The renaming of Tibetan artifacts in French museums aligns with China’s cultural erasure of Tibet, undermining its historical identity and aiding its suppression.

In the hushed, curated halls of Parisian museums like the Musée Guimet and the Musée du Quai Branly, Tibetan artifacts are relics of a civilization rich in theological depth, artistic brilliance, and historical weight. But the seemingly subtle decision to reclassify these artifacts under labels like the “Himalayan world”—or, more disturbingly, “Xizang,” Beijing’s official name for Tibet—is anything but neutral.

Such rebranding reflects a broader pattern of cultural erasure, mirroring China’s longstanding efforts to subsume Tibet into its national narrative. This linguistic shift—at first glance, an administrative or curatorial choice—reinforces China’s political agenda and contributes to the systematic dismantling of Tibetan identity.

The backlash has been swift. Tibetan advocacy groups and human rights organizations have staged protests in France, condemning the erasure of their culture in spaces meant to preserve it. In response, the Musée du Quai Branly apologized and pledged to reinstate the term “Tibet.” The Musée Guimet, however, remains defiant. The resistance to acknowledging Tibet as distinct is not just an institutional oversight—it is an act of cultural suppression that plays into the hands of an occupying power.

Why Naming Matters

Names are not just labels but declarations of identity, historical continuity, and belonging. Stripping Tibetan artifacts of their rightful designation and instead categorizing them under the nebulous term “Himalayan world” diminishes Tibet’s singular cultural and historical significance. It reduces Tibet to an undefined, peripheral region rather than a distinct civilization with its own language, spiritual traditions, and political history.

Even more insidious is adopting “Xizang,” the Mandarin term imposed by Beijing. Translated as “Western Treasure House,” this name reinforces China’s assertion that Tibet is merely a provincial extension of its territory—rather than a land with its sovereign past. This is no mere rephrasing; it is a calculated rhetorical maneuver designed to normalize China’s claim over Tibet.

China’s occupation of Tibet since 1950 has been marked by a systematic campaign to erase Tibetan culture. Monasteries have been destroyed, religious institutions gutted, and monks imprisoned. The United Nations has raised alarms over the forced separation of one million Tibetan children from their families, an assimilation policy reminiscent of colonial-era strategies used to eradicate indigenous cultures. More than a hundred Tibetans have self-immolated in protest against Beijing’s repression. The renaming of Tibetan artifacts in Western museums may seem far removed from such extreme acts of defiance, but it serves the same function—silencing Tibet’s cultural voice on the global stage.

Cultural Genocide and the Role of Museums

Scholar and activist Dr. Michael Van Walt has called this process “cultural genocide”—the deliberate erasure of a people’s identity through language, history, and tradition. Cultural genocide often serves as a precursor to physical erasure or forced assimilation, softening the world’s resistance to more overt forms of oppression. When institutions like the Musée Guimet comply—whether out of political convenience or apathy—they risk becoming complicit in this broader effort.

Museums hold immense power as custodians of history. They do not merely display artifacts; they frame narratives, shape public understanding, and influence how cultures are remembered—or forgotten. Their responsibility is to preserve objects and ensure that those objects are contextualized with integrity and truth.

In the case of Tibetan artifacts, this means resisting political pressure and acknowledging Tibet as the rightful source of these treasures. By defaulting to vague terminology or adopting Beijing’s nomenclature, institutions like the Musée Guimet abdicate their duty as cultural stewards. They choose diplomacy over historical accuracy and, in doing so, become unwitting participants in Tibet’s erasure.

Recognition as Resistance

Acknowledging Tibet’s distinct identity is more than an academic exercise—it is an act of defiance against oppression. For Tibetans, these artifacts are not mere relics of the past; they are living symbols of resilience, spirituality, and national identity. Each mislabeling and erasure furthers a campaign to strip them of their place in history.

Museums that recognize Tibetan artifacts for what they are send a powerful message: that Tibet’s history cannot be rewritten to suit the ambitions of an occupying power. Conversely, institutions that capitulate to Chinese pressure embolden the forces of suppression—not only within Tibet’s borders but on the global stage.

The Responsibility of Museums

Museums like the Musée Guimet and the Musée du Quai Branly must reconsider their role in this unfolding narrative. While they may view renaming artifacts as an administrative decision, the impact is anything but neutral. These choices shape global perceptions and have real-world consequences for Tibetans fighting for recognition and autonomy.

At the very least, museums should consult Tibetan scholars, community leaders, and human rights organizations to ensure that their practices honor the true origins of the artifacts they display. They must resist the quiet creep of political influence that seeks to distort history and erase cultural identities.

The renaming of Tibetan artifacts in Western museums may seem like a minor controversy, but it is part of a much larger struggle—one that extends beyond exhibition halls to the very survival of a people and their heritage.

To erase Tibet from history is to stand with its oppressors. Recognizing it affirms the dignity and endurance of a people who refuse to be forgotten.