Perhaps only the author was surprised to find Tibet is no Shangri-la. She needn't have traveled so far to make such a discovery. Or maybe she did. If she has time, I'd recommend a few of the DL's books. He may have a few ideas that seem out of place among his western followers, but he has at least one that makes him unique among world religious leaders. "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."

I'm not sure I understand the tone either. Tibet is etched in the Western imagination because people have heard about atrocities and suppression taking place there for decades. Perhaps it reminds many of aspects of their own country's history they hoped were no longer with us. I think of America's treatment of native peoples.

Interestingly, the author writes "By comparison, it took violence in the streets of Urumqi to awaken foreign readers to the agitation of another of China's minority groups, the Uighurs." Does this really suggest that the violence in Tibet is not an essential factor in raising awareness? How could people mistakenly believe that Tibet is some lovely fantasy world when all they hear about it involves suppression and violence?

As far as that interesting bit about the Dalai Lama's beliefs on sexual matters (and why does that matter? Isn't he celibate? ), I see a person beginning to replace his old, discriminatory beliefs with new, more compassionate ones toward homosexuals. Personally, I believe it is more admirable to be open-minded enough to change one's mind than to have the "right" beliefs to begin with.

Of course, I agree with the premise that we should not deify people, even great people. But let's not brush aside the struggles of any suppressed people.

This piece is facile and phony, beginning with the wannabe controversial headline promising to clarify our misconceptions of what Tibet "really is." No one seriously has thought Tibet is some Shangri-La for over a century now, certainly no one that has gotten beyond TinTin's adventures there.

The rest of the piece similarly sets out a straw man counternarrative, suggesting that the residents of Washington D.C. with Tibetan flags strewn across their yards really believe the "clear as a mountain stream" business the author ends with. No, actually. More likely they think that Tibetan Buddhism and the Tibetan people are under siege by a vicious authoritarianism denying them their basic human rights, and are displaying their solidarity. Perhaps they practice Buddhism or sympathize with the religion's core tenets of compassion, antimaterialism and tolerance. (Oh, and maybe the world woke up about Tibet in 1959 when Chinese military invaded the country? The contrast with Xinjiang is entirely unavailing).

The "rude awakening" the author seeks to deliver about the Dalai Lama also falls flat. No one cares if didn't open his arms wholeheartedly to homosexuality; if the author bothered to reflect on her own descriptions instead of trying to manufacture controversy she would understand that Buddhism frowns on hedonistic sexual pleasure--i.e. all non-procreative sexual activity. Too stern in my view, but hardly something to gasp about.

And did the author even visit Tibet proper? Unlikely, since foreign journalists haven't been allowed there since the protests in 2008. So she extrapolates from Shangri-La Tibetans. Fair enough, I suppose, but a thin reed to write about the place in such a pedantic, aspiringly authoritative manner.

Rather than manufacture straw man fantasies to counter, the author/editors might try to examine what's really going on there. There, as in Tibet itself, and "really" as in taking the issue seriously instead of recycling banal tropes no one believes anymore.

The subtitle at least on the website is tantalizing: "and the Dalai Lama is not what you think." What spectacular revelation does the author provide? Mainly, that his views on sexuality include being opposed to most abortions and non-genital sex. In other words, he is a BUDDHIST, whose views on this topic is in line with those of other major world religions, including Christianity and Islam. She states in the article that most admirers of the Dalai Lama are either ignorant of this fact or inconsistently turn a blind eye. In fact, anyone who knows the Dalai Lama is Buddhist (and I think most of his admirers have figured this out) will be aware that these are his views on sexuality. And as for being inconsistent, just as many American Catholics admired Pope John Paul II but disagreed with him on issues of sexuality, so there is nothing inconsistent in admiring the overall message of the Dalai Lama and dissenting on a few topics.
Peter Vernezze
www.chinafromafar.com

I agree with the previous comments I see here, that this article is pretty empty and pointless. But the banality of the piece is my least concern.

My major problem with this piece is the implicit assumption that international goodwill the Dalai Lama enjoys is based on an ignorant idealization of Tibet and its history. Most of us have come to accept that Tibet's fate was sealed long ago and there is nothing more for us to do but mourn its destruction. But we're not about be bamboozled into thinking that it's somehow OK just because it was never paradise.

