The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama by Melvyn Goldstein Amazon.com  Just the facts, Ma'am. Wouldn't it be nice if we could simply inspect the historical record and resolve the question of whether or not Tibet has traditionally been a part of China? Melvyn Goldstein, anthropologist and Tibet specialist, takes us in that direction in The Snow Lion and the Dragon.  The results? Not so fast. Like a scientist analyzing experimental data, Goldstein walks us through centuries of unending political struggle and battles of conquest. He shows us that Tibet first came under Chinese suzerainty during the Mongolian era and then for almost 300 years during the Manchu era. For the most part, The Snow Lion and the Dragon succeeds as chronicle of the power plays of two governments vying for control of Tibet. But when Goldstein speaks of the Chinese government, what does he mean by "Chinese"? Does he mean the Mongols when they controlled the territory we call China and the Manchus when they did? Were these legitimate Chinese governments?  Although Goldstein is sincere in his objective methods, many questions such as these lurk behind the illusion objectivity. Ultimately, history is interpretation, and without admitting this, Goldstein lures the reader into a false sense of complacency.  The Snow Lion and the Dragon is a helpful historical summary for anyone who wonders how the Tibet Question has played itself out from the beginning up until 1997, but for an adequate examination of historical subtleties surrounding the issue, we must continue to wait. --Brian Bruya  Synopsis  This study covers the history of Tibet, concentrating on the political and cultural negotiations over the status of Tibet from the turn of the century to the present. The author presents a reasoned compromise between China and Tibet, appealing to the USA to play an active diplomatic role.        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kundenrezensionen Durchschnittliche Kundenbewertung:  Zahl der Rezensionen: 11 A reader from New York aus New York , 3. Oktober 1999  A book that will broaden our minds about the Tibet issue. There is no easy solution to an issue as complicated and intricate as the "Tibetan Problem". As much as I abhor the human right abuses in Tibet (which the author does too, apparently), I agree with Prof. Goldstein that the Chinese are really those who hold the trump card. I believe that if the exile government were to accept some sort of comprimise that will actually allow them to work INSIDE Tibet, their chance of achieving a genuine autonomy and preserving the Tibetan culture will be much enhanced, at least from a long term perspective. Important as the much publicized demographical change in Tibet is, one cannot neglect the elements of materialism that is continuously being brought into Tibet. As a friend of mine from China pointed out half mockingly, all that the communists have to do is to build more entertainment establishments to promote indulgence of sense pleasure among the younger generation. That in itself will be a huge blow to the preservation of a genuine Tibetan culture. Thirty years from now, if the exiled are still in exile, the situation will be grim. Time will be running out on a peaceful solution -- China will be substantially stronger, the nationalistic pride of an average Chinese will be stronger, the frustation of the Tibetans who support arm struggle will no more be contendable, and the Dalai Lama will probably no longer be there to represent a voice of peaceful struggle which will anyway have its credential debunked by then. As Prof. Goldstein pointed out, many opportunities for continuous negotiation had been squandered by misjudgement and misperception on both sides, I pray that when the door of negotiation is reopened, more subtantial results will be made.  Eine Leserin oder ein Leser aus Ogden, Utah , 8. August 1999  Goldstein makes clear the political realities of the Tibet Q In our own time, Tibet has been a de facto province of China since 1951. Where was the moral character of the U.S Congress and the executive branch of our government when China began its pacification of Tibet? Goldstein gives the American public (at least those who bother to read serious work) a dose of morale corruption that our government lives by, and a sense of the complexity of international affairs, which we as a people, have always played a bit to lightly.  