# data[].attributes.body
Racial equality became an issue because of voluntary migration prior to WWI, it became a normality across European countries and colonies. In regards to the Paris Peace conference, the issue of 'finshuron' or 'race discourse' [i] was a prominent argument. A general feeling of distrust was examined in the conference, as the Japanese officials were, according to Lake and Reynolds, '(un)sure whether they were accepted as equals' or whether their 'status was forever diminished' by being 'not-white.' [ii] Japan's distrust became much stronger as their Racial Equality proposal was rejected during the conference.  In a similar way, migrants in allied powers grew tense during these peace negotiations, particularly in the United Kingdom and the United States.  These powers called for support of France in demilitarising the German army, gaining territories such as Alsace Lorraine and the Rhine Land, as well as harsh reparations, thus creating sentiments against migrants. Manela makes a comment on this racial inequality experienced in the period as the conference being ‘single-mindedly focused on Europe’ in particular ‘the policies, decisions and leaders of the Great Powers.’ [iii] All together, racial equality was wanted by every country, in particular the Japanese, and it became a focus of the Paris Peace Conference negotiations.

[i] M. Lake & H. Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men’s Countries and the International Challenge of Racial equality: Racial Equality? The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Cambridge University Press  (pages 284-309: 2008)

[ii] M. Lake & H. Reynolds, Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men’s Countries and the International Challenge of Racial equality: Racial Equality? The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, Cambridge University Press  (pages 285: 2008)

[iii] E. Manela, Imagining Woodrow Wilson in Asia: Dreams of East-West Harmony and the Revolt against Empire in 1919, (Volume 111, issue 5, page 1328, 2006)
Image: (iv) The Journalistic Resource, 'Immigrants to the US before WWI made today's communities richer, better educated, The Journalistic Resource (April 11 2017), https://journalistsresource.org/economics/19th-century-immigration-fostered-americas-richest-best-educated-communities/ Accessed 27th April 2021.

# data[].attributes.body
Self-determination is when a region or country determines their own identity or nationalistic pride that transforms society into choosing their own government, this idea was experienced widely during the period of the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Self-determination was experienced globally, including in imperialist colonies such as Indochina, China and India.  A shared interest in procuring territories and lands, strong nationalistic pride, booming industries and agricultural lands as well as the mobilisation of people was sought by all. American President, Woodrow Wilson highlighted the importance of this notion as ‘an imperative principle of actions which statesmen will henceforth ignore at their own peril.’ [i]Essentially Wilson has discussed the topic as being centrefold to the peace negotiations.  A common belief stemmed from Wilson’s words was that territories would be shared amongst the powers, with Japan notably anticipating Chinese territories that were under control of the Germans to be received as a part of their own self-determination.  China was similarly fighting for self-determination as they ‘viewed their struggle for self determination as part of a broader revolt against imperialism.’ [ii] Overall, a shared pursuit of self determination became an essential conversation as a part of negotiating the peace in 1919.

[i] W. Wilson, addressed to congress , 1918.
[ii] Manela, Imagining Woodrow Wilson in Asia, (Volume 111, issue 5, page 1329, 2006)
(iii) Biography.com, ‘Woodrow Wilson’ , biography, (September 11th 2020) https://www.biography.com/us-president/woodrow-wilson Accessed 27th April 2021.

# data[].attributes.body
Self determination is a crucial undernote to the negotiations at the Paris Peace conference in 1919. The war was called to armistice in 1918 on the promise that ‘a peace based on self-determination’[i] would be created. However, Manela offers the insight that ‘the interest of one or some victorious allied powers’ risked being ‘compromised if the demands were entertained’ [ii]of self-determination for all. Here a contrast of promise is exposed, whereby the Allied powers failed to deliver on a peace that would have self determination for all involved in the war. Realistically, the Allied powers would not have willingly distributed power equally, if it were to diminish their standing as the world leaders.  In a similar way, self determination is shown to be an impossible standard for all in American President, Woodrow Wilson’s vague acknowledgement of the theme. Wilson’s political stance is regarded as ‘vague’ and ‘elastic’ [iii] and thus was relatively ineffective in delivery. Manela notes that ‘numerous non-European societies’ were displaying a ‘rise of anticolonial nationalism’ as a ‘international phenomenon’ but, that the ‘movements, goals and perceptions’ these were driven by had little ‘detailed attention in the international histories of 1919.’ Essentially Manela has declared that it was the non-European countries were excluded by the leaders of the conference, notably Wilson, in the formation of self determination from the armistice. Manela notes Wilson’s commentary of self-determination as ‘national aspirations’ that ‘must be respected’ outlining that people ‘may only be dominated…by their own consent.’ [iv] the juxtaposition of ignoring the nationalistic wants of imperialist countries, while simultaneously acknowledging the ambitions of self determination for stronger powers plays out the irony of self determination itself during the course of the Paris Peace Conference. The conference successfully maintained the nationalistic ambitions of Allied powers whilst simultaneously maintaining their territories and imperialist colonies. Self-determination essentially, was never a viable outcome for all parties involved in the peace efforts, the conference could not constitute the rights of own governance for all under a armistice whilst engaging in interests of the allied powers. Essentially, the pursuit of self determination for all was always doomed to fail, and was never a functional aspect of the Paris Peace Conference.

[i] Manela, Imagining Woodrow Wilson in Asia, (Volume 111, issue 5, page 1333, 2006)

[ii] Manela, Imagining Woodrow Wilson in Asia, (Volume 111, issue 5, page 1328, 2006)
[iii] Manela, Imagining Woodrow Wilson in Asia, (Volume 111, issue 5, page 1332, 2006)

[iv] Manela, Imagining Woodrow Wilson in Asia, (Volume 111, issue 5, page 1332, 2006)
(v) Getty Images via the Guardian, ‘The Paris Peace Conference begins- archive January 1919’  The Guardian, (9th January 2019) https://www.theguardian.com/world/from-the-archive-blog/2019/jan/09/paris-peace-conference-first-world-war-1919 Accessed 27th April 2021.