Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Greg Jenner

GET UPDATES FROM Greg Jenner
 

Michael Gove Is Wrong: Mary Seacole Belongs on the School Curriculum

Posted: 07/01/2013 00:00

History is like property-based programming on Channel 4 - there's just too much of it for the human brain to absorb. All those Romans, and Celts, and Vikings, and prime ministers, and silly hats, and... well, it's just so hard to cram all of it into those tiny heads that children possess. How on Earth do you go about trying to teach history to a generation of Bambi-eyed blank slates; inquisitive but baffled kids, who possess no frame of reference for the vast lists of epochs and eras?

Michael Gove, the education secretary, has thought long and hard about this, and he has come up with a radical solution - time travel! Yes, if it's good enough for Dr Who, then why can't the government drag us all back to the halcyon days of yesteryear?

For Gove, at least according to a leaked report, it seems the answers to historical erudition lie in the traditional values of the 19th century, when men were men and women were corseted waifs struggling to breathe. The education secretary, who has apparently enlisted the help of the eminent professor Simon Schama for advice, seems to yearn for the glory days of empire, when history was taught not just to understand the past, but to mould the colonial administrators of the future.

Back then, a child's history curriculum was a conveyer belt of greatness - famous kings, heroic deeds, victorious battles, landmark events. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this approach, as Americans will point out. Indeed, viewers of Horrible Histories will know that we have our fair share of sketches about 'important' stuff, like the Industrial Revolution or Magna Carta. Furthermore, I also equally welcome more emphasis on historical linear narrative in teaching. I know many well-educated adults who would blink in terror if I asked them to place the Vikings on a timeline of world history, and it would be no bad thing for their kids to be able to correct them when they finally shrug their shoulders and guess that it's in the middle of the 14th century.

However, my concern is with the elevation of a white-washed, patrician, whiggish history of Progress with a capital P. Symbolic of this revolution in nationalised education is Gove's intention to not include Mary Seacole, the celebrated Jamaican who won acclaim in the Crimean War, in favour of Tory poster-boys like Lord Nelson and Winston Churchill. This worries, and confuses, me in equal measure.

Seacole's relatively recent rise to public notoriety has been crudely mocked by some right-wingers as political correctness at work in the classroom, and their case is bolstered by an unfortunate mythologizing of her scant medical accomplishments. Yet, here was a strong and independent woman of mixed-race, proud of her Scottish father, who spent years tending to the needs of the British regiments stationed in the West Indies. Furthermore, when Seacole heard of the suffering in the Crimea, she volunteered to travel thousands of miles to cater to those same troops she had formerly known. Having been denied the opportunity to nurse by government recruiters, and once more by a public charity, she then resolved to make the journey with her own capital. She sold up in Jamaica, went into business with a family friend, and built a wooden shack only a couple of miles from the blood-stained battlefield, from which she ran a canteen, supply store and improvised rehabilitation centre for unwell troops.

Here at her optimistically-titled British Hotel, she won the support and admiration of the soldiers, the locals, the top brass and William Russell, the world's first war correspondent, who wrote about her in gushing prose. Her aim was to provide comfort and care to the officers and men, and she would sometimes assist the injured on the battlefield itself, though she was not a trained nurse like the pioneering Florence Nightingale. When the war ended unexpectedly, Mary was left bankrupt - having naively invested in expensive stock - and took months to return to London, penniless. Yet, was she forgotten and neglected? Not in the least. An enormous benefit was thrown in her honour, attended by the highest echelons of royalty, and her memoirs went on to sell like hot cakes. She died in comfort, as a warmly-welcomed member of Britain's far-flung empire.

So, as well as being clearly not being a 'token black' for the political correctness brigade, I'd like to ask another question - at what point was Mary Seacole NOT an astonishingly courageous and compassionate exemplar of the Big Society? If this Coalition government really is trying to instil more civic pride and individual responsibility in the public, then there are few more compelling icons of altruistic endeavour than a woman who traipsed half-way around the world to support those fighting in her name. Was she a saint? Not at all, and she herself struggled at times to deflect racial taunts by trying to distance herself from those with darker skin, so she might better fit in. Her achievements as a medical practitioner have also been unjustifiably overstated; but her contribution to the Crimean campaign, and British history, were celebrated in her own lifetime by those who witnessed her in action, and should not be ignored in favour of the more traditional military feats of Lord Nelson.

