Talk:Racial Equality Proposal

ridiculous claim

The Japanese delegation did not realize the full ramifications of their proposal, since its adoption would have challenged aspects of the established norms of the (Western dominated) international system of the day, which involved the colonial rule over non-white peoples. The Japanese delegation believed it was asking only that the League of Nations should accept the equality of Japanese nationals;

I doubt Japan thought it was only asking the equality of Japanese nationals. They probably did so because China and Brazil also had voting rights and they would have likely voted no if they didn't make their proposal universally just. It's funny because the author of the article cited the obviously biased interpretation of an author and claimed it to be factual. And I am quite sure many Japanese felt empathy towards other people of color as they were themselves victims of extreme discrimination like them at the time.

Japan was only asking the equality of it's Nationals

Japan, Race and Equality: The Racial Equality Proposal of 1919 p.166

"One of the interesting results of the analysis was that the proposal was not intended as a demand for universal racial equality. It was clear from the original clause relating to ‘racial prejudice’in the peace policy that the intention was to secure racial equality for Japanese nationals. There was no discussion of it ever as a universal principle in the official record. Moreover, the Japanese continued to practise discrimination against the Chinese and Koreans."

Only the equality of it's Nationals - Reference 2

RedKnight 1 (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

still biased

However this was not in accordance with racial equality but of political and economic opportunism with perceived benefits from Jewish economic expertise, by the 1940s anti-semitism had become an integral part of ultra-nationalist thought actively disseminated by Japan's newspapers with the approval of the Japanese government.[17]

>>implying all japanese were racists and some did not believe in racial equality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.154.8 (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Politicians can be racist and yet push for racial equality. The quote supposes that the government has a single mind, which is quite ridiculous really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.225.4 (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

biased

This is a joke, right? It seems to have been written by a racist Westerner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.236.180 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. I came across this article purely by chance and—while not looking to be an apologist for Japanese imperialism—I must say that whoever put together this article clearly has no idea or does not wish to know the nuances of Japanese racial policies. In fact, this article largely reads as, if I may put it so bluntly, a whiny screed that reeks of Japanophobia. And before anyone thinks I'm Japanese I am, as it turns out, a native born American—of non Japanese or Asian descent, no less! 108.93.178.27 (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is absolutely a joke. The "racially equal" Japanese in twenty years would be invading countries, raping women and children in Nanking, experimenting on prisoners of war, and marching the survivors to death in some of the worst warcrimes ever committed. And we're supposed to honestly believe the ultra-nationalists just magically popped up because... what... white people made them sad at a conference?

If you have any excuse for this article's POV, just stop typing and get help.

68.53.21.33 (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

What?

"In the United States, racial riots occurred by the American deliberate inaction."

What does race riots have anything to do with this article? They are not connected. Was this article written by a Jap-anese national or something?98.165.15.98 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this paragraph deceptively tries to imply that the 1919 racial riots between blacks and whites in the United States ("racial riots" links to Red_Summer_of_1919) are somehow connected to the League of Nations actions.

In the end he felt that British support for the League of Nations was a more crucial goal. The Japanese media fully covered the progress of the conference, leading to an alienation of Japanese public opinion towards the United States of America, leading to broader conflicts later on. In the United States, racial riots occurred by the American deliberate inaction.

 :Jimhoward72 (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimhoward72, I disappointed you. You are trying to imply Japanese war crime to Holocaust[1] despite of Japan saved Jews[2] and your comment here.

Power And Prejudice: The Politics And Diplomacy Of Racial Discrimination Westview Press (1988) ISBN 0813306787 is written by American historian Paul Gordon Lauren. (FYI I saw his picture, he seems white race, not Japanese.)

below is the citation of the book page 99.

Violent reactions also occurred in the United States. Frustrated by the refusal of the peace conference to support the principle of racial equality or self-determination and angered by their own government's deliberate inaction in the face of blatantly illegal and discriminatory policies, many U.S. blacks resolved to demand their full rights of citizenship......These clashing attitudes exploded into open violence during the long, hot summer of 1919. From June to October, the United States witnessed major race riots in Chicago, Knoxville, Omaha, and the nation's own capital, Washingtom, D.C., among other cities. Lynchings, burnings, floggings, shocking terror, and destruction accompanied what some called nothing short of a "race war."....This "Red Summer" that followed the politicics and diplomacy of discrimination at the Paris Peace Conference, wrote John Hope Franklin, "ushered in the greatest period of interracial strife the nation had ever witnessed."

below is comment by Jerome J. Shestack Chairman, International League for Human Rights and former U.S. representative to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights

Lauren's volume provides extraordinary analysis and insight into the politics and diplomacy of worldwide racial discrimination...Anyone concerned with this on-going problem....