The subtitle of this article is "And the Dalai Lama is not what you think". And the author's rationale is Dalai Lama's stance on sexual practice. Maybe. But this is not the most important misconception of the Dalai Lama. The most misconception of the Dalai Lama is that he is a man of moral authority, which I think is his main appeal to Westerners. Dalai Lama is NOT a man of moral authority. Let me give one example which is not China related.

He didn't give any support, not even verbally, to ANC's long struggle against Apartheid. For a man that style himself as a leader of an oppressed people, you would think he would be sensitive to other people of the same plight. But no, he didn't even say a word against Apartheid or lend any moral support for Nelson Mandela. Dalai Lama has say that he is a news junkie and a voracious consumer of Western media such as bbc. And he has been on the world scene for a long time. During the 1980s to 1990s when the Western activists were campaigning for the release of Mandela, Dalai Lama didn't say a word on it. Granted, after Mandela was fully rehabilitated by the West and was even feted as a celebrity, Dalai Lama THEN began to mingle with him. There is even a picture of the Dalai Lama holding hands with Nelson Mandela in one of the Nobel Laureate function. But this does not count. What matters is why the Dalai Lama keep such a silence when Nelson Mandela was incacerated in Robbin island in South Africa when he was known to be pretty vocal on so many other issues?

Two years ago South Africa banned the Dalai Lama from attending the world cup soccer, which as serves as a platform on a racism forum. The reason given by the South African government is that they don't want to be distracted by the Tibetan issue had the Dalai Lama been invited. The Western news media at the time speculated that South Africa's subcumbs to China's pressure, otherwise how come such a man of moral authority been barred from attending a conference on racism? China may or may not applied pressure on South Africa. But what is missing in the discussion is the Dalai Lama's moral compass on this issue.

I think this author started out trying to write an anti-Dalai Lama, pro-China article, but could not find much anti-Dalai Lama and even less pro-China stuff to write.

So we have ended with this confused article which tells us nothing.

Is it a surprise that the head of a religious order is not exactly pro-homosexuality ? The truth is that he never attacks gays the way the American right-wing does and he has met with many gay leaders to explain his stand. The other negative thing she has to say about the Dalai Lama was ... I need to read this article again.

Yeah, it is unbelievable how many neo-hippies wannabis have the wrong picture in Tibet. The former government of Tibet was theocratic monarchy, where peasants were exploited to the benefit of a elite of munks and royal family members; it was a feudal system.

1. Being against abortion should not being considered as something wrong by it self. There are many proggressives who do not share the pro-choice slogans.

2. What he says on homosexuality of mostly--though I do not agree on that--is what most religions say about that same issue. Is not big surprise.

Something is always suspicious in such black and white portrayals of good and evil. (China evil - Tibet good). Just as in all things human, there are other sides to the evil story. if you believe in the myth of pure evil (google it) - then its easy to believe china is evil.
My town has many 'free tibet' bumper stickers. Don't get me wrong, I love what the Dalli Lama represents as much as the any peace loving gentle pacifist but I am also not blind nor naive. thanks for sticking your neck out to get people to think.
PS - I HAVE been to Lhasa and surrounding countryside. - not that that makes me an expert in all things Tibetan

Both the Uighers and the Tibetans would benefit as would our American Indians, Inuits, and Hawaiians from a designation of National Cultural Treasures. A people whose cultural traditions require respect and protection from the majority culture in their own province or autonomous regions to the extent to which they do not disappear into the national melting pot completely. that would ease the tensions beteween them considerably
and contribution to better collaborations.

The Tibetans in particular could provide a very useful buffer between China and India and a very useful go between in their understanding and ability to communicate with both cultures.

I totally agree with wildthing's point of view with the tibetans and their benefiting from other cultures, its just a shame about the need to be more mobile.

What's worse than a certain kind of snobby intellectual--with really no experience of China but a two-week vacation--who believes she is doing certain kinds of left-leaning American political elites a big favor by disabusing them of their cultural and political biases? Ms. Larson's piece reminds us that Tibet continues to present a discombobulating problem for many American left-leaning liberals because the struggles of Tibetans can't be linked to what liberals see as a larger struggle against the imperialism inherent in U.S. foreign policy.

