Hello, my name is Mr. Groom, and you have made an excellent choice to study history with me today.

This lesson is an intriguing one.

Together, we're going to explain how perspectives regarding the British Empire have changed over time.

Are you ready to get going? I am, so let's start.

Today's lesson is called Commemoration and Contestation of the British Empire from the unit "Interpreting the British Empire: How has it been commemorated and contested?" By the end of today's lesson, we will be able to explain how and why perspectives regarding the British Empire have changed over time, and that historians still debate the impacts of the Empire today.

Here are our keywords for today's lesson.

An empire is a group of countries or provinces ruled from the centre by another person or group of people.

Something relating to empire is known as imperial.

Historiography is the study of the writing of history and of written history.

And postcolonialism is a theoretical approach that is concerned with the impact of colonisation in colonies and former colonies.

So let's start our look at the commemoration and contestation of the British Empire by explaining how perspectives have changed.

Now, as we might be aware, perspectives of the British Empire have changed over time.

So in the 19th century, particularly that mid to late-ish 19th century, sort of 1850s, 1860s, it was largely seen as a source of celebration and pride.

For example, in 1851, the Great Exhibition was held in London.

It was designed to showcase the achievements of the Empire and Britain's latest technological developments.

There were exhibits from Britain showcasing Britain's industrial and technological ability and advancement, but also looking at the achievements of the Empire and showcasing various things from around the Empire.

For example, exhibits from India showing a taxidermied elephant with a incredibly ornate howdah upon its back.

Remember as well, it was held in a glass building called the Crystal Palace, which had been designed specifically for the event, and this building was absolutely spectacular.

The building alone, let alone what inside it, was already a marker of Britain's imperial supremacy.

And here we've got an illustration of the Crystal Palace.

What I'd like you to think about is what that image suggests about perspectives of the British Empire in the 19th century.

So I want you to look really carefully at all the aspects of the image and try and pick out as many different details as you can that tell us something about the way that British people saw their Empire in the 19th century.

So while you are doing that, pause the video, and then press play when you're ready to compare your ideas to mine.

So the impressive structure of the Crystal Palace alone shows the might and power of the Empire.

This was a huge, huge building that was purpose built for the Great Exhibition.

It showed the power of Britain and its Empire with its ability to build such a thing.

You can also see a British flag flying to show the Empire's importance.

This was very much a celebration of Britain and Britain's Empire.

Also, the fact that this structure was made of glass, giving it the name the Crystal Palace, meant that it coed in the sun, meaning the exhibits could be seen in all their glory.

This was something that people could see from miles around when the sun glinted on it, suggesting that the British Empire was something that was incredibly powerful, something to be proud of, something to marvel at.

Also, in the 19th century, we see some other examples of how the British Empire and British imperial supremacy was celebrated.

So in 1897, Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee was not just a celebration of her 60 years as Monarch, but also a grand spectacle of Empire.

During her time in power, the British had witnessed the Empire's expansion to unprecedented levels, meaning it was the foremost global power at the time.

It had never been this large, and that made the Empire seem incredibly powerful, important, and reinforced ideas of British imperial supremacy.

Because the Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee was used to celebrate Empire, it also became known as the festival of the British Empire.

So that's quite important, isn't it? The fact that it was a jubilee for Queen Victoria's 60 years as Monarch, no other monarch had reigned for as long as her at that point.

No one had reached a diamond jubilee, and yet the celebration for that occasion also is known as the Festival of the British Empire.

It sort of suggests, doesn't it, that celebrations about Victoria's Diamond Jubilee were on a par with celebrating the Empire.

And the two things, Victoria's reign, her long and successful reign, had basically gone hand in hand with British imperial supremacy.

They were both things to be celebrating in the late 19th century.

We've got a photo of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee here from 1897.

What I want you to think about is I want you to think about what that image suggests about perspectives of the British Empire in the 19th century.