Eine Leserin oder ein Leser aus St.Petersburg, Russia , 2. Mai 1999  A very good survey. The last review has completely misunderstood the book, and I think I need to point this out so future readers won't continue to misread it. The reviewer from Santa Fe has three arguemnts: 1) He says that Goldstein argues that because Tibet has been part of China it's a good reason to remain so, and that this is nonsense, 2) the reviewer states that 'Chinese sovereignty in the age of horses is one thing, in the age of the airplane and the TV another, and, 3) The reviewer argues that Goldstein glosses the 'cultural genocide'. First, Goldstein never advocates the PRC's view that China should control Tibet. How the reader arrived at this conclusion doesn't surprise me. Anytime I have tried to explain the Chinese position people have confused it with mine (which is quite different, as is Goldstein's). Goldstein has tried to write a history of how the two sides have agreed, compromised, misunderstood each other and fought each other. The historical question has been taken seriously by the Tibetan Government in Exile (see Shakabpa's history, which takes the historical relations very seriously and relevant to the question of independence), the PRC and Western Nations. Because the players involved take it seriously, Goldstein must address this.  Second, the age of the horse and the age of the TV isn't an argument. The Republic of Taiwan still claims Tibet, and the Dalai Lama has agreed to this claim (as Goldstein points out); not because the TV has been invented but because he has little choice. These questions will continue to be argued when Buicks and Volkswagons drive to the Moon. Third, Goldstein does address the Tibetans' wish to preserve their culture (I find it distasteful that 'genocide' is tossed around so much these days; the whole world is being 'Americanized' and nobody [save the French, perhaps] has called it 'genocide'. Then again, it has a rhetorical ring that sets the liberal hounds straining at the leash...): Goldstein carefully explores China's despotic policy towards Tibetan culture in explaining why the Dalai Lama has moved towards compromise while others (say, his brother Thubtan Norbu) urge fighting. The Dalai Lama wishes to preserve his culture, so he must deal directly with the PRC. To think otherwise is to wish away a reality (something Buddhists are good at). In the end, Goldstein is merely outlining what each side wants, and what he thinks the Dalai Lama should do to achieve his goals. The Tibet movement, though optimistic, is losing in the long run. Even if communism ended in China (and the Dalai Lama's laughable argument that communism has a half-life is being disproved in the former Soviet republics), the 900 million Han would still believe that Tibet is theirs. Only the utter collapse of China and a Tibetan revolution could grant independence. The question is, what can the friends of Tibet do to preserve Tibet's culture in the face of unlikely independence? I haven't heard a good idea yet, and time is running out. Maybe the reviewer in Santa Fe could start running guns from Kazakstan. --Dieser Text bezieht sich auf die Taschenbuch-Ausgabe des Titels  Eine Leserin oder ein Leser aus Santa Fe, NM , 30. April 1999  There's no such thing as "just the facts" Although I don't doubt the author's sincerity in trying to analyze the Tibetan question objectively by looking at the facts, I think he failed to see that "the facts" aren't the whole truth. Arguing that because Tibet has historically been "part of China," that's a good reason for it to remain so, doesn't square with the undeniable cultural, ethnic, and religious differences between the two countries (consider the similar cases of Ireland and Israel, which likewise spent long periods of their history as part of something else). In addition, Chinese sovereignty means one thing in the age of horses, and quite another in the age of the airplane and TV. Finally, I think the author glosses over the patent attempts at cultural genocide by the Chinese: surely the Tibetan religious/political regime (which was an ad hoc solution in the first place) was in need of reform, but what course that takes should be for the Tibetans to decide; I find it hard to believe that the Chinese killed thousands of monks and nuns, and forced thousands of Tibetans into exile, out of purely humanitarian motives! The book is a nice try, but I found it ultimately unconvincing. A book that will broaden our minds about the Tibet issue. There is no easy solution to an issue as complicated and intricate as the "Tibetan Problem". As much as I abhor the human right abuses in Tibet (which the author does too, apparently), I agree with Prof. Goldstein that the Chinese are really those who hold the trump card. I believe that if the exile government were to accept some sort of comprimise that will actually allow them to work INSIDE Tibet, their chance of achieving a genuine autonomy and preserving the Tibetan culture will be much enhanced, at least from a long term perspective. Important as the much publicized demographical change in Tibet is, one cannot neglect the elements of materialism that is continuously being brought into Tibet. As a friend of mine from China pointed out half mockingly, all that the communists have to do is to build more entertainment establishments to promote indulgence of sense pleasure among the younger generation. That in itself will be a huge blow to the preservation of a genuine Tibetan culture. Thirty years from now, if the exiled are still in exile, the situation will be grim. Time will be running out on a peaceful solution -- China will be substantially stronger, the nationalistic pride of an average Chinese will be stronger, the frustation of the Tibetans who support arm struggle will no more be contendable, and the Dalai Lama will probably no longer be there to represent a voice of peaceful struggle which will anyway have its credential debunked by then. As Prof. Goldstein pointed out, many opportunities for continuous negotiation had been squandered by misjudgement and misperception on both sides, I pray that when the door of negotiation is reopened, more subtantial results will be made.    