It takes a grownup to understand Chinese and Tibetan history--including Tibet's despotic and impoverished pre-1950 social order--without sounding like you're condoning the Chinese occupation. Unfortunately for Ms. Larson, her "Tibet is no Shangri-La" mantra is basically the same one deployed almost daily for 60 years by the propagandists in China's Zh?nggòng Zh?ngy?ng Xu?nchuánbù and Guóji? Z?ngjiào Shìwùjú. Yes, China has a small army of bureaucrats working round the clock whose sole purpose is to inform the dumb and gullible that the Dalai Lama is "not what they think" and Tibetan Buddhist ethics are inconsistent with their "progressive" views. The Xu?nchuánbù is undoubtedly grateful to Ms. Larson for helping it undermine the struggle of a people whose lack of freedoms is documented by every major human rights organization in the world.

Lung Sha Shou

THIS IS THE WORST ARTICLE I HAVE EVER READ IN THIS OTHERWISE FINE PUBLICATION. I wonder that this is because the author seeks not to report or even continue a debate, but to advance a very partisan position almost in the service of the unrepresentative kleptocracy that is the CCP. The author seems to have some kind of agenda else they would not write such meaningless lightweight drivel. Well a traditional 'religious' figure has some concerns re homosexuality and abortion - well he must be a fraud and a demon then -ooh can't trust him.

Dishonestly and disingenuously implies a link to Tibet and then reports about it badly. I've been to Tibet to as have my friends. The Tibetans get a terrible deal. The author almost implies that Tibetan enterprise is real part of the scene and that the youth are not that troubled. Well, have the decency to report it correctly - the people are TERRIFIED, the HAN chinese are often very rich, the Tibetans OFTEN eat out of garbage bins or rummage for food.

All this is not the fault of the Dalai Lama but the criminal unrepresentative bandits who are the 1% CCP Party members that own 60%of the wealth of China. Corruption abounds, violence is extreme.

You bother to write rubbish like this and omit the fact that monks are humiliated and tortured and spied upon and the Tibetan people fearful. You say the Dalai Lama is not what you think - seems you don't lie that people venerate him. He advocates non-violence and has struggled to restrain his people. He has tried to protect Tibet from the ruthless exploitation of the Han Chinese.

I know a lot more of this man than you, and by the look of the comments so do many readers. I also know my forbears fought and died in the struggle against fascism and totalitarian government and countless others risked their lives to do so. Legitimate Governments rule with the consent of the governed, they do not use savage repression and interfere with the rule of law to the extremes done there.

The PRC-CCP criminal gang is an authoritarian, murderous, kleptocracy which butcher’s people remorselessly who they feel MIGHT be a threat because they had an infrastructure which they feared could be used against them and a moral compass which might judge their actions as wrong. For this the very top ranks of the PRC authorised their destruction and permitted the sale of their organs to foreign transplant patients - they lied about this for years.

Before you write such 'lettuce-leaf' twaddle. Look to what heritage you may have in terms of justice and democracy and consider why you abandon such things when considering China. Your take on Tibet is worse than unbalanced; it is poorly researched and focuses on shallow impressions, not the causes of the dreadful situation there. Tibetans are forced into extreme poverty lady, they are not as you describe charging towards enterprise and concerned about being sexy or cool. Do your research. Have you a posting in the PRC for which you are trying to curry favour?

I wonder if the author of this piece is now going to go to Rome and discover that the majority of Italians there are not, in fact, perfect examples of Catholicism? Shocking, I know.

While the majority of Tibetans are Buddhists, they don't all act like Buddhist monks. Difference between laypersons and the clergy should not come as a surprise. As to the Dali Lama's views on homosexuality and sex, I think you deliberately sell him short when you don't allow for the understanding of the four Noble Truths.

I wonder how much money the author Christina Larson received from the Chinese communists for writing this garbage.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama is just a simple monk and deserves none of this slander. All he wants is world peace and freedom for his people.

