Rod Liddle

How did Mary Seacole come to be revered as a black icon?

12 January 2013

9:00 AM

12 January 2013

9:00 AM

Isn’t it time, just out of perversity, that we all signed the petition on the Operation Black Vote website to restore the part-time nurse Mary Seacole to the national curriculum? I am beginning to think that our children should learn all about this entertaining woman; she’s given me a good laugh for the last dozen or so years, ever since she was dredged up as an icon by the deluded and hysterical liberal-left.

After all, if Mary is not restored to the curriculum, kids will be pestering us to know why so many buildings in this country are named after her. The University of Salford, the University of Birmingham and Brunel all have outposts bearing the name of this mysterious woman, along with a bunch of nursing centres and, inexplicably, part of the Home Office. It is quite possible that many of these edifices were originally named after Winnie Mandela — before she started putting burning tyres around the necks of her political opponents. You don’t see many Winnie Mandela council blocks any more. Those necklaces were a bit too much.

But maybe OBV is right: we should tell our children the whole story; it will be an object lesson in the imbecility and absolutism of a certain section of the ethnic left, not least its wish to revel in perpetual victimhood. And a sort of weird inversion of anti-racism; that somebody should be considered important solely as a consequence of the colour of their skin. It is tempting to say that if Mary Seacole had been white then the people at Operation Black Vote wouldn’t have given a monkey’s about her either way. But that ignores the final paradox: she was white. Three quarters white. In her own words, only a little brown. And yet the campaigners will not accept this. Black: the woman was black, definitely, they howl, and to ignore her blackness is redolent of colonialism and prejudice and oppression and drinking taps for whites only and Love Thy Neighbour etc etc.

[Alt-Text]


Rarely have we seen exalted a more misplaced, misappropriated god than poor old Seacole. Rarely has a campaign been willing to swallow so much utter tosh in order to advance its cause — and all achieved with the patronising connivance of well-meaning but vacuous white liberals.

The Education Secretary, Michael Gove, has decided that children should no longer be taught about Mrs Seacole, presumably because her contribution to history was minuscule, though largely benevolent. She helped out a bit in the Crimean War, which was kind of her. She showed a certain bravery in travelling, sometimes at her own expense, to far-flung places in order to minister to our armed forces. She seems to have been a familiar mixture of the magnanimous and the self-advancing — her autobiography makes all sorts of absurd claims which only the people who run Operation Black Vote would be stupid enough to believe. Florence Nightingale — who, as a consequence of her skin colour the OBV people seem to despise, unless they just don’t like lamps — was critical of Seacole for her habit of giving wounded servicemen alcohol. I think I’m with Seacole on this, by the way, and I don’t think we should hold this against her. She helped, she was kind and perhaps even altruistic. But an important actor from Britain’s most gilded century? Nah, not a chance. And a role model for black British youngsters? Hell no. There is nothing wrong with nursing as a profession, but wouldn’t we rather have our kids aspiring to be Isambard Kingdom Brunel or George Stephenson — or better still, Michael Faraday? All of them were only slightly less black than Mary who, like Faraday, was at least part-Scottish.

If OBV continues its obsession with skin colour, we could always black up some of those old Victorian portraits to keep them happy. Why should black kids be coerced into venerating someone simply because of their skin colour? Isn’t that exactly the sort of thing we could do without? The campaigners seem to wish to keep these children ghettoised, defined by characteristics which it is beyond their power to alter. There is nothing good about being black. There is nothing good about being white, either.

Anyway, old Gove has now got to contend with a fusillade of illiterate abuse from the OBV people. ‘A blatant racist decision from a Conservative fascist,’ one halfwit insists. Another suggests that the blessed Michael is ‘scared of what she (Seacole) represents’. What, scared of a fallacy? A third communicant to this hilarious website — which, incidentally, serves as a pretty damning indictment of our schools all by itself, to judge by the grammar of those who use it — asserts that Gove is unqualified to make the decision to remove Seacole from the curriculum, because he himself has not served as a nurse during wartime, and definitely not during the Crimean War. That’s a very valuable point and one I hope that Michael will take on board.

In the meantime, put her back on the curriculum. But take her out of history classes and put her somewhere else, some place where they learn about our present society and how it came to be so brain-damaged. Let the kids marvel at how a nice woman who wasn’t really very black came to be revered as a black icon because, unsurprisingly, given the make-up of British society prior to the 1950s, they couldn’t find anyone else.


More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.

Show comments
  • FrankS

    ” Rod Liddle 12 January 2013 ”

    January 12? It’s only January 10 as I write – have you been transported to the future, Rod? What’s it like out there?

    • http://ajbrenchley.com/ A J Brenchley

      Rod is ahead of his time?

      • Austin Barry

        Can he let us know tomorrow’s racing results, please?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Harris/1201395549 Michael Harris

    Should people be treated differently purely on the basis of racial origin? Multiculturists think so, because their whole ideology is based on such an assumption. Multiculturalism is a racialist philosophy, which leads to a modern apartheid.

    • Eddie

      Indeed. And notice how France with its integrationist model, lack of religion in schools and bans on headscarves, gets it so much better than we do – no major Islamic attacks in France, and no major ethnic riots either.

      • SirMortimerPosh

        No ethnic riots in France???

        You need to think again about that one Eddie.

        • Eddie

          No – you do.
          The riots in the Paris suburbs were not about race and most rioters were white. Of course, some race relations industry spongers and troubkemakers (esp at the BBC and Channel Al-Four News) wanted to make it about race. But it wasn’t.
          London 2012 riots were about race. And most rioters were black – in London – who started the riots to defend a criminal piece of dirt who was shot because he had a gun and waved it at police. Good riddance.

          • SirMortimerPosh

            You must be on drugs Eddie. Paris riots not ethnic? (Ethnic was the word I used). They were universally mobs of Muslim youths burning cars for days on end.

            Here’s a tip for you: Try to run your life on the basis of empiricism – the concept that knowledge is based on facts assessed from cold reality and not some idealism or special political stance, or revealed religious claptrap. Anybody in touch with reality would never have claimed that the French didn’t have ethnic riots, or that the UK riots were ‘about’ race. they were nothing of the kind; they were about a sub-human criminal subculture in which ignorant scum think they are entitled to ‘respect’ and other people’s goods because they act hard. Pretty much the same cause as it happens as the Paris riots and burnings of a few years ago. The trigger was very similar; a pair of villainous youths died while being pursued by police investigating criminality. They climbed into an electricity sub-station and were electrocuted, precipitating weeks of rioting. About a third of all the CCTV that was published of the UK riots featured nominally ‘black’ youths. They were certainly disproportionately involved. It was not universally black as you suggest. It was though 100% caused, created and sustained by criminal scum who rightly received severe penalties. Would that such penalties were typical, rather than the exception.

          • Eddie

            Figures show one third of the rioters – the ‘rabble’ as called by Sarkozy – were ethnic.
            Do some reading, do some research, get an education on the make-up of the French riots – then come back and apologise for your ignorance.
            In London, the riots were started by blacks – and most London rioters were blacks.
            The thicko whities oop north saw that it was a free for all and that the police would do nought, so they went a-looting too.
            There is, though, a problem with ethnics in France too – they make up the majority opf the mugger population, just as blacks do in UK cities. The difference is most are north Africans, and live in the suburbs – so get the metro to the centre of Paris to mug people. In London, the muggers live in the inner cities and the suburbs of London are white and mugger-free.

          • edlancey

            Eddie, I agree with 99% of what you say but you are wrong about the Paris riots.

            And you do yourself no favours with the general ignorance of your reply to Posh.

            What figures ? France definitely didn’t publish any such figures so where did you get yours from ? The Guardian ? They are hardly likely to point the finger at Moors, are they ?

          • Eddie

            I don’t agree that the Paris riots were about race, though it was a factor; I do think the London riots largely were all about race – but our emperor’s clothes admiring media and poc elite refuses to acknowledge that.
            I know the French suburban estates, and know they’re a mix of white, black and Arab. (Correction to what I said before: I think each group was one third of the rioters: which is about the percentage of those etstates: one third each arab, black, white).
            The fact is, in France they emphasise integration and unity – that is why they ban the headscarf and crack down of Islamic practices like forced marriage. (Compare to the UK where we have girls in burkas going to school and college; I said to a manager when I was a college lecturer that I think I’d refuse to teach a student in a burka; he said later to a colleague that any teacher with that ‘racist’ attitude would be suspended and probably sacked…whereas in France everyone agrees that burkas should not be worn to school – from across the political spectrum, including socialists).
            Sadly, what happens is that many of the least modern ethnics just hop over to the UK and live in London, where their ‘difference’ is celebrated because of our misplaced multiculturalism.

          • LEngland

            ‘Ed’,
            Are you a socialistic shill ? Your remarks about Northerners, but only wite ones, are rude, coarse offensive and set out to imply, in the manner of socialists, that dark skinned criminals are more intelligent than pale – skinned people.
            Scratch your head then switch it on.

      • ReefKnot

        Well, no major ethic riots according to the BBC anyway.

