Hello and welcome to this lesson on race relations in 20th Century Britain.

This lesson is part of a broader inquiry looking at how far migrants are welcomed in modern Britain.

In the course of this inquiry, we'll cover lots of different things, but the focus of today's lesson is the changing race relations in 20th Century Britain.

Now, in order to do this lesson, you're going to need a piece of paper and a pen.

If you don't have one, absolutely not to worry.

Just pause the video now, go and grab one, and then come back when you're ready to get started.

Great, now you're ready to get going, we can have a look at our lesson outcome, and I'm hoping that by the end of this lesson, you'll be able to say that you can explain how the experiences of Black and Asian people in postwar Britain were impacted by increasing racism and changing laws.

Now, in order to do that, we're going to need some key words, and for today we've got three.

The first is a race riot, and that's a riot that breaks out between groups of people that identify as a different race.

So for example, it might be people that identify as Black versus people identify as white, vice versa, or different groups.

Colour bar, and that's a system where people who are not considered white are denied access to the same services as white people.

And then finally, repatriation.

That's to return someone to the country they came from.

This can be both voluntarily and involuntarily.

So now we've got our keywords, and we'll see them again in the context of the lesson we can get started today.

And we're going to be starting off by looking at the 1965 Race Relations Act.

So in the 20th century, race had an increasingly significant impact on the treatment and experiences of migrants.

During the interwar years as more Black and Asian World War I veterans settled in Britain, there was increasing hostility from local white communities.

In Liverpool, this led to race riots, which began in June, 1919.

These race riots ultimately resulted in the murder of Bermudan veteran Charles Wootton, who was killed by an angry mob of white British workers.

Part of the reason for the increase in open hostility and racism towards the growing Black and Asian communities was the lack of any laws to prevent racism or discrimination in public places, housing or employment.

The hostility with no laws introduced to address the ongoing racism, only became worse after World War II.

Despite the contributions of colonial soldiers, many landlords and employers were unwilling to rent to or employ Black or Asian people.

Colour bars were also unofficially introduced and enforced, not just in housing and employment, but also in restaurants, bars, pubs and cinemas.

Now, before we go on to consider how this would eventually lead to changing laws, just got a couple of questions.

So true or false, there was an increase in hostility and racism towards Black and Asian people in Britain and the 20th century? Make a decision very quickly and then come back and press play when you've got one.

This statement is true, but I need you to have a think about why this statement is true.

Say in a quick sentence for me.

I'd love you to have a go at explaining why this statement is true.

Brilliant, hopefully you said that as well as the increasing number of Black and Asian migrants in the postwar period, there will also no laws to prevent racism or discrimination in public places, housing or employment.

Now, I'd like you to tell me which one of the following statements explains why the experiences of Black and Asian people worsened after the Second World War.

Was it because A, colour bars were introduced by the government, B colour bars were unofficially introduced and enforced, or C, laws were introduced to encourage racism and colour bars.

Pause the video now, make a decision and then come back and press play when you have an answer for me.

Brilliant, hopefully you said B.

That colour bars were unofficially introduced and enforced.

So it's not the colour bars were introduced by law.

They were not introduced by the government.

They were unofficially introduced, but because there were no laws preventing racism or discrimination or making it a crime, there was nothing that could be done to prevent this unofficial enforcement or instruction of the colour bars.

So racism and discrimination were exacerbated by the media throughout the 1950s and sixties.

In the general election of 1964, racist propaganda played a significant role, particularly in an area called Smethwick, which is near Birmingham.

The Labour party lost to a Conservative member of Parliament, Peter Griffiths, who campaigned with an openly racist slogan, which played on some white people's reluctance to have Black and Asian migrants moving into predominantly white neighbourhoods.

His victory was a huge shock to the labour government.

As a result, Prime Minister Harold Wilson continued to restrict migration to avoid being seen as soft, and this had a hugely negative impact on Black and Asian people in Britain, but especially on migrants.

And although support for laws restricting migration increased, there were also growing demands for the government to address ongoing issues of racism, which in 1964 was still not illegal.

So as a result, the 1965 Race Relations Act became the first law in Britain against racist behaviour.

It was created by the Race Relations Board and outlawed discrimination in public places and made inciting racial hatred an offence.

However, the campaign against racial discrimination argued that it was weak as it only outlawed racial discrimination in public places, but it did not apply to racial discrimination in housing, employment, education, or law enforcement.

This meant that CARD, the campaign against racial discrimination, continued to campaign for further acts to bring about significant change.

Now, before we go on to look at putting what we've learned about the 1965 Race Relations Act into practise, I'd like you to tell me which two of the following statements explain what the Race Relations Act in 1965 enforced.

Did it A, make inciting racial hatred a criminal offence, B, outlaw discrimination in housing, C, outlaw discrimination in employment, or D, outlaw discrimination in public places? Remember, we're looking for the two correct answers here.

So pause the video, make a decision, and then press play when you're done.

