终于完成了《雪狮与龙》正文的翻译。
接下来打算把Notes和Bibliography翻译完。Index暂时不打算翻译了，因为在可以预见的将来，本翻译可能将以网页形式出现，等可能会出版的时候再讨论Index的问题。我会在翻译完Notes和Biblography之后，对初稿进行校对；如果有可能的话，请方家帮我做二校。
我开这个博客，很大程度上和这本书有关，各位读者可以参看发愿翻译一本关于西藏历史的书。翻译之初，对藏族了解甚少；翻译过程中翻阅了大量有关藏族历史的书籍和网页，知识也长进了不少；现在翻译完了，可以说在这方面也小有了解，甚至写了一篇处理西藏问题——中程建议。目前，我不觉得藏人神秘、了不起，也不觉得讨厌、可怜，进入了一个很平和的状态。
如我在给Dr. Goldstein的信中所说，我认为这是一本非常好的书：
In November 2005 I visited Diqing Tibetan Autonomous Perfecture in Yunnan Province. After that I got interested in Tibetan, its people, its culture and all. Occasionally I found eScholarship version of The snow lion and the dragon in California Digital Library. Very quickly I went through the whole book and found it really a objective masterpiece in this area. There are piles of emotional slogan from Tibetan exile community and Communist propaganda in real world and internet such that your book are so distinctive.
当然，我看到的历史书还比较有限，以后有机会会读得更多。然而我很高兴这本书给我一个很完整的西藏历史的画面。在中文书中，我要向诸位读者推荐王力雄写的《天葬》，其广度和深度都有独到之处。
昨天是我的农历生日，完成这本书，也算给我自己一份礼物吧。
雪狮与龙 
Jessie
4月 29, 2007 at 12:52 下午
发现你写的东东,蛮有深度的哦~~
应该是学长级的人物吧~~哈哈~~
我是国际关系的研究生~~多交流喔~~~
陳遷
9月 19, 2008 at 12:04 下午
看過《天葬》，非常不錯。
陳遷
9月 19, 2008 at 12:17 下午
你的博客是否可以譯成：生不逢時，日有所思。
davidpeng
9月 19, 2008 at 1:00 下午
谢谢您的翻译。
生不逢时在中文语境里面，有抱怨的意思；anachronist在英文语境中，更中性一点。
我的博客的中文名字和英文名字有不同的由来，也不对应。
Willy
9月 19, 2008 at 5:01 下午
我最近正在翻译这篇文章，可惜功力有限。翻译得惨不睹，各位对些文章有兴趣的话，请多多指教。像我一直很反感政治家们用煽动民族情节来达到他们的政治目的，我认为民族特色就像一件衣服，一个人可以选择它喜欢穿的衣服，美国人可以选择爱中国文化，藏族文化，为什么中国人和藏族人不可以选择爱美国文化呢？而且在我与藏族人交谈给我感觉，无论他们信不信佛，穿西服还是藏服，不可避免地，他们内心的思维机制其实与大多数的中国人差不多。藏族人的民族特色是什么呢？台湾裔美国学者叶蓓，一个流亡藏人的妻子，以她的亲身体验，向大家揭露“民族情节政治”的真相。
原文 http://books.google.fr/books?id=gdGubgTGIDcC&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&vq=emily+yeh&dq=Emily+Yeh&as_brr=3&hl=zh-CN&output=html&sig=ACfU3U0nF76f3bvAuLGP4mLZVFXoK6bObw
Will the real Tibetan please stand up! Identity politics in the Tibetan diaspora
是藏人的话，请起来！流亡藏人聚居区的民族情节政治
Emily Yeh (university of California – Berkeley)
叶婷（加利福尼亚大学巴克莱分院）
In january 2000, I attended a pre-Losar party sponsored by the Tibetan Association of Northern California with a friend whom I shall call Drolgar, a Chinese-educated Tibetan woman who had recently come to the US to continue her studies. Walking up to the bar, she asked to buy two soft drinks in her flawless Lhasa-dialect Tibetan. The two Tibetan women behind the bar, both exiles from India, looked at each other in disbelief, one saying to the other loudly in Tibetan,”Oh! She’s Tibetan! I thought she was Chinese.” Embarrassed, we both took our drinks and walked quickly aways. Several monthes earlier, the two of us had attended another party, this time at the home of a mutual Tibetan friend in Berkeley. Towards the end of the evening, one of the women,who was born in Kham but had lived for many years in India, called across the room,”You knw, I really did think you were a