Not every child can grow up to be a talismanic military commander, valiantly defending Britain's independence from a foreign invasion fleet; but informing kids that there were women - women of colour, no less - who were valued for their efforts and compassion is perhaps a more nurturing and progressive way to teach history to the majority of children, many of whom are increasingly of varied ethnic heritage, and half of whom are female. It is for these reasons that I also lament the proposed non-inclusion of Olaudah Equiano, the black slave who became a tireless campaigner for abolition. Our nation's history was not solely made by white people. Contrary to popular belief, there were blacks in Tudor England and Scotland, and by the 18th century they numbered more than 40,000. Many, such as Equiano, served bravely in the Royal Navy - home of Gove's preferred champion, Lord Nelson - and to forget their contribution would be a travesty of factual accuracy, as well as depriving generations of Black children of crucial positive role models from history. Social mobility, and multi-cultural inclusivity, begins with education - it would be dangerous to skew history in schools towards a legacy of uniform whiteness.

The Olympics may have revealed that modern Britain is a multi-cultural success story, but historians have long since said the same thing about our past. Michael Gove has my support if he wants to instil more narrative structure in historical education, but I'll fight him tooth and nail if he thinks neglecting to include black icons is anything other than a terrible idea.

 

Follow Greg Jenner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/greg_jenner

FOLLOW UK STUDENTS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 59
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
02:56 AM on 01/24/2013
The BBC's "Battlefield Britain" gives a better idea of what the history of the place was like, than anything in my schoolbooks 55 years ago. But then it can also tell you that battles rarely work out well even for the troops on the winning side. It might definitely hurt recruitment for the armed forces. Which might be a very good thing. I'd love to see a balanced treatment -- not Politically Correct, but Historically True -- of the conquest of Africa, ideally with some input from author Alexander McCall Smith, and perhaps also the cleverest man I know, Kirimanya Murithi, of Kenya.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ben Wilson
Might as well laugh while you still can.
01:15 PM on 01/13/2013
Mary Seacole probably is a leftist tactic, a desperate bid for Brits to claim 'oh well we weren't all that bad/racist.' but even if it is a tactic it's still a fine story. I must confess however that I wish I had learned more about British History, the days of Empire and the full context of the 2 world wars. My history at school was so fractured and erratic learning about the past was not enjoyable, even though I chose to do it for GCSE and A Level, 10 years on I still feel like I am joining up all the dots. There's nothing worse than a history lesson that misses out half the story because the teacher seems to have some compulsion to bang on about very specific things in any given era, and to some extent that's Seacole. I remember learning about her and she was a footnote on a footnote. It was a quick half hour of Nightingale with a quick mention of Seacole, and several commented on the token nature of it, followed by an impassioned feminists rant off our teacher. It really did look like they were desperate to throw coloured person and women onto the course, considering Nighting gale got 25 minutes and we had to read up on Seacole at home after 5 minute guide, all 1/4 of page we were given on her.
09:20 AM on 01/14/2013
The trouble with British history is there is so much of it. Also i too find that learning about is very difficult simply because you cannot get the events into contexd, without knowing some of the background, To me the Crimea was the first war the UK faught where they were under the scutiny of the press, namely the Times. That played a crucial role in getting the improvements that both Nightingale and Seacole played a part in.

As far as passion goes i still remember one history teacher covering the Russian Revolution. I don't remember much as i switched off after about the tenth repeated phrase "The Glorious Workers”. I still have a passion for history.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
02:36 AM on 01/24/2013
"The trouble with British history is there is so much of it." Very true.
As a former Brit, and an ardent lover of science and technology, I was dismayed to see the Smithsonian Museum of Science and Technology renamed, and stealthily revised, as the Museum of American History, in 1976. It is now years since the wonderful Foucault's Pendulum was removed, to make room for far less fascinating stuff, like a tattered old battle flag. I used to see children watching in fascination as the pendulum came closer and closer to knocking over the next marker. Proof that the Earth really, really is rotating.
I had always thought that the most impressive thing about America, besides the War of Independence which is called the Revolution here, was their Science and Technology. Indeed, the impressive part of the USA's history is already housed in the Archives.

