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

On Monday, at least 30 National Riot Police officers stood guard outside Colombia's National Museum as scholars, artists and historians convened to address a debate that extends beyond the recently removed objects: who determines how the nation commemorates its past. The museum remained closed on Mondays, but the controversy persisted through Clase a la Calle ("Class on the Street"), a series of public discussions on censorship, historical memory and the museum's role in reflecting a country marked by political strife and cultural diversity.

The government claims a review of museum displays is essential to ensure national institutions embody the entire country and honor violence victims. Critics contend that altering exhibitions without thorough curatorial discussion may marginalize communities and histories long overlooked. Culture Minister Paola Holguín announced the administration's stance over the weekend, stating the government would assess "the museography, museology, and curatorship of this and all other government-mandated museums."

Holguín vowed to uphold the government's commitment to victims' rights to "truth, justice, reparation, and non-repetition," while opposing any display glorifying crime. While the government seeks a unified national narrative, museum critics question whether such efforts can encompass the nation's diverse and sometimes painful histories.

Andrés Góngora, a museum curator, argued that discussions should begin with knowledge rather than conflict. He lamented that the humanities, social sciences, and arts were increasingly disparaged, comparing the museum's older narrative to a procession of "big moustaches" – a chronological depiction of national history dominated by prominent white men, excluding those who did not fit a conservative vision of nation-building.

Góngora likened this tradition to la Regeneración, a late-19th-century political project associated with Rafael Núñez and Miguel Antonio Caro. He suggested that the current situation might be interpreted as a new Regeneración, urging the museum to integrate various histories rather than segregate or favor one version of the nation.

At the renovated Memoria y Nación ("Memory and Nation") gallery, a ceremonial staff from a Wayuu palabrero, or traditional mediator, alongside an ancestral stone necklace associated with the Wayuu, a gold fountain pen used to sign Colombia's 1991 Constitution, and a bar of metal from weapons surrendered by the M-19 during its peace process were displayed.

Góngora emphasized that the juxtaposition connects Indigenous heritage, constitutional democracy, and the transition from armed conflict. He also noted the removal of an object before the latest dispute, highlighting the distinction between earlier changes and the current intervention. Historian Paolo Vignolo stated that the controversy jeopardizes a process of institutional transformation that began in the 1990s, aimed at aligning national institutions with the 1991 Constitution.

Vignolo emphasized that this initiative is not solely the responsibility of the current administration but the result of decades of work by museologists, historians, anthropologists, and various communities. He described the recent intervention as resembling a police operation, rather than a genuine effort. Ana María Forero, a philosopher and anthropologist at Universidad de los Andes, underscored that the National Museum has a distinct role compared to art-focused institutions.

She emphasized that the museum's responsibility is to represent Colombia's multi-ethnic and multicultural identity through historical narratives that do not exclude entire communities. Paola Castañeda, a professor at Universidad de los Andes, argued that the alterations under discussion have evolved over multiple administrations, including policies during Iván Duque's presidency.

Castañeda cautioned against framing the dispute as a conflict between political factions, stressing that the danger lies in an ideology opposed to Colombia's diversity. This includes the exclusion of Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals. Additionally, Beatriz Eugênia Díaz, an artist and professor, argued that the controversy extends beyond artworks, highlighting that removed items included symbolic objects.