现代西藏的诞生

出版社:中国藏学出版社
出版日期:1990-1
ISBN:9787800570353
作者:（加）谭·戈伦夫（A.Tom Grunfeld）
页数:374页页

内容概要

加拿大藏学家谭·戈伦夫（T. Grunfeld）， 美国纽约州立大学帝州学院(State University of New York Empire State college)历史学教授，毕业于伦敦大学东方与非洲研究院和纽约大学。他的代表作为《现代西藏的诞生》（The Making of Modern Tibet）。

“2000年8月，谭·戈伦夫教授参加在加拿大魁北克举行的一次学术会议（Ⅹ Ⅷ IPSA World Congress），提交了题为《西藏与美国》（Tibet and The United States）的学术论文，补充了在《现代西藏的诞生》一书中未涉及到的20世纪70年代至90年代美国插手'西藏问题'的历史。同年4月，戈伦夫发表了题为《重估对藏政策》的文章（'Time to Reassess Tibet Policy', The Progressive Response, Vo1.4,No.10,2000.）。

 现代西藏的诞生下载 精选章节试读 更多精彩书评


发布书评

　
　

精彩书评 (总计2条)

  •     2012年6月，我在青海旅行，住在西宁塔顶阳光青年旅舍。旅舍老板娘是个四十来岁的单身女人。某天，客栈来了一位访客，是个三十五岁左右气质颇为优雅的女人，她来到客栈之后就直接找到老板娘，老板娘停下工作，泡好茶，和她对坐面谈。访客谈到她在滇北、川西等地的旅行经历，言语中多有对当地的原生态风景和居民淳朴信仰的赞叹，同时表达了对外来游客的鄙夷——这些游客居然在投宿客栈时问有没有标间——而在她看来，来这种地方旅行，要的就是心灵的净化，所以一切物质的条件都应该抛之脑后。老板娘附议了她的观点，但在谈及西藏今昔的问题时，二人观点略有差异。访客似乎颇为惋惜，而老板娘则搬出了佛教教义，认为西藏的沧桑巨变，不过是一场劫数，非人力所能改变的。老板娘说道，“你去看《喇嘛王国的覆灭》，还有其他的一些书，其实西藏不是我们所想象的那个样子，这一些也不是人力所能改变的，无论是活佛贵族还是千百万农奴，都无法改变劫数”——几年之后，我还记得，老板娘表达的大概是这个意思。而她们的对话也让我知道了一本书，《喇嘛王国的覆灭》。离开西宁之后我去了兰州，在兰州花儿青年旅舍的书架上我看到了一本李安宅先生写的《拉卜楞----李安宅的调查报告》。我大概花了一个傍晚的时间粗略的翻了这本书。以前我知道“汉学”这个概念，从那时起我知道了“藏学”这个概念。此后我看了一些关于西藏的电影和纪录片，又认真阅读了正史中尤其是两唐书中关于吐蕃——西藏的记载。当扬卡洛夫在人人网上发段子的时候，我也看了他那些“自黑”的文章。2016年5月，我在拉萨旅行，住在仙足岛上一家客栈。谈及藏人，客栈老板（湖北汉人）说“青海那边的叫安多人，他们还不是最坏的，最坏的是川西的康巴藏人......”。而客栈的另一位曾在西藏做过生意的客人说“我和藏人喝酒，他们喝醉了啥都敢说，他们当着我的面说，你别看现在共产党对我们那么好，那是必须的，他要是不对我们好我们早就不跟他了”。葛兆光先生有本书，《想象异域》。我想，旁观者——内地汉人、游客、外国游客、外国西藏关注者们，对西藏，也应该是“想象异域”吧。学者研究西藏，当然不能“想象异域”。戈尔斯坦煌煌七百多页的《喇嘛王国的覆灭》，给出了这样的解释：喇嘛王国的覆灭，归根到底，是传统封闭西藏遭遇遭遇现代中国的结果。这种解释，似曾相识。如果套用费正清论述近代中国时提到的“冲击——反应”模式来解释西藏近现代史，不正好和戈尔斯坦的解释如出一辙吗？再进一步，无论是传统西藏遭遇现代中国，还是满清王朝遭遇西方列强，都可以看成是“现代世界的形成实际上是西方扩张的结果”这一理论的注脚。《喇嘛王国的覆灭》和《现代西藏的诞生》，咋一看，我还以为是同一学者的两部著作。丛书名来看，喇嘛王国的覆灭与现代西藏的诞生，难道不是同一事件的两个方面吗？如果北京当局要援引某位海外藏学家的著作来佐证其关于西藏的种种观点时，谭戈伦夫或许是最佳人选。戈伦夫明确的支出，旧西藏，绝对不是什么世外桃源，也不是人间地狱。前半段和北京当局的立场完全一致。2015年国庆期间，北京电视台“档案”栏目播出了六集纪录片《西藏》，其中对于旧西藏的描述，与《现代西藏的诞生》第一章“昔日的西藏”中的描述相当吻合。戈伦夫虽然说旧西藏“也不是人间地狱”，但书中第一章的文字却让我们看到一个封闭落后、等级森严、毫无活力、严刑峻法、民不聊生的旧西藏————这绝不是世外桃源，而且，这样的地方比人间地狱也好不了多少吧。也许是戈伦夫担心读者认为他的观点和北京当局过于一致，所以画蛇添足地加了一句“也不是人间地狱”？两本书的书名与其侧重点都相当吻合。喇嘛王国的覆灭，喇嘛王国是主体，任何事物在灭亡之前总会有种种表现，喇嘛王国也不例外。《喇嘛王国的覆灭》我是两年前读的，现在印象已经不深了。但我记得，作者用巨大的篇幅描述了十三世达赖喇嘛统治期间，当传统封闭的西藏遭遇外来力量时，西藏统治集团的种种应对措施。达赖喇嘛周旋于清（民国）、英、俄之间。对于现代事物，他也表现出一定程度上的欢迎。统治集团内部也有一定数量的贵族们主张变革，比如龙夏多吉次杰——当然无果而终。旧西藏的统治集团，因为没能做出正确的抉择，最终，喇嘛王国在中共百战之师的威慑下，灭亡了。在此过程中，虽有外部力量的影响，甚至说外部力量是决定性的因素，但喇嘛王国到底是主体，而书中绝大篇幅也是给了喇嘛王国这个主体。现代西藏的诞生则不然。事物的诞生，比如人的诞生，是被动的。“现代西藏”之所以诞生，并不是“现代西藏”自身努力的结果。中共以雷霆之势摧枯拉朽，创造了一个“现代西藏”，这一过程，“现代西藏”是对象，而非主体。惟其如此，《现代西藏的诞生》这本书中，大量篇幅写到外部力量——国民党的、共产党的、英国的、美国的、印度的等等对西藏的影响，在这些合力——主力当然是中共——的影响下，一个现代西藏被创造出来。但是，也许是受制于手头资料的闲置，作者能够利用的中共一方的档案资料有限，所以虽然中共是绝对主要的影像力量，但作者给中共一方的笔墨并不太够。在当前，中国和西方世界，西藏成了一种标签。受某些烂俗的电影和小说的影响，相当一部分人视西藏为圣地，亦即西藏可以被贴上前现代的、无工业化的、虔诚信仰、民风淳朴、神秘、美丽等标签。西藏的自然风光迎合了国内外有钱没钱的旅客的需求。藏传佛教繁文缛节的仪式感迎合了城市中上阶层和读书少想得多的文艺青年的精神需求。在经济和文化两个层面，西藏，作为一种想象的对象，拥有广泛的市场。西藏，是他者，是特殊的。这种“他者”和“特殊性”古已有之。遗憾的是，《喇嘛王国的覆灭》和《现代西藏的诞生》两书都没有论及西藏的“他者”地位和“特殊性”。
  •     作者：Josh Schrei来源：http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-schrei/what-good-it-does-a-respo_b_479379.htmlLike an aging quasi-rock star who can't help repeatedly playing that one hit that made him famous all those years ago, A. Tom Grunfeld always manages to revert to his perceived trump card on the issue of Tibet -- the fact that he knows a deep dark secret about Tibetan society that if revealed to the public at large would forever change their view of the Himalayan nation. He knows -- and has gone to