Content area
Full Text
There were two realities in the world of 1919, and they did not always mesh. One was in Paris and the other was on the ground, where people were making their own decisions and fighting their own battles.
Margaret MacMillian1
In early February of 1919 at the Fails Peace talks following World War I, Japanese delegates proposed a clause for insertion into the League of Nations Covenant that would allow for "no distinction" to be made "on account of.. .race" against alien nationals of any member country. When this seemingly fair-minded "racial equality clause" was finally put to a vote in mid April, it garnered a strong majority in its favor. This success was only momentary, however. Acting chairman and United States president Woodrow Wilson immediately used his position to overturn the results and end the formal debate. Shortly thereafter, a series of more than twenty-five bloody race riots swept across the U.S. in what was later termed the "Red Summer."
To be clear, it should be emphasized that there was no casual relation between the rejection of the racial equality clause by a U.S. president and the U.S. race riots that followed. The former was not the rallying cry of the latter by any measure, which should not be that surprising: for the general public, the ins and outs of foreign policy are usually too distant to have any immediate relevance. The clause's rise and fall did, though, provoke conversation that presaged some of the attitudes on race and equality that would be expressed in the corning violence. That foreshadowing also showed how "the negro question" - formerly regarded as just a Southern problem - was rapidly becoming both a national and international concern for a country busily expanding its world presence.
Juxtaposing the clause and the riots thus provides insight into how the United States domestic discourse on race had come to shape and reflect its international expressions on the subject, and how that globalization was influencing policy at home and abroad. This alignment works because, despite their obvious differences, the two events were strikingly similar. Both revolved around issues of racial purity, both were occasions to advocate for equality or its restriction, and both concerned the movement of peoples. And as the...