# data[].attributes.body
The ground breaking concept of 'self determination' played a large role in the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Originally introduced by Russian Bolsheviks into the wartime international discourse. For the Bolsheviks, the adjective "national" was always included with self-determination, this was seen as an invite for "the revolutionary overthrow of imperial rule through an appeal to the national identity and aspirations of subject peoples". 'National self-determination' and its connection to the socialist revolution would soon spark new fears amongst European socialist believing that it may act as a barrier to class solidarity and become a dangerous diversion from the revolutionary mission. Woodrow Wilson whom of which was hailed by the french press across the political spectrum as the “the incarnation of the hope of the future" adopted and adapted this to a more "vague and elastic" political principal for the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Wilson advocated for self determination explaining that it is "not a mere phase [but] an imperative principal of action". Once Wilson's version of 'Self-determination' was set, word spread like wildfire across the countries and colonies with the rhetorical principal identified with the figure of the U.S President.

# data[].attributes.body
After being invited into the European powers alliance during the First World War, playing an "albeit advantageous role", Japan joined as in "international equal" the Peacemaking Conference in Paris of 1919. Japan believed that Woodrow Wilson's 'League of Nations' would be an "Equalization of the races of the world" and made it his mission to keep the 'unbridled selfishness and domination of the white" in check and end the "unjust practice' of discrimination which is referred to as the "usurpation of rights and interests n the part of the white race." Numerous pressure groups were formed to press on government and advocate for racial equality. Groups such as The League to Abolish Racial Discrimination were comprised of various departments, including "representatives of political parties, the bureaucracy, the armed services and thirty-seven other public associations". Once publicized in the 'Wilsonian moment' Japans cause for 'Racial equality' "became a universal one". After much delegation and speeches of "great moderation' were given by Makino and Chinda, Japan had received support from a large majority of the  members of the Paris Peace Conference. The proposal was ultimately rejected after requiring unanimous consent from all members of the commission.

# data[].attributes.body
Japans push for racial equality during the Paris Peace Conference of  1919 did not gain the support of all members of the commission. It was a discussion that sparked "burning flames of prejudice". The various viewpoints of 'racial equality' begin before the start of the Paris Peace Conference, when 'racial equality' was still a national cause for Japan. Prince Konoe Fumimaro a twenty-seven year old aristocrat from Japan had little faith in the delegations for racial equality. Fumimaro stated his stance on the sense of equality contending that many Japanese leaders were too "enthralled" by the lure or being invited to join the European powers and the "spectacular pronouncements" that they failed to recognize the "rhetoric which [comprised largely] of self interest". Challenging this perspective were Chinda Sutemi and Makino Nobuaki, Japanese diplomats which negotiated the clause of racial equality under Article 21 in the proposed League of Nations by U.S President Woodrow Wilson. The speeches later proved to be successful and managed to gain the support of a "large majority of the members of the commission." Amongst those whom of which did not support the clause for racial equality was William Morris (Billy) Hughes, Prime Minister of Australia a man "who created a contrast to his regal surroundings" and made his "implacable and vociferous" disdain towards "this evil, this whicked [Japanese] clause" was clear from the moment he became aware of it in February 1919. Hughes intentions were to keep Australia white, "being almost isolated [Australia would be] a tiny patch of white in a sea of colour". The proposal of 'Racial equality' would be threatening to the triumphing 'white Australia' and many advisors and demarcates feared it would increase non-white migration. Hughes refused to accept any compromise until its final defeat in April. Sharing similar opposition to the Japanese proposal was Lord Robert Cecil, a highly intellectual monk and "son of the conservative Prime Minister, the Marquis of Sails-bury ""under instructions from his government" opposed the proposal on behalf of Great Britain. After the defeat of the proposal national viewpoints in Japan shifted towards shame and embarrassment for "Japan had been betrayed its own wartime allies". Fumimaro's stance solidified as his claim that power alone determined the course of international affairs' was justified as Japan was of lesser power when compared to her European counterparts.