1. The text is free from exaggeration or speculation and sets out to relate factual happenings. Most of these could be verified or challenged by those who were present at the time - a high proportion of the readership, as the book came out only a year or so after the end of the events to which it refers. No challenge is on record, and future events proved that Mary retained all her credibility after the book was published.
2. Mary appears to have been conscious that she might be misbelieved, presumably by the civilian readership. As a result she can be criticised for name dropping and for including an excess of 'thank you' letters and testimonials in the book; but she wanted to be certain it was realised that she was telling the truth.
3. Russell of the Times gave the book his personal endorsement by writing the preface. A great crusader for publication of the truth - which repeatedly got him into hot water during his journalistic career - he would never have put his name to anything he suspected of being anything but totally reliable. And Russell was no dewey-eyed apologist admirer - he was quite prepared to be cynical at Mary's expense, as demonstrated in his article on the Sevastopol Spring Meeting which appeared in 'The Times' for 9th April 1856: 'Mrs Seacole was there with a store of thirst-compelling and thirst-assuaging edibles and drinkables.'
So using Mary's book as a reliable basis for evaluation, what should her true legacy be? Current perceptions emphasise her colour - she has been voted the greatest Black Briton in a nationwide poll, and there is a tendency to eulogise her as the 'Black Nightingale' who managed her achievements and gained universal respect at the highest levels in spite of the disadvantages of being black. Rejected by the White Nightingale, she defied the world and was brilliantly successful doing her own thing.
My own feeling is that this interpretation of her legacy is fundamentally flawed, and would not be what Mary would have wanted.
First let us examine her unsuccessful application to join the Nightingale nurses. It is true that in the first moments of despair after her unsuccessful interview, she wondered if she might have been turned down on account of her colour. But we must ask, would she have got a job had she been white? Florence had made it quite clear that she did not want any additional nurses at Scutari - her problems in trying to get the female nurses that were already there accepted by the military medical authorities were difficult enough. The second batch were being recruited without her knowledge and consisted principally of teams of nuns and "ladies of quality" - the few others categorised as 'nurses' were of pre-Nightingale character, basically ward orderlies with little or no proper nursing experience. A white Mary would not have fitted anywhere into the second batch.
 |
