Modernity usually splits any marginal culture into cultural conservatives who want to remain insular and modernists who want to assimilate into the modern mainstream. This recent example of the Bonda tribe of India is an example. The Upper Bondas want to stay insular, the Lower Bondas want to assimilate.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/in...

Ironically, mainstream modern progressives typically support marginal conservatives because they value the increased "ethnic" diversity in the mainstream, while mainstream modern conservatives typically support assimilation to strengthen their own insularity. In the US for instance, Democrats want Mexican immigrants to retain Spanish-centric culture while Republicans want them to anglicize.

Historically, what has actually happened is economic and technological integration without cultural assimilation. Marginal cultures effectively translate modernity into their own cultural terms to some extent and port their culture to run on modern technologies and economic mechanisms. This increases pluralism in the mainstream while disappointing both mainstream progressives who see a "corruption" of pure marginal cultures and mainstream conservatives, who get pissed that modernity is accepted without acceptance of the culture that gave birth to it,

This is a very good outcome. It's how civilization gets to have its modernity cake and eat diversity too.

When guns are in the picture, as in Tibet, all bets are off. The opinions of the minority become irrelevant to the extent there is violent coercion.