...it's okay if it's on the native cultures terms, which some argue is what occurred, and could be argued regarding a place like Bhutan. When you're talking about monarchy though, you are talking about top-down decision-making, and so in Hawaii the decision to say convert to Christianity was not made by the people, but by Queen Kaahumanu who believed the missionaries had cured her of disease. Cultural history so often changes most dramatically from one generation to another, that for Bhutan to take such steps and to try and protect their traditional culture, to which Buddhism is central, should be viewed as a noble thing. I'm sure those who object to the protections such as the Lhotshampa are not happy with the decision, but really, the choice was not theirs to make. Just consider the fate of Sikkim; there has to be some interest in giving the weak nations of the Earth extra consideration in self-determination.
Good night to you white_wolf! 
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read