(TibetanReview.net, Oct03’24) – While the Musee du quai Branly apologized and promised, on Sep 25, to restore the name “Tibet” in place of the China-dictated “Xizang” on its displays and documentations, the Guimet Museum of Asian Arts, another top museum in Paris, refuses to come out of its China-pressure despite criticisms from scholars and protests by Tibetans and supporters. The criticisms included an op-ed written by eminent French specialists on Tibet and China published in Le Monde on Aug 31.
While the Quai Branly museum has recognized its error and intends to correct it, the Guimet Museum rejects the accusations, pointing out that the change of name was made as part of a global reflection, and that Tibet remains mentioned within the museum, reported actualnewsmagazine.com Sep 29.
Whether in Hong Kong or Europe, museums that showcase exhibitions related to China sometimes succumb to Xi Jinping’s warning for the arts to foster “correct” viewpoints of history and culture, noted the chinadigitaltimes.net Oct 1.
China decided last year to replace ‘Tibet’ with ‘Xizang’ in all its official documents to make the point that Tibet as the world has known thus far and as Tibetans identify themselves with no longer exists. ‘Xizang’, on the other hand, refers to the China-designated Tibetan region called ‘Xizang Autonomous Region’, which is roughly the western half of Tibet.
Earlier this year, the Guimet Museum renamed certain rooms of an exhibition from “Nepal-Tibet” to “Himalayan World,” claiming that the decision was meant to highlight cultural, not geographical, similarities in that region. This was despite the fact that the museum appears to carry displays of artifacts from across Tibet, of which the Himalayas form only its southern belt.
The real reason for the museum’s censoring of the name ‘Tibet’ appears to be pressure from China. According to anonymous sources from Le Monde, the museum was subjected to sustained pressure from Chinese authorities earlier this year.
In a Sep 27 Le Monde article by Bruno Philip, Tibet specialists criticized the museum’s reasoning. It quoted linguist Nicolas Tournadre, a leading specialist in Tibetan languages, as saying: “The term ‘Himalaya’ is a denomination that provides a cheap way of sidestepping referring to the once powerful Tibetan state. Indeed, the northern slopes of the Himalayan range only form the southern border of Tibet, which, additionally, also has several other ranges, which reach over 7,000 meters high, crossing it from east to west. On the other hand, certain populations south of the Himalayas have adopted many elements of Tibetan culture, such as the Ladakhi [in India], the Sherpa [in Nepal] or the Sikkimese [in India]: They are often referred to as ‘Bhoti,’ derived from the word ‘Bod’ – ‘Tibet’ [in Tibetan].”
“Since the Musée Guimet has no problem talking about Tibetan Buddhism, it would be strange to reduce it to Himalayan Buddhism alone!” Tibet specialist Fernand Meyer, a former holder of the Science and Civilization of the Tibetan World chair at the Practical School of Advanced Studies (EPHE), has said.
“the ‘Himalayan world’ is not a culturally definable entity as such. Rather, it is a zone where the cultural areas of India and Tibet meet. To reduce the latter to its southern, geographically Himalayan fringe, therefore, does not do justice to the history and extension of a specifically Tibetan culture,” he has added.