If Heinrich Harrer wasn’t my favorite mountaineer because of The White Spider, he definitely is now since Seven Years in Tibet. Harrer opened my eyes to the sheer grit that a mountaineer must have to live the life of an alpinist. In the White Spider, I was impressed at their lack of sleep on the mountain. If they did sleep, they slept in wet clothes, dangling from inside their backpacks, or on a narrow uneven edge. I have been wondering what men and women with this much intestinal fortitude did with their lives when they were not climbing. The answer lies in the first couple chapters of Seven Years in Tibet. Apparently, twice breaking out of prison camps and being chased through enemy countries is what occupies the down time of a record-breaking climber (sarcasm). I would have thought that being a member of the first-ascent party of the North Face of the Eiger would be the zenith of a mans life; This was not so for Harrer.

I was continuously impressed how Harrer depicted the Tibetans. Harrer wrote of the Tibetans with out a hint of cultural relativity. He spoke well of the locals and understood that he could not judge their life using his western influence as a reference. Heinrich was able to observe this opposite culture with an open mind and learn from them instead of judge their “inadequacy”. For example, Harrer writes of how the Tibetans treat a dead body. The body is left for animals to eat, yet understands that, to the Tibetans, this is more practical. He could have used words like “barbaric” and “backwards”, but he didn’t. He understood and respected that other cultures had different outlooks on life. This is difficult to do, especially from a westerner in the 1940s and 1950’s. His book is less of a personal memoir, showboating his experiences, and more of a history/social analysis of a culture that was not well known at the time.

It is interesting to know how well Harrer thrived while living with the Tibetans. He was able to find employment and become a productive and respected member of the community. He did however have an unfair advantage over the rest of the population. He grew up in a first-world society, where education and health benefits were readily available to him. Once Harrer set foot into Tibet, he was already had the means to be a first-class citizen.

Harrer infers multiple times that the Tibetans were physical inferior to most of the people he had been interacted with. Their wrestlers were sub-par, their “physique” were lacking, as well as their overall athletic ability. I am curious to know what the rest of the class thinks of this. Is Harrer accurate with these observations, or is nationalism so firmly rooted in him that he perceives his own race to be physically superior? I am also curious to hear what the class has to say about his remarks towards women. Harrer notes that the women were lacking in equality, yet they were happy and content with their ignorant lives. He also, many times, remarks on women and their looks, for an extended period of time. Is Harrer a racist and a sexist? I think not. Even though he blathered on and on about the same woman’s appearance, he did so like a gentleman; praising more than their looks, he praised their skills and character. I may have a skewed view on this topic, because I listened to the audiobook narrated by Mark Meadows who possessed a refined sounding British accent. It made Harrer sound distinguished and a genuine gentleman.