      • http://twitter.com/ash_ef Eddie Farrow

        Ohhh, there are riots. Can I just point out we likely had islamic attacks because we actually went with the US. This is the Spectator, and while it is unsure about the Iraq War being a good thing (well done), the Spectator is Atlanticist and prefers going with the US over with the EU. Spain went with the US but did pull out, got attacked. Others were unyielding to the USA, fine.

        • Eddie

          ‘Can I just point out we likely had islamic attacks because we actually went with the US.’
          Yes, if I can point ourt that 2 + 2 = 5.
          It is not true that it is our fault that Islamic terrorists bombed us. That argument is dishonet, vile and an insult to the innocent people killed. Anyone would think you supported the Islamists…
          Many countries such as France and Germany who ‘went with’ the US as you say, have not been attacked and bombed. Why? Because they do not have huge Muslim populations, for one, with regards Germany. And secondly, those that do (ie France) force them to integrate and did not spend 40 years turning a blind eye to the promotion of hatred, anti-semitism, and anti-West feeling amongt thick Asians oop north. We di. We are paying.
          Multicultruralism is the reason that bombs went off in London.
          Not our involvement in any foreign war – against a vile dictator.
          You Eddie Farrow are just parroting the views of the imams and Muslims who hate us – how very useful idiot of you.

    • http://twitter.com/ash_ef Eddie Farrow

      Really? Well, I thought I was a multiculturalist up until I read your definition. There was me just thinking it was about embracing different cultures within reason. This includes the cultures which belong to caucasians and cultures within those. Dances, film, music, art, style of dress…

      Modern apartheid? Oooh dear. Victimisation much.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Harris/1201395549 Michael Harris

    Winnie Mandela was assisting at the “necklacing” of an opponent. As her helper piled tyre upon tyre, while readying the flame, she shouted out “No, you’re doing it wrong-you can’t mix cross-ply with radial…”

    • Sir Graphus

      Winnie M was terrorising poor township people before, and during the time Student Unions were naming buildings after her. They chose to ignore it.

    • terence patrick hewett

      This woman would have been entirely at home in Caligula’s Rome.

  • http://ajbrenchley.com/ A J Brenchley

    This article is probably the best (and certainly the most amusingly stated) argument for colour-blind judge-people-on-merits justice that I’ve ever read. Sometimes Rod is funny and wrong. When he’s funny and right he’s out of sight.

    • Eddie

      Indeed.
      Mary seek hole.
      Mary find hole.
      So Mary get revered because she holy mama, isn’t it?

      • Sarah

        Eddie vile man.
        Eddie vile man.
        So Eddie is a vile man because he’s a vile man, ain’t it?

        • Eddie

          Nurse! Nurse! Sarah the Psycho’s off her meds again!
          My post was funny, with puns, a play on words, and multidimensional wit.
          Yours is tedious, unfunny, weird and abusive, as sick and dull as the innards of your feminutsy skull.
          That is the difference, dimbo.

    • EJ

      Excellent piece Rod – witty and bang on the button. I’d also highly recommend Peter Hitchens’s piece on this:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2257668/PETER-HITCHENS-How-multiculture-fanatics-took-Mary-Seacole-hostage.html

      We’ve long known the degree to which guilt-ridden, self-hating whites enjoy flagellating themselves on the altar of PC multicultural diversity, but we’re now almost at the point where we’ll glorify anything that isn’t white because it isn’t white and we’ll force its glorification by law. Operation Black Vote indeed…

      Along with the massive demographic and cultural transformation we are gleefully inflicting upon ourselves it is as if we are willing our own ethno-suicide.

    • Noa

      She’ll have to be replaced though, Rod, when she goes.

      Nature abhors a vacuum, or as with a black hole, something else will have to be sucked in to fill the gap.

      I’ve cast my mind around for suitable role models but few came readily to mind.

      That nice Chukka person in new new young Labour is just that, nice. But he hasn’t done anything yet. Some may consider her never will, but I don’t share the view of the shadow cabinet.

      That left me with the chap who, arm around his new-found friend, famously helped the Vietnamese boy find his mobile phone during last years riots. The courts right refuted the Mets disgraceful allegation that he had a less altruistic intent.

      But he failed to meet the true test of a role model. Long service. A career for the public weal, dedication. On this basis only one candidate is the clear choice. The entire Lawrence family has consistently managed to keep itself firmly in the forefront of the black ‘equality’ movement for twenty years.
      Only last week Stuart Lawrence selflessly sacrificed his privacy to let us know he was taking on the family’s favourite whipping boy, the racists at the Met, for harassing him. And we all thought the suss laws were dead. No sir!
      So goodbye Mary, hello the Lawrence family.The circle is squared and the void filled.
      Now surely the muslim community needs a role model? Should it be Abu, or that nice Shahid Malik or the benign Chourdy? What about Suliman the Magnificent…?
      Advice please!

      • David Lindsay

        “That nice Chukka person” is half-white, and the grandson of a High Court judge. Yet you obviously have no doubt that he is black. Nor, I suspect, has he, as he goes about his daily life. Point made.

        • Noa

          He is more black than Seacole, but not as black, or white, as..many other people.

          • Eddie

            He is also a very privileged and well-off person. The idea that he has somehow been disadvatnaged becaused he is ‘of colour’ is absurd.
            Go and visit a public school. 30% ethnic, and half to twothirds of those are British black and Asian kids.
            And yes, if a poor white male is up for a job against a privately educated ethnic female from a millionaire, it is bizarrely the former who will be considered unfairly advantaged, and positive action will then be used to leapfrog the latter over him. I know this happens – it has happened to me – and verily, I have been a victim of racism and sexism, and all in the name of equality too!
            Happily, I am now self-employed, so can’t be discriminated against for being white or male again by any jobsworth pc racist and sexist enforcer of ‘equality’.

          • David Lindsay

            When did he ever say that he was disadvantaged?

          • Eddie

            The assumption is made, and he has certainly benefited from the perception – and the fast-tracking of all ethnic minorities and women by all political parties.
            Actually, I don’t mind the guy – but he is rather smug as he is not disadvantaged and in fact is the reverse: privileged. So he and his kind cannot and should not lecture a white man from a modest background like me about how supposedly advantaged he has been because he’s white and male. That lie makes people angry – it is woefully untrue. That causes division and conflict – even racism, much of which is created by things like this anyway.
            Arguably, poor white men are the most disadvatnged group in society now.

          • David Lindsay

            So, in other words, he has never claimed to be disadvantaged. And he is in his mid-thirties, the same age as several members of the present Government, the contributors to Britannia Unchained, and so on, all very much beloved of this magazine. There has been no fast-tracking.

            When has ever ever “lectured” as you describe? On the contrary, he has close links to Maurice Glasman and Blue Labour, and like them he is a strong supporter of the most popular Labour (or any Party) Leader among the white working class in at least a generation.

          • Eddie

            If you believe that there has been no fast-tracking, then you are deluded. I am not saying that he wouldn’t have made it anyway – but he looks the part because he is ethnic, and that is the reason for his swifty rise up the ranks (if he were white he’d be a junior now).
            Just look at how the awful David Lammy was fast-tracked into a ministerial position and showed just have untalented he really was (Gerald Kaufman’s critique was devastating). We see the same thing with people like Khan, Vaz and others. Which is not to say that some with political talent wouldn’t rise anyway like Chukka – a man who Labourites desperately want to be Barack Obama and be their future leader.
            Chukkie lectures just like all upper-middle class, privately educated, hypocrite leftie politicians lecture (same for Blair, Milband, Harman, Clarke – most high level socalledc socialists). The policies he supports – eg mass immigration – enrich him and get Labour some fresh supporters, but make life unaffordable for ordinary people in places like London, and means working people cannot buy homes.
            But I’m alright, Chukka…

          • David Lindsay

            Can you provide a quotation to support your assertion that he is in favour of mass immigration? He is most closely associated with people who most certainly are not.

            Oh, and you do realise, don’t you, that there has never been a Labour policy to abolish private schools? Never, ever. Harold Wilson used them as a parent while he was Prime Minister, and no one held it against him. They are in any case largely staffed by people who were at least broadly Tories until they started working there, but became, if quiet, nevertheless hardcore Labour voters after only a very brief period of dealing with the pupils and the parents.

          • Noa

            Eddie. Like others, I know of local schools which are 95% plus Indian and Pakistani, with significant tensions between Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs which put the old rivalries between protestants and catholics in the shade.

          • Eddie

            Yes, in north London it’s between the Turks and the ‘rest of the world’ (a mix of Asians and various swarthies). Non-Turk whites are 10% in such schools.

          • bhudster10

            Did it never occur to you that other candidates were better than you?

      • http://www.facebook.com/kerralistair Alistair Kerr

        Well, what about Toussaint l’Ouverture’s successor but one as ruler of Haiti, King Henri Christophe? He was reportedly born on one of the British West Indian islands, regarded George III as a role-model and almost made a success of the Haitian economy? (Eventually he shot himself in despair, but that is another story.)

        • Noa

          Thanks Alistair.

          He’s an interesting candidate. But the name, and suicide, are difficult hurdles to overcome. As a nation we are tolerant to men and women of colour, but never of anything associated with the French.