absurd and academically questionable lengths to prove -- that pre-invasion Tibet was not a perfect society (though he has never revealed to what standard he is comparing it). And he has inside information that -- in the height of the cold war -- Tibetan resistance fighters were for a short time funded by -- gasp -- the CIA.Unfortunately for Grunfeld, there is nothing at all revelatory about either of those revelations. In the decades that have past since Grunfeld first laid the academic rotten egg known as "The Making of Modern Tibet," the public perception of Tibet has grown, evolved and become far more nuanced than it was thirty years ago. At least three widely circulated books have been written on CIA involvement in the Tibetan resistance. Most of the new generation of American Tibet supporters are fully aware of this brief relationship. They neither see Tibet as some kind of Shangri La nor as a backward feudal theocracy, but as the complex, multi-faceted society that it is.In the face of such growing understanding, I wonder what if any serious insight someone like Grunfeld -- who has always existed as an outside critic on the fringes of real academic discourse on Tibet -- has to offer on the subject. Certainly his interaction with actual Tibetans has been limited, either due to a lack of interest on his part in actually speaking with his subject matter, or simply because most Tibetans will have nothing to do with him. For some reason, after Grunfeld wrote that Tibetan women eat their own placentas and lick their newborn babies clean like beasts, Tibetans didn't receive him so warmly.In his latest interview on Huffington Post, the SUNY quasi-demic says nothing overtly offensive to Tibetan culture, but he does exhibit his usual lack of insight into the actual on the ground reality in Tibet, and, of course, falls into his standard tone in which all things Tibetan are treated with barely disguised colonial disdain.After clumsily dropping the Tibet/CIA reference a few times, Grunfeld wonders aloud about the importance of the Dalai Lama - Obama meeting."The real question," Grunfeld asks, "is what good does it do?"I operate under the possibly erroneous assumption that most academics are at least reasonably smart men. And while Grunfeld is correct in his estimate that Presidential audiences are a somewhat strange ritual akin to a Kabuki play, the strength of message sent by that simple act of theater cannot be underestimated.Several weeks ago, in a move akin to the free speech witch hunts that foreshadowed some of the worst actions by the worst governments during the worst part of the 20th century, the Chinese government announced that they were removing the University of Calgary from their list of accredited universities. The offense? Hosting the Dalai Lama as a guest speaker. Surely an academic like Grunfeld can appreciate the utter gravity of this type of behavior. When governments not only control information but begin dictating the agendas of educational institutions it is a dark day for free speech, and for the very tenets that support and allow Grunfeld his livelihood as an academic.China's new, bold campaign against freedom of speech and information -- including targeted and most likely government-led virus attacks on Google and other western companies for the singular purpose of spying on and detaining activists -- and their increasingly egregious bully