Brilliant, hopefully you said A and D.

It did make inciting racial hatred a criminal offence, and it did outlaw discrimination in public places.

It did not outlaw discrimination in housing and unemployment because remember, that was a critique of CARD, the campaign against racial discrimination.

Now, I'd like you to have a look at this statement.

After increasing racism throughout the early 20th century, the 1965 Race Relations Act brought an end the problem.

You've probably already seen the issue here, so you can probably guess that what I'm gonna ask you to do is explain why this statement is incorrect.

So pause the video now and give yourself five to 10 minutes to complete this task.

Brilliant, hopefully your answer looks a little or something like this.

This statement is incorrect because it overplays the success of the 1965 Race Relations Act.

While it was significant, given that it was the first law introduced to outlaw racism in public places in Britain, it did not bring an end to the problem of racism in the country.

In fact, it was criticised by the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination as being weak and inefficient.

CARD argued that the act did not go far enough as it did not outlaw racial discrimination in housing, employment, educational law enforcement.

While the 1965 Race Relations Act did address some of the problems associated with racism in Britain at the time, for example, the racist campaign run by Conservative candidate Peter Griffiths in the 1964 general election, it did not outlaw all types of racism that Black and Asian people experienced at this time.

For instance, it did not outlaw the unofficial enforcement of colour bars in housing and employment.

So really well done if you were able to acknowledge the areas in which it was successful, but ultimately the fact that this statement overplays a success because it did not bring an end to the problem of ongoing racism.

And we know that that's true because CARD continued to campaign for further acts to bring about more change as it still technically was not illegal to carry out racial discrimination in housing or employment.

So in the second part of the lesson, we're going to be looking at a man called Enoch Powell and an infamous speech known as the "Rivers of Blood" speech.

So as CARD expected, the 1965 Race Relations Act did not bring an end to the open hostility, discrimination, and racism that many Black and Asian people in Britain felt, especially those who had migrated to Britain.

One of the most famous figures to campaign against immigration and for the repatriation of migrants in postwar Britain was a member of Parliament called Enoch Powell, and we can see him photographed here.

In 1967, Powell voiced his opposition to the immigration of Kenyan Asians to Britain after Kenya's leader General Kenyatta's discrimination led to their migration.

Not only did he campaign in support of the repatriation of migrants, he openly criticised the upcoming amendment to the Race Relations Act, which aimed to prevent further discrimination and racism.

Now, although Powell became known for his stance against these things, he is best known for a speech he gave on the 28th of April, 1968.

In this speech, he warned that continued immigration would lead to violence.

It became known as the "Rivers of Blood" speech as it contained in reference to a famous Latin poem, which referred to the river Tiber in Rome foaming with much blood.

The speech was so openly racist that Powell was fired the following day by the Conservative Party that Edward Heath.

On the one hand, Powell's dismissal shows the government's changing attitudes as they were quick to show they did not support his views.

But on the other hand, opinion polls showed that the speech had the support of 75% of British people.

It was clear that more would need to be done in order to improve race relations in Britain.

Now, before we go on to look at what more the government might do, we're just gonna pause very quickly.

First I'd like you to tell me which two of the following statements about Enoch Powell are correct.

A, he supported the repatriation of migrants.

B, he encouraged migration from East Asia.

C, he criticised the upcoming amendment to the Race Relations Act, or D, he campaigned for a more thorough race relations act.

Pause the video, make a decision, and then come back when you have an answer for me.

Brilliant, hopefully you said A and C.

He did support the repatriation of migrants.

So remember that's returning someone to the country that they came from, either voluntarily or involuntarily.

And we do know that he criticised an upcoming Amendments to Race Relations Act.

Now Laura says that the response to the "Rivers of Blood" speech showed both changing attitudes and continued support for racist beliefs.

Very quickly, I'd like to jot down a couple of sentences to explain why Laura's statement is correct.

Brilliant, hopefully what you've got down there is that the conservative leader was quick to fire Powell for his speech, inciting racial hatred, which showed changing attitudes within the government.

But opinion poll showed 75% of the public supported Powell's speech, which showed continued racism amongst the public.

So really views are presented in the response to Powell's speech.

Now, what I'd like you to do is put what we've learned in this section into practise by completing a table to show whether each statement is true or false.

There's five statements here.

Put a T if it's true and an F if it's false.

Pause the video and give yourself about five minutes.

Brilliant, so hopefully your table looks a little something like this.

The first statement, as CARD expected, the 1965 Race relations Act did not bring an end racism.

We know that's true.

Enoch Powell was one of the most famous figures to campaign in support of further migration and against the repatriation of migrants.

That is false, that Powell criticised the upcoming amendments to the Race relations Act.

We know that is true.

Powell received no punishment for his "Rivers of Blood" speech, false.

And finally, although Powell was not officially punished, public opinion showed little support for his "Rivers of Blood" speech.

We know that is false.