--Bukubku (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Red_Summer_of_1919 article, naturally, doesn't mention the League of Nations or the Racial Equality Proposal, 1919 at all.Jimhoward72 (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't Jive with Eugenics Article

"the Korean laborers brought to Japan, where they have established permanent residency, are of the lower classes and therefore of inferior constitution...By fathering children with Japanese women, these men could lower the caliber of the Yamato minzoku."[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_Japan If the Japanese state officially believed in equality of races, why did they think a Korean man marrying a Japanese woman would make a person of lower caliber? Ethnocentrism or ethnic purity is one thing, but this quote actually indicates a policy to avoid Degeneration, strongly implying Koreans are inferior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.68.66 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Korean laborers =/= all Koreans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.236.180 (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

One can't also help but in their defense notice the time gap between the Neutrality Proposal and the quotation which was in 1942, and even then did not necessarily reflect the government's opinion, only the family center staff. -Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality issues, near every paragraph.

This article currently reads like a blog post not an encyclopaedia. In almost every paragraph, the article takes care to remind everyone that, 'although it seems they had good intentions, the full truth is that Japanese were in-fact dirty racists.' While I exaggerated the adjective, I included it because there are too many in this article, for example "chauvinistic attitudes of Japanese superiority" The conclusions are too altruistic and biased. They are sourced, mostly, but the information is treated as first hand and fact, rather than reported speculation which I believe it is. I wont change it myself because I fear I may just be biased. I merely wish to flag it. 86.42.31.30 (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You must be out of your mind, or hopelessly brainwashed, if you think Japanese imperialism was any better than European imperialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.45.62 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it's biased and when you look at the facts, the Japanese occupation of Korea lead to great economic development and dramatic increase in living standards. Although it was brutal, Japanese "colonialism" lead to greater economic development than, say, Western "colonialism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.236.180 (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. This article needs serious work. I'll try cleaning up at least some of the bias; try to make it more neutral. 108.93.178.27 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

My personal favorite was the "forced assimilation" part. Did whoever add it realize that while forced assimilation doesn't sound too pleasant, even as given it is actually a point on the side that Koreans weren't treated as racial inferiors, and implies that a long term goal is to treat them as equals. If they were racially inferior, they will simply be un-assimilable --Kazuaki Shimazaki (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppetry does not allow you to change the article. The facts are that the Japanese did not have good intentions, they were more concerned about their empire and that only THEY(Japanese nationals) not anyone else were to be treated as equals. The Koreans were treated as inferior - Shin, Gi-Wook (1997). Ethnic nationalism in Korea: genealogy, politics, and legacy. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers. p. 45. Stop pushing your revisionist Propaganda. The article is not biased, it just does not represent/reads like a Japanese text book where Japan is seen as a victim. 124.181.79.148 (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

What would lead you to think he used a sock puppet? To be honest I am *Chinese* and still think this article is extremely biased. Japan was then in the Taisho era where racism was not nearly as widespread as during World War II. 173.34.191.181 (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Japan, specifically Tokyo, in the early 20s may even have been the most cosmopolitan and internationalist place on earth at the time. It wasn´t until the nationalists began gaining strong influence in the early 30s that Japan drifted more and more towards a partially hardcore rasist agenda of WWII. And even then, sentiments were not stratified or unified in any way. As late as 1942, additional Koreans were added to parliament. By 1919, a declaration as this proposal is rather likely to be altruistic or at least be partially motivated by altruism. There´s plenty to suggest that even the 1938 rejection of expulsion of jews was primarily moved by a dislike against German policies and actual belief in the 1919 article. To suggest it´s all a selfserving scam only shows someones lack of historical knowledge, as they clearly missed the almost "flip-flop" style back and forth Japan experienced from the hardcore conservatism that reflects in the Boshin war, reversing until the 1920s almost extreme internationalism and then with growing tension and hostility from especially UK/US helping to foster a severe nationalism. So yes mr sockpuppet, the article is biased, and it´s not that Koreans or others were not commonly treated as inferiors, but rather that this was not a strict policy nor a unified nor simplistic matter even during WWII, and talking about views from WWII in relations to something from 1919 is just outright ignorant. 212.85.86.82 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Japan 1920's and Discrimination against Koreans