Eine Leserin oder ein Leser aus Ogden, Utah , 8. August 1999  Goldstein makes clear the political realities of the Tibet Q In our own time, Tibet has been a de facto province of China since 1951. Where was the moral character of the U.S Congress and the executive branch of our government when China began its pacification of Tibet? Goldstein gives the American public (at least those who bother to read serious work) a dose of morale corruption that our government lives by, and a sense of the complexity of international affairs, which we as a people, have always played a bit to lightly.  Eine Leserin oder ein Leser aus St.Petersburg, Russia , 2. Mai 1999  A very good survey. The last review has completely misunderstood the book, and I think I need to point this out so future readers won't continue to misread it. The reviewer from Santa Fe has three arguemnts: 1) He says that Goldstein argues that because Tibet has been part of China it's a good reason to remain so, and that this is nonsense, 2) the reviewer states that 'Chinese sovereignty in the age of horses is one thing, in the age of the airplane and the TV another, and, 3) The reviewer argues that Goldstein glosses the 'cultural genocide'. First, Goldstein never advocates the PRC's view that China should control Tibet. How the reader arrived at this conclusion doesn't surprise me. Anytime I have tried to explain the Chinese position people have confused it with mine (which is quite different, as is Goldstein's). Goldstein has tried to write a history of how the two sides have agreed, compromised, misunderstood each other and fought each other. The historical question has been taken seriously by the Tibetan Government in Exile (see Shakabpa's history, which takes the historical relations very seriously and relevant to the question of independence), the PRC and Western Nations. Because the players involved take it seriously, Goldstein must address this.  Second, the age of the horse and the age of the TV isn't an argument. The Republic of Taiwan still claims Tibet, and the Dalai Lama has agreed to this claim (as Goldstein points out); not because the TV has been invented but because he has little choice. These questions will continue to be argued when Buicks and Volkswagons drive to the Moon. Third, Goldstein does address the Tibetans' wish to preserve their culture (I find it distasteful that 'genocide' is tossed around so much these days; the whole world is being 'Americanized' and nobody [save the French, perhaps] has called it 'genocide'. Then again, it has a rhetorical ring that sets the liberal hounds straining at the leash...): Goldstein carefully explores China's despotic policy towards Tibetan culture in explaining why the Dalai Lama has moved towards compromise while others (say, his brother Thubtan Norbu) urge fighting. The Dalai Lama wishes to preserve his culture, so he must deal directly with the PRC. To think otherwise is to wish away a reality (something Buddhists are good at). In the end, Goldstein is merely outlining what each side wants, and what he thinks the Dalai Lama should do to achieve his goals. The Tibet movement, though optimistic, is losing in the long run. Even if communism ended in China (and the Dalai Lama's laughable argument that communism has a half-life is being disproved in the former Soviet republics), the 900 million Han would still believe that Tibet is theirs. Only the utter collapse of China and a Tibetan revolution could grant independence. The question is, what can the friends of Tibet do to preserve Tibet's culture in the face of unlikely independence? I haven't heard a good idea yet, and time is running out. Maybe the reviewer in Santa Fe could start running guns from Kazakstan. --Dieser Text bezieht sich auf die Taschenbuch-Ausgabe des Titels  Eine Leserin oder ein Leser aus Santa Fe, NM , 30. April 1999  There's no such thing as "just the facts" Although I don't doubt the author's sincerity in trying to analyze the Tibetan question objectively by looking at the facts, I think he failed to see that "the facts" aren't the whole truth. Arguing that because Tibet has historically been "part of China," that's a good reason for it to remain so, doesn't square with the undeniable cultural, ethnic, and religious differences between the two countries (consider the similar cases of Ireland and Israel, which likewise spent long periods of their history as part of something else). In addition, Chinese sovereignty means one thing in the age of horses, and quite another in the age of the airplane and TV. Finally, I think the author glosses over the patent attempts at cultural genocide by the Chinese: surely the Tibetan religious/political regime (which was an ad hoc solution in the first place) was in need of reform, but what course that takes should be for the Tibetans to decide; I find it hard to believe that the Chinese killed thousands of monks and nuns, and forced thousands of Tibetans into exile, out of purely humanitarian motives! The book is a nice try, but I found it ultimately unconvincing.  