Chinese woman when I met you today. You really do look like a rgya mo.” The same woman had commented to me earlier on how much she thought I looked like a Tibetan. According to another Lhasa woman, now that I had learned to speak the Tibetan language, I had “become the same as a Tibetan”. These and other incidents of mistaken Han-Tibetan identity finally led to a long conversation in which Drolgar ask me plaintively, “I feel I am really Tibetan inside but all the other Tibetans think I am Chinese. How can I make myself more Tibetan?” She went on to explain that when she met other Tibetans she immediately and intuitively recognized them as Tibetan. But, she wondered, if she could step outside her own body and meet herself, would she get that sense of Tibetan-ness which she felt to be her true essence, or would she see a Chinese woman as so many other Tibetans do?.
2000年的一月份，我与一位朋友参加了由北加州藏人协会资助的提前庆祝藏历新年的晚会。那位朋友叫做卓嘎，是一位受中共教育的藏人，刚来美国留学。我们来到巴台前，她用绝对纯正的藏语点两份饮料。巴台里的两位从印度流亡过来的藏族妇女难于置信地相觑而视，其中一个用藏语对另一个说：“哟，她是藏人，我还以为她是中国人。”我们感到尴尬，赶紧拿起我们的饮料离开。几个月之前，我们俩还参加过另一个晚会，那次是在一个我们共同的藏族朋友的巴克莱的家里。晚会快结束时，一个在康藏地区出生但已在印度生活多年的妇女在房间另一头喊：“你知道吗？我真的认为你是一个中国女人，当我今天看到你的时候，你长得真像一个中国人。”就是这个女人，早些时候还对我说，我是多么地像藏族人。用另一个拉萨女人的话来说，因为我学会了藏语，所以我变得跟藏族一模一样。这些那些认错藏人与汉人的事情最终引出了我与卓嘎的长谈。卓嘎问我：“我觉得我内心是一个真正的藏人，但其它的藏族人都认为我是一个汉人，如何能让我更加像一个藏族人呢？”她继续解释，当她遇到其它藏人时，她立即本能地认出他们是藏族人。但她不知道，如果她能够离开她的身体来看看她自己，她是看到一个她一直以为的具有藏族本质的真我，还是其它藏族人一样看到一个汉族女人呢？
The conversation made me uncomfortable: how could I, a Chinese-American, try to answer a Tibetan woman’s question about how to be more Tibetan, especially given deeply held and often politically strategic beliefs in the existence of an essential Tibetan identity, as well as in the highly polarized context of exile in which all things ‘Chinese’ become the ‘other’ against which (at least some) Tibetan self-presentations are made. My usual glib explanation about why I can sometimes “pass” —long hair, turquoise earrings, a lot of time in the sun- seemed suddenly offensive, as if I were suggesting that there was no more to fulfilling a deeply held desire to be recognized as Tibetan (with all its implications) than surface adornment. While a completely essentialist notion of identity is clearly untenable, so too is one in which identity is a voluntaristically chosen act, like picking a set of clothes to wear in the morning. How can one ensure that other people recognize and accept one’s identity as the one that one blieves it to be, especially when categories by which identities are named take on multiple meanings? As Lisa Malkki (1997,71)states in her study of Hutu refugees.
Identity is always mobile and processual, partly self-construction, partly categorization by others, partly a condition, a status, a label, a weapon, a fund of memories, and so on. it is a creolized aggregate composed through bricolage.
