# data[].attributes.body
Racial equality in the context of the Paris Peace Conference was the desire for Asians to be recognised as racially equal to Europeans. The main advocate of this cause was Japan. The push for racial equality by the Japanese delegation at the Paris Peace Conference was a result of racial inequality being a point of contention amongst the Japanese public and intellectuals. The push for racial equality was billed as a way to achieve peace in the post-war setting.

The proposed clause coincided with Japan's rising as a power, having established control over an expanding empire (Korea, Dalian, German colonies in Asia). The rejection of the racial equality clause was a slap in the face to their recognition as a Great Power. The Japanese delegation feared that their position on the League of Nations would be undermined if a racial equality clause was not included.
While it did garner support from some states, opposition to the racial equality clause came from the Anglosphere. Australia feared a racial equality clause would undermine the White Australia Policy for numerous reasons, such as an influx of foreign workers potentially lowering wages, or fears around Anglo-Australians mixing with Asian immigrants. The Australian delegation aided in successfully negotiating the exclusion of the racial equality cause, dashing the hopes of the Japanese delegation.

# data[].attributes.body
Self-determination is the principle that people should people should determine their own nation, rather than be subject to a state they oppose.
This idea of self-determination is intrinsically linked with the emergence of Nationalism in the 18th and 19th centuries and the unification of Germany and Italy into centralised nation-states. Minority groups had with the emergence of nationalism saw an opportunity to achieve independence.

Self-determination as it relates to the Paris Peace Conference was advocated for by Woodrow Wilson. Wilson believed self-determination to be the principle that people have the right to determine their nation with no influence from outside sources. Woodrow Wilson's self-determination was intended to secure a lasting peace in Europe. Minority groups saw Woodrow Wilson's self-determination as their potential path to independence. Many minority groups at the Paris Peace Conference petitioned the Great Powers to consider their claims. Implemented in place of self determination as intended by Wilson was a mix of imperialism and  Mandates. Mandates gave the promise of self-determination after an underermined amount of time. In practice, this was used by France and the United Kindgom to establish colonies such as the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon, and Tanganyika respectively.

# data[].attributes.body
Woodrow Wilson advocated for self-determination and the right for people to decide on which country they would live in based on nationality. This was achieved through minorities within the Russian, German, and Austro-Hungarian Empires being granted independence, as well as referendums to decide the fate of disputed border regions.

To Woodrow Wilson, self-determination did not necessarily mean independence. It was a malleable term. An example of this is the initial plan was for the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was intended be reformed post-war, with its minorities granted autonomy.

Many minority groups hoped that Wilson's policy of self-determination could lead to their indenpendence through negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference. These groups sent delegates to make a claim for nationhood at the Paris Peace Conference. Examples of this include the Armenians, Assyrians, and Poles. It was the job of the Great Powers to balance the claims of different groups to secure peace in Europe, as well as accounting for their own aims.

While many minority groups in Europe did achieve self-determination, self-determination was prevented from being fully implemented as Wilson intended it to be, as France and Britain had their own agendas at the Paris Peace Conference. Both believed in punishing Germany, and Germany was prevented from uniting with Austria and subject to harsh reparations as a result of this.

Many Chinese and Indian intellectuals hoped that self-determination would also be the path to independence for Asia. These nationalist groups, for example the Indian National Congress, aimed to petition the Great Powers at the Paris Peace Conference to grant their nations independence or return claimed territories.

The reaction of there groups is summarised by Erez Manela in paragraph five of his work 'Imagining Woodrow Wilson in Asia: Dreams of East-West Harmony and the Revolt against Empire in 1919'. He writes that Wilson's self-determination led Asian intellectuals to believe that self-determination would bring the European powers to change their ways with America's guidance, and that the oppressed colonies would soon see independence and equality with Europe.

China had spent the century of humiliation hemmed in by a coalition of European powers wishing to take advantage of their resources in a series of unequal treaties. In a similar fashion to their Indian counterparts, educated Chinese intellectuals hoped that Woodrow Wilson would be capable and willing to negotiate the return to full Chinese sovereignty. Of Greatest importance to the Chinese delegation was the return of Tsingtao. Instead, this territory was awarded to Japan, resulting in protest throughout China.

They hoped in the idealism represented by Woodrow Wilson's arrival as the man who would "win the peace". In reality, Woodrow Wilson did not care for self-determination in Asia. Wilson was concerned with self-determination for Europeans and the securing the peace in Europe to prevent another war on the continent. Additionally, Wilson lacked the ability to outmanoeuvre the British and the French. He simultaneously had to push through having contracted influenza while having to make a case that if not argued to its fullest extent could in his mind guarantee  another war in Europe