A Predictable and False Accusation

A person calling himself or herself ‘Sam’ obligingly gives the standard left-liberal response to any critical discussion of the treatment of Mary Seacole by modern educators.

 

He wrote : ’ Peter Hitchens getting all discombobulated over the inclusion of a non-white person in the National Curriculum? I can't imagine why. Several of the things you state are merely factually inaccurate: for a start, Mary Seacole was only included in the National Curriculum of primary schools in 2007, not in 1992, and, contrary to your hysterical, race-baiting reaction, is actually, in most schools, taught *alongside* Florence Nightingale. It really would be helpful if tabloid, gutter columnists would stop exaggerating and lying, but, then again, these are usually necessary devices in the discourse of racists. But don't worry about Mary Seacole - I'm sure Mr Gove will reinstate white supremacy to a level that you find adequate, Mr Hitchens.’

 

The absence of genuine thought, or any desire to debate seriously, is instantly revealed, as I shall explain in a moment. I doubt very much that ‘Sam’ will reappear here, as such people are usually hit-and-run attackers with a purely destructive purpose,  coming here to write but not to read . So there’s probably no point in seeking a retraction of the false allegation of racial prejudice which he or she makes.

 

My words were quite clear. I noted that the first history book ( the Ginn series, as I recall) to promote the story of Mrs Seacole was published as long ago as 1992. I should have thought that the words ‘then …she went into the national curriculum’ made it clear that I separated these two events. It’s actually an important distinction, which is why I made it. The commissioning and publishing of books for use in schools is itself a fascinating subject, as it is one of the main methods used to revolutionise the teaching of sensitive subjects ( see my book , ‘the Abolition of Britain’). I never said she wasn’t taught alongside Florence Nightingale.

 

So the accusation of factual inaccuracy rebounds on the accuser, who made no effort to read the text carefully, and whose attack is factually inaccurate.

 

I’m then accused of hysteria, race-baiting, coming from the gutter, exaggerating and lying.

 

As I say, I don’t think ‘Sam’ will defend his or her comments.  I more or less expected something of the kind, pointing out that few resisted the elevation of Mrs Seacole to such high status, precisely because they were scared of being called ‘racist’. As I am innocent of any such charge, and have opposed racial bigotry consistently since my teens, I decline to be frightened by this allegation.

 

But perhaps there are others who might like to explain, on his or her behalf, what the substance of these charges is, and how they are justified by anything that I wrote.  

 

The curriculum did indeed suggest an equality between Mrs Seacole and Miss Nightingale. The change was highly effective, as my account of the 1999 COHSE conference shows.

 

People such as Lord Soley of Hammersmith, who passionately defend Mrs Seacole’s reputation and desire that she be more widely commemorated, have a perfectly legitimate point of view (and do not, as they are civilised and decent, accuse me of bigotry). The sad truth is that many noble and worthy people are forgotten by history, and quite a few bad ones are too.

 

Most British schoolchildren have most of their country’s history entirely hidden from them, especially the decisive period which shaped us as a Protestant constitutional monarchy independent of Continental entanglements, namely the 17th and 18th centuries. I am more worried that they have not heard of John Hampden, or the Petition of Right, or the Monmouth Rebellion and Judge Jeffreys, and the Trial of the Seven Bishops,  than I would be if Mary Seacole remained obscure. This is not because of the colour of anybody’s skin, but because I think it possible to take an objective valuation of the importance of events and individuals, and Mrs Seacole simply wasn’t as important as Miss Nightingale.  

 

If this were merely a matter of correcting a historical wrong, then I would see no harm in it. It is the suggestion of equivalence between the two women that I object to, as this seems to me to be straightforwardly unjustifiable by the known facts.