soldier in the field to improve conditions’ giving us an tone as to the extreme effort she set up in to helping out the British troops. It states how she worked with ‘incredible ener gy’ formerly more showing the amount of work she plant in. This can be compared to Source 20 which also portrays Nightingale as being angelic and tending to the men for their every need. We now know that she didn’t truly treat the men herself and instead administer whilst other nurses did this work. Source 2C was written by Denis Judd and is an extract from the 1975 book â€Å"The Crimean War”.Judd clearly had an agenda to portray Nightingale well and perhaps hadn’t got the benefit of receiving all the evidence necessary to produce a completely truthful representation. It does however give us a perspective into the opinions tribe 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 betwixt November 1854 a nd 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 covered in blow and â€Å"crawling with vermin” which obviously led to many maladys such as mortification and in particular cholera. Cholera was the disease that resulted in the most deaths. Before Nightingale arrived, we know that the conditions were much weaken and were depict as ‘sufficiently comfortable’ and ‘ reasonable and airy’, but this changed and rapidly declined pastime Nightingale’s arrival so 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 accuse Mary Stanley of ‘plotting to set up an opposi tion’, 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 similitude 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 being angelic and having a huge impact on the soldiers lives positively, they can’t 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 origin ator who was well informed in equivalence 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’ faraway outweighs that of Florence Nightingale deserving the name so therefore in my opinion Mary Seacole was the true ‘Angel of Mercy’. David Hughes-D’Aeth\r\n'