Hello, my name is Mr. Williams, and I'm going to be your history teacher today.

This lesson is part of a unit comparing decolonization across different parts of the British Empire.

I'm really looking forward to teaching you today, so let's get started.

By the end of today's lesson, you will be able to compare and contrast different British colonies to explain how experiences of decolonization varied considerably.

There are five keywords essential to understanding today's lesson.

They are decolonization, the process by which colonies ruled by an empire achieve independence.

Nationalist, someone who believes in and supports their own country, placing its interests above those of other nations.

Partition, to divide into parts.

Constitution, the basic principles or laws which govern a nation state.

And reform, a change introduced to improve something, often a system or law.

Today's lesson is split into three parts.

In this first part of the lesson, we're going to be exploring some of the traditional narratives about the end of the British Empire, and considering why it's an oversimplification to argue that decolonization was a peaceful process.

After the Second World War, Britain experienced significant decolonization.

Significantly weakened by the war, Britain could no longer afford the cost of the empire, particularly since there was a need to focus limited funds on priorities at home, such as the new National Health Service.

At the same time, nationalist movements across the British Empire were growing in strength, and demands for independence intensified.

India becoming independent in 1947 was a key turning point that led to widespread decolonization.

By 1970, the vast majority of Britain's colonies had become independent.

Let's do a quick check of your understanding.

Between 1945 and 1970, there was little change in the size of the British Empire.

Is this true or false? Pause the video now, and press play when you're ready to see the correct answer.

Okay, well done if you said that that was false, but let's see if you can explain why.

So pause the video again, have a go at explaining why the statement's false, and then press play when you're ready to see a model response.

Okay, to explain why that statement's false, you could have said something like this.

After 1945, the British Empire experienced significant decolonization.

By 1970, the majority of Britain's colonies had become independent.

Well done if you came up with something similar.

In this lesson, we're going to focus on decolonization in six parts of the British Empire, Ireland, India, Palestine, Ghana, Jamaica and Kenya.

Traditional narratives about the end of the British Empire emphasise how many colonies gained independence through peaceful negotiations and legal processes.

These narratives acknowledged that there were instances of violence, but argue that decolonization was a mostly peaceful process in the British Empire, particularly in comparison to other European empires.

In 1960, the former British Prime Minister Clement Attlee said of the British Empire, "There is only one empire where without external pressure "or weariness at the burden of ruling, "the ruling people has voluntarily surrendered its hegemony "over subject peoples, "and has given them their freedom." Let's do a quick check of your understanding.

Clement Attlee believed Britain was unusual because the country had voluntarily surrendered control of its empire.

Is this true or false? Pause the video now, and press play when you're ready to see the correct answer.

Okay, well done if you said that was true, but let's see if you can explain why.

So pause the video again.

Have a go at explaining why the statement's true, and then press play when you're ready to see a model response.

Okay, to justify why the statement is true, you could have said something like this.

Speaking about the British Empire, Attlee said, "There is only one empire "where the ruling people "has voluntarily surrendered its hegemony "over subject peoples." Well done if you said something similar.

The idea that decolonization was a peaceful process in the British Empire is a significant oversimplification.

While some colonies achieved independence through relatively peaceful means, many others experienced violent struggles.

The extent to which the process of decolonization was peaceful or violent depended on a range of factors, which included Britain's economic or strategic interests.

Territories that were economically valuable or strategically important often saw more resistance from Britain, which could lead to violent struggles.

British government policy.

The British government's approach to decolonization varied.

Prime ministers like Clement Attlee and Harold Macmillan were generally more supportive of a peaceful end to the empire than their predecessors.

The role of nationalist movements.

Territories with strong united nationalist movements and public support usually had smoother, more peaceful transitions to independence.

And finally, existing conflicts and division.

Decolonization was more of a violent process in territories with existing internal conflicts or deep social divisions.

Let's take a moment to check your understanding.

Which two factors made it more likely that the decolonization process in a colony would be violent? A, the colony was economically and, or strategically valuable.

B, the nationalist movement was strong and united.

C, the British Prime Minister was not opposed to independence.

D, there were existing conflicts and division.