Indeed, Japan, specifically Tokyo, in the early 20s may even have been the most cosmopolitan and internationalist place on earth at the time. I don't think so - Koreans were treated poorly in the 1920s -
Zainichi (Koreans in Japan): Diasporic Nationalism and Postcolonial Identity

After the Great Kanto Earthquake in 1923 thousands were killed by Japanese mobs.
- The Pursuit of Power in Modern Japan 1825-1995
- The Korean Minority in Japan

Koreans were discriminated in housing and Anti-Korean sentiment was prevalent in Japanese society.
- The Proletarian Gamble: Korean Workers in Interwar Japan
- The Korean Diaspora in the World Economy
- Race and Migration in Imperial Japan

As late as 1942, additional Koreans were added to parliament.
The Japanese never extended equal rights, legal or political, to their colonial subjects....Koreans had no political representation within the Japanese Empire as no Korean was ever elected to the Diet - Ethnic Nationalism in Korea: Genealogy, Politics, and Legacy

RedKnight 1 (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal not Altruistic

By 1919, a declaration as this proposal is rather likely to be altruistic or at least be partially motivated by altruism. The issue around the equality clause was much more complex - Japan, Race and Equality: The Racial Equality Proposal of 1919 By Naoko Shimazu discusses it in detail, but it was never meant to be a universal proposal.

The racial equality proposal was thus never intended to have any universal implications. Accordingly, the argument put forward and assumed by some scholars, that the racial equality proposal was intended to promote a universal principle of racial equality, does not hold true. This is attested by the Japanese government’s sceptical attitude towards the universality of racial equality as a realisable and realistic objective. For instance, Foreign Minister Uchida told the opposition party in June 1919 that the racial equality proposal was not intended to demand universal racial equality of all coloured peoples, but only for members of the League of Nations. p.114

RedKnight 1 (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Fumimaro Konoe

Wasn't he who actually proposed the Racial Equality clause? And the catalyst to that same proposal when he wrote the article "Reject the Anglo-American-Centered Peace"? And, if so, shouldn't he be mentioned? Faunas (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda section

Other than the last sentence, the last section has only the most tenuous connection with the article's subject. Although its content (which can be more or less summed up as "the Japanese were racist in WW2") is accurate, it's not tied to the 1919 proposal in any way. If the goal was just to make the Japanese appear as hypocrites, that was already adequately covered by the previous section which manages to explains the Japanese proposal in the context of Japanese racial beliefs with actual contemporary actions. Cckerberos (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Major anti-Japanese slant on this article

First off, let me say that for the most part, this is a very fine article of a very interesting historical moment.

However, it does have one troubling flaw—a distinctly anti-Japanese point-of-view. Reading this article, one would think that the Japanese delegation at Versailles—and the Japanese people in general—were a bunch of thugs already preparing for World War II. I'm especially troubled by the assertions that Japan's motives were self-serving and hypocritical and that the nation itself barbarized its colonial subjects. Yes, Korea suffered under Japanese rule, but to focus only on that while ignoring Japan's peaceful and benign control of Taiwan and its Pacific Mandate doesn't make for a balanced point-of-view. Moreover, the assertion that Japan opened its doors to the Jewish people during World War II for purely base motives flies in the face of documented Japanese disgust over the Nuremberg Laws.

I understand that citations are provided for these assertions, but the mere fact that something is disseminated via media doesn't mean it's objective. Japanese sources (and some Western ones) contradict the views presented in those statements.

If I had the time, I would gladly rewrite those skewed parts of the article myself as I actually own a great deal of literature on this subject (including the sources cited in this article). But I'm unable to do so. So I'm hoping somebody that is well informed on this subject and has time to comb through this article will come along eventually. Until then, the POV template and tags should remain pending a more balanced view on this, again, fascinating subject.CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I must say I agree with these sentiments entirely. I would also like to point out a concern with the way in the sloppy nature of some of the references, specifically, the way in which only the author's name and a page number is given, but not the name of the publications themselves. Also, I would like to stress that referencing the same source several times because the quotation in question is on a different page doesn't seem appropriate, especially in cases where the same source is referenced twice in the same sentence (refer to references [2] and [3] in the lead sentence, or the fact that reference [20] and [23] cover more-or-less exactly the same content from the same source, for instance). In fact, the assertion that Japan was primarily interested in their own equality is supported by only a single reference, but contains no less than four separate links to it! 150.203.179.56 (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to point out a concern with the way in the sloppy nature of some of the references, specifically, the way in which only the author's name and a page number is given, but not the name of the publications themselves.
It's called Help:Shortened footnotes the sources are linked.