The Chinese communists have literally slaughtered BILLIONS of peaceful Tibetans since their invasion in 1959. Every single day Tibetans have to fight for their lives to enjoy the freedom that we take for granted, while the Chinese continue to burn down monasteries and destroy Tibet's rich cultural treasures.

The Chinese need to get OUT, OUT, OUT!!!

Martin Luther King probably did not care much for gays and lesbians either, but I don't think people would reproach him for it. What is the point of this article? The author hung out with the one English speaking Tibetan kid around and we are to take his friends' viewpoints and way of life as a study in Tibet?

PS: Marriage between one woman and two brothers is a polyandrous marriage, not polygamous.

Of course, Ms. Larson's piece also aims to protect and defend the president, since his meeting with Dalai Lama is not likely lead to any changes in the administration's foreign policy toward China. And she knows some people are going to be pissed off. But please don't be disappointed you Hollywood seeking-the-Buddha-within celebrities (and big, big Obama campaign donors), you human rights activists, you Democratic Party true believer stalwarts, you anti-China unionists, you trade protectionists, you Robert Thurman Progressive Revivalists, you college campus idealists, you climate change cultists, and others, if there aren't any immediate, tangible results from the meeting of the two Nobel laureates. Besides, the Dalai Lama doesn't share your already enlightened "progressive views;" he doesn't condone abortion (how can that possibly endear him to you, the undisputed defenders of abortion rights?) and doesn't like homosexuals all that much (sorry you Hollywoodites, especially). That puts him about on the same level as--oh my God--those loathsome tea baggers! So, your expectations, while unreasonably high, are also morally misplaced (actually, your "striking absolutism"--your seriously infantile and dangerous idealization of the centralized, culturally homogenuous nation state, and especially you, the idiotic actress who said the 2008 Sichuan earthquake was the result of "bad karma," because the Chinese diss the Dalai Lama--is a huge embarrassment to the progressive movement and us foreign policy wanna be mandarins over at the New America Foundation).

Don't worry Ms. Larson; you'll very likely get your visa for your next trip to China.

In the meantime, here's something to ponder from someone who's apparently a little less morally troubled about Chinese behavior in Tibet than you:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-wells/will-president-obama-keep_b_466617.html

But how much do Westerners really know about the Dalai Lama? That's an excellent (rhetoric) question.

I have to admit, that I probably don't know much, but I do admire the Dalai Lama. After reading the article (and some of the comments!) I understand a little more about this fascinating culture.

The article paints a rather nice picture, but in reality things look very different and a lot has to change in China, that's for sure.

Many western companies rely on cheap workers from China for manufacturing all kinds of products and even exotic things like seo services. But the people in China live under very bad conditions and this has to change.

This article seems like a sophisticated version of what precocious teen-agers write in school when they want to show how good they are at being provocative.

So the point of this article (I think) is that Tibet is not the Shangri-la that hipsters in Berkley and Williamsburg think it is and Tibet's lamas ruled as theocrats and the Dalai Lama has issues with homosexuality. So there Tibetan independentistas! While the article doesn't say so explicitly it sounds like a justification for China's rule in Tibet. I suppose it is good in a sense to dispel a certain amount of fetishistic fantasy on the part of Westerners, but on the big question of whether or not Tibet is a country that deserves to be independent, the past history of Tibet pre '59, or the amount of despotism that it involved is irrelevant.

Consider how many countries used that excuse. For all I know (and I don't!) Ireland before the British took it over could have been a hell-hole. I doubt it, but say it was. Does that negate any legitimate rights of Ireland to be independent? Could you have imagined an article circa 1900 with equally bombastic prose , "Ireland, it isn't what you think. Those happy go-lucky poets and bards hide a deep dark secret. And that Brian Boru, well he was a tyrant! A tyrant I tell you!!!"

This does nothing to address the big issues of what is happening to Tibetan language and culture as Han Chinese continue to move into their country. This tells us nothing about the actual history or validity of both China's and Tibet's claims to the place. For that you'll have to go elsewhere. If you want some simplistic bullet points to look edgy at the next cocktail party, then by all means read this.

