French museums participate in Beijing’s erasure of Tibetan identity
Some museums are prioritizing appeasing China over historical accuracy
Originally published on Global Voices
Tibetans protesting in front of Guimet Museum in Paris. Screenshot from Tibet TV YouTube channel
Two major Paris museums are using terms other than “Tibet” to describe parts of their Tibetan cultural artifacts collections, thereby aligning themselves with Beijing’s policy of cultural erasure. This rebranding is now at the heart of major outcry among Tibetologists and has become a heated debate in France.
Tibet as a nation has existed for centuries under its own Tibetan name བོད་ (pronounced ‘böd’), until it was occupied and annexed by the People’s Republic of China in 1951. Since then, Beijing has divided Tibet into several provinces, including what it calls Xizang zizhiqu (西藏自治区), which means Xizang Autonomous Region, and the provinces of Sichuan, Yunnan, and Qinghai. In Chinese, the term Xizang (西藏) literally means “Western Depositary” but is in fact a reference to Ü-Tsang, a historical region of Western Tibet that does not include other parts of historical Tibet, such as Kham and Amdo. It is thus a reductive word that ignores two-thirds of the Tibetan homeland. Chinese language used from the Middle Ages another term, Tubo (which has multiple spellings, one of them being Tubote 图伯特), which is closer to the term Tibet, which itself might be of Turkic origin and means “The Heights.”
In its efforts to unite the 56 ethnic groups that exist within the People’s Republic of China, Beijing has enforced a policy of ethnic and cultural genocide against numerous groups, fearing they might one day want to regain their independence. Those include mainly Uyghurs (about 12 million), Tibetans (over 7 million) and Mongolians (about 6 million).
Faced with harsh international criticism for its human rights abuses and accusations of genocide, Bejing is very eager to push a counter-narrative denying any abuse but also rewriting history to fit its own discourse, including in France, where an estimated 10,000 Tibetans live. The latest example of this Chinese narrative has emerged in Paris, where two French museums have renamed their Tibetan collections as originating from “Xizang” or the “Himalayan region.”
Global Voices talked over email to Katia Buffetrille, a seasoned Tibetologist and translator who teaches in Paris at the École pratique des hautes études, to understand why French cultural authorities would accept replacing the term “Tibet” with alternatives such as “Xizang” or “Himalayan world.” Her quotes have been edited for brevity and style.
Katia Buffetrille, photo used with permission.
La provenance des objets tibétains dans des musées européens est indiquée sous l’appellation Tibet. Or, en France, le Musée du Quai Branly avait choisi Région autonome du Xizang, l’appellation administrative chinoise qui ne correspond que partiellement au Tibet traditionnel; et le musée Guimet, l’appellation géographiquement inappropriée « monde himalayen » en lieu et place de Tibet. Au musée du Quai Branly, la dénomination Xizang a été appliquée il y a plusieurs années, donc avant même que les autorités chinoises ne l’imposent en Chine (2023) tout en tentant de l’imposer également à l’étranger. En ce qui concerne l’emploi de « monde Himalayen » à Guimet, le changement date du début 2024, lors de la rénovation des salles appelées précédemment Tibet-Népal.
Cette année 2024 marque les 60 ans de l’établissement des relations diplomatiques entre la France et la République Populaire de Chine (RPC) et le musée Guimet a programmé à cette occasion plusieurs expositions avec prêts d’objets par la RPC. Fâcheuse coïncidence entre cette année de commémoration et la suppression de Tibet au profit de « Monde himalayen » ? On est en droit d’en douter quand on connaît la tentative de la RPC d’imposer d’inacceptables conditions au directeur du musée de Nantes en contrepartie du prêt d’objets, lors de l’exposition de ce musée sur Gengis Khan.
Par ailleurs, la nomination de Jean-Pierre Raffarin, représentant spécial du gouvernement français pour la Chine, au conseil d’administration de Guimet en mai 2023, tout comme la présence de donateurs chinois tels que MGM et Poly Culture (p. 51 de la brochure Guimet-Chine 2024), dont certains membres sont totalement impliqués dans les politiques gouvernementales , ainsi que le rôle de Art exhibitions China dans l’organisation des expositions interrogent.