Pause the video now, and press play when you're ready to see the correct answers.

Okay, well done if you selected A, the colony was economically and, or strategically valuable, and D, there were existing conflicts and division.

These factors made it more likely that the decolonization process in a colony would be violent.

You are now ready for the first practise task of today's lesson.

For this first practise task, I want you to write one paragraph to explain why it's too simple to argue that decolonization in the British Empire was a peaceful process.

So pause the video now.

Have a go at writing your paragraph.

And then press play when you're ready to compare your response to a model answer.

Okay, great work on that first practise task.

You are asked to write a paragraph explaining why it is too simple to argue that decolonization in the British Empire was a peaceful process.

And your answer could include, "It is too simple "to argue that decolonization in the British Empire "was a peaceful process "because it varied considerably from colony to colony.

"Decolonization could be peaceful, "and this was more likely "where the nationalist movement in the colony "was strong and united.

"It was also more likely "when British government policy supported decolonization.

"However, decolonization often resulted "in high levels of violence.

"Violence was more likely "in colonies where there was existing conflicts "and deep social divisions.

"It was also more likely "where the British government resisted independence "because of the colony's "economic or strategic value to Britain." Well done if your paragraph looks similar to the paragraph that we've just gone through.

We're now ready to move on to the second part of our lesson.

And in the second part of the lesson, we're going to be focusing on examples of where decolonization was a peaceful process.

When considering the peaceful transition to independence in some colonies, we're going to be considering the role of a number of different factors, including the leadership of nationalist groups, the role played by gradual reform, economic factors and international pressure.

We're going to start off by focusing on decolonization in the Gold Coast, which became independent as Ghana in 1957.

After returning to the Gold Coast in 1947, the nationalist leader, Kwame Nkrumah, became an influential figure in the independence movement.

In 1950, Nkrumah was arrested for leading peaceful protests against British rule.

Despite his imprisonment, Nkrumah's Convention People's Party, the CPP, won a decisive victory in the 1951 elections to the Legislative Assembly.

Following this victory, the British were forced to release Nkrumah, and he became the leader of the new government.

In 1957, the Gold Coast became independent and was renamed Ghana, and Nkrumah became the country's first prime minister.

Let's take a moment to check your understanding.

Nkrumah's Convention People's Party enjoyed a high level of support in the Gold Coast.

Is that true or false? Pause the video now, and press play when you're ready to see the correct answer.

Okay, well done if you said that the correct answer is true, but let's see if you can justify that response.

So pause the video again.

Have a go at explaining why that statement's true.

And then press play when you're ready to see a model justification.

Okay, to justify why that statement's true, you could have said that the CPP won 34 out of 38 seats available in the 1951 elections for the country's Legislative Assembly.

Well done if you came up with something similar.

Let's focus now on Jamaica, where, again, like the Gold Coast, decolonization was largely a peaceful process.

In Jamaica, Norman Manley, a key nationalist leader and founder of the People's National Party, played a crucial role in advocating for independence.

In 1944, partly as a result of Manley's campaigning, Jamaica was granted a new constitution.

The 1944 Constitution gave all adults the right to vote and created an elected House of Representatives, which gave Jamaicans more control over their local government and laws, and began the process of giving greater autonomy and self-government to the island.

In 1958, Jamaica joined the West Indies Federation, which gave Britain's Caribbean colonies further self-government.

In 1961, after ongoing disagreement, Jamaica left the West Indian Federation.

After Jamaica left the West Indian Federation, a general election took place in April, 1962.

The election was won by the Jamaica Labour Party, led by Alexander Bustamante, who became the country's first prime minister.

Shortly after on the 6th of August, 1962, Jamaica peacefully gained independence from Britain.

Let's take a moment to check your understanding.

In what ways did the 1944 Constitution give Jamaicans more control over their government and laws? Pause the video now, and press play when you're ready to see a model response.

You are asked in what ways did the 1944 Constitution give Jamaicans more control over their government and laws? And your answer may include, "The 1944 Constitution gave all adults the right to vote "and created an elected House of Representatives." Well done if you came up with something similar.

Let's do another quick check.

The British government introduced gradual reform in the Gold Coast and Jamaica before independence.

