A group of Tibetan activists gathered outside the Musée Guimet in Paris on Saturday to express their discontent over recent changes in the labeling of Tibetan artifacts. They condemned the museum’s decision to rename Tibetan exhibits with Chinese terminology, which they argue supports a narrative aimed at diminishing Tibetan cultural identity.
The protest, which attracted approximately 800 demonstrators, followed a report in Le Monde revealing that the Musée Guimet, along with the Musée du quai Branly, had altered the naming of Tibetan artifacts. The exhibits were reportedly relabeled as originating from the “Xizang Autonomous Region,” a term associated with China. Additionally, the Musée Guimet’s Tibetan galleries were renamed under the broader term “Himalayan world.”
Several Tibetan advocacy organizations in France wrote formal letters to both museums, requesting a dialogue to address these changes.
While the Musée du quai Branly has agreed to meet with the activists, the Musée Guimet has not yet responded to their request.
Earlier this month, Sikyong Penpa Tsering, president of the Central Tibetan Administration in exile, voiced strong opposition to the terminology changes in a letter addressed to key French officials, including the minister of culture and the museum directors. Tsering argued that these changes reflect China’s influence and disregard Tibet’s historical autonomy.
“The terminology shifts are pandering to the wishes of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) government,” Tsering wrote, accusing the museums of aiding a campaign to distort Tibet’s historical independence. He added, “It is particularly disheartening that the said cultural institutions in France—a nation that cherishes liberty, equality, and fraternity—are acting in complicity with the PRC government in its design to erase the identity of Tibet.”
Activists claim that by altering the labeling of artifacts, the museums are contributing to Chinese efforts to undermine Tibetan cultural heritage. The protesters demanded the immediate restoration of the term “Tibet” in both museums’ exhibitions, emphasizing the importance of recognizing the distinct identity and history of the region.