HYPERSPACER, your comment regarding Lama was very correct. I personally believes he is not in the correct path what Lord Buddha told for Buddhist monks in 2000 years ago. find more articles

Full marks to all respondents who have failed to see the point of this article. Whether the Dalai Lama supports abortion rights or approves of certain sexual practices (and by the way, you'd find a substantial number of Americans who are far more vehement about such matters than he is) is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand here.

When Zionist settlers and Holocaust refugees established a new state, did anyone insist on giving a similar litmus test to the rabbis (or political leaders) to determine the legitimacy of their cause? Are we going to frown upon Kurds, Uighurs, or other indigenous peoples who desire political and cultural freedom if it turns out that they don't have certain liberal views?

It must be recalled that the central issue here is one of genocide and oppression. There is strong evidence to support the case that Tibet -- whatever the nature of its society over the centuries (and it is not as simplistic as it appears) -- not only was an independent nation for many centuries before the Mongol conquest in 1240, but also enjoyed some autonomy afterwards and was completely independent between 1912 (the fall of the Last Emperor) and 1949 (when Mao determined to reconquer it). There is strong evidence to indicate that several hundred thousand Tibetans were killed (or died from starvation) when their campaign to maintain their independence was crushed by invading Commiunist armies. 99% of the monasteries were destroyed; clergy and laypeople alike were imprisoned, sadistically tortured, and murdered. The testimony of survivors is readily available to anyone who makes an effort to find it. In fact, we desperately need a filmed archive of personal testimonies similar to Steven Spielberg's Shoah project in order to bear witness to the tragedy that occurred. That way no one would be in doubt as to the gravity of atrocities committed.

The question, then, is whether you are moved to support a people whose culture (and population) was so ruthlessly persecuted (again: this is all very well documented) -- and a people who have been ready for some time to leapfrog their Communist oppressors and install a truly democratic society in Central Asia. As for the Dalai Lama, he is to be admired for keeping the Tibetan identity alive throughout decades of minimal support from other countries. The relationship between the Indian government and the Tibetans is more complicated than it appears at first glance. The fact that most world leaders either won't meet with the Dalai Lama or go through all sorts of contortions before doing so is a sign of the enormity of the task that he faces. Credit this remarkable man (see Elie Wiesel's testimony on his behalf) with playing not only a great role in saving his people's culture from oblivion but also with having the capacity to grasp and relate to the modern world, institute reforms, and offer his people the vision of a future that both preserves their culture and takes the best of what the West can offer. Ask yourself: Could YOU have done as well under similar circumstances?

If anyone is caricaturing Tibetans, it is the people who fail to see their struggle as being as legitimate as those of the American colonists in 1776, of the Jews in the 1940s, of the South African blacks in the 1980s, or the Bosnians in the 1990s. The trouble is that we rarely spare a thought for people whom we think aren't very much like us -- we might sympathize a bit, in a detached way, but so what if a few million people on the roof of the world lose their language and culture -- especially when the sleek and ruthless machine that oppresses them is now our banker? Thank goodness that the Dalai Lama is around to remind people that everyone deserves the right to freedom. Without him, people like the author of this piece would be blissfully unaware of Tibet in the first place.

Recently he National Endowment for Democracy presented the Democracy Service Medal to the Dalai Lama, who is already receiving encomiums in the press for his "service to humanity" and the like.

Strange that such a proponent of theocracy would receive a "democracy" medal, but truly, we live in strange times. When the Dalai Lama came to my small town of Ithaca, New York, he and his entourage were treated like royalty. They took over our most luxurious hostelry in its entirety, his personal chef prepared the meals for this "humble" Buddhist monk, and he was greeted with enthusiasm, if not reverence everywhere.

And yet, before the Chinese took over Tibet, brutal as their regime has been, there is good evidence that the rule of the monks in the centuries preceding was more tyrannical, more despotic, more cruel. European observers told too many tales to be discounted of peasants savagely and ruthlessly disciplined, with eyes eviscerated, arms and legs cut off, and of favorite children abducted to serve as household and sexual slaves for the ruling monks. What one would expect of a rigid theocracy where some 20 percent or more of the population lived in luxurious idleness, ruling the populace with strict religious indoctrination and merciless force.

Theocracy now viewed as democracy, courtesy of communism. We do live in strange times indeed.