Eine Leserin oder ein Leser aus St.Petersburg, Russia , 19. März 1999  An excellent survey of the "Tibet Question". I have to take issue with a previous review. The reviewer questions first whether it is a genuine historical study, and second suggests the work has racist notions. To the first question, Goldstein cites historians (including, yes, E.Sperling) who are trained in both Tibetan and Chinese source material. Second, the reviewers claim that treating the Qing and Yuan Dynasties as different (than, say, the Ming) is racist, commenting, "Are America [sic] with black/native American/and [sic] Hispanic president [sic] and congress [a] legitimate American government?" This ignores of course the fact that the United States is a democracy while Qing and Yuan China were Chinas ruled by alien conquerors. Perhaps a small difference? Both the PRC and the Republic of China (Taiwan) claim the political boundries of the Qing State (except the PRC recognizes the Republic of Mongolia while the Republic of China does not); so we ask, is this a legitimate claim? Goldstein is interested in the claims of both the Tibetan Government in Exile and the PRC for Tibet, and he has written an excellent introduction.  John Friday (jafriday@aol.com) aus Fredericksburg, VA, USA , 18. März 1999  A thoughtful, well-written analysis of the Tibetan Question. When Mao Zedong invaded Tibet in 1950 and incorporated it as an autonomous region within the People's Republic of China , he effectively ended twelve hundred years of Tibetan independence. The exile "government" of the Dalai Lama, Tibet's spiritual and political leader, has been working since then to garner Western support for the restoration of independent Tibet, or at least a favorable set of conditions for the return of the Dalai Lama to Tibet. The Dalai Lama became the political leader of Tibet in 1642, when the Mongol emperor Gushri Khan made the fifth Dalai Lama the supreme authority in Tibet. This ensured that the Geluk Buddhist sect, which the Dalai Lama led, would become the preeminent sect in Tibet. Relations between Tibet and China fluctuated as the Qing emperors attempted several times to gain control pf Tibet. After the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1912, it appeared that Tibet would enjoy complete independence from its giant neighbor. Chiang Kaishek's nationalist government was too preoccupied with other internal and external matters to consolidate China's foothold in the mountainous country. The interwar years and World War Two brought interest from the West, particularly Great Britain and the United States. After the war, British relations with Tibet were filtered through the interests of a newly independent India. After Chiang's government fell to the Communists, the United States gave some covert support for Tibetan independence, but this support was insufficient and poorly coordinated. The Dalai Lama fled to India and set up an exile "government," trying simultaneously to reach an agreement with China for Tibetan autonomy and to generate Western support for Tibetan independence. Melvyn C. Goldstein, in The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama, explores both the history of the conflict over Tibet, and the possibilities for the future of the region. Goldstein, a professor of anthropology at Case Western Reserve University and director of that university's center for research on Tibet, provides a thoughtful, well-written analysis of the factors involved in the "Tibetan Question." He maintains a impartial, unbiased perspective throughout the book, and explains why neither China nor Tibet is without a measure of validity for their claims. This is no mean feat, for the "contradictory claims and countercharges" of both Tibet and China "render a dispassionate and objective assessment of the conflict excruciatingly difficult, even for specialists"(x). Goldstein organizes the book into five main parts, each covering a particular period in Tibetan history. The first outlines the history of Tibet in relation to China and Mongolia from the seventh century to the fall of the Qing dynasty. The second part describes Tibet's relative independence during China's nationalist period. The third section examines the fate of Tibet after the rise of Mao Zedong, including the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950 and the policies of Mao toward Tibet. The exile of the fourteenth Dalai Lama and his attempts to gain Western support for Tibetan independence continue into the fourth part, which covers the post-Mao era of the 1980s and 1990s. Finally, Goldstein poses questions about, and provides possible