What are our museums for?
Highlight the arts, culture, history, make all this available to mere mortals, in the light of the work of scholars that integrates progress and developments of research and knowledge over the years?
No not anymore. It was yesterday. This was before.
For twenty years, the world of museums has been enlisted in a mission that should never have been itss: we wanted to put it at the service of the “decolonization” of the West.
We will have understood that the decolonization of the West does not refer to the historical period that has been called decolonization, associated with the end of the European empires, but to the deconstruction for our time of our civilization, accused of having in its roots supremacy and discriminatory social structures over large scale. This is the mission of what I call the regime of diversity.
Museums are therefore integrated into the ideological system of the diversity regime and must create a new imaginary for society, produce a new mental space.
In a word, museums have been invited, and indeed forced, in this perspective, to revisit their collections and exhibitions in the light of the radical critique of Western civilization, in the name of the ideology of diversity and minorities which it claims to free , whether they are women, ethnic minorities resulting from immigration or presumed social minorities. Everything will have to pass through the filter of this ideology, which will also demand anti-racism.
This is the meaning of the wake up revolution.
It wasn’t just a question of opening up to these groups or, at least, taking their sensibilities into account. Claiming to speak in their name, and for this reason giving a voice to the most radical militants and activists, it is a question of undertaking a deconstruction of the museum universe to make it an instrument at the service of the western civilization process.
For example, to take up an example that has become banal, we will no longer be interested in Picasso himself, but we will be interested in his “sexism”, in order to deconstruct him and place him in the school of “body diversity”.
The other artists will pass by there, of course. Nothing will be spared.
The case of Quebec and Canada
We are just beginning to realize this in Canada and Quebec.
The duty he mentioned it a few days ago when he saw that the diversity revolution had taken hold at the National Gallery of Canada.
In the name of “decolonization”, its new interim director intends to revolutionize the museum (it is understood that this was also the aim of the previous director).
Some note that he has no skill to run the museum beyond his religious adherence to the Diversity creed – the problem is that fanatical adherence to this ideology is the first of the skills required to function in the Diversity regime. Incidentally, his previous job was a political commissar, as he once called himself: he was “Vice President of Strategic Transformation and Inclusion.”
You had to hear her in an interview with Alain Gravel speak the wooden language of the diversity regime to convince yourself that she has nothing to do there. Alain Gravel appeared dismayed, dumbfounded, almost sorry to have such an uncomfortable interlocutor. One really has to listen to this interview to see how far this delusion goes, which operates in a self-referential and bureaucratic universe.
One day we should be interested in these apparatchiks of the different regime, in this nomenklatura maintained with public funds to re-educate a population accused of bathing in prejudices and stereotypes.
These apparatchiks often have no other culture than their ideology. They are now very present in the field of HR, which they subject to the approach of equity, diversity and inclusion, which is a form of different neo-sovietism.
Let’s go back to the Museum of Fine Arts and its new vision.
The new management also thought, before going back, of canceling an exhibition dedicated to Jean Paul Riopelle on the occasion of his 100th birthday. How come? Too white, Jean Paul. Clear. Or at least he’ll retire next time.
If we hadn’t lost the true meaning of the words, it would appear that this anti-white discourse is pure and simple racism.
purify the impure
Be that as it may, to bring about this revolution at the museum, many people had to be fired. Qualified experts. But they were associated with the Old Regime, that of culture.
But how do the liquidated of the revolution react, interviewed by The duty?
They are angry? Are they rebelling? Well no. They have had their heads chopped off professionally but still profess their adherence to the diversity revolution.
In other words, they applaud those who curse them and, even if they are hunted down and humiliated, they reaffirm their adherence to this totalitarian ideology.
Why do they believe it despite everything? Why do they hope to one day be socially reintegrated and, for this, deem it necessary to maintain their official membership in the diversity regime? Why are they afraid of losing what they have left if they dare to publicly challenge this ideology? Why do they keep their true reflections for their loved ones, yet hoping not to be reported?
We can also see a neurosis in it: they join a revolution that cuts off their heads professionally, which condemns them to the social death penalty, and they regret it – they would have hoped to be spared. The revolution always devours its children and works to purge those who do not follow its pace.
We report this excerpt from a text published on Radio-Canada that represents this logic well.
“Former National Gallery of Canada curator and signatory to the letter sent to Pablo Rodriguez raising concerns about layoffs at NGC, Diana Nemiroff, says she is not against decolonizing the works in our museums. “It’s more the pace. that worries us”. (Note that these words were suggested to him by Alain Gravel.)
I also take the liberty of quoting extensively the article by Stéphane Baillargeon, del Must. It gives us a good idea of this state of mind.
“UQAM museology professor Jean-Philipe Uzel sees in this upheaval “a perfect example” of decolonization. “All institutions are moving towards inclusion, diversity and inclusion (EDI), universities and museums alike, but the NGC is going even further by adding the dimensions of justice and accessibility […]. We must make this observation: museums are colonial institutions and must be transformed. Which creates tension, that’s for sure. It’s a painful process.”
The professor approves of this transfer, but is surprised by the dismissal in mid-November of Greg A. Hill, senior curator of Aboriginal art, which seems to contradict the fundamentals and objectives of the strategic plan.
Mr. Hill also sees a paradox in it, and finds it difficult to explain. He says to Must to have been consulted and to have participated like many other employees in the definition of the revolutionary project.
“I still believe it,” he said. I believe the Museum is moving in the right direction, even in turmoil. I also believe that deleting my position is contradictory. There is no public statement from the Museum explaining how the disappearance of my position helps the implementation of the strategic plan. I wondered for days about leadership for indigenous ways and decolonization.
Note, however, the notable and significant dissidence of Marc Meyer, the former director of the Museum, who accuses the new administration of carrying out a revolution in the spirit of the Russian revolution. He’s absolutely right. He may also have been referring to the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
Because it is a real revolution that is sweeping the Western world, and which imposes, through the different regime, an experience of ideological and social re-education on a large scale, of a totalitarian nature.