Living in Tibet before the Han Chinese invasion was no walk in a Swiss park. The vast majority of the people lived in a state of serfdom, while a small proportion of the population, the lamas, lived quite well. Trading one form of oppression for another is certainly no great blessing for the Tibetans, but one mustn't think that Tibet was all sunshine and roses under the rule of the lamas. And the Chinese destroyed many temples and the artworks therein, another crime.

Guccigirl, the current population of Tibet is somewhere less than three million. Your statistic that the Tibetan "holocaust" has killed 37 million people in insupportable.

Most western visitors visit to Tibet with romantic dream,want some miracles happening there.Really speaking Tibet is most backward country.Since from last sixty years China is ruling that country but not open school ,not primary health centre.I was visited Tibet in 1997and spend 18 days there. I visited most important monasteries, visited many villages.I was shocked looking horrible poverty ,lack of medical facilities. there.China not interfered in religious affair people have full freedom for worshiping.Tibetan religion There. is puzzling phenomena.In all monasteries All images of God are Hindu but people are practicing Tibetan rituals.My firm. openion is that China is not interested in development of Tibetan people.China is interested only raw material of Tibet and settle Chines there.
Question of Dalai Lama , actually what he want from China is vague ,what kind of autonomy he want?China is not interested in religion of Tibetan or their way of life.Dalai Lama is struggling only for his image . What kind of progress he want for Tibetans?I observed in Dharamshala and other centres of Tibetan colonies in India what kind of nonsense education Dalai Lama giving to his followers and why he excluded girls from that traditional out date education?To tell the truth both China government and Dalai lama are not interested welfare of Tibetan people. Both wanted to keep them ignorant for their selfish purpose..Young generation of Tibet over throw both of them than only Tibet can make progress in the world

Most western visitors visit to Tibet with romantic dream,want some miracles happening there.Really speaking Tibet is most backward country.Since from last sixty years China is ruling that country but not open school ,not primary health centre.I was visited Tibet in 1997and spend 18 days there. I visited most important monasteries, visited many villages.I was shocked looking horrible poverty ,lack of medical facilities. there.China not interfered in religious affair people have full freedom for worshiping.Tibetan religion There. is puzzling phenomena.In all monasteries All images of God are Hindu but people are practicing Tibetan rituals.My firm. openion is that China is not interested in development of Tibetan people.China is interested only raw material of Tibet and settle Chines there.
Question of Dalai Lama , actually what he want from China is vague ,what kind of autonomy he want?China is not interested in religion of Tibetan or their way of life.Dalai Lama is struggling only for his image . What kind of progress he want for Tibetans?I observed in Dharamshala and other centres of Tibetan colonies in India what kind of nonsense education Dalai Lama giving to his followers and why he excluded girls from that traditional out date education?To tell the truth both China government and Dalai lama are not interested welfare of Tibetan people. Both wanted to keep them ignorant for their selfish purpose..Young generation of Tibet over throw both of them than only Tibet can make progress in the world

It reminds me of Prisoners of Shangri-La (1998) by Donald S. Lopez. Lopez goes so far as to suggest that the Tibetan government-in-exile’s strivings are a coercive scheme, based on expedient constructions of culture and history to launch its “own version of colonialism” (p. 206-7) onto the West. In his examination of H.H. the Dalai Lama, Lopez even represents the Tibetan leader as making a tit-for-tat deal with the West, who in offering Tibetan Buddhist teachings of compassion and wisdom seeks return of his land: “It is this beatific Buddhism that he [i.e., the Dalai Lama] has offered to the West, hoping perhaps to get his country back as part of the exchange. It is unclear, however, why there must be a political entity called Tibet in order for this inheritance to be transferred” (p. 200).

Unfortunately, people like Lopez and Larson do not seem to understand the challenges diaspora communities face in striving for political liberation and civil protection of their respective imprisoned countrymen and women. Tibetans in exile need the West to help them help their brethren still under foreign domination—thus the “Dalai Lama has managed to build an impressive multinational media and public relations,” as Larson writes. It’s hard enough to keep the Tibetan diaspora in solidarity, never mind galvanizing political will from outside to help in their cause. The Dalai Lama is not even calling for outright liberation of Tibet; he simply wants help to protect those who are under a repressive regime.