answers for, the future of Tibet. The book was completed before the death of the fourteenth Dalai Lama, and so may require a slight revision to update it. Goldstein presents a surprisingly unbiased picture of the situation in Tibet. He uses various government and journalistic sources gathered from all sides of the Tibet Question, including myriad Chinese governmental policies and documents. His secondary sources include over sixty years of political, cultural and biographical studies concerning Tibet, China and the Dalai Lama. Dr. Goldstein is able to draw on his own field research in Tibet and China as well as his own extensive writing on the subject. It seems evident that Tibet will never achieve independence as long as China remains under Communist rule. Even if China manages to democratize in the future, it will be reluctant at best to relinquish control over Tibet. Many opportunities for a satisfactory end to the conflict have been missed or even sabotaged by each side of the issue. Dr. Goldstein has produced an engaging and worthy analysis of a conflict that, though it plays out in a remote and barely accessible corner of the world, has captured the attention and sympathy of many Westerners, especially in America. How the Tibet Question will finally be answered is unclear, but Dr. Goldstein's book allows the reader to better understand the historical and contemporary factors that will determine the outcome of this conflict. --Dieser Text bezieht sich auf die Taschenbuch-Ausgabe des Titels  kdelage@lamere.net aus Maine, USA , 30. Juli 1998  interesting reading for anyone interested in Tibet I found this book highly interesting to read, it does not contain any of the dewey-eyed nostalgia of many books on Tibet. Instead the author takes a neutral and realistic stand on past and present day relations with China. As a supporter of full independence for Tibet, I did not find the book offensive to that viewpoint. Good reading ,give it a try!  ltlee1@mindspring.com aus USA , 30. Mai 1998  Author told an one-sided story The author did a good job describing the interactions actions between modern China and Dalai Lamma. I, however, found his coverage using mostly tibetan materials wanting. His treatment of the hundreds of years of Tibetan history during the Ming dynasty with one sentence "By conferring titles on Tibetans already in power, the Ming emperors merely recognized political reality." and citing a certain E. Sperling also raise the question whether the book represents a genuine historical study. Furthermore, his treated the different dynasties as different countries also entails an racist point of view which was stated more explicitly by the Amazon.com reviewer: "Does he mean the Mongols when they controlled the territory we call China and the Manchus when they did? Were these legitimate Chinese governments?" A similar question of "Are America with black/native American/and Hispanic president and congress legitimate American governments?" would be unthinkable.  Forest Zhang (zhangq@arches.uga.edu) aus Athens, GA , 7. April 1998  a very useful yet too rarely seen factbook This is a must for everyone who has interest in the Tibet issue and wants to talk about it. One who hasn't read it should just shut up his/her mouth, go to get this book, read it, and compare the HISTORICAL FACTS in this book to the stereotyped prejudice one has learnt from propaganda, hollywood blockbuster movies, or whatever.  wenkai@earthlink.net aus New York , 30. März 1998  A rare moment of objectivity in the Tibet debate Amid the feverish torrent of propaganda being served up by Hollywood and the mainstream American press, Melvyn Goldstein's "The Snow Lion and the Dragon" offers a rare moment of sober analysis and objective reasoning. Dr Goldstein is the preeminent American scholar on Tibet, and "The Snow Lion" is his authoritative account of the forces and events that led up to the current conflict between leaders in Beijing and the Dalai Lama's supporters in Dharamsala. Tibetan independence activists will necessarily despise this book because of the empirical reality that it brings to a debate fueled by uninformed zealotry and passionate dogma. But those who are interested in gaining a real understanding of Tibet and the historical basis of its current dilemma are well-advised to read this succinct, thoroughly-research work. leibos@sage.edu aus Albany, NY , 10. März 1998  An Excellent Work on Tibet & China Just read this wonderful book and found it very useful not only for the general reader but also for specialists in Asian Studies. Prof. Steven A. Leibo Ph.D. The Sage Colleges & H-ASIA

Suchen nach:

-DISCLAIMER- Mit einem Urteil vom 12. Mai 1998 hat das Landgericht Hamburg entschieden, daß man durch die Anbringung eines Links die Inhalte der gelinkten Seite ggf. mit zu verantworten hat. Für alle Links gilt: Ich möchte ausdrücklich betonen, daß ich keinerlei Einfluß auf die Gestaltung und die Inhalte der gelinkten Seiten habe. Deshalb distanziere ich mich hiermit ausdrücklich von allen Inhalten aller gelinkten Seiten auf dieser Homepage.