        • Raman_Indian123

          Have you read Alejo Carpentier’s utterly magnifcent masterpiece of a novel about Henri Christophe called “The Kingdom of this World”? It is regarded as maybe the best short novel ever written in Spanish and there is a brilliant English translation by Harriet de Onis. Read it !!

      • Eddie

        Well I’ve always had a soft spot for Floella Benjamin! However, she may well too busy to be a role model, due to her parachuting into position as a member of the BBC Trust (a governor, as was), a position well-earned by her obvious expertise in the field of hair beads.

        Maybe Tony Sewell, Brian’s half-brother: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/15/black-boys-too-feminised-fathers

        Or maybe The Black Prince?
        But come on – no-one will get rid of saint Mary Seacole. Teachers are so leftwing and politically correct at inner city comps – which are minority white now (and most racist bullying is against white minority victims) – that they’ll find ways to teach their religion of racial victimhood and fabricated black history, no matter what.
        Funny though: research shows that the more you make black people think of themselves as black, the worse they do in school tests.
        I think people should be taught as people, not as representatives of their races: then ability and merit can shine. But hey, I am obviously just a terrible old fascistic dinosaur…

        • Noa

          Black days indeed…

          • Eddie

            When I was a college teacher/lecturer, I was forced to allow that US import Black History Month (October here) to pollute my lessons.
            So, I used it to show how words that African American fabricators had connected with slavery and had banned were in fact much older words than slavery. I showed how several people on the list of greatest black people in history were in fact not black (eg Roman emperor Severus Septimus). I showed the role of African countries in slavery. And I showed the major role in white Britons in abolishing it, against the wishes of most African leaders of the time. I showed how it was social class that was the biggest factor in whether a child achieves in education and life – not race. I was, in short, a heretic fighting the power like a NWA.
            If I had refused to do anything about Black Fabricated History Month (or White Guilt Trip Month as I call it), I would have been suspended
            As it was, my leftie pc race-obsessed teaching colleagues, almost to a woman, thought I was some right wing extremist because I supported integration Frenc-style rather than the segregation and division or Brit-style multiculturalism, I pointed out to them that my position was exactly the same as the leftwing position in France. But. bless their little HRT programmes, they were all ethnophiliacs – in love with the idea of multicultualism and big fans of headscarves and one woman tent burkas too…
            They were tolerant, yes – of the intolerant, so long as it bore a brown face…

          • Sarah

            When you were a college teacher/lecturer.
            Which was it Eddie, surely you can remember?

            Or are you being deliberately vague because you were neither?

            Why don’t you just say you gave amateur English lessons in the local library community room once a week on Tuesday mornings for 6 weeks?

            And why don’t you come clean that they had to let you go because your student made a complaint?

          • Eddie

            Sarah Psycho.
            Perhaps you can spread some marmite on your face and try to ‘pass’ as a person of colour.
            Well, no-one gonna give you a job if you can’t get unfair advantage via ‘positive action’, are they?
            I have told you many times, you mad psychotic boring bint that I am a fomer lecturer/teacher/tutor who left that world ruled by 3M women (mediocre, menopausal, moaning) to run my own business and become a professional writer – ambitions I have achieved. When I was a teacher, no complaint was made about me, and I left teaching of my own accord.
            If you have evidence to the contrary, please post it.
            Oh wait, you haven’t – you are just flinging abuse at the great Eddie who outargues you all the time and exposes you as the hypocritical feminutsy nutheaded manhater than you really are.
            I hope you volunteeer position answering the phones for a manhating femi-charity for wimmin with mental health needs is going well – I think it is admirable that they are prepared to take on former patients
            But really, Sar-ah-sole, ency is a terrible thing. Just because you are poor and lonely and haven’t got a job, doesn’t mean you should hate those who are not poor, not lonely and have their dream jobs.

          • bhudster10

            Aaaaaaaaah, the old, I’m great you’re not pish.

            I must say I’m pleased that you are no longer a teacher as you appear to be a self aggrandizing, nasty wee man

          • Eddie

            Some idiot (Sarah) clearly doesn’t know the difference between the role of teacher and lecturer, or realise that the same job can encompass both.
            You lose, sad Sarah. Now take your hissy spitting ignorance-spewing gob elsewhere eh? To a head doctor, perhaps?

          • Bob339

            No head doctor can cure what she has: she needs an intelligence injection.

          • Eddie

            Oh she probably wouldn’t allow that: her body is a temple.
            Or was it a tit pole?
            Or perhaps a pimple?

        • dalai guevara

          We are having a whip round here, collecting to fund the remake of all those historically inadequate Moses and Jesus flicks. Blue eyes, blond hair, hilarious! Care to contribute, as you are renowned for being an unbiased sport?

          • Bob339

            You should have a whip round all right. Round your brainless asses.

        • Eddie

          Just to add: The Black Prince was not black. But I have heard proselytisers of the black pride religion of race say so.

          They also claim that Septimus Severus was black (nope), that the wife of Charles II was black (no again), that Beethoven was black (jeez – black and German – how unlucky can you get!), and that Cleopatra and the Queen of Sheba were black (nope – not Afro-carribean for sure).

          Moreover, characters in fiction are often shown as black (eg Afro-carribean) when in fact they were otherwise ethic. The classic example is Othello. The play is about jeaslously, not race, for a start. And Othello was a Moor – a north African Muslim who coverted to Christianity. He was not black.He looked like Gadafi.

          And of course, this begs the question as to why white people are not allowed to play Othello any more, when blacks can play any character in Shakespear plays (even naturalistic realist versions, which is absurd: Henry V was not black, folks, and nor was any Duke of the middle ages – Hollow Crown BBC producers take not).

          Me – I think Tom Jones should be a black role model. Just think: short and stocky, black curly hair, good sense of rhythm, a real stud.

          He looks more black than many who claim to be black anyway.

          And a bonus is that, like many in the valleys, he occasionally sounds Pakistani. Perfect, non?

        • bhudster10

          Yep, you are.

    • David Lindsay

      No, Mary Seacole is not as important a figure as Florence Nightingale. Who ever said that she was?

      But she is interesting in that being three-quarters white still made her
      black by the law and mores of the time, yet caused her to define
      herself as white and to pass herself off as such for most of her life;
      in her native land, there is still a distinct people, the White
      Jamaicans, with its roots in all of that. It is all very pertinent to
      Britain in the twenty-first century.

      Miss Nightingale rejected Mrs Seacole’s overtures on grounds of class,
      not on grounds of colour. The War Office frustrated her efforts on
      account of her sex, not on account of her ethnicity. Again, these are
      issues very well worth exploring, not because Mrs Seacole herself was
      especially significant, but because she stands as an example of
      significant phenomena both historically and in the present age.

      Moreover, be warned. Michael Gove does not only want rid of Mary
      Seacole. He also wants rid of Robert Owen, an example of the general
      writing out of at least the non-Marxist Left from British and wider
      history, and rid of Elizabeth Fry, who appears on the five pound note.
      In that case, why bother with the lady who has not appeared on the ten
      pound note since 1994? After all, she is only getting in the way of
      Cromwell and Churchill. Ignored as those superheroes of oligarchical
      Whiggery (not Toryism) currently are, according to Gove.

      Gove and his Department are beyond satire. That Department
      ostentatiously sends out Bibles to schools, Bibles
      featuring both a preface by the Secretary of State and a reference to
      his very person on the cover. Why not also a photograph of him? Yet that
      bastion of Biblical values now has both David
      Laws and Elizabeth Truss as Ministers. Accompanied by the sleepy-headed
      shirker Matthew Hancock, who is now being given the same fawning
      treatment that the same media interests previously gave to the then
      Louise Basgshawe.

      • Noa

        Normally the victors choose the heroes on which to support their version of history. But new Labour’s marcusian stream has none, only the ghosts of better men, and women, to requisition to their cause.

      • global city

        They sent out the Bibles to mark the 400th anniversary of the King James version. What is to ridicule about that?

        • David Lindsay

          Quite apart from the nature of his Ministerial team in that apparent citadel of rectitude, these Bibles feature a reference to Gove himself, or at least to his office, on their very spines. Is there a picture of him? If not, why not? There is, after all, a foreword by him. That’s right. “The Bible, with a foreword by Michael Gove.” I am not making this up.

          Oh, well, at least it keeps him out of the way of foreign policy, I suppose. As a very hardline neoconservative, he looks to a certain concept of the country that until the 1950s, when the practice was quietly discontinued but never abolished, presented every new member of Congress with a copy of The Jefferson Bible, from which the eponymous author had excised all reference to Our Lord’s miracles, Resurrection or Divinity.

          I am not aware that anyone ever declined it, or that there was even any sense that it was voluntary. Did any of them swear their Oaths of Office on it? Did any of them not?

          If The Jefferson Bible there, then why not in Britain the King James Bible with a foreword by Michael Gove, and with a reference to that Prophet, Apostle, Seer and Revelator on the spine? To be presented to every new member of either House of Parliament, and on which they would swear their Oaths of Office.

