Lesson video

Hello and welcome back to History at the Oak National Academy.

My name is Mr. Arscott, and this is our fourth lesson into our inquiry into why are different stories told about Britain's journey to democracy? So if you haven't done the other three lessons, make sure you do them first to help make sense of this lesson.

Right, what I'm going to ask you to do is get a piece of paper and a pen and I'm going to ask you to start by copying down today's title.

If you have a really large piece of paper like a piece of A3 paper, then get that as well because that could be useful later on in the lesson.

If you don't, don't worry.

Right, I'm going to get my head out of the way so you can copy down today's title.

So, how best can we tell the story of Britain's journey to democracy? If you haven't got the title down yet pause the video whilst you do that now.

Un-pause it and watch it when you're done.

So we're going to begin by looking through some statements to recap the stories that we've looked up so far.

So what I'm going to ask you to do is read through these four statements and decide for yourself whether they're true or false.

So on your piece of paper write in the margin the letters A to D and next to each one I just want you to write true or false.

So pause the video whilst your doing that and un-pause it once you decide if each statement, whether you think it's true or false.

Welcome back, let's see how many you managed to get right.

So, well done for A if you wrote true.

The 1832 Reform Act gave middle class men the right to vote in elections.

Well done, you got that.

For B, well done if you wrote false.

It's not true that in the 1830s and 1840s members of the aristocracy formed the chartists, in fact it was members of the working class that formed the chartists not the aristocracy.

For C, well done if you wrote true.

In 1867 and 1884 parliament passed laws to increase then number of male voters.

And for D, well done if you put false.

The suffragettes did not think petitions would persuade parliament to give women the vote.

The suffragettes actually thought that direct action, what they called militant behaviour would behave parliament to give women the vote and what they meant by that was using harm to buildings and property to try to change the vote.

So, so far we've looked at some three different stories about Britain's journey to democracy.

Now this might be quite an odd way for us to have studied history, rather than just telling the story or finding out about what happened, we've looked at why different people tell different stories.

So first we looked at stories about parliament, stories about Britain's rulers and how they passed laws in order to increase the number of voters.

Next, we looked at the story of the working class, or stories from the working class about how ordinary people fought to get the vote.

And most recently we looked at the story of the suffragettes, women who used militant action to try to win the vote.

So let's recap those stories now before we start thinking about why those different stories were told.

So the Whig story, now we've seen this timeline before, but it's just worth emphasising a few key points.

The idea of the Whig story is firstly that Britain went on a journey of gradual progress.

Over time Britain became stronger and its government became more stable because of the actions of Britain's rulers.

Now, we're particularly interested in this period here in the 19th century and early 20th century.

And during this time, according to the Whig story, parliament passed a series of laws that made Britain better.

Now the key thing to emphasise is that it was Britain's rulers choosing to do this because they thought it made Britain stronger.

And perhaps the most important of these laws from the Whig perspective is The Great Reform Act of 1832.

And they refer to it as The Great Reform Act because they think it was so good.

And in this reform act the Whigs, they managed to stop Britain from facing a violent revolution and instead develop a stable strong government.

Now the working class story by contrast focused on different things.

Now the whole idea of the working class story is that ordinary people challenged Britain's rulers in order to try to win the vote.

They're inspired by the French Revolution and during events like the Peterloo Massacre they had fought to try to win the vote and they had been badly betrayed by Britain's rulers when Britain's rulers sent calvary to attack them as the working class.

Now the Reform Act of 1832 is important to the working class story not because Britain's working class citizens were given the vote, but because it is seen as a betrayal.

It is seen as time when Britain's aristocracy united with the middle classes to stop the working class from getting the vote.

And so the period from Peterloo onward is a time when there is pressure put on by the working classes in order to try to win the vote.

Now the suffragette story is similar as well, in a sense that in there's people putting pressure on the government to try to win the vote.

Unlike the Whig story, both the suffragette story and the working class story, or the centre of those stories, is the idea that people had to put pressure on the government to change.

So the suffragette story- there's a long period where women are working along side members of the working class, members of the middle class to try to win the vote.

We call this period the Peaceful Campaign.

However, at the very start of the 20th century suffragettes, like Emmeline Pankhurst realised the Peaceful campaign was not working and they started the militant campaign.

What we mean by that is where they started using acts of violence to draw attention to the cause of women winning the vote and using that violence to put pressure on the government to give women the vote.

After the first World War the first law was passed which gave women the right to vote.

And in 1928 the final representation of the People's Act was passed which made Britain fully democratic, with men and women having equal voting rights and all adult men and women being able to vote.

So those are the three stories, let's just try to recap the key elements of all three of them by having a go at answering these two questions, which will let us know a bit about the differences between the stories.

So firstly, which event is seen in different ways according to two different stories? You might be able to think of more than one example, I've got one in my mind but you might be able to think about another one.

And which two stories emphasise people putting pressure on the government? So pause the video now whilst you answer those two and un-pause it when you're done.

Welcome back.

Let's see what you put.

