> The point is that the Dalai was a scoundrel whether he buddied with the
> CIA or not. The "culture" he was defending was a culture of
> exploitation, torture, and tyranny. At worst, either communist or
> capitalist China would be better than the Dalai.
While this is a position to which I am entirely sympathetic in my relative open-mindedness on the issue, I'm probably not alone in acknowledging a 'satiable curiosity (cf. Kipling) and incessant nibbling at the edges of my brain owing to the unusual polarity that exists on this issue amongst otherwise like-minded individuals. Your comment about Tibet having been a culture of exploitation, torture, and tyranny brings to mind earlier threads on the Balkans and the various arguments presented for and against outside intervention, and a similar thread on a now-defunkt list having to with female circumcision in Africa for which I was soundly walloped for my stated perspective at the time.
As I said earlier, the rub in the Tibet issue always seems to be the lack of information re. the feelings and inclinations of average Tibetans. I have plenty of secondhand, anecdotal information on my end from displaced Tibetans here in Minnesota whose views seem to concur wholeheartedly with Richard Gere and the Dalai Lama, but I don't know anything at all about these former residents of Tibet - what was their social/economic status back home, why and how were they compelled to leave, etc. Notwithstanding the well-known barriers to accessing Tibetan citizens on their home turf, it is, borrowing a word from the objectionable John Wayne, *re-god-damn-diculous* that we're not able, somehow, to put together a relatively cohesive picture of the general mindset of Tibetan citizenry vis-a-vis their plight. Surely there would be some accord, some resulting sense that we're on the right path or the wrong in our efforts. Otherwise we seem to be in a fog.
--
/ dave /