          I ask again, is there a picture of him? And I ask again, if not, why not?

        • Guest

          Since apparently the answer to that is not allowed to be said here, see http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/by-book.html

      • Eddie

        The main reason Florence Nightgale disapproved of Mary Seacole was because she sold the troops alcohol, and FN was a rather puritanical and TT Victorian lady.
        That could be taught in the context of binge drinking of course – because Seacole encouraged it, and amongst very young servicemen and boys.

      • notme3

        which law was that?

  • andagain

    she was white. Three quarters white. In her own words, only a little brown.

    I have noticed that in modern colloquial English, such people are typically referred to as “black”.

    • Eddie

      Yep – Barak Obama would be considered white in Kenya. Not black definitely.

    • dalai guevara

      Erhm – why do you repeat this fascist race law tripe without thinking? Ever heard of Gregor Mendel? And yes, of course it is true that Obama, Ennis, Hamilton, Woods et al are not black. How could they be? They are…wait for it…mixed race.

      • Eddie

        Fascist? You are the one who seems to be the zealous bigot here.
        The most racist people of all are those who profit from the race relations industy, and bring the segregationist US-style identity politics here.
        In Kenya, Barack Obama would not be considered black, but white. Ask a Kenyan.
        Moreover, Barack Obames culture and background are entirely white American. His African-american ‘roots’ are entirelyt manufactured – in common with other blacks in the UK influences by the segregationist anti-white black ‘leaders’. In the UK, someone like Obama would marry a white girl for sure too.
        I think you are very ignorant about how people in African and Asia think. Can a white person be Indian or Chinese or Nigerian. Ask some people from those countries, and stop spouting drivel until you learn that the people of European heritage are by a long way the least racist and most tolerant on earth; everyone else is racist.

        • dalai guevara

          Your oversimplified generalisations can’t convince anyone – ‘we are least, they are all…’ You ought to read that out loud to yourself, it helps with the processing of the content.

          In Kenya Obama would not be considered black, well guess what hot shot, in England (and Wales) he isn’t either – he has a white mother, he is mixed race.

          • Eddie

            Oh go away you ignoramus hypocrite.
            Talk to some Africans and Asians – both in the UK and in their homelands. Then you can listen to how very racist they all are. They do not consider that a white person can ever be an African or Asian.
            If you were not so racist, and applied the same values to everyone regardless of race like me, then you could learn that actually white people are the most tolerant on the face of the earth.
            The intolerant whites in the UK are the exceptions, despite your attemted fabrications. The biggest racists in the UK are black or Asian – or whities like you who want racism against whites.

          • dalai guevara

            What are you on about? You add nothing to the discussion here other than insults.

            I have explained to you the concept of MIXED RACE which does not stop at national boundaries or indeed continents.

            You go and educate yourself with respect to what that is. It is the acceptance that an individual of MIXED RACE is neither black nor white.

            Claiming otherwise would be accepting the logic of Nazi racial laws. A black or Asian nutjob could fall for that, yes, but so are you.

        • bhudster10

          I feel I can safely say that you are not tolerant, and you are racist.

  • Eddie

    ‘After all, if Mary is not restored to the curriculum, kids will be pestering us to know why so many buildings in this country are named after her’
    Classic! In fiction too, I notice (campus novel called Crump, for example). But then, she is the only ‘black’ woman in history, so even if she is an insignificant figure, she’s the only one, baby! Hence the victimhood-craving and ‘waycism’ cries from OBV.
    Mary Seacole did see herself as white – not like the field n—–s, which is the word she would have used on a regular basis to the black people she saw as inferior to her.
    To be honest, most teenage girls I see waddling around here in Wales are darker-skinned than La Seacole anyway. Are they all black too now then? Some even sound Pakistani too, to be honest – though maybe that’s the Valleys accent… Oh yes indeed…
    Also, Seacole was not a nurse: she was a businesswoman and adventuress, and booze-seller! That old evil monster Florence Nightingale (according to modern history lessons in schools) was the beeeech from hell – so as better to contrast with the angelic ethnic heroine when she was parachuted into the curriculum in the 90s.
    The person kids should be studying of course is Alexis Soyer. He had the misfortune to be born a white man, but the smokeless stove he invented saved thousands of lives in the Crimea – and he was the first celebrity chef: way more important than the oddity called Mary Seacole.

  • http://www.reutlingen-university.de Paul Worthington

    What do you mean, “…they couldn’t find anybody else” ? Is it not perfectly obvious to you that “Shakespeare’s” works could not possibly have been written by a white, middle-class male? They just had to pretend because of the prejudices of the time. Now perhaps her real name was ………

  • John Steadman

    Never let the truth get in the way of a diversity-laden unstoppable liberal bandwagon.
    Typically subtle, Mr Liddle. A treat to read.

    • sarah

      “Never let the truth get in the way of a hegemonic unstoppable conservative bandwagon.”

      It
      looks subtle to you because it looks like common sense to you. To
      those of us recognise common assumptions when we see them, it looks
      as subtle as the clap.

  • Kathryn Prosper

    Wow, the sheer volume of bile and hate really astounds, sounds more like a Jim Crow rally in 1926! I hope you all feel better now that you’ve gotten those gems of wisdom off your chests. Anyway, I digress. by society both then and now, she was considered Black, so your juvenile need to downplay her bravery and achievements is more of an indication of your ignorance and barely concealed discriminatory attitudes, than a reflection of her contribution to society. Well done for exposing the biased imbeciles you really are, couldn’t have done it better myself!

    • Colin

      “Anyway, I digress.” What?

    • EJ

      YAWN. Love the capital “B” for Black. Perhaps you could genuflect on your way out.

    • Austin Barry

      “Wow, the sheer volume of bile and hate really astounds..” and “Well done for exposing the biased imbeciles you really are, couldn’t have done it better myself”

      You sound rather precious, love, and possibly in your teens. You will find that the real world doesn’t conform to the loving pieties of a Sixth Form debating society.

      • Sarah

        Why are you calling her love?

    • Eddie

      Kathy, love. We did not have any ‘Jim Crow’ laws or race laws in the UK. That was an American tradition – as was lynching ‘people of colour’.

      We also banned slavery well over half a century before the US even thought of it, and in general Britain is WAY less race-obsessed or racist than the USA.
      So we shall not be lecturered by a smug imbecile like you, Ms Prosper. My advice: put your own mess of a country in order. The reason we in the UK have problems is that we have aped your racial politics anyway.

      Mary Seacole did not consider herself black – and if she heard you calling her black she’d probably spit in your smug self-righteous fat old slobbering face, honey.

      Oh yes, and Mary Seacole would definitely have used the N word. She was better than them, and she knew it.

      So are those who use the N word brave and full of achievements now then? Why deary, such people are called racists aren;’t they?

      The ignorance, methinks, is all yours.

      • http://twitter.com/ash_ef Eddie Farrow

        Kathy didn’t say whether or not Mary Seacole would have considered herself ‘black’ as far as I see. I’m sure she said ‘by society’. How true that is I don’t know. By the way, you are doing nothing for yourself by stating ‘smug self-righteous fat old slobbering face’. But then I doubt you’re here to make friends especially not with ‘lefties’, ‘liberals’…so forth.

        You’re right that Britain is less race-obsessed than the USA, I’m glad, but then if that is really the case why do so many people get worked up about so-called political correctness. I really wonder. Some people remember before PC and say it is better now. I personally don’t see much political correctness but then I don’t look for it. I’m just seeing newspapers turn into a cesspool of insults, reductionism, generalisations and inaccuracies and I see more people listening to newspapers than factual information. People seem so lazy when it comes to politics even though they may harbour strong opinions. I also see the UK becoming as a typical island, paranoid and wanting more exclusivity. Our border control is unwelcoming (some people say ‘just to the whites’, well, let me tell them, me and my friend look Mediterranean, not White, still hostile, when I was younger I use to get asked special questions just to hear me speak English). Europeans outside the UK are much nicer in general. I would leave at any given opportunity. Please, rightists, fund our expatriation, surely you’re happy to do that. Also Rod, we’ll take Stephen Fry with us.

        • Eddie

          Yes she did – she sais that society then and now (and by implication, in the context of her post, her) considered Mary Seacole as black. Your reading is hair-splitting in the extreme – which points to the desperation of your straw-clutching argument really.
          Nothing I have said is wrong. Mary Seacole did not consider herself black. So ‘society then and now considered her black’ is a lie. It is not true at all.
          Florence Nightingale – the great women (it’s usually a man) now demeaned and disparaged as a monster, (the better to replace with another pc heroine), did not disapprove of Seacole because she was ethnic (actually, she was three quarters white). No – Nightingale disapproved of this adventuress tradeswoman because she served hocu pocus herbal potions to troope for profit, and most because she sold booze to them too.
          Mary Seacole was merely a Crimean version of the ‘deliver-to-your-door’ student booze services available these days.
          If she had founded the modern nursing system or was great because of her achievements, it really would not bother me that she had a half black mother. Other much more notable people did: Pushkin and Dumas, for example.
          The racism here, as per usualy, is all imagined. But then, without creating the idea that everyone and everything is racist, and that black people fail in society because of it (rather than because the majority black immigrants were lower class, and some had a culture of criminality and no work ethic), there could be no race relations industry – and the usual loudmouthed liars couldn’t build their well-paid self-righteous careers on this lie.
          Also, – you Eddie confuse political correctness with tolerance: they are very diffferent things and the former is very intolerant indeed of anyone who challenegs its idea (it is so against diversity of opinion and freedom of speech). I am very against the political correctness that has become an intolerant religious cult; I am all in favour of diversity.
          Fact is: Mary Seacole does not deserve to be on the curriculum; she is there for 2 reasons only: she is ethnic and she is a woman. If she were a white man who’d done the exact same thing, she wouldn’t even be mentioned. Ergo, she has been elevated to pc sainthood for reasons sexist and racist.