Is that true or false? Pause the video now, and press play when you're ready to see the correct answer.

Okay, well done if you said that that was true, but let's see if you can justify that response.

So pause the video again.

Have a go at explaining why that statement's true.

And then press play when you're ready to see a model justification.

Okay, to justify why that statement was true, you could have said something like this.

In the Gold Coast, the British introduced a Legislative Assembly.

In Jamaica, the British introduced a new Constitution in 1944.

Well done if you came up with something similar.

You're now ready for the second practise task of today's lesson.

I want you to read Jacob's opinion about why decolonization was a relatively peaceful process in both the Gold Coast and Jamaica.

Jacob has said, "Decolonization in the Gold Coast and Jamaica "was only peaceful because the British government "did not believe these colonies "were as valuable as other colonies." Do you agree with Jacob? I want you to discuss your view with a partner.

So pause the video now, talk to your partner, and then press play when you're ready to see a model response.

Okay, welcome back.

I hope that was a useful discussion.

Well done for all of your hard work.

You are asked whether or not you agreed with Jacob's view about decolonization in the Gold Coast and Jamaica, and your discussion may have included, "The fact that the Gold Coast and Jamaica "were not as strategically and economically important "to the British government as some other colonies "partly explains why the process of decolonization "was relatively peaceful.

"However, it is not the only reason.

"For example, in both countries, "nationalist leaders like Kwame Nkrumah and Norman Manley "were committed to peaceful negotiation.

"In addition, gradual reforms "such as Jamaica's 1944 Constitution "and Ghana's Legislative Assembly "helped to pave the way for peaceful independence." Well done if you covered some of those points in your discussion with your partner.

We're now ready for the third and final part of today's lesson in which we'll be focusing on those colonies where decolonization was a violent process.

Decolonization was not always peaceful.

Kenya's transition to independence, for example, was more violent than in most of Britain's African colonies, partly because the British government saw it as so strategically and economically important to Britain.

In British colonies where there were existing internal conflicts or deep social divisions, decolonization resulted in significant violence.

This was the case in Ireland, India and Palestine.

Let's do a quick check of your understanding.

In which of the following colonies was decolonization not a violent process? A, India, B, Ireland, C, Jamaica or D, Kenya.

Pause the video now and press play when you're ready to see the correct answer.

Okay, well done if you selected that the correct answer is C, Jamaica.

Let's start by focusing on Kenya.

Kenya was economically and strategically important to the British government.

Its location along the East African coast provided a key port for trade routes between Europe, Asia and Africa.

In addition, its fertile land supported the growth of cash crops like tea and coffee that were extremely valuable to the British economy.

Between 1952 and 1960, Britain fought a bitter conflict against the Kenya Land and Freedom Army, known as the Mau Mau.

The Mau Mau were fighting to end British rule and regain land that have been taken from them.

Let's check your understanding.

After the Second World War, Kenya was no longer important to the British government.

Is this true or false? Pause the video now, and press play when you're ready to see the correct answer.

Okay, well done if you said that that was false, but let's see if you can explain why.

So pause the video again.

Have a go at explaining why that statement's false, and then press play when you're ready to see a model response.

Okay, to explain why that statement's false, you could have said, "Kenya remained so economically and strategically important "to the British government "that they were prepared to use force "to keep control of the colony." Well done if you came out with something similar.

By the time the Mau Mau uprising ended in 1960, Britain had spent £60 million fighting the Mau Mau, and many people had been killed.

Britain's international reputation had been severely damaged by the brutal methods they had used during the conflict, including the use of torture.

The Mau Mau uprising made it clear that Britain could no longer control Kenya.

In 1963, Kenya became independent, and Jomo Kenyatta became the country's first president.

Let's do a quick check of your understanding.

What impact did British actions during the Mau Mau uprising have on Britain's international reputation? A, they had no impact on Britain's international reputation.

B, they enhanced Britain's international reputation.

Or C, they damaged Britain's international reputation.

Pause the video now, and press play when you're ready to see the correct answer.

Okay, well done if you selected C, Britain's actions during the Mau Mau uprising, including the use of torture, damaged Britain's international reputation.

Well done if you got that correct.

