While visiting the British Museum’s Silk Road exhibition, a seemingly trivial detail caught my eye. One of the plaques about Tibet also used the word “Xizang”. Although most visitors probably didn’t notice, I realized that the inclusion of that word was a highly political and controversial choice.
I first learned about China’s concerted campaign to replace “Tibet” with “Xizang” (the Pinyin romanization of the Mandarin word for Tibet) last year, when scholar and expert Dr. Gal Lo I was researching an article about. About boarding schools in colonial Tibet. During the interview, I asked him about a video I saw circulating on social media. The video stated that the government is now pushing for Tibet to be called “Xizang”. “Officially, they announced this publicly on August 14, 2023, when they hosted an international seminar on Tibetan studies in Beijing,” he explained. The event’s stated goal was to reshape global perceptions of Tibet.
I asked Gal Lo why she believes these changes are happening now. “That’s a good question,” he answered. “We need to understand the broader context,” he said, adding that China previously lacked the confidence it now has as the world’s second-largest economy. “They now want to call it Xizang to further demonstrate that Tibet belongs to China. This is a big signal from the Chinese side.”
Importantly, Gal Lo pointed out that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is not only advocating replacing the word Tibet among Chinese people, but also to the world at large. . “Not only do they want to use the word in China, but they also want the international community to follow suit and start using the word Xizang.” Now, this strategy seems to be starting to work.
What’s in the name?
Gal Lo was clearly alarmed by this development, saying: “The word Tibet has a long history, over 200 years, long before the Chinese Communist Party came to power in 1949. We’re trying to do that, but it’s not going to work.” ” But he also acknowledged concerns. “At the same time, I am a little worried about this, because if other countries have good relations with China, their media will follow what China says. would say “Saizou”. I hope they don’t do that. ”
“Tibet is no longer mentioned in the official documents of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”
United Front Work Department
Gal Lo clarifies that when he and other Tibet advocates speak of Tibet, they are referring to the entire Tibetan region, including the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), 10 Tibetan autonomous prefectures, and 2 Tibetan autonomous prefectures. He emphasized that This includes parts of provinces such as Qinghai, Sichuan, Gansu, and Yunnan. “What China is trying to do is use the term ‘Tibet’ to refer only to the TAR. So now China is using Xizang only to refer to the TAR.”
One person who uses the broad definition of Tibet is the Dalai Lama. China’s fear of the political power of charismatic spiritual leaders also contributes to the Chinese Communist Party’s desire to redefine Tibet. The United Front Work Department (UFWD), the Chinese Communist Party’s organization responsible for building influence and managing relationships with individuals and groups at home and abroad to advance the party’s goals, is not known on its official WeChat account. , said the term “Tibet” was misleading. The communities, some of which claim independence and their own state, are geographically more widespread. Back in 2014, Chinese authorities expressed concern that the use of the term could benefit exiled leaders.
Since 2019, Chinese state media has been using Xizang instead of Tibet, and in 2023 the official UFWD news account declared that Tibet was no longer used in official Ministry of Foreign Affairs documents. The UWFD account pointed to a larger intention behind the reappointment, declaring that “Tibet is no longer mentioned in official documents of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”
Dawa Tsering, director of the Tibet Policy Research Institute, said: “The most important thing is not what China does. The question is whether the international community will buy it.”
Museums as sites of conflict
The British Museum is not the only Western cultural institution to use the term. Two French museums caused controversy after replacing the word “Tibet” with “Xizang”, sparking local protests in Paris, and in response to a message from the president of the Tibetan government-in-exile to the French government. This led to the change. Actually an apology by one of the museums.
That institute is the Musée Quai Branly, and a spokesperson for the museum said that the museum had been using the word “Xizang” since before China formalized the word last year, and that “it is “It has never been used in India, and the word has always been used when referring to Tibet.” It existed… (but) Tibet will no longer be included in the brackets and Saizo’s name will soon be removed as well. ”
In the British Museum, both words were used side by side. But Tibetan activists in London, including Tsering Passan, say the move is not objective. “The choice of terminology here is far from neutral. It is a political position that denies Tibet’s unique identity and subtly strengthens China’s claims of Tibet as an inherent part of its territory. ” Pointing to the efforts of initiatives like the Saizo International Communication Center, he worries about “the extent to which European cultural institutions will bow to political pressure.”
Tsering Passan’s organization, the Global Alliance for Tibet and Persecuted Minorities, received a letter from the British Museum saying it did not intend to replace “Tibet” with “Xizang” in the label. Activists did not think this was sufficient to address the concerns they had raised. For activists, the inclusion of the word itself is provocative. The British Museum did not respond to requests for comment on this matter.
This case raises broader questions about the ethical practices of museums, highlighting the importance of museums as guardians of historical narratives and their inherent role in shaping perceptions across time and space. It emphasizes its political role. States utilize these institutions as tools to further their given agendas and eliminate parts of history they wish to ignore as a way to control and manipulate collective consciousness. This dynamic becomes even more important not only in Tibet but also in many other hotly contested areas, such as Ukraine and Palestine, where museums are powerful weapons in the battle for memory.
As Phuntsok Norbu, chairman of the Tibetan community in the UK, explains, the Silk Road example relates to “the role of museums in shaping global understanding of actively oppressed cultures”. There is.
The word “Xizang” is hardly recognized internationally, but this is precisely in China’s interests. Tibet has a certain affinity in popular culture and international discourse, reminiscent of the Dalai Lama and the struggle for autonomy and human rights, which is exactly what Beijing wants to avoid. By forcing Xizang into the global debate, the Chinese Communist Party aims to redefine Tibetan identity as distinctly Chinese and erase its unique history. It will then be up to foreign cultural institutions to accept this revisionism.