      • global city

        Herman Melville describes in his book ‘Redburn’, how Black American sailors loved Liverpool as they could freely walk round the city with a white woman on their arm, something they would be lynched for in the southern states.
        Somewhere along the line it was decided by the left that Liverpool was a uniquely racist city… such is their mad, bad world.

        • Eddie

          Interesting. I’ve never managed Melville – past the first few pages of MD.
          But it’s true. There were never any race laws here in Britain. Anti-catholic laws until the mid-19th c, yes. Prejudice based on class, oh yes. But not race. There were also ethnic MPs almost 100 years ago – and quite a few upper class Tory ethnics in the England of Victoria too. And the white 19th c upper class would see themselves as closer to upper class Indian princes than to lower class whites anyway.
          I remember reading about the Motown tour of 1962/3. All these black American stars – Stevie Wonder, The Supremes I think, and many more. They were amazed and delighted that in Britain they could move freely, use the front door of hotels, us any restaurant, and were treated well wherever they went. What a contrast to the USA which even had race laws against mixed marriage until the late 1970s! And it still has de facto segregation too – sadly, we are slipping into the same hell here.
          I have visited Liverpool twice – before the new slavery museum opened (or is it black history museum). But I agree: the narrative is: Britain is and was an awful racist country and should be ashamed. This is not objective histoy: it is propaganda. In fact, Britain stopped slavery around the world and around a third of the navy died doing that and stopping Spain and the US and Africans from continuing the slave trade.
          Ths craving fo victimhood and obsession with racism is very damaging – it makes young blacks think their race is the most important thing about them, and that the world is a racist place which is against them. Hence, the riots of 2011.

          • global city

            ‘Redburn’ is not the greatest piece of literature, but is still a good read and worth getting hold of a copy. It also shows just how far Liverpool has fallen (largely due to big government strategising of the economy over many decades). The main character, from upstate New York wants to run away to see and go to what was then the ‘magic golbal city’!
            Your other comments are correct. Britain’s unique contribution to the slavery issue was that we banned it in 1807. Previous to that ever country and empire used it to some extent as an economic tool. Not to turn this into a Liverpool rant, but when the vote to ban slavery was made Liverpool’s MP was sent there on the anti slavery ticket. Given that it would mainly have been Liverpool merchants that did this, it counters the propeganda that the whole city was involved in the trade (though it made vast profits for the small numbers who did) or backed it. This and the fact that Liverpool workers refused to be organised by the Communists in the 1930s’ has always rankled with the left nationally.

          • bhudster10

            What utter tosh! I have been involved in left wing politics for decades, and there is absolutely no truth in any of that.

          • global city

            You could try and elaborate, as I am at a complete loss as to what you are saying is a lie!

            Another question. Why have you been involved in left wing politics for ‘decades’? Have you never grown up?

    • vieuxceps2

      Speaking of “biased imbeciles”, are you ,or have you ever been, a socialist? I think we shold be told.

  • Austin Barry

    “Let the kids marvel at how a nice woman who wasn’t really very black came to be revered as a black icon because, unsurprisingly, given the make-up of British society prior to the 1950s, they couldn’t find anyone else.”

    Well, a group of Africans travelled to London with Catherine of Aragon in the 16th century, one of whom was a black musician, “John Blanke, the blacke trumpeter”.

    Mr Blanke could replace Seacole, but being a musician would probably disqualify him as representing a stereotype of the black as entertainer to the honkie.

    Ah, these questions of validating, in a correct and sensitive manner, the historical significance of our clamouring ethnic minorities, is so, so tedious and, ultimately, a pointless exercise in tribal tokenism.

  • http://twitter.com/ash_ef Eddie Farrow

    Those arguing about not calling her ‘Black’ and how she herself wouldn’t have called herself black. Are you seriously suggesting that when it comes to factual description that we should call her…bi-racial…or not notice her race at all?! 😮 How politically correct do you want us to be exactly you lot who HATE political correctness. *eyeroll*

    Anyway, politics gets too petty too easily. When I studied it at A level it was more civilised and fun with more rationality. Real-life application in this country is a ruddy bore sometimes, other times it is amusing. It’s all hot air when you start looking at physics.

  • Ganpati23

    William Curtis of the Crimean War Research Society has said: “The hype
    that has built up surrounding this otherwise worthy woman is a disgrace
    to the serious study of history.”?

    This was on wiki until 5 days ago when it was removed by lefties. I’m a lefty btw, but I’m a historian and it rathed annoyed me when I lived in Peckham 5-8 years ago that there were 4 copies of her biography in the history section while no-one else had more than one and many famous people and periods were ignored.

    When this came up on the New Statesman 5 days ago, I wanted to check my facts so went to wiki before pressing send and found this quote, which I added.

    When this came up on the Graun 2 days ago, I went to wiki to get the quote and found that it had been nuked. By a non-wiki editor. (i.e they didn’t have a log-in name, just an IP address.)

    And it had been nuked a few hours after my post on the New Statesman.

    I was disgusted. I’ve added to a few wiki pages, (non-controversial stuff like the causes of WW2 or a Humphrey Jennings 1940s propaganda film), and this is why it’s not allowed as a uni source.

    I pointed this out on the Graun. Several times. I was ignored or had a comment nuked by them.

    So I put the quote back on wiki.

    They’ve nuked it again, replacing the quote with a second reference box to the statement “her place in history is controversial.”

    The 2nd reference? The Graun thread. Have a look. Reference [8].

    So some Graun reader has gone and nuked the quote again, but by way of balance, linked to the Graun thread where me and about 3 others say maybe Naoroji or Walter Tull would be better, amidst 500 comments saying she’s a goddess.

    This makes me sick.

    It gives us on the left a bad name.

    Surely people have a right to know.

    I can’t stand Rod Liddle or Tories but I thought you had a right to know this.

  • Ganpati23

    William Curtis of the Crimean War Research Society has said: “The hype
    that has built up surrounding this otherwise worthy woman is a disgrace
    to the serious study of history.”?

    This
    was on wiki until 5 days ago when it was removed by lefties. I’m a
    lefty btw, but I’m a historian and it rathed annoyed me when I lived in
    Peckham 5-8 years ago that there were 4 copies of her biography in the
    history section while no-one else had more than one and many famous
    people and periods were ignored.

    When this came up on the New
    Statesman 5 days ago, I wanted to check my facts so went to wiki before
    pressing send and found this quote, which I added.

    When this came
    up on the Graun 2 days ago, I went to wiki to get the quote and found
    that it had been nuked. By a non-wiki editor. (i.e they didn’t have a
    log-in name, just an IP address.)

    And it had been nuked a few hours after my post on the New Statesman.

    I
    was disgusted. I’ve added to a few wiki pages, (non-controversial
    stuff like the causes of WW2 or a Humphrey Jennings 1940s propaganda
    film), and this is why it’s not allowed as a uni source.

    I pointed this out on the Graun. Several times. I was ignored or had a comment nuked by them.

    So I put the quote back on wiki.

    They’ve
    nuked it again, replacing the quote with a second reference box to the
    statement “her place in history is controversial.”

    The 2nd reference? The Graun thread. Have a look. Reference [8].

    So
    some Graun reader has gone and nuked the quote again, but by way of
    balance, linked to the Graun thread where me and about 3 others say
    maybe Naoroji or Walter Tull would be better, amidst 500 comments saying
    she’s a goddess.

    This makes me sick.

    It gives us on the left a bad name.

    Surely people have a right to know.

    I can’t stand Rod Liddle or Tories but I thought you had a right to know this.

    • Noa

      It’s worth e-mailing Fraser Nelson directly.

    • Colonel Mustard

      I’m afraid this is typical of a majority of your comrades who resort to propaganda rather than argument, believing that their good intentions excuse their evil acts.

  • http://twitter.com/Harry_ca_Nab The Elderking

    Bravo

  • Sarah

    It’s as if white men didn’t get to where they are today by creating white male icons.

    A veritable pantheon of mythical and airbrushed heroes, emperors, kings, politicians, artists & co.

    Anglo-Saxon Son of God, anyone? An emblem used to drive imperialism and colonialism, in a thousand curriculums.

    Men of the right opposed to a little light propaganda and cause-advancement by other people? Pulling up the drawbridge are we?