We're going to turn our focus now to three colonies where existing conflicts and deep social divisions helped to ensure that decolonization was a violent process.

At the start of the 20th century, Ireland was divided between nationalists who wanted greater independence for Ireland and unionists who wanted closer ties with the United Kingdom.

Some nationalists campaigned for home rule, self-government for Ireland within the United Kingdom.

While other nationalists, known as Republicans, wanted Ireland to be completely independent.

During the Irish War of Independence, which began in 1918, Irish Republicans fought against British ex-soldiers known as the Black and Tans with both sides committing atrocities.

In 1921, the Anglo-Irish Treaty led to the partition of Ireland.

The six Northern counties with the largest Protestant populations became Northern Ireland and remained part of the United Kingdom, while the rest of Ireland became self-governing as the Irish Free State.

Shortly after the treaty was signed, a civil war broke out in the Irish Free State between pro-treaty and anti-treaty Republicans.

The Irish Free State eventually became independent from the United Kingdom as the Republic of Ireland in 1949.

Let's do a quick check of your understanding.

The partition of Ireland was followed by a long period of peace.

Is this true or false? Pause the video now, and press play when you're ready to see the correct answer.

Okay, well done if you said that was false, but let's see if you can explain why.

So pause the video again.

Have a go at explaining why that statement's false, and then press play when you're ready to see a model response.

Okay, to explain why that statement was false, you could have said, "After the partition of Ireland was agreed "as part of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921, "pro-treaty Republicans fought a bit a civil war "against anti-treaty Republicans." Well done if you came up with something similar.

Let's focus now on India.

The British decision to withdraw from India formalised by the Mountbatten plan in 1947 led to the partition of British India into India and Pakistan.

This decision, made under the pressure of escalating violence and political unrest, was implemented with remarkable speed, leading to significant chaos and suffering.

Partition was based on religious lines.

Most areas with a Hindu majority became part of India and most areas with a Muslim majority became part of Pakistan.

The borders of the new countries were drawn up in five weeks by a British lawyer called Cyril Radcliffe, who had not previously visited India and had very little knowledge of the country.

Partition resulted in mass migration as Hindus and Muslims fearing violence and persecution from the other community tried to move to areas where their religious community was in the majority.

There was widespread violence.

By the end of 1948, 14 to 15 million people had been displaced, 2 million people had been murdered and 75,000 women had been sexually assaulted.

Partition created deep divisions and ongoing tensions between India and Pakistan that continue to this day.

Let's do a quick check of your understanding.

The partition of India led to widespread violence between Hindus and Muslims. Is this true or false? Pause the video now, and press play when you're ready to see the correct answer.

<v ->Okay, well done if you said that was true,</v> but you need to be able to justify why.

So pause the video again.

Have a go at explaining why the statement is true and press play when you're ready to see a model response.

Okay, to justify why that statement was true, you could have said, "After partition there was widespread violence "as Hindus and Muslims tried to move to areas "where the religious community was in the majority.

"2 million people were murdered "and 75,000 women were sexually assaulted." Well done if you came up with something similar.

Finally, we're going to look at another example of where decolonization was a violent process, in Palestine.

Britain created tension between Arabs and Jews by making conflicting promises about Palestine.

Britain promised Arabs independence for their support during the First World War, but Britain also pledged support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine through the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

When they took responsibility for governing Palestine, Britain encouraged Jewish migration.

This increased tension and led to violence between Arabs and Jews.

Let's take a moment to check your understanding.

How did the actions of Britain contribute to increasing tensions between Arabs and Jews over Palestine? Pause the video now, and press play when you're ready to see a model answer.

Okay, well done for your hard work on that question.

You were asked how did the actions of Britain contribute to increasing tensions between Arabs and Jews over Palestine? And your answer may include, "Britain made conflicting promises.

"They promised to support Arab independence "for their support during the First World War, "but they also promised "that Palestine would be a homeland for Jewish people.

"The British encouraged Jewish migration to Palestine, "which helped lead to conflict over land and resources "with Palestinian Arabs." Well done if you came up with something similar.

In 1947, Britain referred the issue of Palestine to the newly formed United Nations, and sought their help to resolve the conflict.