The provenance of Tibetan objects in European museums is indicated under the name Tibet. However, in France, the state-owned Musée du Quai Branly had chosen the Autonomous Region of Xizang, the Chinese administrative name that only partially corresponds to traditional Tibet, and the state-owned Guimet Museum, the geographically inappropriate name ‘Himalayan world’ instead of Tibet. At the Musée du Quai Branly, the name Xizang was applied several years ago, even before the Chinese authorities imposed it in China (2023) while also trying to impose it abroad. As for the use of ‘Himalayan world’ at Guimet, the change dates from the beginning of 2024, during the renovation of the rooms previously called Tibet-Nepal.
However, this year 2024 marks the 60th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between France and the PRC, and the Guimet Museum has scheduled several exhibitions with objects loaned from the PRC for this occasion. An unfortunate coincidence between this year of commemoration and the suppression of Tibet in favor of ‘Himalayan World’? Doubt about the realreason [for the label change] is legitimate given the PCR's efforts to impose unacceptable conditions on the director of the Nantes museum in exchange for the loan of objects, during the exhibition of this museum on Genghis Khan.
Furthermore, the appointment of Jean-Pierre Raffarin, special representative of the French government for China, to the board of directors of Guimet in May 2023, as well as the presence of Chinese donors such as MGM and Poly Culture (p. 51 of the Guimet-China 2024 brochure), some of whose members are fully involved in government policies, as well as the role of Art exhibitions China in the organization of exhibitions raise questions.
Global Voices also talked to Tenzin Namgyal, a France-based Tibetan who is also a member of the international Students for a Free Tibet group, who adds:
One of the most famous French women to reach Lhasa was Alexandra David-Néel who made it to Tibet over 100 years ago. The Guimet museum had a whole exhibition about her. Earlier they used to write ‘Tibet,’ now, Alexandra David-Neel reached Lhasa in Ü (short for Ü-Tsang/central Tibet) instead of writing Tibet. This is the background story about why the Guimet Museum has been very fallacious in that their changes are much more insidious and dangerous to me, because Quai Branly with all their mistakes about Xizang, never took out the word ‘Tibet.’
Global Voices also asked why the term “Himalayan art” is not appropriate, given that a large part of the mountain range is indeed in Tibet. Namgyal explains:
L’Himalaya est simplement la frange méridionale du Tibet, un immense territoire qui correspond à un quart de la Chine actuelle. « Monde himalayen » est un concept géographique et ne peut être considéré comme une aire culturelle homogène. C’est aussi une expression totalement étrangère aux Tibétains eux-mêmes qui, jamais, ne se diraient « himalayens ». Ils ne se connaissent que comme « Tibétains » de tel lieu ou telle région du Tibet. « Monde himalayen » est une appellation inappropriée, un moyen d’éviter l’emploi du nom Tibet qui déplaît fortement à la RPC. Renommer les pays conquis est une action habituelle de la puissance occupante qui tente ainsi d’effacer jusqu’à l’existence même, passée et présente, du pays qu’elle occupe.
La fonction culturelle et pédagogique d’un musée doit-elle disparaître au profit d’intérêts économiques et politiques ? Les textes d’un musée ne doivent-ils pas refléter des faits historiquement fondés, reconnus par la communauté scientifique ou leur rôle est-il de servir complaisamment la volonté de réécrire l’histoire de régimes non-démocratiques ?
The Himalayas are simply the southern fringe of Tibet, a vast territory that corresponds to a quarter of present-day China. ‘Himalayan world’ is a geographical concept and cannot be considered a homogeneous cultural area. It is also an expression that is completely foreign to Tibetans themselves, who would never call themselves ‘Himalayan.’ They only know themselves as ‘Tibetans’ of a particular place or region of Tibet.