So what I want you to do is to look really closely at the image and think about what you can pick out in it that tells us something about how the British people viewed their Empire in the late 19th century.

While you are doing that, pause the video, and press play when you're ready to resume.

So you might have picked out some of the following things, the soldiers from the Empire, across the Empire in fact, all different soldiers, not just from Britain, show its vastness.

The fact that the crowd standing behind those soldiers are happy to celebrate the British Empire.

They're there.

They're queued up probably for this occasion.

There were lots of them.

They're very closely packed.

They want to get a look at what is going on.

They are there, happy to celebrate the British Empire.

We've got these flags to show pride in the British Empire.

And the fact that this is a military procession, so it's a procession of soldiers, shows imperial strength and unity.

So as we've seen, the idea of the British Empire as a source of celebration and pride is emphasised in what we call traditional historiography.

And so we've got Laura here to help us, and she's summarising these ideas of traditional historiography.

Traditional historiography places Britain at the centre.

It argues amongst other things that the British Empire attempted to bring justice and democracy to its colonies, as well as trying to end many practises seen as barbaric.

It also took British culture and language to many parts of the world, as well as carrying out projects for the public good.

So often traditional historiography might point at the fact that railways were built across India, or the fact that the practise of city where Indian widows were burned was also ended by the British Empire.

These are the sorts of things that traditional historiography focuses on when it argues that the British Empire was largely a positive thing.

So let's check your understanding of what we've heard so far in this lesson.

I'd like you to complete this sentence with the correct word.

Perspectives of the British Empire in the 19th century were largely, A, positive, B, negative, or C, neutral.

While you're thinking about your answer, pause the video and press play when you're ready to see how you did.

Well done.

Perspectives of the British Empire in the 19th century were largely positive.

Now, I want you to think about which of the following statements about the traditional view of the British Empire is true.

A, it places Britain at the centre of the Empire.

B, it looks at the Empire from the perspective of the colonised.

C, it emphasises the supremacy of the Empire.

D, it focuses on the contested legacy of the Empire.

So think carefully about all those statements because more than one of them might be correct about the traditional view of the British Empire.

While you're thinking about your answer, press pause, and then press play when you're ready to resume.

That's right.

Traditionally, the view of the British Empire, so traditional historiography of the British Empire, is that it places Britain at the centre of the Empire.

It focuses on Britain rather than the colonies or Britain's actions towards the colonies, rather than the colonies themselves.

It also emphasises the supremacy of the Empire.

Now, following World War II and the wave of decolonization across the British Empire, perspectives of the Empire began to change.

Many contemporary historians, so historians that have been working contemporary to us, began to contest this traditional historiography.

We've got an example there of Homi K.

Bhabha, who's one of these historians who has contested that traditional historiography.

Influenced by the events around them, they've decided to try and challenge and contest that traditional view of the British Empire.

And here really helpfully, we've got Lucas who's going to summarise for us the ideas of historians like Homi K.

Bhabha who contest the view that the British Empire should be seen as a source of celebration and pride.

Lucas says that some historians argue that the British Empire was motivated by greed and was designed to support British economic interests, and that it also oppressed those that it colonised, contributing to the death of millions, as well as creating long-lasting economic disparities.

So the idea that the British Empire was not a force for good has been given weight by postcolonial historians like Edward Said and Homi K.

Bhabha that we just talked about.

In looking at the impact of colonisation from the perspective of the colonised, there has been a greater emphasis on seeing the British Empire as both exploitative and oppressive.

So this is very different to the traditional model of imperial historiography where people focused on the Empire's achievements or focused primarily on Britain, the metropole, the centre of the Empire being Britain, and therefore focused on what Britain had done for the colonies.

In looking at this new perspectives on the British Empire that challenged that traditional historiography, historians like Bhabha have looked at the perspective of the colonised.

They've really focused on the people, the cultures, the societies, the countries that were colonised by the British.