European countries have lots of old battle flags. I think it's the Tate museum that has Turner's painting of the Téméraire being tugged to her last berth, a grand old ship, that came alongside Nelson's at Trafalgar, and saved the battle -- the gallant old darling of sail, being dragged to her destruction by a dirty smoky little coal burner.
07:08 PM on 01/12/2013
Having read a couple of these pieces, the authors are all coming across as hugely bitter and prejudiced, and seem - in the enthusiasm for knee-jerks, that Gove is harldly one of life's toffs.
07:32 PM on 01/09/2013
Florence Nightingale is where she is in history because of the love the soldiers of the Crimean had for Mary Seacole, in Empress Goves world of history who would win, a black women who tended to the massed ranks on the front line, with very good results, or a white well to do lady who had a mans eye for loving care and waste, and very good pals with the top lot at the time?
10:59 AM on 01/09/2013
From their contribution to WWII to science to art to mathematics to literature I always felt like I never learnt about enough figures who are of an ethnic minority in school. Sadly these people who have contributed to Britain are left of the history books/forgotten about and you have to do your own personal research to find out about them.
Fakestinian
If you think your sword is too short,take a pace f
01:27 PM on 01/08/2013
This from a man who has declared that he want's to do away with St George,still perhaps his leftwing views are not projected to our children in his inacurate take on historical FACT!!
06:25 AM on 01/08/2013
My sons are 12 and 14 love educational stuff, and are VERY keen on Horrible Histories (as am I). My 14 year old's history teacher commented on how impressed he was with his overall understanding of the historical timeline - I credit the HH series with a lot of that.

I do hope history teaching does not go back to dry rote learning of dates and times (my older partner is very proud of the fact that he can still recite the kings and queens in order - sigh). That will be a real turn off for the kids. HH shows the way forward.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
02:40 AM on 01/24/2013
Dear Morag, do make sure that your sons get to read "1066 and all that". Its very last sentence ends with "and history came to a ."
(. is a full stop)
10:33 AM on 01/24/2013
Thanks for the suggestion, though knowing my older son, he probably has already read it! The school counsellor suggested he read "The Curious Incident of..." "The Dog in the Night" finished my son - "Already read it"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Thompson 451
Under every stone lurks a politician.
01:36 AM on 01/08/2013
I covered the Crimean war at school. Not especially well, didn't mention the appalling state the British got into , as opposed to the French, due to ghastly supply arrangements, but we did it. Didn't mention that Florence Nightingale's impact on nursing was post Crimea, achieving little while at Scutari, apart from noting the high body count, but she was mentioned.

When I began to read history myself, I was quite offended that Mary Seacole had been omitted. An interesting character and a pretty good example to anyone of someone "just getting on & doing what she could with what she had".
Nothing racial, I'm pure vanilla in background, but maybe the omission felt too much like the little england crap my parents spouted.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:27 AM on 01/08/2013
I think that Mary Seacole deserves a place in history, she does have a story as part of the Crimea.

However, she is a politically correct icon, and so her story has been revised to fit into a certain more modern viewpoint. She did tend to soldiers, but she wasn't a nurse, her Hotel was as much a drinking den and more, than a hospital. But what she did took either courage or madness.

So much of history is seen from a point of view, so a lot of the time we hear part of the facts, which are interpreted to suit the point of view of the teller.
09:21 PM on 01/07/2013
In one sense it’s great that history always attracts a healthy debate about its curriculum; it’s because history matters that it's a political football. Indeed, as historians are well placed to remind us, dictators often give priority to rewriting history, recognising that ‘He who controls the present controls the past’. No wonder Khrushchev thought historians ‘dangerous people’ who ‘must be controlled’!
But political interference in the curriculum is dangerous, something not mitigated by the irony of a Conservative Education Secretary seemingly wanting to borrow from Stalin and require history teachers to paste over the pages of their textbooks to obscure Seacole and Equiano, and replace them with Nelson and Churchill.
Now I’m not really suggesting Mr Gove is a Khrushchev or a Stalin, of course. But I do think it regrettable that politicians involve themselves in the subject for what appear to be political (as opposed to educational) reasons.
The history curriculum can’t include everything and those who construct history curricula are faced with ‘an embarrassment of riches’. However, a curriculum that provides opportunities for choice and balance, one that isn't skewed in one political direction, which contains both Seacole and Churchill might have more educational merit.
Maybe a politically neutral history curriculum is just wishful thinking. Maybe all we can hope is that our children emerge from school history lessons able to tell the difference between ‘history’ and political propaganda, of whatever hue. That would be something. Don't we want our historians to be 'dangerous people'?
photo
mmartini54
Roll on 2015!
10:37 PM on 01/07/2013
Great post. My Grammar school history was turgid, uninspiring and totally turned me off the subject. It wasn't until I left school that I began to find out more and become interested, starting with the lives of people caught up in different times and places, as opposed to the tedium of the Monarchy, the importance of crop rotation and so on. Gove is suggesting -imposing- a particular version of classical history he experienced as a young man and the political skew of his curriculum will suck any creativity out of the subject. But then that's what he's all about anyway.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dave Thompson 451
Under every stone lurks a politician.
01:42 AM on 01/08/2013
I finally got one decent history teacher, who clearly liked the subject. It had been hard to tell before that, whether the teachers liked the subject at all. She clearly had seen AJP Taylor at work, interjecting short stories that helped you get a feel for the context of what you were learning, along with the odd caution about just who wrote the history.
Without her, I might never have found my enjoyment of reading history for pleasure.
Nowadays she would have packed in long since & gone off to be a writer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
battleofalma
05:54 PM on 01/07/2013
I seem to remember my history lessons in the '90s being far too focused and specific.

