https://padlet.com/sshately/qfe0j6jzcazorge1 Shaun Hately 221383147 en-us 2021-04-23 08:33:09 UTC 2025-09-24 06:57:34 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet-uploads.storage.googleapis.com/1096936862/b6cc0aafbabb80d1fd388ccf2ba7f03b/treatyofversailles.jpg sshately https://padlet.com/sshately/qfe0j6jzcazorge1/wish/1450930107 When looking at the circumstances surrounding the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, the concept of ‘self-determination’ is critically important but also somewhat vague. The term was used to describe an important principle that would guide the future of the world but it had no simple, single meaning. There was ‘national self-determination’ which was presented as an idea that nations would be allowed to govern themselves – empires would release their colonies to independence and those colonies would take on the status of independent, sovereign nations  - but there were also definitions where self-determination would instead simply mean the right of people within the larger empires to have a greater say in what went on within their territories and, perhaps, the empire as a whole than they had had before – they would remain part of the larger empires but would be less subject to the dictates of centralised rule from an imperial capital. In some cases, this might lead to eventual independence through a gradual process of taking progressively more control of local affairs but no immediate large scale changes would necessarily be made. In the end, the only empires that gave up any significant territory were those defeated in the war, and those territories were generally assigned to the control of the victorious nations. ]]> 2021-04-23 08:47:39 UTC https://padlet.com/sshately/qfe0j6jzcazorge1/wish/1450930107 sshately https://padlet.com/sshately/qfe0j6jzcazorge1/wish/1450930632 Japan was given the status of a major power at the Paris Peace Conference, the only ‘non-white’ nation to be afforded such status, and it made use of that status to push for a wider principle of racial equality to be incorporated in the guiding principles of the League of Nations. Unsurprisingly, this enjoyed the support of many other people of colour around the world, especially those who lived in colonies controlled by European powers. A formal acknowledgement of even the principle of racial equality as a matter of international agreement would have had huge potential impact on the future of the world in general, and of many people, and if more than just the principle could be achieved, the effect would be even greater. But it is significant that Japan, like other nations, was primarily concerned with its own self-interest – it primarily wanted equality for Japan alongside the world’s great powers – and national self interest was critical in why even the principle of racial equality was not adopted within the conventions of the League of Nations – countries, especially Australia and the United States, were deeply concerned at the impact of such a principle on their nations.

]]> 2021-04-23 08:47:53 UTC https://padlet.com/sshately/qfe0j6jzcazorge1/wish/1450930632 sshately https://padlet.com/sshately/qfe0j6jzcazorge1/wish/1450931198
 Australia had made the ‘White Australia Policy’ central to its existence since Federation, less than two decades before the end of the First World War. Australian governments, backed by public opinion, were concerned about Australia’s geographical location, so close to Asia and so far from Europe and the United Kingdom in particular, that an ideology had developed that unless Australia took firm steps to remain ‘white’, it would face being overwhelmed by Asian immigration. 

The Australian delegation to the Peace Conference, lead by Prime Minister William ‘Billy’ Hughes took a leading role (alongside other British Dominions) in opposing the Japanese proposal for racial equality to be enshrined in the Covenant of the new League of Nations, but to a significant extent was simply the public face of that opposition – the great powers of the United States and the United Kingdom in particular were not supportive of the principle either but it was convenient to them to stand back and watch Australia accomplish this shared goal. 

Australia’s opposition was one of perceived self interest but there were also domestic political factors at work – the voters of Australia were committed to the White Australia Policy and any government that displayed weakness about it would have been in jeopardy. In contrast, making a stand against racial equality was advantageous in political terms. This was also true in the United States – President Wilson, for all his lofty statements, was not interested in racial equality. Japan took the lead in pushing for racial equality and while we may regard this as the more moral position and one that would have been of potential benefit to millions of people around the world, its position was also one primarily built on self-interest – an acknowledgement of racial equality would, by definition, be an explicit acknowledgement of Japanese equality with European nations and the United States. 

The people of colour from other ‘non-western’ nations, for the most part, were mere observers of what was happening in Paris – many hoped for an expression of a principle that would have stated their equality with others, especially in cases where non-equal treatment by colonial authorities was a daily part of life – but they had little direct influence on the debate. It is notable that, at times, despite the eventual outcome, the principle of racial equality did achieve majority support in a vote at the conference, but the insistence on unanimous agreement lead to it not being adopted.]]> 2021-04-23 08:48:08 UTC https://padlet.com/sshately/qfe0j6jzcazorge1/wish/1450931198