History as Propaganda: Tibetan Exiles Versus the People’s Republic of China serves as adequate proof that John Powers (1945- 2013) had reached the zenith of his career when he wrote the book. The book is not only well written but also meticulously researched and tightly argued. John plunges deep into Tibetan history—which is a historical hot potato— and acknowledges that little ambiguity or nuance is inherent in most current publications regarding Tibet. The author also believes that many contemporary works concerning Tibet are encompassed with some of the most emotionally charged rhetoric which is not steered by facts.  Over the years, polarized debates have existed among researchers on how Tibetan history should be construed. There are two sides to the Tibetan history—that is, Chinese and Tibetans perspectives—and both are mutually incompatible, and the involved parties firmly believe their respective narratives. ,  Consequently, it becomes apparent that the historical contents of Tibetan and Chinese writers are subject to certain psychological context whereby specific hypothesis lead their inquiry and predetermine their findings. As a result, the book attempts to clarify all the aspects that encompass the Tibetan history regarding the conflicting rhetoric and incompatible narratives of Chinese and Tibetans.

The mind-boggling questions when reading the book concerns the validity of the sources used by the author and what the book stands for regarding the issue it attempts to clarify. These rationales are based on the fact that John used preexisting research findings on Tibetan history yet he also claimed that history has no meaning because it is encompassed with socially held biases of its authors.  John also refrained from judging the veracity of the various information written by the Chinese and Tibetan writers by representing the two positions in a balanced manner. This particular action by John is the crux in the success of the book since it proves invaluable in explaining why arcane vestiges of the past are vital to the two parties, and they contribute in the making of their respective nationalist narratives.  To illustrate, the reasons why the Chinese took over Tibet in the 1950s is well justified in the Chinese tales. Conversely, Tibetan historians have a different version of the narrative. Tibet’s version of the story is one that does not involve China, and it hurls it to the periphery by claiming that Tibet derived its identity from India.

The book excels at exploring the ideology that underlies the concern of China with Tibet and its willingness to shoulder global criticisms regarding its treatment of Tibetans. The book also draws its success by critically analyzing major aspects of Tibetan history and how they have been modified to run parallel to the respective narratives of the two groups. Based on the book, one major conclusion is that the two parties concur how Tibetan history transpired but vehemently disagree on the physiological motives they credit to historical leaders. Tibetan historical figures—for instance, Dalai Lama— are perceived by Chinese historians as loyal Chinese citizens who had interests of becoming a part of China while, on the other hand, they are regarded by Tibetan historians as holy Buddhists with only religious motives. ,  This book is not of much use to those with adept knowledge regarding Tibetan history from the two conflicting perspectives. The fact that the book used preexisting materials on Tibetan history as its primary sources and the basis for its main arguments makes many sections appear contrived and suffer from the same biasness it attempts to eliminate.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?