Well, I literally signed up just so I could comment...

And what is it that I want to say? This article is garbage... I hung with it to see if it would go somewhere - but it doesn't.

FP - you had one chance with me, and you blew it... Now, in all likelihood, I'll never visit this site again...

Can anyone explain to me why this is news and not just an expansive diary entry?

Terrible way to start a Sunday!

What the article seems to miss is that the Tibet you see today is the one that China created. The resettlement of millions of Han Chinese have foverer altered the Tibetan landscape, for better or worse.

On the other side of the coin, Tibetans resent the fact that the Han Chinese have greater earning opportunities but fail to understand that the opportunities would not be their without the Han.

There comes a point in a nations history that the people must accept the fact that change has come and work with it to make a future they can live with.

While working within the framework of what the government is forcing upon them may seem counterintuitve until Tibet has an army that can beat the Chinese back to China there isn't a choice. (ask Native Americans if you don't believe that ). Waiting until the moment has passed will lead to a permanently entrenched underclass with no rights or future.

Now on to more important things. This isn't an article, it is a poor excuse for a trip to Tibet. Three paragraphs in I was waiting for the theme music from Anthony Bourdain's No Reservations to let me know it was time to break for a commercial. And as far as the wedding discussion goes I had this friend named Philip Glass.....

I also just registered to express my opinion that this article was a quite high-school level tripe that didn't manage to make a point, even from its first sentence on: whose popular imagination? You seem to blame the ills of the common Tibetans (capitalism, western culture (smoking, Michael Jackson, moonwalks)) on themselves, not accounting for the destruction of the country that has been going on for more than half a century. What, they now love money? Seeing that money has become their means of survival, who wouldn't?

So it seems your point is: "While most things in life are murky and grey, the Tibet of our imagination is pristine, and the lines between good and evil are as clear as a mountain stream.".

Of course today's Tibet is no longer like that, did you hear the Chinese came 50 years ago? I would've been more satisfied if you had mentioned that before that invasion Tibet had an authoritarian government that treated the common people as slaves -- something that the Dalai Lama admits was wrong, but no you didn't even get there.

Who the hell even has such imaginations? Maybe you, Ms. Larson, and the checkout counter readers you're aiming this article at, if so, why is this article in a site that sounds so prestigious? As far as I know most progressives fighting for Tibet know about its plight, and don't imagine it -- at the present -- to be the Shangri-La.

Hopefully Ms. Larson reads these comments and take the criticism seriously...

I have traveled extensively throughout the world and have spent a lot of time in Tibet and Yunan, including trekking up valleys and over passes where the rural Tibetans live and the Chinese presence is less prominent. I am also the most unsentimental person you will ever meet and the furthest imaginable from the brainless left-liberals, Hollywood-based or otherwise. Having said all this, it breaks even my hardened heart to see Bejing crushing this unique religion/culture by violent repression and, even more effectively, by massive Han immigration. Just travel to Lhasa, walk on the Barkor around the Jokhang temple complex and see for yourself.

If one has to wonder why China invaded just look at the countries trying to sneak in first and awakening the Chinese dragon to the stirrings on their borders off those seeking Shangri La and perhaps a toe hold at their back door. Tibet was a closed country but we couldn't wait to let the cat out of the bag.

The Tibetan situation is complex and this article is too superficial. The author overextended herself by touching on too many different topics - the Dalai Lama's conservative views, the region officially designated "Shangri-la", an amusing encounter with a Tibetan youth, etc. - without ever successfully connecting them or arriving at a particularly insightful conclusion. Basically, her article shows a weak understanding of the Tibetan situation. Sadly, I would say this characterizes most of the Foreign Policy pieces about Tibet. I want to add that the title and tone of this article really irritated me. "Tibet is no Shangri-la". Well, duh. I hope that the fact that Tibetans aren't perfect and that Tibet is a place on Earth (not some heavenly realm), doesn't make anyone any less sympathetic towards Tibetans' desire for basic human rights, meaningful autonomy, and the preservation of their culture. The only thing I enjoyed about this article was reading the comments.