The Racial Equality Proposal 人種的差別撤廃提案
Failure of the League of Nations
Caption: Child labour in a coal mine, United States, c. 1912

人種的差別撤廃提案:Proposal to abolish racial discrimination
The Racial Equality Proposal (Japanese: 人種的差別撤廃提案; lit. "Proposal to abolish racial discrimination") was an amendment to the Treaty of Versailles that was considered at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.

Wilson Violation of Democratic Voting
The  Racial Equality Proposal  ( Japanese : 人種的差別撤廃提案; lit. "Proposal to abolish racial discrimination") was an amendment to the  Treaty of Versailles  that was considered at the 1919  Paris Peace Conference . 

 Though it was broadly supported, the proposal did not become part of the treaty, largely because of opposition by the  United States  and the  dominions  of the  British Empire  Delegation, namely  Australia ,  Canada  and  New Zealand . [1] 

 After the end of   seclusion   in the 1850s, Japan signed   unequal treaties , the so-called   Ansei Treaties , but soon came to demand equal status with the Western powers. Correcting that inequality became the most urgent international issue of the Meiji government. In that context, the Japanese delegation to the Paris peace conference proposed the clause in the   Covenant of the League of Nations . The first draft was presented to the League of Nations Commission on 13 February as an amendment to Article 21: 

 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. 

 In a speech, the Japanese diplomat   Makino Nobuaki   stated that during the war men of different races had fought together on the   Allied   side, leading to say: "A common bond of sympathy and gratitude has been established to an extent never before experienced." [8]   The Japanese delegation had not realized the full ramifications of their proposal since its adoption would have challenged aspects of the established norms of the day's Western-dominated international system, which involved the colonial rule over non-white people. The intention of the Japanese was to secure equality of their nationals and the equality for members of the League of Nations, [9]   but a universalist meaning and implication of the proposal became attached to it within the delegation, which drove its contentiousness at the conference. [10] 

 After Makino's speech,  Lord Cecil  stated that the Japanese proposal was a very controversial one and he suggested that perhaps the matter was so controversial that it should not be discussed at all. [8]  Greek Prime Minister  Eleftherios Venizelos  also suggested that a clause banning religious discrimination should also be removed since that was also a very controversial matter. [8] 

 Cecil removed all references to clauses that forbade racial and religious discrimination from the text of the peace treaty, but the Japanese made it clear that they would seek to have the clause restored. [8]  By then, the clause was beginning to draw widespread public attention. Demonstrations in Japan demanded the end of the "badge of shame" as policies to exclude Japanese immigration in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand received much attention in the Japanese media. [8] 

 In the United States, the clause received much negative media coverage on the West Coast. [8] 

 Makino Nobuaki , the career diplomat who headed the Japanese delegation, then announced at a press conference: "We are not too proud to fight but we are too proud to accept a place of admitted inferiority in dealing with one or more of the associated nations. We want nothing but simple justice." [13]   France declared its support for the proposal since the French position had always been that the French language and culture was a "civilizing" force open to all regardless of skin color. [12]   British Prime Minister   David Lloyd George   found himself in an awkward situation since Britain had signed an alliance with Japan in 1902, but he also wanted to hold the   British Empire 's delegation together. [12]   South African Prime Minister General   Jan Smuts   and Canadian Prime Minister Sir   Robert Borden   tried to work out a compromise by visiting Makino and   Chinda Sutemi   and Hughes, serving as mediators. [12]   Borden and Smuts were able to arrange a meeting between Makino, Chinda, and Hughes, which ended badly. The Japanese diplomats wrote that Hughes was a vulgar "peasant" who was loud and obnoxious, and Hughes complained that the Japanese had been "beslobbering me with genuflexions and obsequious deference." [12]   However, Borden and Smuts were able to persuade Hughes to accept the clause if it was declared that it did not affect immigration. [12]   Makino and Chinda then rejected the compromise. [12] 