In fact, the assertion that Japan was primarily interested in their own equality is supported by only a single reference,
I can find you more/other references if you want- Japan, Race, and Equality by Naoko Shimazu is the definitive source on the subject. RedKnight 1 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What you're doing is called WP:SYNTH. Shii (tock) 15:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source

The Racial Equality clause was Not Altruistic, the article is trying to portray a false/revisionist narrative -

Stars and Stripes Across the Pacific: The United States, Japan, and Asia/Pacific Region, 1895-1945 p.97

The Japanese quest for Great Power status was the motivating element in pushing for the racial equality clause. The Japanese stand, however, was not altruistic, but nationalistic. There was no demand on their part for universal racial equality, but only for Japanese in relation to Europeans and Americans.

Japan, Race and Equality: The Racial Equality Proposal of 1919 - Naoko Shimazu - Most researched view on the Subject.

The government’s reluctance to be associated with the universal principle was revealed by its uneasiness with being associated with political movements such as the Pan African Congress. Japan did not appreciate being perceived of as a champion of the coloured race because such a perception would conflict with its underlying desire to be more closely integrated with the West. For instance, Makino told a Liberian supporter of the racial equality proposal to go and see Clemenceau directly about racial equality. As the government was not asking for universal racial equality, it saw no hypocrisy in its own position of demanding this proposal on the one hand, while continuing to discriminate against Koreans and Chinese on the other. The ironic twist came when the highly specific proposal geared towards ensuring a fair treatment of Japanese people became internationally known at the peace conference as a ‘racial equality’ proposal. p.114

The findings presented in the ensuing chapters may disappoint some purists, who may wish to believe that the Japanese had valiantly attempted to fight off Western racism by demanding universal racial equality. But there was little unselfish idealism displayed by any of the main players in this story. Hence, it will not be possible to reach a ‘heroic’ conclusion, but instead a more sober one. It will be shown that the principle of racial equality, as we conceive of it today in the universalist sense, was not even the issue at stake during the racial equality negotiations. p.4

...the original intention of the racial equality proposal was defensive in nature, a vague response made by the government to the uncertainty of Japan’s future in the new international organisation proposed in the Wilsonian Fourteen Points. There can be no doubt that the government’s racial equality demand, if it can be called as such, was a highly particularistic and nationalistic expression of Japan’s desire to prevent itself and its nationals as a state from suffering the humiliation of racial prejudice in the League of Nations. It underlined the anticipatory fear that the new international order would continue to be disadvantageous to Japan, as was the existing one. It suggests strongly, therefore, that one of the motivations for the proposal was pre-emptory, to secure Japan’s great power status in the League of Nations at its inception. Moreover, the fact that Japan attended the peace conference as one of five principal powers implies that, in the strictest sense, the proposal was aimed at securing racial equality of Japan, not so much with the lesser powers, but with the Western great powers. p.113

Nonetheless, it must be stressed that although the proposal is significant in retrospect, in understanding the evolution of the racial equality principle as an important element of the international order, it would be a misrepresentation to claim that the Japanese government understood its universal implications when it was put forward. The fact was that the Japanese not only lacked the awareness that they were initiating such an important change in the existing international order, which incorporated elements of injustice, but they were themselves also guilty of a racially discriminatory attitude towards Chinese and Koreans. p.115

The British, on the whole, did not perceive the racial equality proposal as a demand of universal principle. As has been mentioned above, the initial motivation of the Japanese in submitting the proposal was nationalistically orientated, and sought to obtain guarantees of racial equality for Japanese nationals. p.118

One of the interesting results of the analysis was that the proposal was not intended as a demand for universal racial equality. It was clear from the original clause relating to ‘racial prejudice’in the peace policy that the intention was to secure racial equality for Japanese nationals. There was no discussion of it ever as a universal principle in the official record. Moreover, the Japanese continued to practise discrimination against the Chinese and Koreans. p.166

Japan's Minorities: The Illusion of Homogeneity

The Japan's ruling elites were less interested in securing equality for non-whites than in ensuring that Japan, as a sovereign nation and member of the league, be granted the same privileges as Western nations, including the right to overseas colonies.The equality clause would not have prevented the Japanese and other league members from discriminating against their own internal minorities. p.99-100

RedKnight 1 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, however, the material you put into the article is about the 1940s and has nothing to do with Paris. Shii (tock) 02:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The proposal was important in context of the 1930s and 1940s, influencing Japanese propaganda and policies.