这样的交谈让我感到不安：像我这样一个华裔美国人，如何能够回答一个藏族妇女关于如何让她更像藏族的问题，尤其是考虑到现存的藏族民族特性的定义深受具政治图谋理念的影响，而在极端流亡藏人的眼里，所有“中国人”的东西都变成另类，妨碍着（至少在某种程度上）藏族展现出真我本色。我平时不经意的回答，如我的长发，琥珀耳环，长时间的日晒让我可以蒙混过关（让人误以为是藏族女人），（在这样一个谈话中）就显得很不尊重人家了，仿佛我是在建议，表面的装饰就能满足她深切的被认同为（从各种定义上的）藏族人的愿望。然而一个周全的民族特征的定义显然是很难以归纳的。而且民族特征是一个自愿选择的行为，就如在早晨挑选一套衣服来穿。 一个人如何能够让别人也认同民族特征就是它所认为的东西。尤其是民族特征这个词本身也有多重含义。正如Lisa Malkki在她的关于胡图族难民的研究中所说：
民族特征是不断变化发展的，某些部分由自发形成，某些部分由外人总结归纳，某些部分是一种环境，某些部分是现状，某些部分是一种称号，某些部分被人归纳来为作为武器使用，某些部分记忆的积累，诸如此类的，它是一个各种元素拼凑起合的集合体。
This formulation of identity is a useful starting point for raising question about Tibetan communities and identity both in exile and in Tibet. What are the relevant markers of Tibetan identity and how do they differ in different sites of Tibetan identity-formation, particularly in the homeland of Tibet itself, in refugee communities in South Asia, and in the proverbial melting pot of the United States? What role does “categorization by others” play in identity and the social life of Tibetan communities? How is Tibetan-ness understood, experienced, contested, or enacted by differently situated Tibetans and how does this bear on political position, relationships to all things “Chinese”, or the problematics of recognition or “passing”? in this paper I address these questions vis-à-vis the experiences of the Tibetan community in the Bay Area of California, US. To a lesser extent, I also address the cultural politics of Tibetan identity in India, in Lhasa, and in “inland China”(内地) in order to compare different sites in which Tibetan identiy is claimed and performed. In doing so, I wish to step back from a focus on “the Tibetans” as an unproblematic collective to ask instead about the fissures or fragments encompassed within the category “Tibetan”.
关于民族特征的定义的研究是在西藏和流亡的藏人社区及其民族特征很好的出发点。什么时藏族民族特征的贴切的标志呢？在不同地区的藏族民族特征构成上，它们有什么区别，尤其是在西藏家乡，在南亚的难民聚居区，在以民族熔炉著称的美国？外人（关于藏族民族特征）的定义对于藏族聚居区的民族特色和社会生活有什么影响？“藏族的”这个词是如何被理解，被体验，被争论，怎么被由不同处境中的藏人定义，由此而在政治领域，汉族因素，或者令人困惑的（民族身份的）识别与蒙混有什么影响？在这份论文里，我通过对比加州湾区的藏人社区来探讨这些问题，在更小的范围内，我也阐述在印度，拉萨和内地三个地方的关于藏族民族特征的文化政治，以便比较不同地区藏族民族特色如何被定义和展现。因此，我将先不从“藏族”当一个绝对的整体来研究，而是先从“藏族”这个范畴里包括的各种部分及其区别着手。
Although it may well be impossible to talk about representations of Tibetan culture without discussing the way Tibetan are imagined by West, I try specifically to address Tibetan presentations of self to other Tibetans, rather than to Western supporters. I believe this is possible and necessary even if there is “a whole set of multicultural and transnational mechanisms through which “authentic” Tibetanness is scripted by Chinese and Westerners and is internalized by Tibetans in performances..” That is, while mimesis, a complex mirroring relationship through which representations come to affect who and what the represented consider themselves to be, must thus shape Tibetan subjectivities (see discussion of racialised images and “passing” below), an exclusive focus on western representation and consumption of Tibetan culture obscure certain everyday practices which are also partially constitutive of identity. By focusing on some seemingly mundane details of social relationships, I discuss a variety of alternative Tibetan subject positions, all of which are valid and all of which struggle with questions of authenticity.