‘Himalayan world’ is an inappropriate term, a way of avoiding using the name Tibet, which greatly displeases the PRC. Renaming conquered countries is a common practice of the occupying power, which thus attempts to erase the very existence, past and present, of the country it occupies. Should the cultural and educational function of a museum disappear in favor of economic and political interests? Shouldn't the texts in a museum reflect historically founded facts, recognized by the scientific community, or is their role to complacently serve the desire to rewrite the history of non-democratic regimes?
Tenzin Namgyal gives a good comparison to illustrate how erasure is experienced by Tibetans living in France:
Himalaya is a chain of mountains to the south of Tibet. Tibet is 2.5 million square kilometers. Imagine here in France we call the French culture, some sort of Mediterranean culture just because there's the Mediterranean sea. It doesn't make any sense historically and scientifically. And on top of that, when they use Himalayan world, they also erase the very distinct cultural identity of Nepal, Bhutan, Ladakh, and Sikkim.
Several groups of Tibetologists and Tibetans have written letters of protest, some published in French media. Buffetrille believes those actions have had a strong impact:
Notre tribune signée par 27 chercheurs, tibétologues et sinologues, a eu un retentissement qui nous a surpris. La presse, non seulement française mais étrangère s’y est intéressée. Cela montre combien l’image de la Chine s’est dégradée. Il est évident que l’opinion publique française est davantage sensible aujourd’hui aux ingérences de puissances étrangères. Il y a peu, le musée du Quai Branly a reçu une délégation de Tibétains et les a assurés que l’appellation Xizang serait supprimée et le nom Tibet réintroduit. Cela a bien été fait dans le catalogue et devrait être corrigé rapidement sur les cartels des vitrines d’exposition. Du côté de Guimet, rien n’a bougé. Certes, pour ce musée dédié aux arts asiatiques et qui présente cette année plusieurs expositions sur la Chine, les enjeux financiers et politiques sont importants, mais sa réputation et sa crédibilité scientifique le sont tout autant.
L’exposition annoncée pour le mois de novembre 2024 a pour sujet Chang’an, la capitale de l’empire Tang (618-907). Cette période est aussi celle où l’empire tibétain voisin a connu son apogée. Malgré leurs nombreux conflits, ces empires voisins et rivaux entretenaient des relations diplomatiques, signaient des traités de paix et utilisaient les alliances matrimoniales comme outil politique. En 763, les armées tibétaines occupèrent Chang’an, occupation brève mais qui mit en danger l’existence même de la dynastie Tang.
Our essay signed by 27 researchers, Tibetologists and Sinologists, had an impact that surprised us. The press, not only French but also foreign, was interested in it. This shows how much the image of China has deteriorated. It is obvious that French public opinion is more sensitive today to interference from foreign powers. Recently, the Quai Branly Museum received a delegation of Tibetans and assured them that the name Xizang would be removed and the name Tibet reintroduced. This was indeed done in the catalog and should be corrected quickly on the exhibition labels. On the Guimet side, nothing has changed. Of course, for this museum dedicated to Asian arts and which is presenting several exhibitions on China this year, the financial and political stakes are important, but its reputation and scientific credibility are just as important.
The exhibition, announced for November 2024, focuses on Chang’an, the capital of the Tang Empire (618–907). This period was also the period when the neighboring Tibetan Empire reached its peak. Despite their many conflicts, these neighboring and rival empires maintained diplomatic relations, signed peace treaties, and used matrimonial alliances as a political tool. In 763, Tibetan armies occupied Chang’an, a brief occupation that endangered the very existence of the Tang dynasty.
Namgyal concludes the pressure is having long-term consequences that museums should consider seriously:
Common French people who are interested in Tibet and its culture have contacted me and said: ‘I have a membership to the Guimet Museum, which gives you certain privileges. ‘I'm sending my card back with the letter saying until and unless you change it back to Tibet, I will not stay a member of the museum.’ I think that is a very powerful way to put pressure on the museums by members.
At the time of publication, the Guimet Museum did not respond to any of the open letters of protest and has continued to mislabel Tibet objects.