Japan, Race and Equality: The Racial Equality Proposal of 1919

It is quite clear that the idea of race and racial equality continued to play an important role in pan-Asian thinking, especially in terms of its imperialistic aspirations on the continent. Interestingly, the Japanese increasingly used the term ‘racial equality’ to legitimise their continental expansionism. For instance, the Manchurian Youth League (Manshu seinen remmei) declared in 1928 that: The only way to survive [for the Manchurian Japanese]…would be to join hands with the various racial groups living in Manchuria…to devote themselves to the harmony of races… and to bring about a paradise-like republic to the land of Manchuria-Mongolia backed by Japanese civilisation. This reflected the thinking of Ishiwara Kanji, one of the architects of the Manchurian incident in the Kwantung Army, who sought a‘forging of racial cooperation among Asian peoples’ by creating a racial paradise’, Manchukuo. Essentially, the message was that Japan was different from any other Western imperial power because it was an Asian power, and that it was willing to recognise, first and foremost, racial harmony of all peoples residing in Manchuria in order to create a ‘racial paradise’. This can be seen as a repudiation of the Western acceptance of Japan on the basis of great power status, which failed to extend that acceptance to racial equality of the Japanese and the Western great powers. In fact, the Japanese were using ‘racial equality’ as a weapon against the West, and in order to make the Japanese more palatable to other Asians who were about to come under Japanese imperial control. Of course, this was essentially a propaganda exercise and Ishiwara and his colleagues in the Kwantung Army were under no illusion that ‘the interest of Japan and the Japanese shall, as a general rule, be given primary consideration’ in the newly created Manchukuo in 1932. It is worth noting that this idea of ‘racial harmony’ became an intrinsic aspect of Japan’s propaganda for the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere in the 1940s. p.178

It can be said that by the late 1930s, the racial equality proposal became a highly useful propaganda tool, used by Japanese politicians as a means of justifying whatever positions they took against the Anglo-Saxon West. p.180

Imprecise language

In the wording:

"Though the proposal itself was compatible with British stance of equality for all subjects as a principle for maintaining imperial unity, there were significant deviations in the stated interests of its Dominions.."

the implied terms 'equal subjects' and 'imperial principle' are oxymoronic, and need to be removed. Empires don't have principles, per se, rather they have hegemonic ideas, and "equality for all subjects" mostly speaks for itself. -Inowen (talk) 09:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Aftermath - Relevance of Content

Because there is no reference citation as to how the Japanese rapprochement with the Western nations of Germany and Italy relates to the Racial Equality Proposal, the relevance of this text to the topic is questionable. Other world events and the strategic situation between 1923 and the mid-1930s provide strong reasons for these relationships to have strengthened regardless of how the Racial Equality Proposal was received.

Even less relevant is the the discussion of Japanese treatment of Jewish communities. Because it is fanciful to imagine that Japanese attitudes to Jews were in any way influenced by the rejection of the Racial Equality Proposal, this is off -topic. This material belongs in Ethnic_issues_in_Japan or Jewish_settlement_in_the_Japanese_Empire. These two pages do not feature the cited references used in this section and may benefit from their addition. Tctwood (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Most prominently"?

The introduction to this article states (in its current state) that "several countries, including members of the United Nations (most prominently the U.S.), would continue to retain racially discriminatory laws for decades after the end of the war." Maybe it's the passage of time, but I have to think that South Africa's apartheid system was considerably more prominent on the international scene than anything in the United States. And S.A.'s pariah status because of apartheid lasted for decades, from the 1970's at least to the 2000's. Naturally, there's no citation to this assertion. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Without commenting on the accuracy of the claim, it is not supported by any reliable sources in the lead nor is it mentioned again in the body. Therefore I have removed it at this time. Vanteloop (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)