Now what possible motive or justification could there be for this?
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history, Michael Gove is urged - Education News - Education - The Independent
The soldiers at the time seemed to think they owed her a debt of gratitude.
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history
Thanks for posting this. I had not heard of Mary Seacole before, I had no idea of her worthy accomplishments. I agree with you, there doesn't seem to be justification for the removal of her name, as a matter of fact, Britain should praise her memory. What do you think is the motive?
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history
I always love reading the comments on subjects I know nothing about and I was not disappointed by this article, thank you very much.
I have been totally diverted by a question raised about slavery, however, and am off to google it down!
I have been totally diverted by a question raised about slavery, however, and am off to google it down!
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history
Michael Gove, the man who oversees the education of our children, has himself the intellect of parsley.
He believes that Scotland should remain part of the UK arguing that "Scotland's strengths compliment those of other parts of the UK ". He is clearly not one of Scotland's strengths
He believes that Scotland should remain part of the UK arguing that "Scotland's strengths compliment those of other parts of the UK ". He is clearly not one of Scotland's strengths
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history
She was an ordinary woman who did extraordinary things. such a remarkable character the only reason that makes sense is outright racism. There's always been a debate about how and what history should be taught in schools. The right tend to think it should all be about the significant dates and the great historical figures but that underplays the part played by ordinary people maybe it's no more than Florence nightingale was the right sort of heroine , white upper middle class.
-
AnneBoleyn
- Posts: 6632
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history
It's a big mistake in race relations, not to allow folks their pride & heroes. Big mistake.
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history
Snowfire;1415485 wrote: Michael Gove, the man who oversees the education of our children, has himself the intellect of parsley.
He believes that Scotland should remain part of the UK arguing that "Scotland's strengths compliment those of other parts of the UK ". He is clearly not one of Scotland's strengths
luckily we have a separate education system from England so he can't touch it but then we have a separate and different set of problems with politically motivated interference as well.
Not a rag I normally read but this caught my eye.
John Prescott says Michael Gove is dragging Britain back into the past - John Prescott - Mirror Online
So why is Gove making these changes? You have only to look at his own department to see why.
Only 7 per cent of Brits have been to private school. But in Gove’s own Department for Â*Education, 83??per cent of his ministers were privately educated.
This from a man who sent a King James Bible at a cost of £370,000 to EVERY school in Â*England and Wales with his name on the front!
Even God didn’t have the cheek to insist on that.
It's one of the problems with our electoral system that a small minority who end up with the most seats get to impose their will. It takes decades to build a good education system but just a few years to destroy one.
posted by snowfire
Michael Gove, the man who oversees the education of our children, has himself the intellect of parsley.
He believes that Scotland should remain part of the UK arguing that "Scotland's strengths compliment those of other parts of the UK ". He is clearly not one of Scotland's strengths
Intellect and politician - can you use them in the same sentence?
He believes that Scotland should remain part of the UK arguing that "Scotland's strengths compliment those of other parts of the UK ". He is clearly not one of Scotland's strengths
luckily we have a separate education system from England so he can't touch it but then we have a separate and different set of problems with politically motivated interference as well.
Not a rag I normally read but this caught my eye.
John Prescott says Michael Gove is dragging Britain back into the past - John Prescott - Mirror Online
So why is Gove making these changes? You have only to look at his own department to see why.
Only 7 per cent of Brits have been to private school. But in Gove’s own Department for Â*Education, 83??per cent of his ministers were privately educated.
This from a man who sent a King James Bible at a cost of £370,000 to EVERY school in Â*England and Wales with his name on the front!
Even God didn’t have the cheek to insist on that.
It's one of the problems with our electoral system that a small minority who end up with the most seats get to impose their will. It takes decades to build a good education system but just a few years to destroy one.
posted by snowfire
Michael Gove, the man who oversees the education of our children, has himself the intellect of parsley.
He believes that Scotland should remain part of the UK arguing that "Scotland's strengths compliment those of other parts of the UK ". He is clearly not one of Scotland's strengths
Intellect and politician - can you use them in the same sentence?
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history
gmc;1415527 wrote:
Intellect and politician - can you use them in the same sentence?