So what I would like you to do for the second part of this task is to rewrite the three incorrect statements, ensuring that you then have a table of five correct statements.

Pause the video, give yourself about five minutes.

Brilliant, so hopefully your table looks a little something like this, with the second statement corrected to say that Enoch Powell was one of the most famous figures to campaign against further migration and for the repatriation of migrants.

The fourth statement says that Powell was fired the following day for his "Rivers of Blood" speech.

And finally, that although Powell was fired, public opinion showed significant support for Powell and his "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Really, really well done there.

So in the third and final part of our lesson, we're going to be looking at the 1968 Race Relations Act.

So in the aftermath of the Rivers of Blood Speech, CARD intensified its campaigns for a more thorough race relations act.

And their campaign did prove somewhat successful on the 25th of October as the government passed the 1968 Race Relations Act, which would extend the 1965 act to make racial discrimination illegal in housing, employment, financial services and advertising.

This act was specifically aimed at supporting second generation migrants, that's the children of migrants who had been born in Britain, but still faced many of the same obstacles that their parents faces as newly arrived migrants.

Now, although this act did not change public attitudes overnight, it did go some way towards showing changing government attitudes towards race relations in Britain.

So we know that this act didn't completely solve the issue of racism in Britain, but we do know that it goes a long way to show changing attitudes in the government.

We know that doesn't always immediately reflect changes in public opinion as we see with Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, but it is a significant change.

Now, before we get into our last practise task for today, I would like you to answer this question for me.

Which of the following issues was outlawed by the 1968 Race Relations Act? Inciting racial hatred, racism in public places, racial discrimination in housing, or racial discrimination in employment? Now, bear in mind that there are two issues for you to choose here.

Pause the video, make a decision, and then come back when you're done.

Brilliant, hopefully you said C and D, discrimination in housing and employment.

You know that A and B were outlawed by the 1965 Act.

Last quick check for understanding, true or false? The 1968 Race Relations Act did not change attitudes overnight but it was still significant.

Quickly make a decision.

You might not even need to pause the video.

Brilliant, I hope you said that this statement is true.

But now I'd like you to take a couple of minutes to write down a quick sentence to explain why this statement is true for me.

Brilliant, so hopefully you said that it showed the British government's changing attitudes towards race relations as it extended the 1965 Race Relations Act to cover racial discrimination in housing, employment, financial services, and advertising.

Now for our last task today, I'd like you to have a look at Alex's statement.

He says, the 1965 and 1968 Race Relations Act were significant, as they both show the changing attitudes of the government, but also the reality that changing laws were not enough to bring an immediate end to the issue of racism in 20th Century Britain.

So what I'd like you to do for this task is to explain how far you agree with Alex's explanation of the significance of the Race Relations Act.

Pause the video and give yourself about 10 minutes to complete this task.

Brilliant, so hopefully your answer looks a little something like this.

I agree with Alex to a significant extent as he acknowledges both the strengths and limitations of the race relations act.

Firstly, the act is significant because they show the changing attitudes of the government.

As a result of the racist election campaign of Peter Griffith in Smethwick in the 1964 election and the activism of CARD, the campaign against racial discrimination, the government introduced the 1965 Race Relations Act.

This was the first law introduced to address issues of racism in the country and therefore illustrate the government's changing attitude.

Secondly, following Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech, the 1968 Race Relations Act was introduced to extend the first act and outlaw racial discrimination in housing, employment, financial services and advertising.

This combined with the immediate firing of Powell by the Conservative leader, again, demonstrates changing government attitudes.

Alex is also correct in stating that the laws were not enough to change public opinion overnight.

This can be seen by the fact Powell has 75% of support after his speech, despite the existence of the 1965 Race Relations Act, and it is unlikely that the 1968 Act would change this immediately.

So really well done there if you were able to explain two key reasons why Alex's statement is largely correct, he uses the 1965 Act and Enoch Powell's speech to show that things clearly did not change overnight, but ultimately, that these acts are significant because they lead to huge changes for the first time.

But again, that these acts would not change public opinion immediately given that, for example, the response to Powell's speech was so clearly in his favour according to public polls.

So really well done for what you've learned today.

We're just gonna finish off by looking at a quick summary.

So we started off by looking at the fact that increasing numbers of Black and Asian people settling in Britain led to increasing racism and discrimination.

We also learnt that the media was used to increase support for anti-immigration groups.

For example, in Smethwick in the 1964 general election, we learnt that the 1965 and 68 with the first acts introduced to address issues of, we also learned that in 1965 and 68, the Race Relations Act were the first acts introduced to address the issues of ongoing racism.

And finally, we learnt that race relations acts would not change public attitudes overnight.

For example, Enoch Powell's Anti-Immigrant "Rivers of Blood" speech was supported by 75% of the population according to polls.

However, these acts did go a long way in showing changing attitudes of the government.

So again, really well done for your work this lesson.

I'm very impressed with what you've got done and you should be as well.