So I've written the Great Reform Act is seen different ways according to two stories.

Now in fact the wording Great Reform Act is slightly misleading.

The Great Reform Act is what a Whig would call it, this idea that the Reform Act of 1832 was great, or impressive in some way.

In the working class story the Reform Act of 1832 is seen as a betrayal, it's not seen as great at all and it seems a betrayal because the working classes were deprived of the vote.

And which two stories emphasise people putting pressure on the government? Well both the working class story and the suffragette story emphasise people putting pressure on the government.

The Whig story by contrast has at its centre the idea that Britain's rulers chose to give people the vote in order to make Britain stronger.

It doesn't include the idea of ordinary people putting pressure on the government.

So those are the three stories.

Hopefully you're fairly familiar with them from our last three lessons and also that recap.

But, you might be wondering, and I think it's a very important question, why are different stories told about Britain's journey to democracy? Why is there not just one story? Surely the past just happened, and we can just tell the story of the past.

Well that's a really, really important and interesting question.

And it is the case that people choose to tell different stories rather than just telling one.

And if we're thinking about why it's- we're not just talking about ordinary people, we're talking about historians too.

Historians were focused on one of these stories rather than all of them.

Some historians try to talk about more than one but there has been a pattern in history of people choosing to tell one of these three stories.

So why is that the case? Why don't historians just agree? Well, one reason is that it depends on what the historian is focusing on.

Now let's just use a couple of examples.

Let's imagine that you've grown up and all you've read is the Whig story, of Britain's rulers slowly and gradually giving more and more people the vote.

Well someone might think that story is misleading, it doesn't tell the whole picture.

So someone might choose to start researching different things because they don't think the Whig story is complete.

And so the working class story it could come out as a reaction against the Whig story.

People wanted to look at how ordinary people lived in the 19th century and how their actions or behaviours might have won people the vote.

So sometimes one of the later stories is a reaction against an early one.

So similarly the suffragette story could be a reaction against the working class story not sufficiently emphasising the important role that women played in Britain's journey to democracy.

Now there's another reason why different historians might tell these different stories.

And that relates to what sources they choose to research.

So for example, if someone is interested in the Whig story, they might focus on reading speeches made in parliament and studying the laws that parliament passed, because that would tell you how Britain's rulers gave more people the vote.

If by contrast you are looking at the working class story, you might be more interested in researching sources which tell you about what's happening in Britain in local areas up and down Britain.

So you might read things like local newspapers to find out what meetings were held, what was being discussed at those meetings, who was saying what, and what the behaviours of ordinary people in those working class areas were.

Now if you're interested in the suffragette story you might do some of that, and look at some of those other things too, but you'll also likely be really interested in the autobiographies and the memoirs written by the suffragettes themselves.

They played a big role in shaping the story that was told after the campaign because they wrote really interesting autobiographies describing what they did and why they made those choices.

So the different sources that historians are drawn towards and the different sources that historians chose to research might shape which story they end up telling.

Now it's quite complicated so let's briefly recap and make sure it makes sense in all our heads.

So, historians and sources, that's what we're having you think about.

So I want you to match up each of these historical stories that could be told, the Whig story, the working class story, and the suffragette story with what type of sources they might choose to use in order to tell that story.

So where they- what source they might choose to research.

So, pause the video now and I just want you to match up these different options.

Un-pause the video when you're done.

Okay, welcome back.

It's a bit complicated, so if you got this wrong don't worry, but let's see whether you got it right.

So, if a historian is interested in the Whig story the sources they're going to choose to focus on are things like speeches made in parliament.

If the historian is trying to tell the working class story they might be drawn to sources like local newspapers.

And if someone is choosing to tell the suffragette story they might be drawn to sources like autobiographies of campaigners, people like Emmeline Pankhurst herself, and read what they wrote about what they did.

So, we've got two key reasons now about why different stories are told.

Firstly, some historians might be reacting against what they think is a problem with an earlier story that is told.

And secondly, they might be looking at different sources.

Now, while it's really interesting that these different stores are told, you might be thinking, "Well can't we just find out about the story?" Is there a way to tell a more neutral story of the past not focusing on one group, but trying to tell everyone's story? Well, this graph that we've seen before, tries to explain or show how Britain became a democracy.

It shows the gradual stages where by more and more people were given the vote.

So we look here we can see that in 1832 about 20% of men had the right to vote.

The red line shows men.

Then in 1867 about 40% of men were given the right to vote.

Then 1884 about 60% of men were give the right to vote.

And then we get to 1919 and then 1928 where by all men are gradually given the right to vote.

And similarly we look at the blue line, women, we see that all the way through the 19th century, or from 1832 onwards, no women have the right to vote in general elections.

And then 1918 just under half of women are given the right to vote.

And then in 1928 women are given the same voting rights as men.

So in one sense this graph does tell the story, but it doesn't tell you why things happened.

It doesn't tell you about why there are these differences.

It doesn't give you any of the individuals or the major events which explain these amounts.

So I want us to have a go at trying to do that now.

