(CNN) -- Consider this. On December 17, 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi, a young Tunisian street vendor, set himself on fire and started a dramatic remaking of the political landscape. The striking of a match brought change not only in Tunisia, but also in Egypt and Libya, and even what is happening in Syria. On the other hand, as of August this year, about 48 Tibetans, mostly Buddhist monks and nuns, have self-immolated in Tibetan parts of China. In March 2012 alone, seven people self-immolated, and Tibetan exiles in India have been setting themselves on fire. The political result? Nothing. So why does the self-immolation of one man accomplish so much, but the same gesture performed by so many others accomplishes nothing? Perhaps the question should be phrased differently, because a closer look at Bouazizi's deed and the Tibetan cases reveals that it is something other than the sheer number of self-immolations that makes them a catalyst for change.
@highlight
Groups: 48 Tibetans self-immolated in Tibetan parts of China without political change
@highlight
Yet a Tunisian's setting himself afire set off Arab spring, he says. Why was that different?
@highlight
He writes: The Tunisian spoke to everyone's despair; Tibetan protesters have varying goals
@highlight
Bradatan: Tibetans are nonviolent, but some may be tired of Dalai Lama's pacifism
Most self-immolators are young -- some are teens -- which indicates that the new generation of politically aware Tibetans might have lost patience with the Dalai Lama's nonviolent political philosophy and want to respond differently to the @placeholder's aggressive methods.