We didn't learn any context, but learnt excruciating detail about the Seed Drill and tarmac: Both important developments, but unlikely to catch the imagination, and imagination is important, because history is a romantic pursuit.

Why they taught us "The First World War" and not a broader subject of "Conflict in the 20th Century"?
Why didn't we learn about the changes in the world over a broad period? Like the transition from Classical Civilisation, to the Middle Ages, to the Renaissance.

I don't feel like I really understood history as in "what has actually happened in the past 2000 years or so, why and in what order" until I left school and tried to fill in the gaps myself.
I think we're mainly too busy trying to make sure we raise a generation of people that know the horrors of war and won't end up as holocaust deniers, rather than people who can explain how we got to where we are.
photo
mmartini54
Roll on 2015!
10:39 PM on 01/07/2013
Or the history of superstition? I was captivated by a book called "Religion and the Decline of Magic" by Keith Thomas (I think). You're right that it's so powerful if you can capture the student's imagination in some way.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
battleofalma
09:11 AM on 01/08/2013
It's worth checking out the Berkeley modern history lectures, there's a great one on Witchcraft. Dispelled (no pun intended) a lot of myths for me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
05:04 PM on 01/07/2013
I approve. Indeed, having disliked the necessity in my schooldays of knowing something as dull as the names and dates of the monarchy in Britain, I'd ditch the lot and have room for Drake, Nelson, Seacole, and Nightingale. I'd include a debate on the appropriateness of raising Tennyson, the author of "the Charge of the Light Brigade", to the peerage. The Battle of Lepanto was known to us only in Chesterton's poem in the books of the English curriculum. But more than that, the development of civilization is better given in stuff like Bronowski's "Ascent of Man" and by Michael Woods on England, and on India.
But I'll give credit to my history class for its debate on the American War of Independence, which is called the Revolution here, even although the rebel colonists are absurdly held to be "patriots". They fought for a better cause than patriotism, as did the Scots in 1314 at Bannockburn -- "not for honour and glory, nor for riches and power, but for liberty, which a true man loses only with his life."
lastpost
see biography
03:04 PM on 01/07/2013
“History is like property-based programming on Channel 4”
Its not about actual worth, but how much some can be induced to shell out for a shell?

“How on Earth do you go about trying to teach history”
If we appreciated what we were trying to do we could identify the steps that have gotten us thus far towards accomplishing it. Plus the ability to question everything, to check we’re not on the wrong path.

“Michael Gove, the education secretary”
needs sitting down and questioning. If he knows what he’s talking about, answers will be obvious to him. If not, now would be the best time to find out.

“history was taught not just to understand the past”
The only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history.

“There is nothing intrinsically wrong with”
teaching that resuscitation by blowing smoke up the backside, works?

“place the Vikings on a timeline”
Nog. Noggin the Nog. Nogbad the Bad…etcetera.

“political correctness at work in the classroom”
Out with fallacy, in with facts.

“mythologizing of her scant medical accomplishments.”
Florence Nightingales’ Diary: Invented pie chart. Proved nursing technique counter-productive. Took to bed.

“this Coalition government really is trying to”
regulate the narrative in order to dominate the debate.

"Was she a saint?"
No. Was she pursuing the primary directive? Yes.

"Lord Nelson."
History, as viewed though the blind eye.

“Michael Gove has my support”
Although wearing one's unlikely to rectify a ruptured rendition of reality.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AuldLochinvar
05:07 PM on 01/07/2013
Fanned! I too am a fan of Noggin. I especially like Graculus.
photo
mmartini54
Roll on 2015!
10:43 PM on 01/07/2013
Hehehe. What a wag! Particularly liked the 'regulate the narrative' bit. Although I find it to more falsifying than regulating..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sven Storm
Edit your micro-biology.
12:41 PM on 01/07/2013
Mary Seacole is a tribute to the diversity of this nation, and the youth should know her important story.
12:39 PM on 01/07/2013
A massive round of applause, Mr Jenner.

Having read some of the guff written elsewhere about historians at war over the meaning and impact of Seacole, I couldn't help but feel they were all missing the points that you have so beautifully articulated.

If I weren't suffering from 'flu at the moment, I'd hug you.