    • Colonel Mustard

      Hardly light propaganda. Cause advancement certainly. But the cause is suspect and the destination dodgy. Reconciliation is always better for the human race than revenge.

      • Sarah

        It’s not revenge, it’s justice.

  • Sarah

    I can barely move around London without tripping over some monument to white male vanity and the power of their political PR. Once a year the country grinds to a halt to memorialise a massive scrap in mythological form. A bronze statue here, a stone carving there, here a blue plaque, there a cathedral, everywhere a bench or painting. Even if you shut your eyes you’ll still be assailed by poems and hymns and songs to remind you that white men think they’re awfully important. The history curriculum should really be renamed, “let’s talk about me”.

    I expect it’s better in Cairo.

    • Eddie

      Yes, dear – that is because white men invented and created the modern world. The plaques are not put up for racist or sexist reasons (though some to women and ethnics have been in order to, as it is so quaintly put, to ‘redress the balance’ AKA to ‘distort the inconvenient reality of history’).
      Get over it, love. White men invented everything and you should be thanking them every day for creating a society which gives people, including ignorant sexist loonies like you, the freedoms you have.

      • Sarah

        You see, that’s what a bad historical education can do for you. If it does this to a plain mind, just think what it can do to an imaginative one?

        There have been thousands and thousands of women throughout our history who have tried to make or have made contributions to the making of the modern world. Like the women who formed early Christian cults who were shut down as heretical via 7 male-only ecumenical councils. That instituted male supremacy. Like the female philosophers who were shut down by the Ancient Greeks keen to put an end to goddess worshipping, promoting a vicious and pernicious kind of mind-body dualism that served to keep women disenfranchised and unable to be their perspectives heard, banned from entry to any of the educational, scientific or political institutions that men created to serve their interests and way of doing things. In spite of this, there were the medieval convents, powerhouses of literature and the arts and mysticism. Their books and work were burned, yes it wasn’t only Nazi men who burned books, it was English men too.

        There are countless of examples of outspoken women, who were censored: condemned, ridiculed, imprisoned, killed. Forced into silence by the religious and secular law which prevented them from even speaking in church, answering their husbands back, standing for office, voting, getting an education, hobbling them at every single turn. And you’ve heard of none of them and think therefore they don’t exist.

        Not to mention the fact that at every golden period of our history we’ve had a female head of state. You’ll have heard of them.

        And you have the gall to feel proud that we only memorialise white men?

      • bhudster10

        Why is it that Sarah can debate with you, yet she doesn’t descend into insults and namecalling.

  • Raman_Indian123

    Whether anyone likes it or not, coloured people are an increasingly important part of British history. Why not get kids accustomed to this reality and show that people of colour played a role in the past too? Mary Seacole is interesting because she does not come from the usual set which hogs all the credit and her life shows history from the base rather than the top of society.

    • Eddie

      You could be suspended for using racist language by using the word ‘coloured’, Ramjam.
      Tsss. Racists eh?…
      Mary Seacole is an unimportant historical figure and would not be studied if she were not an ethnic-looking woman. I am glad you agree with that.
      But…you say, in effect:
      ‘Why not fabricate history in order to distort reality to what you want it to be?’
      Well, Mr Indian, because it is tantamount to historical fraud and is morally wrong.
      The fact is, whether you like it or not, the modern world was largely created by white men. If you wrongly elevate non-entity women and ethnic and pretend they were as important as white men, then you are just a liar and your aim is to teach children a lie for political reasons.
      How very Stalinesque of you. And no wonder – your head has been filled with Indian lies about how Indians created India. In fact, it was the British who did that – we even introduced tea drinking to India and also lots of your foods (chillies even, potatoes, tomatoes). Not to mention law, education, language, civilised traditions etc.

  • Raman_Indian123

    “She helped, she was kind and perhaps even altruistic.”
    Can anyone say the same of the Tory Party and Mr Liddle?

  • Sarah

    “Why should black kids be coerced into venerating someone simply because of their skin colour? Isn’t that exactly the sort of thing we could do without? The campaigners seem to wish to keep these children ghettoised, defined by characteristics which it is beyond their power to alter.”

    Maybe because other people do define us by our characteristics whether they are in our power to change or not. (see Eddie)
    Maybe because the other options for veneration aren’t actually culturally neutral and venerating them often involves internalising a whole lot of toxic stuff about your own race or sex. (See religion and philosophy)
    Maybe because role models people can relate to help. (see Obama). I know white men get this because they’ve been the most active race and sex (bar none) in creating their own role models. (See earlier comments + Sky Sports)
    Maybe because it offers an alternative way of being and doing things that doesn’t get any airtime, what with white men promoting their neutral, objective perspective on merit 24/7 through powerful media channels they’ve invented and protected. (See Spectator)

    Maybe you should ask black people, white people, Asian people, female people, male people, poor people, rich people, disabled people, indigenous people, conservative people, socialist people, young people, old people, why they seek symbols like them, why it’s important to them (because it obviously is). Instead of assuming it isn’t or shouldn’t be.

    What exactly *do* you investigate, Rod, other than the home pages of the Guardian and New Statesman websites?

    • Eddie

      Oh dear, Sarah. There you go again…

      It is NOT I who defines people by their characteristics- ie gender or race. It is actually and literally feminists and professional black men who do that.
      Feminists do not see people as people, as I do: gender always has to be the way people are defined, esp women. Many hardcore feminists hate men – just because they are men too.Maybe that’s why most women are not feminists?
      Similarly, those profiteers for the politics of race, obsessively make race an issue in everything – when in fact race is rarely an issue. For them, categorising people as ‘black’ vis silly self-definition and ‘one drop’ rules are obsessively followed in a tribal and often anti-white racist way.

      Me – I believe in merit. No so-called positive action or racism against whites or men, and no gender or race quotas; no parachuting of blacks and women onto prominent roles on TV in order to manufacture some fake ‘equality’ – eg 50/50 male/female representation in every job, which goes against the distribution of talent and ability.

      Anyway, Sarah, who exactly is your role model? Rosemary West maybe? Or is it Myra Hindley?
      Oh no, course not – it’s Aileen Wuornos!

  • http://www.facebook.com/kerralistair Alistair Kerr

    Spot on, Rod

  • Michael990

    That reminds me of the US government advert regularly heard on internet radio stations claiming that a black American invented the lawn mower…

    • Eddie

      It always shocks me that in the US people are told that Americans invented such things as the TV and the lighbulb too (invented by Logie Baird and Swan actually – both British). Edison didn;t invent anything at all – he just developed others’ inventions.

      This is just like in communist Russia, where they taught kids that the commies invented everything!

      Because of Britain’s pre-eminence, the fact is that Brits invented over 50% of major inventions in the world – and have continued with DNA testing, the world wide web, and even the internet (Welshman Donald Davies)

      As for the lawn mower:

      ‘The first lawn mower was invented by Edwin Budding in 1827 in Thrupp, just outside Stroud, in Gloucestershire. Budding’s mower was designed primarily to cut the lawn on sports grounds and extensive gardens, as a superior alternative to the scythe, and was granted a British patent on August 31, 1830’
      To my knowledge, black Americans did not invent anything. They did take African rhythms, which blended with Jewish tunes – and also folk songs and hymns from Europe (esp England, Wales, Scotland) to create modern pop music via Jazz and the blues.

  • PoliticalPowers

    i understand she was only a quarter black but she was turned away from numerous job vacancies because of what she explains as her colour, she was refused by florence nightingale because of what she explains as her colour which is why she financed her own hotel because regardless of her being majority white they still treated her different because of her quarter black ancestry. So yes she was biologically more white however white society treated her as a black person therefore she related to the struggle of the black person, how ironic considering she was mostly white???

  • Raman_Indian123

    If distorting history is what is so annoying to the British whites, what about this nonsense of making Britain a Christian monarchy when Jesus was not even a Christian but a Jew? And the church’s depiction of Jesus as blonde and blue-eyed when he must have been brown and frizzy haired?

  • Raman_Indian123

    She is not “revered as a Black icon” but respectedc as a person of considerable achievement in social work despite a disadvantageous background. Wiki notes:
    “On one occasion, attending wounded troops under fire she dislocated her right thumb, an injury which never healed entirely. In a dispatch written on 14 September 1855, William Howard Russell, special correspondent of The Times, wrote that she was a “warm and successful physician, who doctors and cures all manner of men with extraordinary success. She is always in attendance near the battle-field to aid the wounded and has earned many a poor fellow’s blessing.” Russell also wrote that she “redeemed the name of sutler”, and another that she was “both a Miss Nightingale and a [chef]”. Seacole made a point of wearing brightly coloured, and highly conspicuous, clothing—often bright blue, or yellow, with ribbons in contrasting colours. While Lady Alicia Blackwood later recalled that Seacole had “… personally spared no pains and no exertion to visit the field of woe, and minister with her own hands such things as could comfort or alleviate the suffering of those around her; freely giving to such as could not pay …”.

  • Raman_Indian123

    If distorting history is what is so annoying to the British whites, what about this nonsense of making Britain a Christian monarchy when Jesus was not even a Christian but a Jew? And the church’s depiction of Jesus as blonde and blue-eyed when he must have been brown and frizzy haired?