And by doing so, they've seen a much greater emphasis on the British Empire as being exploitative and oppressive in their work.

They've also developed this further by trying to acknowledge that this isn't just something that should be consigned to the dust bin of history.

Traditional historiography of the British Empire might just look at things from a perspective that this is all in the past, it's happened, we can decide whether it's good.

Primarily they would say that the Empire was good, okay? But with these new postcolonial historians, the historians of postcolonialism, they've really focused on arguing that the impacts of colonialism are still felt today.

They're very interested in how the impacts of colonialism have continued to impact these cultures, people, and societies.

So let's check that you understand the differences between the types of colonial or imperial history that we've looked at so far today.

We've got two students here, Aisha and Lucas.

I want you to think about which of them is describing postcolonial history.

Is it Aisha who's saying it looks at the impact of the British Empire from the perspective of the colonised and argues that the effects are still felt today? Or is it Lucas who says that it focuses on the imperial supremacy of the British Empire? So which of those is describing postcolonial history? Press pause, and then when you're ready to check your answer, hit play.

That's right, so it was Aisha who was describing postcolonial history.

Lucas is describing that traditional historiography of the British Empire.

So let's bring our learning from this first cycle together to explain how perspectives have changed.

So we're focused here on explaining how those perspectives have changed.

We are not trying to account for why, we're trying to explain how they've changed.

So what I want you to do is I want you to explain to your partner, or if it's just you, I want you to rehearse talking out loud or maybe even write it down.

And I want you to explain how perspectives of the British Empire have changed.

So try to include the following in your answer, the traditional view of the British Empire, the opposing or negative view of the British Empire, and the ideas of postcolonialism.

While you attempt your answer, press pause.

And when you're ready to see how your ideas compare to mine, press play again.

So your answer might have started like this.

The traditional view of the British Empire focused on British imperial glory and supremacy, It sees the Empire as having power and prestige, with Britain very much at the centre, shown in events such as the Great Exhibition of 1851 and the celebration of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897.

You might have gone on to say that these ideas have been countered by postcolonial historians who argued that the British Empire was.

The British Empire was not glorious or selfless, but was motivated by greed and was responsible for significant oppression.

Postcolonial historians, such as Edward Said, also look at the continuing legacy of the British Empire from the viewpoint of those that were colonised.

So let's now look at explaining why these perspectives have changed.

We spent the first learning cycle thinking about how they've changed.

Now let's think about why those perspectives have changed.

So here we've got Jacob, and Jacob has explained why perspectives of the British Empire have changed.

And one of the reasons is that the shift in perspectives of the British Empire happened as a result of the increase in information about the colonised after decolonization.

So what Jacob is explaining here is that after colonies in the British Empire became independent during this process of decolonization, there was much greater access for historians to source material and information that they could use to inform their historical inquiries.

And with all this new source material, records that were opening up, areas to explore, historians were able to start asking questions that they haven't been able to look at before.

So whereas a traditional history of the British Empire would just focus on Britain and Britain's role at the centre of the Empire because that's where the most source material was available.

After the process of decolonization, historians were able to look at the effect of colonisation within these colonies themselves because of the greater availability of source material, the greater availability of information.

So that's one reason why perspectives of the British Empire have changed the availability of information and source material about the colonised themselves following decolonization.

Now, what Jacob has done to his explanation there is he's added another point.

He's written, "Due to the renewed focus on race, equality, and human rights following the Second World War, there was a move towards giving voice to the experiences of those who had been colonised." So what Jacob is explaining really nicely here is how.

It wasn't just to do with there being more information about the colonised as to why perspectives of the British Empire changed.

It was also to do with changes in the world and the way that people were thinking.

And Second World War brought up lots of discussions about race, equality, and human rights, particularly with countries like Britain and America fighting against Nazi Germany, a racist state, essentially.

There was a real focus on race, equality, and human rights being important international issues that needed to be addressed following the Second World War.