tactics toward India, Nepal, Southeast Asia and Africa, clearly demonstrate the moral trajectory of this rising superpower. With the American economy safely in their pocket, the leaders of Beijing are basically issuing a challenge to the world. They are going to pressure, to bully, to exert their influence and forward their agenda however, wherever, and whenever they can. In effect they are saying "go ahead and stop us."In this climate, acceding anything, any political nugget to the Chinese government is indefensible. Refusing to meet with a Nobel-laureate, a champion of free speech and the rights of the individual would be playing right into their hands. It would be a major step backward.What good does a meeting with the Dalai Lama do? What good it does is simple -- it sends a clear message to Beijing that they are not the only ones who set the agenda on the Tibet. It sends a clear message that there are limits to their sphere of influence outside their borders. It sends a clear message that the Tibet issue is a vitally important one to resolve. And, perhaps most importantly, it directly represents the wishes of the American people. Americans overwhelmingly wanted this meeting, just as Americans overwhelmingly feel that Tibet should be an independent nation. This is not just a nice fact, it is a political reality that the Chinese government cannot just shrug off or ignore. This, too, will play a role in determining the future of Tibet.Tibet is a key issue for citizens of the world not, as Grunfeld would have us imagine, because of how it has been publicized. Its a key issue because it is an egregious example of colonialism and oppression which is still continuing unchecked today. Grunfeld and his cohorts can resort to any argument they can dig up or fabricate about 'old Tibet.' The current reality is that people in Tibet disappear for speaking their mind, monasteries are constantly under surveillance, prisoners are tortured, filmmakers are thrown in jail, protests are crushed, and an enduring colonial and racist mentality permeates all aspects of Sino-Tibetan relations.Within this context, Grunfeld, like all good apologist/colonialist scholars, puts the blame and the burden on the oppressed people themselves. In this interview, Grunfeld seems to be saying to Tibetans and to the Dalai Lama: "If only you would acquiesce more, if only you wouldn't publicize your issue so much, if only you would be more reasonable... then the hardliners wouldn't have an excuse to be so nasty to you."This exact line of reasoning was used in negotiations between the British government and Gandhi over the independence of India. The British were terrified of how much media attention Gandhi received -- and for good reason. Under the objective light of the camera, it is hard to make an oppressor look like anything other than an oppressor, and a humble opponent in a loincloth (or in monk's robes) usually ends up winning the public's hearts and minds. The British appealed to Gandhi to tone his constant campaigning down a notch so that they could come to some reasonable agreement. But in the end, it was Gandhi's stubbornness, his absolute unwillingness to tone it down that won the day.The problem with Grunfeld's assertion that the visibility of the Tibet movement strengthens China's hardliners is that the Beijing government has never once shown any indication that a more 'reasoned' stance on