If memory serves Tibetan independence from China stretches from 1913-1949 which I think signified the end of the first republic (under Sun Yaet Sen, the Father of China) and the assumption of power of Yuen Shih Kai. Tibetan independence never gained popular support in the west or even locally politically, even in the period of independence, and with China wrought by civil wars and Japanese invasion Tibet never sought to assert itself politically as an indepent state, or court recognition.
For some 4000 or so years Tibet has been an integral part of China most of the emperors from the Han, Hui, Mongols and so on offered patronage to it. So in the context of time Tibet as a separate country would appear about as valid an idea as Cornish indepence from the U.K.
I feel Tibet's claim for indepence is as shaky as China's claims over it's Formosan (Taiwan) provinces.
The riots seemed to me to be local Tibetans attacking immigrant Chinese, these are ethnic tensions brought about by the "One China" policy. The protestors killed many innocent people, fact! Fact several shops were burnt down and a family of eight were killed including a baby fact 2 brothers were burnt to death in their shop, fact 3 teenaged girls (shop assistants) were killed in a shp fire, many more lives were blighted by the violence by the demonstators.
Tibetans were traditionally a nomadic farming people, this life is dying out, the Chinese are merchants richer Chinese people are moving in and causing locals alarm by pricing them out of the markets (sound familiar?) before people get dewy eyed over Tibetan nomads and their lifestyle look at the work ROCPA (an NGO) does for them.
I would'nt be so quick to venerate either side just yet. It's a bit more complicated than it seems.
A bit of controversy to liven it up...