Hello, my name is Mr. Groom.

You have made a great choice to study history with me today.

This lesson is absolutely fascinating.

We're going to learn all about how the British Empire has been interpreted by historians in recent times.

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

Today's lesson is called new imperial history, from the unit, interpreting the British Empire, how has it been commemorated and contested? By the end of today's lesson, we'll be able to explain how historians interpretations of empire differ and how this has evolved over the course of the 20th century.

Here are our key key words for the lesson.

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

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

A metropole is the parent state of a colony.

So let's start our look at new imperial history by examining the shifting perspectives in the historiography of the British Empire.

Recent decades have seen a shift in historical perspectives on the British Empire.

Traditional historiography focused on imperial history related to the achievements of the British Empire, like the Great Exhibition, the Don Pacifico Affair, and Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee.

Traditional empire historiography might focus on answering questions like.

How did the British set up their government in India? Or how did the British respond to Indian demands for independence over time? In these questions, Britain is at the centre.

Let's check that you've understood that key idea.

Traditional historiography places what at the centre of the empire? Is it A, Britain, B, colonised people, or C, the countries Britain colonised.

Think about your answer and press pause.

Press play when you're ready to see if you are correct.

So that's right, the answer is Britain.

Traditional historiography places Britain at the centre of the empire.

So we might now be thinking, how did postcolonialism historiography emerge? As the empire decolonized after World War II, there was an increase in information about colonised people and a growing awareness of the more negative consequences of the empire.

The Second World War also resulted in a greater focus on race, human rights, and equality, causing a shift in the thinking of many historians.

Subsequently, views on the legacy of the empire began to change, and postcolonialism historiography emerged.

Postcolonialism is concerned with the impact of colonisation from the perspective of the colonised.

It encourages historians to think about the lasting impacts of colonialism, like inequalities and cultural change, and how people from former colonies are working to overcome these challenges and tell their own stories.

Whereas traditional historiography could ask, what were the objectives of British educational policies in India? Postcolonialism historiography might ask, how did British schools in India change the way Indians think about their country after India became independent? In this way, Britain is removed from the centre, and the focus of the question is put closely onto that of the colonised state and the colonised people, in this case, the people of India and how they think.

So let's check your understanding of that, another key idea.

Which of the following is an example of a question that a postcolonial historian might ask? A, how did British books change Indian stories and poems? B, what was the impact of British policies on Indian festivals? Or C, how do Indian people today feel about British-built buildings in India? Pause the video while you consider your answer and press play when you're ready to continue.

Well done, that's right.

The sort of question a postcolonial historian might ask is the third one, option C, how do Indian people today feel about British-built buildings in India? Now Edward Said, a Palestinian American academic, played a pivotal role in developing postcolonial ideas.

in his 1978 book "Orientalism." Said suggested that we are conditioned to view the Eastern world in a distorted way as the Western world has portrayed the Eastern world as mysterious, backward, and different.

These views were shaped by Western power, control, and their attempt to justify ruling the East.

Said's views significantly impacted other historians.

They encouraged them to critically examine other stories in the context of colonialism and its aftermath and focus on recovering the voices that have become marginalised, usually the voices of the colonised.

Homi K.

Bhabha, an Indian scholar, developed Said's postcolonialism ideas by talking about how cultures mix and create something new, especially when people from different backgrounds come together because of colonialism.

This challenged the preexisting thinking of them and us, the colonised and the coloniser.

Said and Bhabha's contributions have been key to developing a richer, more inclusive way of understanding history, showing how important it is to listen to a variety of voices and stories.

So some complex ideas there.

So let's check that you understand what you've heard.

What I'd like you to do is to complete the sentence about Edward Said and Homi K.

Bhabha.

I want you to use one of the following words, traditional, new imperial, or postcolonialism.

So this is the sentence you need to complete.

Edward Said and Homi K.

Bhabha have both contributed to, blank, historiography.

Which of those words correctly completes that sentence? Pause the video while you consider your answer and press play when you're ready to get going again.

