| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() Trade In this Item for up to £0.60
Get an extra £5 when you trade in books worth £10 or more until June 30, 2012. Trade in Dragon In The Land Of Snows: The History of Modern Tibet since 1947 (A Pimlico original) for an Amazon.co.uk gift card of up to £0.60, which you can then spend on millions of items across the site. Trade-in values may vary (terms apply). Find more products eligible for trade-in.
|
Product details
|
1999 marks the 40th anniversary of the National Uprising when the Tibetan people rebelled against the Chinese forces that had occupied their country since 1950. Thousands of Tibetans were killed in the failed revolt and the Dalai Lama, Tibet's spiritual leader, fled to India from Lhasa with 80,000 supporters. So an informed, detailed and balanced account from a Tibetan historian is a breath of fresh air. Shakya cuts through the myths that both sides have created to feed their political ends. Tibetan culture wasn't the happy Shangri-La prior to the Chinese invasion that many Tibetans claim. It was a land dominated by a feudal elite who kept many people in serfdom; however there was also much of value in the Tibetan culture that the Chinese have done so much to destroy.
Tibet and China go back a long way: Tibetans believe their land to be an independent state; the Chinese believe Tibet has always been part of China. Tibet has been under Chinese rule at various points over the last 1,000 years, and it was only with the Chinese revolution of 1911 that Tibet finally freed itself from Chinese control. The Chinese have steadily strengthened their hold on Tibet since they invaded in 1950 through a series of repressive measures against Tibetan nationals which the International Committee of Jurists concluded constituted a prima facie case of genocide. They have also encouraged many Chinese to move to Tibet: Tibetans call this a process of "sinification" via the back-door: the Chinese say that the Tibetans are not culturally in tune with modern economic policies.
And so it goes on. The two countries cannot even agree on what constitutes Tibet. The Tibetan government in Lhasa had ceded Kham and Amdo prior to 1950 and ruled over what is now known as the Tibetan Autonomous Region. The Tibetan government in exile wants Kham and Amdo included in all discussions on Tibet's future. China does not. Shakya is no fence-sitter. Like most right minded people he believes the Tibetans to have the better claim, but his strength is that he allows the arguments to speak for themselves rather than get carried away by sloganism and partiality. If there were more people like Shakya, there might--just might--be an end to the deadlock in prospect. --John Crace
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
The only problem with the book is understanding the first few chapters, as the book launches into a discussion of Tibetan politics in the period up to the Chinese invasion (or resumption of control) without any real attempt to explain any of the terms used. For example, it took me several pages to work out what the Norbulingka is/was. As a novice to Tibetan politics a foreword or better footnotes would have been useful. The editor could have also done a bit more with the prose style, which is a bit stilted in parts.
These criticisms are, however, minor in terms of the book as a whole. It is very good as a place to start to understand the complexity of the issues involved in modern Tibet, either as the basis for further study or just to understand why the situation is as it is. To paraphrase the old cliche 'If you buy only one book on Tibet, make it this one.'
A worthy and compelling read.
|