So what I'm going to suggest we do in order to try to tell the story of Britain's journey to democracy, we need to be aware of the different stories sitting behind it.

So I'm going to ask you to have a go at trying to create a timeline showing all of these important events.

Starting in 1800, and ending in 1928 when women were given the same voting rights as men, and all adults in Britain had the right to vote.

So what I've got are a series of points in the orange, blue, and purple boxes which are important things that should be included in our timeline.

But rather than just putting the events in the timeline I think it would be really nice if we can annotate that, which means kind of write something around those events, showing what it means to the different stories.

Now I'll show you an example first.

So in 1832 there is the Reform Act.

Now according to the Whig story which I've put in orange, it seen as a Great Reform Act, it seen as a time where Britain makes a really impressive advance to making its government more stable.

But according to the working class story, which I put in blue, it's seen like as a betrayal.

It seen as a time when the middle class betrays the working class and decides to join the aristocracy rather than continue to fight for the working class to have the vote.

So what I'm going to ask you to have a go doing is creating this timeline.

Now you're going to need at least a whole side of A4, if you have an even bigger sheet of paper, a piece A3 paper, use that, and make this go the whole width of that piece of paper.

Put it, put the timeline in the middle, and then coming off it, I want you to plot these events, and show when they happened.

Then even better, like I've done with this orange writing and this blue writing, explain what's going on at this event.

Why is it important to one story or another.

So I'm going to ask you to pause the video now and have a go at doing that.

Now it doesn't matter if it's not perfect, it can be a rough draught this stage, but have a go first, spend like ten minutes doing this, and then once you've had like ten minutes doing it, un-pause the video and come back.

And then I'll talk about what you're going to do next in order to maybe help you come up with some of these annotations.

Right, welcome back.

So hopefully you've had a bit of a go at doing this now.

Now in order to make it even better, I'm going to suggest you have a go at doing a bit of reading.

So, I've got some questions here to guide your reading.

What are the differences between the three stories of Britain's journey to democracy? Why do different people tell different stories about Britain's journey to democracy? And then three, a challenge question, which we'll come back to shortly.

So what I'm going to suggest you do is pause the video, go to the next page and read through the worksheet slides, and then have a go at those two questions.

Once you've read through it you should be in a really good position to then go back to your timeline and add even more notes.

So I'm going to ask you to pause the video now, read through the worksheet slides, and then have a go answering questions one and two, and then adding more to your timeline.

So please pause the video now.

Welcome back, okay let's see what you put for the answer to questions one and two.

So why are the- why- what are the differences, sorry.

What are the differences between the three stories of Britain's journey to democracy? So the Whig story it focuses on acts of parliament and the idea of progress.

The working class story it has its focus on the actions of ordinary workers, i.

e.

, the Chartists.

And the suffragette story has a focus on the militant actions of the Women's Social and Political Union.

Now you might have written something very different, in a very different style, but as long as you got those rough points then you're on the right lines for that question.

And question two.

Why do different people tell different stories about Britain's journey to democracy? So different sources are used, i.

e.

, parliamentary speeches are used by Whigs, local newspapers are used by people trying to tell the working class story, autobiographies of campaigners are used by people who are telling the suffragette story.

Another reason why there are differences are people react to the limits of earlier stories.

So some of these historians might hear one of the earlier stories and think, "That doesn't quite capture exactly what happened in the past." So they tell a different story in order to give a more full picture.

And then also, sometimes the personal values of a historian comes through in what they choose to write.

So for example, if a historian feels very patriotic, so they feel proud of Britain, they might be more drawn to telling a Whig style of story which maybe makes Britain's government seem very powerful.

Or they might have a personal interest in one of the individuals and therefore have told those stories.

So, now there's a third question which is even more challenging than the other ones.

It's really the proper extension of today's lesson.

Is it possible to describe Britain's journey to democracy in a way which represents all three stories? Now what you've then got to do is have a go at trying to write a paragraph summarising how Britain became a democracy, which most historians would think is a fair story to tell.

So basically what you're going to do is you're going to do a better job than I've done in the last three lessons when I've been telling these three stories.

And I want you to try to describe what happened, putting it into the story, but not just focusing on one of the stories.

Now it's a really difficult job, and if you manage it will be very, very impressive.

Now what you've got to do is you've got to think carefully about which individuals, if any, that you choose to mention, and think carefully about the start and end point, because if you choose to end too early, for example if you end before 1928, you won't be talking about Britain's full journey to democracy, because you won't be talking about all adult Britains being given the right to vote.

Now, this is a really, really, challenging task, and unfortunately I'm not going to be able to give you feedback directly on it.

So what I'm going to ask you to do is have a go at writing it, then take a picture of it and send it to your class teacher so they can have a read of it.

So brilliant work today.

Hopefully you've got a really interesting timeline which you've been able to add some details to.

Hopefully you've got some really thoughtful answers to those difficult questions.

So I'm going to ask you to stop the video now, and then have a go at doing the final quiz.

Well done for your hard work today.

And look forward to seeing you for our next history lesson.