Well done.

That's right.

Edward Said and Homi K.

Bhabha have both contributed to postcolonialism historiography.

Now following on from postcolonialism historiography, new imperial history has built on these ideas even further.

This form of historiography challenges the suggestion that imperial history was one way with the metropole imposing its will and culture upon colonies.

Instead, it examines the relationship between the metropole and the colonies, as well as how culture and society were and continue to be affected by empire.

New imperial history might ask a question like, how did British and Indian cultures mix and change each other? Or it could examine examples of the mutual relationship between India and the British, such as to creation of curry.

The British contributing their passion for roast meat to traditional Indian spices and flavours.

Additionally, new imperial history also seeks to explore how the colonies have shaped the metropole.

Again, undermining the traditional view of a one-way relationship.

It examines how the colonies have impacted Britain from cuisine and fashion to literature and language.

For instance, the music stars of reggae and calypso have influenced British music since the mid 20th century as migration brought people from Caribbean colonies to the metropole.

Aldwyn Roberts, known by his stage name Lord Kitchener was recorded singing "London is The Place for Me" when he arrived on the Empire Windrush in 1948.

So let's check your understanding of new imperial history and of some of the other types of historiography that you've just heard about.

What I want you to look at is these two statements by Aisha and Laura.

They're both describing types of history.

What I want you to do is I want you to pick out which of Aisha and Laura is describing new imperial history, and then to tell me what the other person is describing.

Pause the video and press play when you're ready to hear if you are right.

So that's right.

Of the two, it was Laura who was describing new imperial history because new imperial history focuses on the relationship between the metropole and the colonies, particularly focusing on that idea of a two-way relationship, not just a one-way relationship from the metropole to the colonies.

Aisha on the other hand is describing a traditional historiography about the empire, the sort of historiography that celebrates the British empire and its achievement, the sort of historiography that was common and popular in the late 19th and early 20th century compared with this much more recent new imperial history.

Let's take all your learning from this learning cycle and put it together in answering this task.

What I'd like you to do is to show your understanding of postcolonialism and new imperial history by writing two paragraphs to explain what those terms mean.

I want you to try and use some examples and historian's names to support your ideas.

You should use the following words in your answers, metropole, colonies, and historiography.

While we are writing your paragraphs, pause the video, and when you're ready to see if you are right, press play to continue.

So your answer about postcolonialism might have looked a little bit like this.

Postcolonialism historiography is concerned with the impact of colonisation from the perspective of the colonised.

These ideas were developed by Edward Said, who argued that the Western world portrays the Eastern world as mysterious, backward, and different, and Homi K.

Bhabha, who wrote about how cultures can mix and create something new, especially as a result of colonialism.

Your response to the second paragraph about new imperial history might have looked something like this.

New imperial history challenges the traditional view of the British empire and its achievements.

Instead, it examines the relationship between the metropole and the colonies, looking at how they influenced each other.

For example, how both Britain and India contributed to modern-day curry, or the inference of the Caribbean colonies on the British music scene.

So now that we've looked at how perspectives have shifted, let's look at the contested legacy of Britain's impact on the colony.

Another source of historiographical debate centres around the impact that Britain had on its colonies.

For some historians, the British Empire was on the whole, a force for good, and belief that its achievements should be celebrated.

These views are sometimes underpinned by belief that Britain had the right to the land within their empire and we're helping those they colonised by teaching them a new Christian more civilised way of life.

Their examples may include the building of infrastructure like railways, how the development of free trade grew the global economy, or how the introduction of legal and administrative protocols provided order and fairness.

They might also point to the ending of practises in attempts to civilise colonies, such as the ritual burning of widows in India.

However, this view is highly contested.

Other historians argue that any development of the British Empire was motivated by greed not selflessness.

And changes to colonies created long lasting economic disparities.

They also argue that the imperial ideas of British people civilising non-white countries directly contributed to the oppression of the population and to modern-day racism.

In this view, the empire did not leave a positive legacy and oppressed its people for its own gain.