 On April 11, 1919, the commission held a final session. [14]  Makino stated the Japanese plea for human rights and racial equality. [15]  The British representative Robert Cecil spoke for the British Empire and addressed opposition to the proposal. [16]   Italian Prime Minister   Vittorio Orlando  spoke in favor of the statement on  human rights . [17]   French Senator   Léon Bourgeois  urged its adoption and stated that it would be impossible to reject the proposal, which embodied "an indisputable principle of justice." [18] 

 Vote 

 The proposal received a majority vote on the day, [14]  with 11 of the 17 delegates present voted in favor of its amendment to the charter, and no negative vote was taken: 

 Japan  (2) Yes France  (2) Yes Italy  (2) Yes Brazil  (1) Yes China  (1) Yes Greece  (1) Yes Serbia  (1) Yes Czechoslovakia  (1) Yes 

 Total: 11 Yes 

 British Empire  (2) – Not Registered United States  (2) – Not Registered Portugal  (1) – Not Registered Romania  (1) – Not Registered Belgium  (2) – Absent [19] 

 The chairman,  Woodrow Wilson , overturned it by saying that although the proposal had been approved by a clear majority, the particular matter had strong opposition manifest itself (despite the lack of any actual votes against the proposal [19] ) and that on this issue, a unanimous vote would be required. [20]  French delegate  Ferdinand Larnaude  [ la ;  sv ] immediately stated that "a majority had voted for the amendment." [21]  Meanwhile, the Japanese delegation wanted the transcript to show that a clear majority had been voted for the amendment. [21] 

 Aftermath 

 Cecil felt that British support for the League of Nations was far more important than the clause. The Japanese media fully covered the progress of the conference, which led to the alienation of public opinion towards the US and would foreshadow later, broader conflicts. 

 In the United States,  racial riots  resulted from deliberate inaction. [26] 

 The international mood had changed so dramatically by 1945, that the contentious point of racial equality would be incorporated into that year's   United Nations Charter   as a fundamental principle of international justice.

Red Summer
The  Red Summer  was a period in mid-1919 during which  white supremacist terrorism  and  racial riots  occurred in more than three dozen cities across the  United States , and in one rural county in  Arkansas . The term "Red Summer" was coined by  civil rights activist  and author  James Weldon Johnson , who had been employed as a  field secretary  by the  National Association for the Advancement of Colored People  (NAACP) since 1916. In 1919, he organized  peaceful protests  against the  racial violence . [1] [2] 

 In most instances, attacks consisted of  white -on- black  violence. Numerous African Americans fought back, notably in the  Chicago  and  Washington, D.C., race riots , which resulted in 38 and 15 deaths, respectively, along with even more injuries, and extensive property damage in  Chicago . [3]  Still, the highest number of fatalities occurred in the rural area around  Elaine, Arkansas , where an estimated 100–240 black people and five white people were killed—an event now known as the  Elaine massacre . 

 The   anti-black   riots developed from a variety of post- World War I   socio-economic tensions, generally related to the   demobilization   of both black and white members of the   United States Armed Forces   following World War I ; an   economic slump ; and increased competition in the job and housing markets between ethnic   European Americans   and African Americans. [4]   The period would also be marked by episodes of   labor unrest , wherein certain industrialists employed black people as   strikebreakers , further inflaming the resentment of white workers. 

 The riots and killings were extensively documented by the   press , which, along with the   federal government , feared   socialist   and   communist   influence on the black   civil rights movement of the time   following the 1917   Bolshevik Revolution   in Russia. They also feared foreign   anarchists , who had   bombed the homes and businesses of prominent figures and government leaders . 

 

 Family leaving damaged home after the   Chicago race riot of 1919 

 Great Migration 

 With the  mobilization  of troops for  World War I , and with immigration from Europe cut off, the  industrial cities  of the American  Northeast  and  Midwest  experienced severe  labor shortages . As a result, northern manufacturers recruited throughout the South, from which an exodus of workers, many black, ensued. [5] 

 By 1919, an estimated 500,000  African Americans  had emigrated from the  Southern United States  to the industrial cities of the Northeast and Midwest in the first wave of the  Great Migration  (which continued until 1940). [3]  African-American workers filled new positions in expanding industries, such as the  railroads , as well as many existing jobs formerly held by whites. In some cities, they were hired as  strikebreakers , especially during the strikes of 1917. [5]  This increased resentment against blacks among many  working-class  whites, immigrants, and  first-generation Americans . 

