As you say, you don't have to "like" the Dalai Lama to oppose Chinese imperialism in Tibet -- the "Free Tibet" sticker on it's face just does the latter, right?

As you say, you don't have to "like" the Dalai Lama to oppose Chinese imperialism in Tibet -- the "Free Tibet" sticker on it's face just does the latter, right? But yeah, it's hard to keep it separate. You want to support the people of Tibet, the people of Tibet seem to support the Dalai Lama... not monolithically but it's possible most do... and of course the Chinese invasion and occupation increases support of the Lama among Tibet people, for unity against the incursion, etc. In fact, if China hadn't invaded and occupied Tibet and turned the Dalai Lama into a symbol, then it's reasonable to think it would be much more likely there would be more internal opposition to the Dalai Lama. If it had existed as an independent country all these decades, would it still be that kind of theocracy in 2023? Seems unlikely. The invasion froze Tibetan internal politics. We see this dynamic of "falling in line" against an obvious oppressor all over the place. Like, try opposing Putin's Russian invasion of Ukraine and thinking there are fascists at the core of the Azov brigade and being wary of US/NATO power too. It doesn't make you many friends, you just have everyone thinking you're a traitor on all sides. It's way easier to just pick a side, from what you are told are the two sides to pick from, that everyone else is picking from. AND we see the dynamic all over the place -- invasion and occupation by a foreign entity which exerszies power on ethnic/racial/national grounds... generally leads to more support for local despots than there would be otherwise. The internal conflicts and power struggles and movements for freedom are put aside, as everyone joins in unity to resist the external invader OR as internal politics are just scrambled and destabilized. You never get more democracy from an invasion. (Sorry, Iraq).