Therefore, we can interpret the impact of the British on the colonies differently depending on the perspective of the historian.

For example, when looking at the impact of the empire on India, traditional historiography might have focused on the benefits that the British brought to India.

For example, it might highlight that by the end of the 19th century, 150 million pounds have been invested in Indian railways.

Or how the British increased the number of schools from 720 to 2,900.

Whilst these statistics may suggest progress from a traditional historiographical point of view, an alternative perspective would highlight that the railways were built for Britain's economic benefit and only the privileged few could attend the new schools.

Ultimately, attending to fit imperial history into the categories of good or bad is overly simplistic.

Yet the significance of the new impact of Britain on its colonies continues to be a rich field of inquiry for historians, of new research and perspectives constantly emerging.

This ongoing debate reflects the complexities of colonial legacies and the diverse experiences of those who lived through the era of British imperialism.

So let's check your understanding of what we've just heard about.

Which of the statements below support the claim that the British Empire had a positive impact on the colonies? Which of these are the sorts of statements that someone with a traditional historiographical perspective on the British empire would think about using to support their argument? Is it A, the British built roads and railways in colonies, B, Indian workers contributed to British economic gains, C, the British brought ideas of law and fairness to its colonies, or D, the British built schools for the privileged few in its colonies.

Pause the video to think about your answer and press play when you're ready to see if you are right.

So that's right.

A traditional historiographical perspective would argue that the British built roads and railways in its colonies and that it brought ideas of law and fairness to its colonies, and therefore the British Empire had a positive impact.

However, as we've seen, that's a very contested idea.

So for this second check for understanding, I want you to think about which of the statements support the claim that the British Empire had a negative impact on the colonies, so more of a post imperial or new imperial perspective on the British Empire.

What would one of those historians pick out as statements to support their views about the British Empire and the fact that actually it largely had a negative impact on its colonies? Is it A, that imperial ideas contributed to the impression of the colonised people? B, that roads of railways were only built in colonies for British economic benefit.

C, that control of the colonies helped develop global free trading opportunities.

D, the British built schools and railways in the colonies to promote development.

Pause the video while you consider your answer and press play when you're ready to see how you did.

So that's right.

Someone with a graphical perspective that the British Empire had a negative impact on the colonies would pick out these two statements to support their claims. They'd argue that imperial ideas contributed to the oppression of the colonised people and that roads and railways were only built in colonies for British economic benefit, not for the benefit of the colonies themselves.

Let's move on to complete this task to bring together your learning.

So what I'd like you to do is to write one paragraph explaining why a historian might disagree with the view that the British Empire can be seen as a force for good.

I want you to include at least two reasons in your answer.

And I want you to think about the evidence that would support each of these reasons.

While you are doing this pause the video and then press play when you are ready to see how your answer compares to ours.

So your answer might have looked like this.

A historian might disagree with the idea that the British Empire was a force for good because they could argue that it was motivated by greed.

Evidence they could use to support this is that the railways in India were only built for economic benefit of Britain or that only the privileged few benefited from the development of schools.

A historian might also discuss how the legacy of imperial ideas, which can be seen in modern-day racism, also counters the claim that the British empire is a force of good.

You might also have mentioned some other things in there like the way that British rule over its colonies contributed to the oppression of the colonised or various other things that we've discussed this lesson.

So there we have it.

New imperial history and the contestation of Britain's imperial legacy.

You've worked so hard today and let's just summarise what we found out.

So traditional historiography has focused on the British Empire's achievements and has put Britain at the centre of the imperial story.

Postcolonialism historiography, which was influenced by Said and Bhabha, is concerned with the impact of colonisation from the perspective of the colonised.

New imperial history examines the relationship between the metropole and the colonies and how the colonies have shaped the metropole.

And we've just seen how the legacy of the British empire as good or bad is heavily contested and often overly simplistic.

Well done again for your work today.

It's been excellent learning all about new imperial history with you.

And I can't wait to see you again for another lesson all about the British Empire.