虽然当提到藏族文化的特征时，就不得不提到西方人心目中的藏族，我尽量阐述藏人向其它藏人展示的自我，而不是向它的西方支持者展示的形像。我相信这是有可能的和必要的，即使由汉人和西方人通过一个多元文化及多民族机制的系统描述一个“典型的藏族的”，并且这个定义影响了藏族人的内心，又在他们的行为中表现出来。这就是一种复杂的镜像关系，通过模仿，那些（被认为是藏族文化的）表征影响了它们认为谁是和怎样才是藏族，并且由此形成了藏文化主体。（请阅后面关于种族特征及混淆的讨论），如果把焦点集中在西方如何描绘藏文化及消费藏文化将掩盖了作为民族特征构成的日常活动。通过聚焦一些看起来平常的社会关系细节，我将从不同角度探讨藏族这一多元聚合体，所有这些探讨都是有依据的，而又被质疑真实性的。
davidpeng
9月 19, 2008 at 7:49 下午
这个网页上这篇文章是不完整的。
这类针对学术界的文章很难翻译，真是佩服您。
Willy
9月 20, 2008 at 4:46 下午
翻译这篇文章有几个原因：
一，在藏区旅游时，许多人向我宣称，他们能一眼就能分辨出藏族还是汉族，而当事实上，他们曾常与藏民交谈了很久，他们不会意识到这就是一个藏民，直到藏民表明身份。
二，我对政客把民族特色当作一个政治武器来实现它们的政治目的很反感，我认为正如许多美国人可以不喜欢美国文化这样，中国人也没有维护中国文化的义务，中国人也可以选择自己喜欢的文化。自作不欲，匆施与人，我觉得也不应该给藏族人维护自己民族文化负担。而许多网友当辩论到全球化下藏族生活的转变时，却不知道如何与雪红雪白那些民俗保护主义者辨论。
三，无论西藏的过去如何，它的未来应该以当地人民的利益来决定。何况如何阅读一些中立的学术资料，就会发觉其实农奴制度下的西藏，农奴的生活并不是如宣传中的那么坏。但是历史没有如果，要不汉族也可以有很多如果。现实是藏族与汉族一样都不可逆转地改变了，现在为了讨好雪红雪白之类的民俗保护主义者而特意去制造民族区别，其实是对藏民的最大伤害。
er
9月 20, 2008 at 8:26 下午
什么叫当地人民的利益？个人感觉这种说法其实是受共产党宣传教育形成的思维误区，人民其实不是单纯均一的，由各种各样的复杂的人组成的，而且就算是一个个体，其内心的想法也可能是南辕北辙，自相矛盾的。造出这么一个抽象的人民概念，然后又从中剥夺个体的权利，这就是这套逻辑背后的现实。
我个人非常同意二，我觉得对于个人权利的保护要优于所谓群体权利的保护，没有个人权利的保护，就没有群体权利的保护，更多的是某个群体对某些个体的迫害。例如，一方面当然是共产党迫害信仰某些藏传佛教的个体，但是另外一方面，你也会发现不信仰某种宗教的人也会受到信仰这种宗教的人的歧视。所以，我觉得最核心的概念应该是个人自由，在不危害别人的前提下，个人有权利选择自己喜欢的事情。所以，中国人有权利选择西化，也有权利选择传统，藏人有权利选择传统，但是也有权利选择变化，没有人有权利强迫别人去过自己不喜欢的生活。
所以，有些传统的逝去差不多是不可避免的，例如中国戏曲的衰落，随着各种各样娱乐的兴起，自然喜欢看传统戏曲的人会越来越少，还有方言和小语种的消失。但是关键是国家在其中起什么作用，国家应该起一种挽救和保护的态度，但是这种态度能够延缓衰落，但是不太可能避免这种衰落的命运。