<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>AIH107 - Self-determination and Racial Equality by SYDNEY GREEN</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/segr2/1zcwfd00ve67wqcr</link>
      <description></description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2021-04-25 02:45:03 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2021-04-27 11:26:05 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Self-determination</title>
         <author>segr2</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/segr2/1zcwfd00ve67wqcr/wish/1455465010</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Self-determination is defined by <em>Encyclopaedia Britannica</em> (2021) as 'the process by which a group of people, usually possessing a certain degree of national consciousness, form their own state and choose their own government'. The concept of self-determination was an issue of public discourse in the later years of and following the first World War, in particular the Paris Peace Conferences. The Russian Bolsheviks first introduced the term into the wartime and international debate, as the concept of 'national self-determination' had ties with socialist revolution and was a prominent topic of debate for European Socialists. Socialists saw nationalism as a 'barrier to class solidarity', with Lenin viewing colonial liberation as a tool which could be used to undermine capitalist-imperialist world order [1]. American President Woodrow Wilson recognised the principle's importance, using its ideals to form the basis of some of his policy priorities in his Fourteen Points. In his Independence Day address in 1918, Wilson argued that the post-war settlement must include the settlement 'of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship' based on consent from the people [1]. However, Wilson and the Bolsheviks' usage of the phrase 'self-determination' adopted different meanings. For the Bolsheviks' it was a revolutionary principle against imperial rule appealing to the national identity of subjected peoples, while Wilson used it vaguely as popular consent, conjuring an international order based on democratic forms of government.</div>]]></description>
         <pubDate>2021-04-25 02:49:29 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/segr2/1zcwfd00ve67wqcr/wish/1455465010</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Racial Equality</title>
         <author>segr2</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/segr2/1zcwfd00ve67wqcr/wish/1455465137</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The Racial Equality Clause was a rejected proposal that Japan campaigned to be included in the Treaty of Versailles. Despite being invited into the alliance with European powers after being recognised as one of the great powers in the First World War, Japanese officials were unsure as to whether they were accepted as equals to the Europeans, or if their status had been diminished by being deemed 'not-white' [2]. In the face of this, Japan wished to include a clause in plans for the establishment of the League of Nations that would ensure the prevention of Japanese nationals suffering from the humiliation of racial prejudice through attaining equality with the Western world. The League to Abolish Racial Discrimination resolved that it would oppose the formation of the League of Nations if it were not to be formed on the basis of the abolition of racial discrimination. The clause proposed by the Japanese delegates at the Preliminary Peace Conference stated as follows: 'The equality of nations being a basic principle of the League of Nations, the High Contracting Parties agree to accord as soon as possible to all alien nationals of states, members of the League, equal and just treatment in every respect making no distinction, either in law or in fact, on account of their race or nationality' [3].&nbsp;</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2021-04-25 02:49:41 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/segr2/1zcwfd00ve67wqcr/wish/1455465137</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Debates surrounding self-determination</title>
         <author>segr2</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/segr2/1zcwfd00ve67wqcr/wish/1455465238</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The notion of self-determination that Woodrow Wilson proposed was initially a topic of great excitement for Chinese and Indian intellectuals, appearing to hold promise for a blueprint of inclusive international order. This interest grew steadily in early 1918, as it was frequently reported in press reports and editorials, and massively increased as Allied victory neared and word spread that peace-brokering would be based on the principles proposed by Wilson.<br><br>Asian intellectuals viewed their struggle for self-determination as part of a broader revolt against imperialism, believing that the 'subjugation and subordination' of Asian nations would be made illegitimate with Wilson's rhetoric for a post-war world [1]. Hu Shi, an intellectual from the time, concluded that Wilson's success in combining human ideals with practical politics made him a model of the scholar-administrator, an ideal present in Confucianism, as well as “the supreme product of Western civilization" with which the divide between the East and West could begin to lessen. The annual session for the Indian National Congress in December 1918, called upon the peace conference for India to be represented and to apply the principle of self-determination to India to be free from British rule. Tilak, a Hindu scholar who orchestrated a public campaign for India's demand for self-determination in accordance with Wilson's principles before the conference, wrote to Wilson directly, saying that “the world's hope for peace and justice” was “centred in [Wilson] as the author of the great principle of self-determination,” and asking that the principle be applied to India [1]<br><br>The sense of hope was soon diminished as the conclusion of the conference fell far short of the ideals that Wilson had inspired for China and Indian. Students in Beijing, who not long before had hailed Wilson as a hero, now denounced him as a liar, taking to the streets in protests, which spread throughout the country for several weeks. Similar tension was felt in India, following the British Parliament passing a bill which extended the government of India's emergency powers. Hopes for equality for seen to be in vain, with the British responding with violence towards protestors, resulting in the Amritsar Massacre which became a symbol of the oppressive nature of British rule and marked a new stage of resistance [1].<br><br>Asian intellectuals admiration for Wilson's policy of self-determination did not align with how Wilson himself employed use of the phrase. While China and Indian seized as a universal rallying call, Wilson's idea for self-determination was more vague, typically being Euro-centric and dealt with the notion of popular consent as opposed to changes to imperial rule over colonies. </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2021-04-25 02:49:51 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/segr2/1zcwfd00ve67wqcr/wish/1455465238</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