You're right. An oxymoron
Talking of morons. As soon as I see any mention of John Prescott, I cringe. More parsley, just the other end of the political spectrum
Intellect and politician - can you use them in the same sentence?
You're right. An oxymoron
Talking of morons. As soon as I see any mention of John Prescott, I cringe. More parsley, just the other end of the political spectrum
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history
In the States, we have heard of Nightingale, of course. But Mary Seacole's reputation, it seems, never made it over here. At least in the common education system.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history
LarsMac;1415549 wrote: In the States, we have heard of Nightingale, of course. But Mary Seacole's reputation, it seems, never made it over here. At least in the common education system.
It never used to feature here either it's only fairly recently I became aware of the story myself and that's speaking as someone fascinated by history. Realistically history is a subject where, at least for a school curriculum, you have to cherry pick what you want to teach and we have rather more than you to contend with. The tories as a right wing party like to downplay the part ordinary people have played in the past in case they get stroppy in the present. The anti-slavery movement is a good example you would think ordinary people had no opinions or part to play on the matter yet the reality was very different.
The term wage slave used to have real meaning - the last serfs in scotland were the coal miners in fife released from serfdom by act of parliament in 1797 - although paid wages they were unable to leave their employment and theior wives and children were bound as well. The same part of scotland that Adam Smith came from always think that fact makes what he had to say about the need to pay decent wages more interesting.
It never used to feature here either it's only fairly recently I became aware of the story myself and that's speaking as someone fascinated by history. Realistically history is a subject where, at least for a school curriculum, you have to cherry pick what you want to teach and we have rather more than you to contend with. The tories as a right wing party like to downplay the part ordinary people have played in the past in case they get stroppy in the present. The anti-slavery movement is a good example you would think ordinary people had no opinions or part to play on the matter yet the reality was very different.
The term wage slave used to have real meaning - the last serfs in scotland were the coal miners in fife released from serfdom by act of parliament in 1797 - although paid wages they were unable to leave their employment and theior wives and children were bound as well. The same part of scotland that Adam Smith came from always think that fact makes what he had to say about the need to pay decent wages more interesting.
-
Raxacoricofallapatorius
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:07 am
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history
What is the current state of racism in the UK? I've always assumed there is less racism than here in the US.
Don’t consign Mary Seacole to history
Good question and there is no simple answer. It's on a different level from that in the states. What we did at home and what we did in the colonies were two different things.
In the Middle Ages there were serfs. They formed part of their lords' estates, were 'bound to the soil' but they couldn't be freely bought or sold. Serfdom prevented the free movement of people and after the Black Death it fell into disuse and was finally abolished in 1568. In the early 1700s some rich people bought black slaves as domestic servants and/or as a status symbol. This slavery was made illegal in 1774. NB: it was outrage of ordinary people that led to the court case that banned it. In 1772 it was ruled that slavery in England be illegal. The Slave Trade in and out of the British Empire was outlawed in 1807. The Abolition of Slavery Act of 1833 abolished slavery in the rest of the British Empire. So racism yes but we didn't live with the consequences of slavery in quite the same way in that we don't have a large population of former slaves living right next door. The religious justification of black slavery didn't get quite the same hold here as it did in the states.
I think there is less racism, certainly black Britons I know that have been to the states seem to find greater animosity between the races but I can't actually give you a coherent answer.
In the Middle Ages there were serfs. They formed part of their lords' estates, were 'bound to the soil' but they couldn't be freely bought or sold. Serfdom prevented the free movement of people and after the Black Death it fell into disuse and was finally abolished in 1568. In the early 1700s some rich people bought black slaves as domestic servants and/or as a status symbol. This slavery was made illegal in 1774. NB: it was outrage of ordinary people that led to the court case that banned it. In 1772 it was ruled that slavery in England be illegal. The Slave Trade in and out of the British Empire was outlawed in 1807. The Abolition of Slavery Act of 1833 abolished slavery in the rest of the British Empire. So racism yes but we didn't live with the consequences of slavery in quite the same way in that we don't have a large population of former slaves living right next door. The religious justification of black slavery didn't get quite the same hold here as it did in the states.
I think there is less racism, certainly black Britons I know that have been to the states seem to find greater animosity between the races but I can't actually give you a coherent answer.