The UN proposed a partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.

The plan was accepted by Jews, but it was rejected by Palestinian Arabs.

Britain was unable to manage the escalating violence and unrest in Palestine and withdrew on the 14th of May, 1948.

On the same day, Jews in Palestine announced the creation of Israel, an independent Jewish state.

This led to the immediate outbreak of the first Arab-Israeli War as Israel was invaded by neighbouring Arab states opposed to its creation.

British withdrawal led to extensive violence and a protracted conflict, influencing the region's political landscape for decades.

Britain bears significant responsibility for the violence that took place during decolonization.

The way in which Britain governed its empire often created or worsened social divisions in the colonies it controlled.

Britain used violence to suppress independence movements, for example, during the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya.

In Ireland, India and Palestine, Britain's hurried and often poorly managed withdrawal contributed to significant upheaval.

The lack of thorough planning and unresolved political, ethnic and social issues led to partition plans that exacerbated tensions, caused widespread violence and left lasting legacies of conflict and division.

Let's do a quick check of your understanding.

On the screen are some events that took place in Palestine, but they're in the incorrect chronological order.

I want you to place them in the correct order.

So pause the video now, have a go at doing that, and press play when you're ready to see the correct answer.

Okay, well done for your hard work on that task.

You were asked to place the events in Palestine in the correct chronological order, which is as follows.

Britain referred the issue of Palestine to the United Nations.

The United Nations proposed the partition of Palestine.

Palestinian Arabs rejected the United Nation's partition plan.

The British withdrew from Palestine.

Jews in Palestine announced the creation of Israel.

And then the first Arab-Israeli war began.

Well done if you got those events in the correct chronological order.

You are now ready for the third and final practise task of today's lesson.

And I want you to compare and contrast decolonization in one colony where the process was peaceful with another colony where the process was violent.

I want you to write one paragraph about each colony.

This table is included to help you choose your two examples.

So where decolonization was peaceful, you could choose the Gold Coast or Jamaica.

And where decolonization was violent, you could select Ireland, India, Palestine, and you could also select Kenya.

Pause the video now, have a go at this final practise task, and then press play when you're ready to compare your response to a model answer.

Fantastic effort on that final practise task.

You were asked to compare and contrast decolonization in one colony where the process was peaceful with another colony where the process was violent.

And your answer may include, "Jamaica achieved independence in 1962, "and its experience of decolonization "was relatively peaceful for a number of reasons.

"Firstly, Jamaica was less economically valuable to Britain "than other colonies such as Kenya, "and so the British government "was less resistant to Jamaican independence.

"Secondly, nationalist leaders like Norman Manley "and Alexander Bustamante "were committed to achieving independence "through peaceful methods.

"Finally, gradual reform in Jamaica, "such as the granting of the 1944 Constitution, "paved the way for a peaceful transition to independence.

"In contrast, decolonization in India "was an extremely violent process.

"Existing conflict between Hindus and Muslims "meant that decolonization "involved the partition of British India "along religious lines.

"After partition, Hindus and Muslims attempted to move "to where their religious group was in the majority.

"This resulted in widespread violence "and the murder of 2 million people.

"Whereas the British withdrawal from Jamaica "was a gradual process, "the British withdrawal from India "was hurried and poorly planned.

"For example, the borders of the new nations "were drawn up in five weeks "by a British lawyer with little knowledge of India." Well done for all of your hard work on that final practise task, and well done if you've written an answer that's similar to the model answer that we've just gone through.

We're at the end of our lesson now, so it's a good opportunity for us to pause and recap our key learning points.

After 1945, the British Empire was considerably weakened and experienced significant decolonization.

The process of decolonization was peaceful in many British colonies.

Decolonization was more likely to involve violence in colonies that remained economically and, or strategically valuable to Britain.

In Ireland, India and Pakistan, existing conflicts and deep divisions made worse by British actions meant that decolonization involved controversial partition processes and serious violence.

British actions were directly or indirectly responsible for much of the violence that took place during decolonization.

Thank you for all of your hard work in today's lesson.

It's been a pleasure to teach you, and I look forward to teaching you again soon.