Who Gets to Tell Colombia’s Story? National Museum on Frontline Over Historical Memory

Colombia’s National Museum became the focal point of a debate on Monday as government officials and experts gathered to discuss the question of who holds the authority to determine how the nation remembers its past. The museum, which is closed on Mondays, was the setting for "Clase a la Calle" ("Class on the Street"), a series of public discussions on censorship, historical memory, and the museum's role in representing a country marked by political violence and cultural diversity.

The government claims a review of museum displays is necessary to ensure institutions represent the entire country and honor victims of violence. However, critics argue that altering exhibitions without a thorough curatorial debate could exclude marginalized communities and histories.

Culture Minister Paola Holguín outlined the administration's stance, stating that the government will review "the museography, museology, and curatorship of this and all other museums under the government's responsibility." She emphasized the commitment to victims' rights to truth, justice, reparation, and non-repetition, and pledged to oppose displays that glorify crime.

However, museum critics contend that the pursuit of a national narrative should accommodate the country's diverse and sometimes painful histories. Andrés Góngora, a museum curator, argued that the response should begin with knowledge rather than confrontation. He lamented that the humanities, social sciences, and arts are increasingly being discredited and warned that the current narrative resembles a "new Regeneración," a late-19th-century political project that excluded non-conservative voices.

Góngora proposed that the museum should bring different histories into dialogue, rather than separating them or privileging one version of the nation. In the "Memory and Nation" gallery, Wayuu artifacts, a gold fountain pen used to sign Colombia's 1991 Constitution, and weapons surrendered during the M-19 peace process were displayed alongside each other, illustrating the museum's efforts to connect Indigenous heritage, constitutional democracy, and the transition from armed conflict.

Historian Paolo Vignolo stated that the dispute threatens ongoing institutional change initiated decades ago. He emphasized that the museum's evolving approach is the result of generations of museologists, historians, anthropologists, and communities, and not solely the result of the current administration's efforts. Vignolo described the recent intervention as a "police operation," and noted that previous administrations had disrupted cultural and curatorial processes.

Philosopher and anthropologist Ana María Forero stressed that the National Museum has a constitutional role to represent Colombia's multi-ethnic and multicultural identity through historical narratives that do not exclude entire communities. Professor Paola Castañeda argued that the changes should not be attributed to a single political camp, but rather to a particular ideology that threatens Colombia's diversity.

She warned that recognizing victims of guerrilla violence does not mean erasing those who suffered at the hands of paramilitaries or state actors.

Artist and professor Beatriz Eugênia Díaz added that the controversy extends beyond artworks, as symbolic objects were removed from display. The debate at the National Museum highlights the complex task of crafting a national narrative that honors Colombia's rich and varied history and its marginalized communities.