# data[].attributes.body
"Self-Determination" is a process by which a state reaches a national consciousness, pursues autonomous sovereignty, and form its' own democratic government, also routinely referred to as "a government by consent". Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of America, is championed as the originator of the concept, and was passionate that "Self-Determination" was the antidote to war and interstate conflict. It was this theory that Wilson would present at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, a meeting that birthed the League of Nations - an international collective attempt to bring world order, of which is often regarded as the birth of liberal internationalism. 200 Delegates from 37 countries gathered to debate strategies of peace, and Wilson's passionate musings on a peaceful world order had gained notoriety preluding the conference. Wilson's "government by consent" referred to an international order constructed of democratic forms of government, where nations' peoples were ruled only through consent by the peoples and the ruling (government). Alas, this would establish peace throughout the globe and be the antithesis to autocratic rule. Unfortunately, the concept of Self-Determination was controversial, as sovereign autonomy for those under imperial rule was disadvantageous for the ruling nations, and post-Paris Wilson's popularity plummeted.

# data[].attributes.body
The genesis of the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 was, as in its' name, to solidify a peace treaty at the conclusion of WWI, and form a League of Nations. Japan was recognised as a great power amongst Italy, France, the US and UK, and this accreditation inspired Japanese officials and its' people to take meaningful action regarding an equitable treatment of the Japanese in the international system. Simultaneously, China and India were hopeful that Wilson's proclamation of Self-Determination would lead them to national autonomy, though they depended heavily on Wilson as a messiah, rather than collective national action. So much so, that during this time, Indian and Chinese press heralded Wilson as "Christ or Buddha". Japan put forth the Racial Equality Proposal, requesting a clause in the treaty that would explicitly state that all nations, despite race or ethnicity, would be regarded equally. Unfortunately, the proposal was met with antagonism, Australian Prime Minister Hughes condemning it, due to beliefs of racial superiority and fears of a non-Western dominated world, gaining the support of British delegations, and eventually, disappointingly so, President Wilson. This decision has shaped Japanese-Western foreign policy for decades to come and many historians regard this as a profound opportunity lost to shape the 20th century into a more harmonious one.

# data[].attributes.body
When retrospectively  considering the legacy of Woodrow Wilson, his impassioned strategies are often referred to as "National Self-Determination", though Wilson seldom ever used such a term, and, in fact, it was only nearing the peace conference, through exogenous coinings, that Wilson adopted the term "Self-Determination" as his own.

It was Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Russian, revolutionary Bolshevik party that emphasised National Self-Determination. Wilson and Lenin both were in fierce advocacy of Self-Determination, but through vast, and in many ways contradictory, methods. Lenin's principle of National Self-Determination referred to a  revolutionary means in which those  nations subjugated by imperial powers must rise up, and overthrow the rule, by solidifying a national consciousness amongst the people. Lenin’s National Self-Determination also encouraged liberation of non-White races from White subjugation, whereas Wilson tended towards a relatively Eurocentric view, often exclusively alluding to self-determination in European nations such as Germany, and was rather exclusionary of liberation of non-White nations. However, regarding Wilson's domestic policy on race in the US, one could hardly be shocked by such a view, considering Wilson implemented strong segregation laws harsher than some of his predecessors, and was rather anti-Black liberation.  Where Lenin sought to revolutionise Europe and extricate imperially dominated nations and marginalised ethnic groups through overthrow, Wilson aimed to squash revolutionary movements,  such as Lenin's, and advocated for autonomy of nations, and peace through a government of consent, rather than true freedom from exogenous rule.  Wilson didn't truly advocate for complete freedom of nations from the authority of others, but did agree they had the right to domestically govern their own people.  Despite the contradictions in ideology and praxis between the two, one thing could be agreed upon by Lenin and Wilson; both agreed that a hegemonic, global ideology would vanquish conflict and harmonise nations, but which ideology they commended was the source of contention. One can observe this as a struggle of "Liberal Internationalism" vs. "Communist Internationalism", or, to simplify further, an age old leftist debate; Reform or Revolution? Subsequently, following the widespread knowledge of Wilson's failed attempts to sway European and Imperial nations in favour of Self-Determination, a wave of anti-colonial revolt started across Asia and imperially dominated nations, perhaps insinuating then, that Lenin's methods proved the most effective in the end.