    • Peregrinus

      Please, please get off this meme about Jesus being a Jew, Raman.

      As has been pointed out to you time and time again OF COURSE HE WAS A JEW and Guatama (BUDDHA) was a HINDU — Buddhists developed from there, Christians from Jesus Christ (a Jew). There were no Christians until after the resurrection of Christ, no Buddhists, I presume, until after the enlightenment of the Buddha. Got it?

      Neither fact about origins precludes Christianity or Buddhism from interpreting their lives and teachings as developments of the traditions from which they came – Judaism and Buddhism.

      As John Henry Newman in his DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE has shown so clearly, Christian doctrine develops according to principles which make it authentic. These developments are rooted in Judaism and Jesus Christ, a rabbi.

      Your utter disrespect for the thoughtful and holy minds which have contributed to Christian thought, philosophy and practice are embarrassing to Hindus and others.

      • Raman_Indian123

        The problem is that the relationship between Buddhism and Hinduism differs in one crucial respect from that between Judaism and Christianity: Buddhism has no claim to be BETTER than Hinduism, and does not seek to supersede it. Hindus have long believed Buddha was one of their major Gods, and Buddhism is hugely venerated in India and among Hindus. The Dalai Lama is perhaps the most venerated religious personality in India. Hindus have no wish to see Buddhism disappear.

        I am afraid this rather spoils your game. The Christians proclaim almost at every mass (certainly of the Catholic Church, which I attend almost every Sunday) that they are the New Israel, taking over from Jews as the Chosen People. That is the official doctrine of the Vatican. That is why Jews THEMSELVES (and THEY ought to know) call Christians “supersessionists”: i.e., a religion which declaredly wants Jews to disappear as a religious community. Now, Jesus, a faithful and zealous follower of Jewish law and custom, would NEVER have wanted that. That sort of supersessionism took place at the initiative of Paul, not Jesus. That is why Jesus is not the figure who can be called the founder of Christainity: by no reasonable evidence would he have wished to found a religion so doctrinally hostile to Judaism.

        • Peregrinus

          You put a very pretty gloss on Hindu-Buddhist relations which are sometimes quite tense in parts of India and elsewhere. Certainly those who hold to the caste system take a dim view of those who reject it like (some) Buddhists and Christians generally.

          On the matter of Jesus self-understanding you seem to claim to have some gnostic understanding of what Jesus would and would not want. You fail to cite any source however. In fact, the only source for Jesus teaching is the Gospel which shows Jesus claiming to fulfill the Law and that “the Father and I are one”. It was for this teaching that this Jewish rabbi, Jesus, was charged and executed.

          As for St. Paul, he simply claims that this fulfillment of the Law in Jesus Christ is “for the Jews first and then for the Gentiles” i.e. for all people — extending the promise of Israel to all. There is no caste or class any more – this is the good news of the Gospel for everyone. Certainly it was Jews who were the first to embrace his message (though not all) and to this day there are Jews who embrace the message of Jesus which is for every language, race and nation — Dalits and others who have been disposessed by prejudice included.

          That is the message of each Mass which I hope you will hear since you say that you attend weekly.

          • Raman_Indian123

            You find it impossible to admit the simple point that I made, that the relations between Hindusim and Buddhism are very different from that between Judaism and Christianity simply because Christianity CLEARLY, REPEATEDLY, DAILY declares that IT is the successor of Judaism and that followers of the latter faith shoud join Christianity since their own faith is outdated since the coming of Jesus.

            Now just answer me like a truth-telling man if not Christian: is that true as the Christian position or not?

            There is no comparable claim of supersession by Buddhists against Hindus. “Supersession” is not a word I invented for this context: it is the Jewish analysis of Christianity’s claim against their faith.

            Chrstians want Jews to vanish into Christianity.

            Just consider for a moment what an ugly and nihilistic and grossly mean ambition that is: all the rich culture of Judaism since Christ is to disappear. Would any decent person want that, if he were not a fanatic blinded by Christian nihilism? I always tell Christian fanatics who demand that I join their cult: “If everyone becomes Christian, what happens to the Jewish culture? What about their jokes?”

            Neither the generality of Hindus nor of Buddhists have any such ambitions regarding the other party’s faith.

          • Peregrinus

            You come up with some interesting non-sequiturs, Raman e.g. “Christian nihilism”. Really, what could that possibly mean?

            The Christian faith affirms that the Logos of the universe, the Word of God (Christ) is made flesh — nothing could be further from nihilism.

            As to your question about the Christian faith in relation to Jesus, the Messiah and the truth that he is incarnate, crucified and risen. It is really a question of truth — was he or wasn’t he? And it is a question of faith which, unlike what you seem to be talking about, is not relativistic.

            Christians naturally believe that the long-expected Jewish Messiah has come and come for all. He is Jesus, the Christ. That should be clear and ambiguous and it doesn’t change anyone’s culture unless they want it to or they can bring it with them — isn’t that what you have done with Buddha?

            If one believes and affirms this truth about Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit then one proclaims this faith. The Law is fulfilled not abolished, as Jesus himself said. There is no extinction of culture.

            In fact, it is the Western Christian world which has established the principle of freedom of religion and the expectations that cultures be respected. It is largely in the Western world that they can and do live with one another in peace — India’s legal system is based, after all, upon British Common Law which is Christian at its root.

            What an irrational relativist position you advocate and so many take. You seem to want Christians to affirm the tenets of other faiths and at the same time say that we believe every belief is equally valid even if some tenets oppose Christ or even seek to extinguish Christian faith. What illogical nonsense.

            For us truth is truth and we cannot deny who Christ is unless we want to become syncretistic relativists.

            One can affirm Christ and yet respect the right of others to disagree. That will not change truth.

            You claim that Buddhism does not seek to supersede Hinduism and yet it roundly contradicts Hindu beliefs in the caste system, the nature of God, polytheism etc.. Most Buddhists, like most Christians disagree with many Hindu ideas and allow others to disagree in principle. Again, Christians will not forgo the matter of truth though.

            It appears that you would have everyone adopt the Hindu practice of incorporating every disparate and contradictory religious idea in one incoherent mass. It seems that it is you need some respect for others culture, even those which combine faith with reason.

            Syncretistic Hinduism attempts to hold together all contradictions and by your own word seeks to co-opt Buddha as a “god” of Hinduism — something he explicitly rejected by Buddha himself much less Buddhists. No, you should coin a word for that one: “ante-sessionist co-option” might be a starting point. It’s not elegant but at least accurate and logical.

            So you can go on ignoring facts and tying yourself to illogic all the while blaming Christians for consistent rational and convincing statements of faith and we will defend your right to do so even as we vehemently disagree with you because we believe there is such a thing as truth upon which faith and reason may agree,

            Would you really allow us that freedom? From what you write it sounds unlikely.

          • Raman_Indian123

            Yiu have admitted my case as frankly as a fanatical Christian is ever likely to. You have admitted that Christianity DOES want Judaism as Jews know it to disappear, since to the eye of the Christian fanatic it seems superseded. That is all I need from you. I for my part DO NOT want Judaism as known to disappear: I believe it has made a colossal contribution to the richness and variety of the world and I would be sorry indeed for all that to come to an end: tthe Talmud, the Mishna, Kabbala, all the rich, vast and massive traditions of Jewish thought in the last two thousand years.

            Long may Judaism flourish, and long may “Christian” fanatics – really PAULIST SUPERSESSIONISTS since Jesus was Jewish in everything – be frustrated.

            As for Buddhists and Hindus, you will be surprised to hear that opposed strongly as Hindus are to attempts to convert Hindus away from their ancerstral religion, they make an exception for Buddhists. Dr B R Ambedkar, the great leader of the Dalits, asked his people to adopt Buddhism rather than Christianity or Islam precisely because he thought Buddhism would help free them from the taint of caste oppression but keep them within their ancestral Indian culture. He correctly thought Buddhism was thoroughly part of the larger Hindu culture anbd that is the viewpoint of Hindus about it to this day: Ambedkar is a great hero of Hindu nationalism today. Hindus do not object to conversions of Hindus by BUDDHISTS.

            Notice the stark difference here: Hindus recognise the Hinduness of Buddhism and want it to remain forever. “Christians” – Paulists – are anxious for Judaism to vanish.

            A lot of the trouble with Christianity would end if only it was content with its own very large flock and did not ceaselessly try to wipe out other religious traditions.

            Since the Christian countries include many of the richest they have the money to impress poor folk everywhere with the illusion that Christianity and wealth and success go together.

            If Hindus or other religions had sent well-funded missionaries to preach to Christian nations when most Christians were very poor, there would have been no Christianity today. Of course the Christian societies were wise enough to ban all proselytism against them until they were wealthy enough to be immune.

            This is not a matter for worry by Hindus only. Of course we live with the fear that the traditions of our ancestors will be lost to a dreary redneck foreign cult, but the world too will become culturally impoverished if the Christians have their way and all other religions are museumised.