 

 Will Brown, victim of Omaha, Nebraska lynching [31] 

 Racism and Red Scare 

 In the summer of 1917, violent racial riots against blacks due to labor tensions broke out in  East St. Louis, Illinois , and  Houston, Texas . [6]  Following the war, rapid  demobilization  of the military without a plan for absorbing veterans into the job market, and the removal of  price controls , led to massive unemployment and inflation that increased competition for jobs. Jobs were very difficult for African Americans to get in the South due to systemic racism and employment segregation. [7] 

 During the  First Red Scare  of 1919–20, following the  1917 Russian Revolution ,  anti-Bolshevik  sentiment in the United States quickly followed on the  anti-German sentiment  arising in the war years. Many politicians and government officials, together with much of the press and the public, feared an imminent attempt to overthrow the U.S. government to create a new regime modeled on that of the  Soviets . Authorities viewed with alarm African-Americans' advocacy of  racial equality  and  labor rights , and incidents involving the deaths of whites furthered fears. [4]  In a private conversation in March 1919, President  Woodrow Wilson  said that "the American  Negro  returning from abroad would be our greatest medium in conveying  Bolshevism  to America." [8]  Other whites expressed a wide range of opinions, some anticipating unsettled times and others seeing no signs of tension. [9] 

 In the autumn of 1919, following the violence-filled summer,   George Edmund Haynes   reported on the events as a prelude to an investigation by the   U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary . He identified 38 separate racial riots against black people in widely scattered cities, in which whites attacked black people. [3]   Unlike earlier racial riots against African Americans in U.S. history, the 1919 events were among the first in which black people in number resisted white attacks and fought back. [13]   A. Philip Randolph , a civil rights   activist   and leader of the   Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters , publicly defended the right of black people to   self-defense . [1] 

 Government activity 

 During the Chicago racial violence against people of color the press was incorrectly told by  Department of Justice  officials that the  IWW , socialists, and  Bolsheviks  were "spreading propaganda to breed race hatred". [55]  FBI agents filed reports that leftist views were winning converts in the black community. One cited the work of the  NAACP  "urging the colored people to insist upon equality with white people and to resort to force, if necessary. [50]   J. Edgar Hoover , at the start of his career in government, analyzed the riots for the Attorney General. He blamed the July Washington, D.C., riots on "numerous assaults committed by Negroes upon white women". [22]  For the October events in Arkansas, he blamed "certain local agitation in a Negro lodge". [22]  A more general cause he cited was "propaganda of a radical nature". [22]  He charged that socialists were feeding propaganda to black-owned magazines such as  The Messenger , which in turn aroused their black readers. He did not note the white perpetrators of violence, whose activities local authorities documented. As chief of the Radical Division within the U.S. Department of Justice, Hoover began an investigation of "negro activities" and targeted  Marcus Garvey  because he thought his newspaper  Negro World  preached Bolshevism. [22]  He authorized the hiring of black undercover agents to spy on black organizations and publications in Harlem. [55] 

 On November 17, Attorney General  A. Mitchell Palmer  reported to Congress on the threat that anarchists and Bolsheviks posed to the government. More than half the report documented radicalism in the black community and the "open defiance" black leaders advocated in response to racial violence and the summer's rioting. It faulted the leadership of the black community for an "ill-governed reaction toward race rioting.… In all discussions of the recent racial riots against blacks there is reflected the note of pride that the Negro has found himself. That he has 'fought back,' that never again will he tamely submit to violence and intimidation." [56]  It described "the dangerous spirit of defiance and vengeance at work among the Negro leaders." [56] 

 

 African American being stoned by whites during 1919 Chicago race riot