the Tibet issue by Tibetans will cause any change in their already hard line policies. The Tibetan side has acquiesced -- repeatedly -- with absolutely no result. More subtly, this type of reasoning assumes that it is the responsibility of the occupied to acquiesce to the occupier. As Nelson Mandela said, in the case of enduring conflicts between occupier and occupied, the occupier has the prime moral responsibility. It is the Chinese government that has to accept the reality of the Tibetan resistance and the global support of it. It is the Chinese government who will eventually have to acquiesce. Freedom and independence are not won through capitulation, but rather by constant, determined action and resistance.This is where Grunfeld's analysis generally fails. He has never exhibited a firm grasp on the reality of the Tibetan resistance within Tibet -- how widespread it is, how independence-centric it is, how much it is growing, or of the broad spectrum of voices and tactics that are employed within it daily. Though he attempts to surmise the effects of an Obama- Dalai Lama meeting on Tibetans inside Tibet, he simply has no authority to speak on the matter because he does not know. He is simply not part of the discussion. Tibetans inside Tibet are perfectly smart enough to know that this meeting does not represent some huge shift in U.S. policy, nor does it mean that the U.S. would support the Tibetan resistance militarily if it ever came to it. They are also smart enough to recognize what a huge slap in the face it is to Beijing's leadership.But as usual, Grunfeld treats Tibetans as non-entities -- not only is their resistance movement a PR campaign, not only do they not have a stake in determining their own future, but, like most primitives, they are so gullible and naive that they will be lured into false hope by this meeting, whose political ramifications they clearly can't fully comprehend or analyze.Grunfeld's short interview, on first glance, appears harmless enough, but there are subtle and not-so-subtle threads that run throughout that deserve to be challenged -- the labeling of a legitimate people's movement as a "publicity campaign"; the inference that in this case the oppressed are the ones who need to acquiesce and capitulate; questioning the value of two Nobel laureates meeting; inferring that the oppressed people can't fully comprehend the ramifications of such a meeting and need a western scholar to explain it to them. All of this points to Grunfeld's true feelings about Tibet, which are frankly colonialist, apologist, borderline racist, and -- after all these years -- have apparently not changed much.I close with a direct challenge to Professor Grunfeld: Tom. For once, once, why don't you take the absurd and ridiculously negative lens you apply to all things Tibetan and turn it on the Chinese government.Then see how long until they revoke your visa.

精彩短评 (总计12条)

  •     谎言一大把
  •     09秋读于多绕噶木,仁波切藏书.
  •     批露了很多史料，比较客观地梳理了西藏问题的来龙去脉。
  •     [PKU/preserved]K297.5/41
  •     PDF打印胶装本。前面的三分之一不但啰嗦，而且错误很多，校对不精，比期望的差很多，没有什么特别的观点。校勘：P88，乱码；P108，受权——授权；P234，第一段引文最后一句应该是正文；P271，又悦变成？等等
  •     客观。它既非黑暗的奴隶社会，亦非传说中的香格里拉
  •     没《喇嘛王国的覆灭》详实，但1959年之后的西藏史翻译过来的也就这本了吧，
  •     还原历史，让你了解59年西藏叛乱的前前后后
  •     古代史部分一笔带过，以至于象雄文直接凭空消失：西藏7世纪前没有文字。
  •     资料纰漏较多
  •     内容详实，不过不太客观。
  •     比较客观
 

外国儿童文学,篆刻,百科,生物科学,科普,初中通用,育儿亲子,美容护肤PDF图书下载,。 零度图书网 

零度图书网 @ 2024