And that feeling was echoed in the way that historians started to look at the British Empire and its effect.

There was this desire to look at issues of race, equality, and human rights across the Empire and the history of the Empire, and to making sure that the voices of those who were colonised came to the forefront in new histories of the British Empire.

So let's check that you understand why perspectives of the British Empire changed.

So we've got Laura and Jun here and they both are explaining something, but I want you to think about which of them is explaining accurately why perspectives of the British Empire changed.

So Laura says, "As a consequence of the rise of postcolonial studies, including works by Edward Said, there has been a focus on challenging traditional historiography that often overlook the negative impact of empire." And June is saying that, "Historiography has developed to look at the ongoing legacy of the British Empire, including the effects of events like partition in India that can still be felt today." So which of those is explaining why perspectives of the British Empire changed? Read them carefully and pause the video, and press play when you're ready to see if you were right.

So that's right, it was Laura.

Okay.

And she uses these words, as a consequence, to show that causal connection.

She says, "As a consequence of the rise of postcolonial studies, including works by Edward Said, there's been a focus on challenging traditional historiography that often overlook the negative impacts of empire." And that's why perspectives of the British Empire changed.

So you've seen some examples there in our pupils and what they said in the way they have used different phrases to explain why something has changed.

And these sorts of phrases are gonna be really useful for when you try and explain why perspectives have changed in a minute.

So we've got some examples here.

As a consequence of, due to, as a result of, given the impact of, in light of, and owing to.

All of these phrases, they're subtly different, but they all help to explain why something has changed.

They help to explain the relationship between the change that happened in the views of historians and the reasons for those changes.

So let's check that you understood what we just talked about with regards to those phrases.

So which of the following are examples of phrases historians can use to explain why something has changed? Read them carefully 'cause it might be more than one.

Press pause.

And when you think you've got your answers, hit play to check how you did.

So due to is absolutely one of these phrases that historians would use.

Owing to, again.

Given the impact of, it's also a phrase a historian would use to explain why something has changed, and even as a result of.

So in fact, all four of those are examples of phrases historians can use to explain why something has changed.

So if you've got all four of them, well done.

What I'd like us to do now is to bring together your learning in this learning cycle to explain why perspectives have changed about the British Empire.

So I want you to write one paragraph explaining how and why perspectives of the British Empire have changed over time.

I want you to include the following in your answer, the key words from this lesson, and a phrase historians can use to explain why something has changed.

I want you to really try and use some of those phrases that we just looked at.

So pause the video while you do this and press play when you're ready to compare your answer to mine.

Well done.

That was tricky, but I knew you'd do a good job.

So you might have said the following in your paragraph, explaining how and why perspectives of the British Empire have changed over time.

You might have said: Traditional historiography emphasises the imperial supremacy of the British Empire.

It focuses on the Empire as a source of celebration and pride.

A competing view has emerged as a result of, it's one of our phrases that we talked about, the decolonization of vast parts of the British Empire, the emphasis on human rights after the Second World War, and the increasing availability of sources.

Postcolonialism highlights the perspective of the colonised and has a greater focus on the Empire as oppressive and motivated by greed.

Furthermore, post colonialist historians argue that the effects of the British Empire are still felt today.

So excellent job today.

Some really, really complicated ideas when looking at the commemoration and contestation of the British Empire, but I know that you would've listened carefully and thought really hard about the ideas that we've been discussing.

So well done.

Let's just summarise what we've learned.

The legacy of the British Empire is greatly contested.

It's argued about.

Perspectives have shifted from seeing the British Empire as positive to a more negative approach, from that traditional historiography to postcolonialism historiography.

Postcolonialism historiography looks at the Empire from the perspective of the colonised and emerged in part following the decolonization of large parts of the Empire and due to the impact of the Second World War.

What a fascinating lesson.

You've worked so hard.

Well done.

I look forward to seeing you again in another history Lesson soon.

Bye-Bye.