          • Raman_Indian123

            PEREGRINUS:

            You say:

            “In fact, it is Western Christian culture which has established the principle of freedom of religion and the expectation that cultures be respected. It is largely in the Western world that religions and cultures can and do live with one another in peace — India’s legal system is based, after all, upon British Common Law which is Christian at its root.”
            This is another example of the Christian taste for seizing credit for human progress they and their beknighted crew had fought tooth and nail. It was the historical tradtions of Graeco-Roman free thought so savagely destroyed by Christianity and which was recovered by the West by a miracle through the medium of Arabic translations of Greek classics, and the influence of the Enlightenment, which brought religious freedom to the West. The Church resisted the processin with oceans and blood and hate. It was Rousseau and Voltaire who gave the clarion call for freedom, not the Church, their medieval, tyrannical enemy.
            The French Revolution secularised France and broke the ghettoes of fetid misery in which the Church had imprisoned the blood kinsmen of Jesus for centuries. The Church opposed religious freedom as long as it could, and initiated the reaction against the French Revolution’s values that ended in fascism and the Holocaust.

          • Peregrinus

            Of course, its really all about race for you isn’t it.
            “Buddhism would help free them from the taint of caste oppression but keep them within their ancestral Indian culture”

            You totally avoid the question of truth and the reasons why Christian nations have been successful. So live on in your relativistic nirvana. It certainly hasn’t done much in 5000 years to bring an end to the misery of the Indian people. Common Law and Western technology have done more in two hundred years than 5000 years of racist caste-based ideology.

            The Jewishness of Christianity is a given. There is no threat to any culture other than the threat of truth which calls for every culture to grow and develop. Otherwise, Europeans and Western societies would still be living in pagan polytheistic misery.

            So maintain your unholy alliance with the anti-Christian racists communists, syncretists and relativists just don’t expect any rational person to pay much attention.

          • Raman_Indian123

            PEREGRINUS:

            At my Protestant primary school in Jinja, Uganda, in the 1960s, I was baffled by the sudden change in the way the Jews were spoken of in the religious instruction classes in my Christian school once the Son of Man came. Suddenly they changed from being the blazing heroes and favourites of God whose feats we were to exult in to being “The Jews”, sinister and endlessly cunning plotters and villains trying to trap Jesus with all their conspiracies and crooked questions.

            To this day Christian indoctrination has not changed much. I sit in the Catholic church listening to the priest telling the old hard-hearted stories to the faithful of how “The Jews” tried to catch pure-minded Jesus out in this and that situation and how he always tripped them up in all their cunning snares. What an ugly and threatening picture one gets of these mysterious harmers called “The Jews” ! Countless Christian children must be listening day after day to these tales in which “the Jews” are always the cunning villains
            and must be insensibly drinking in anti-Semitic prejudice.

            Again, after all this it came as a total surprise to me to realise that Jesus himself was never anything but a Jew anyway!

            It was in that school in Jinja, Uganda too that I first encountered a Jew in the flesh. That was an unforgettable event.

            One sunny morning as we children were playing in the school grounds with the green Nile in the distance I saw a very thin boy with red curly hair and pasty white skin standing apart from all the other white kids. He looked at them with screwed up, short-sighted green eyes. He thin angly face seemed intensely intelligent.

            Years later I saw a photo of Leon Trotsky and his thin, squinting, intelligent face recalled that of the lad in Jinja, Uganda. The boy acted as a complete outcast and stranger to the other whites. I realised that I had never seen him approach them at all. This was in the mid 1960s. I asked a white boy, “Who is that and why doesn’t he play with you?”

            “Oh”, I was told, “he’s Marcus, a Jew.” That was seen as enough explanation.

            A Jew in the flesh! It was as thrillling and unexpected as being shown a unicorn or a centaur – a being one had assumed was mythological, symbols of first Good and then Evil in the Christian propaganda stories.

            Later, in Jinja Senior Secondary School I found Marcus’ father, a tall, thin, serious looking, bearded man, a maths teacher, just as aloof as his son among the other whites.

            At this time, with total shock I learned (from my own reading) of the Holocaust, the story of Anne Frank. I could not believe and still cannot that people could have reached such limits of hatred. I conceived an intense admiration for the Jews for remaining who they are in the face of so much hate and ostracism. It was the Christians, so vastly in the majority, who seemed ineradicably mediocre by comparison. I could feel only contempt for their petty gripes against this great people.

            The Jewish monotheism I respected because it was not interested in taking over other faith traditions. Fair-mindedly, the Jews said: We are sternly monotheist, but do not seek to proselytise. We hope only to be a light unto the gentiles, an example for them to use as they will. As a Hindu I am comfortable with that.

  • Raman_Indian123

    I am against anyone veing revered, be they Black or White or Green. So if Mary Seacole is being revered – i.e, placed beyond reasonable criticism – it’s no go.
    Yet as an unusual participant in the story of the Crimean War I think she has a claim to notice. Her story is interesting as is shows British history had its occasional Black participant, too. In a time in which Black and other coloured folks are of increasing importance in this country, what’s bad about mentioning her? There are no lack of others, after all. Just one Black will harm no-one.

  • Raman_Indian123

    Doesn’t it seem rather witless and petty-minded for the representatives of acountry with as distinguished a heritage as Britain’s to think it is the end of the world if schoolchildren are told about a woman who went out of her way to do humanitarian work? It might help to break down some of the hostile sterotypes of the media. How are people of various races to pull on in one country if positive role models are not brought to attention?
    John Gunther, the well-known US journalist, once mentioned how depressing it was for US Blacks (this was in the 1930s) to grow up seeing little or nothing in the media about people like them that they could admire. How often does “The Spectator” present Blacks and Asians in the UK in a positive light? There is a lot of soul-searching here to do.
    I am surprised that the Liberals did not protest to Gove over the Seacole decision.

  • Raman_Indian123

    Liddle scoffs:
    “Let the kids marvel at how a nice woman who wasn’t really very black came to be revered as a black icon because, unsurprisingly, given the make-up of British society prior to the 1950s, they couldn’t find anyone else.”

    And what is so wrong with that? At least she was “nice” by Liddle’s own apparently growling admission, and took risks to do helping work in bad situations. Can one say as much for Thatcher?

    Mary Seacole was called “Mother Seacole” by some of the British soldiers, suffering in harsh conditions. I prefer their word on the matter to Liddle’s, sitting safe and comfortably 160 years later.

  • Raman_Indian123

    Wiki notes:

    “In a dispatch written on 14 September 1855, William Howard Russell, special correspondent of The Times, wrote that she was a “warm and successful physician, who doctors and cures all manner of men with extraordinary success. She is always in attendance near the battle-field to aid the wounded and has earned many a poor fellow’s blessing.” Russell also wrote that she “redeemed the name of sutler”, and another that she was “both a Miss Nightingale and a [chef]”……Lady Alicia Blackwood later recalled that Seacole had “… personally spared no pains and no exertion to visit the field of woe, and minister with her own hands such things as could comfort or alleviate the suffering of those around her; freely giving to such as could not pay …”.

    Did The Spectator ever do as much?

  • LEngland

    Black heroes are sure hard to find. The Left is desperate and hence tries to manufacture them. Apart from Paul Robeson, the rest, such as Mandela and that clown Tutu are frankly unworthy placemen with feet of clay.
    Black people are more intellectually and morally frail than Mongoloids and Caucasoids.
    Think; US city mayors, Labour Council race – promoted projects, MPs etc. and you begin to grasp the (unfortunate) reality.

  • LEngland

    The Left is desperate to manufacture ‘ethnic’, and preferably black, heroes. It is a tough task. Think; US rigged black city mayors, our own Labour councils’ racially biased creation of corrupt black ‘community – leaders, MPs, muggers, drug involvement, degenerate entertainers promoting degeneracy, you know the rest. Paul Robeson apart, the others are venal placemen; Mandela, that clown Tutu and myriad others you can think of.
    Look at those Lawrence people; simple folk made wretched by exploitative socialists. They have been moulded into Labour stooges dancing to the socialistic fiddle and wringing every possible drop of publicity and gain out of their personal tragedy.
    The more significant murder of PC Blakelock was downplayed so that this could happen. One of the Lawrences is now flogging that old black magic routine “they keep pulling me over”.
    Black people are intellectually and morally frailer than Mongoloids and Cauacasoids. That is why the honest ones prefer to work under non – black control. A reality, perhaps an unfortunate one. Thank you.

    • bhudster10

      disgraceful.

  • Julieann Carter

    Mary Seacole’s motivation for traveling to the Crimea was “profit”. She set herself up as a shopkeeper, selling luxurious home comforts & wares, (including alchohol), to Officers – her target market.
    More a Harrods outpost, than a Lidls – ’twas Officers had the money to spend – she was a business woman first & foremost.
    Her benevolence came later, affected by the ravages of war.
    No formal nurses training, she had co ran a corner shop back in Blighty.
    She is incomparable with Miss Nightingale, who’s image probably should have graced our new notes, over that of Jane Austen. (Who’s litery work I’m a huge fan of).
    Interesting how 21st Centuary Feminists can’t resist the allure of that most patriarchal & mysoginist of men, Mr Darcy, don’t you think?

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here