Seems a balanced presentation on a sensitive subject
|
Bear in mind that my background in Chinese and Tibetan history and politics is negligible. And that the fate of the Tibetan people is being considered. That said, this seemed at least a very readable account. I assume the historical facts in this book can be cross-checked for accuracy. As to Goldstein's analysis (done before 1998) of the future, he explored possibilities for compromise that, to date, seem not to have occurred. He also expresses concern about the possibility of further violence if an adequate compromise is not reached.
When looking into the Tibetan problem, I found primarily decidedly pro-Chinese or pro-Tibetan positions. Compromise may seem unreasonable. Since Goldstein appears to be trying to find a middle position, this book may be useful for anyone trying to get a less biased view of this issue. The presentation seemed clear enough that it could serve as an introduction to this issue, although it may well also be of use to readers with a more advanced background in this area. Goldstein seems to be primarily offering input and not conclusions, so whatever your position on the Tibet issue, this book may be informative.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
United States | 
United Kingdom | 
Canada