"Transforming multiculturalism from a challenge into an asset” is one of the guiding themes of your course. Could you explain what this means in practice and why it's particularly relevant for cultural professionals today?
Transforming multiculturalism from a challenge into an asset means moving beyond seeing cultural diversity as something to manage or tolerate and instead recognising it as a vital resource that enriches professional practice. In practice, this requires acknowledging that each person’s cultural background shapes how they view history, society, and institutions – including museums – and that these differences influence collaboration in profound ways. Even in contexts where we assume we are “armed” to handle diversity, working together on shared projects can be challenging, as our assumptions, vocabularies, and professional standards often differ. For instance, reevaluating terms like the “discovery” of the Americas highlights that language carries deep cultural meaning, but vocabulary is just the surface: our professional approaches, ethical frameworks, and ways of knowing are all culturally framed.
For cultural professionals today, this is particularly relevant because museums and other cultural institutions increasingly collaborate with representatives whose knowledge systems, values, and methods of sharing history do not necessarily align with Western academic conventions. Indigenous knowledge, for example, often emphasises oral traditions, spiritual understanding and communal memory rather than written documentation. To bridge these differences, professionals can engage in practices such as greeting partners personally, sharing meals, and attending to both spiritual and physical well-being – small but meaningful actions that foster trust and genuine collaboration.
Ultimately, transforming multiculturalism into an asset involves rethinking authority and expertise, recognising that academic frameworks are not the sole valid lens, and committing to partnerships that honour the depth of knowledge within cultural communities. This approach not only enhances professional projects but also ensures that cultural institutions become spaces of mutual respect, learning, and shared human heritage.
To look at the concept of multiculturalism, you lay a strong focus on Indigenous perspectives from the Americas. Can you share a bit more about this approach and in which way this might be enriching or challenging for European and international students?
Our approach focuses strongly on Indigenous perspectives from the Americas because colonisation was not just a distant historical event – it was a starting point for profound global changes that shaped modern Western and non-Western societies, including our economies, political systems and ways of thinking. European students, and indeed international students, often learn history from a Eurocentric perspective, where colonisation is framed primarily as exploration, trade, or nation-building. By bringing Indigenous voices and perspectives to the forefront, we challenge this narrative and reveal the deep consequences of colonisation: displacement, cultural disruption, and the enduring impact on land, sovereignty and identity.
This perspective also helps students understand how concepts like the ‘frontier’ or the idea of ‘empty land’ – notions pivotal to justifying European expansion – were socially and ideologically constructed. These ideas were used to legitimise the appropriation of Indigenous territories and resources, and they continue to influence Western thought and policies in ways that are often invisible to us.
For students, engaging with these perspectives can be enriching but also challenging. It enriches their understanding by highlighting the complexity and diversity of historical experiences, encouraging critical thinking about power, memory and cultural exchange. At the same time, it can be challenging because it invites them to engage with the more troubling dimensions of European history and to consider how these legacies continue to shape our societies today. By situating Indigenous voices at the centre of our teaching and museum visits – from collections at the Musée du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac to exhibitions like 1725. Native American Allies at the Court of Louis XV – students gain a more nuanced, empathetic and globally informed understanding of history and multiculturalism.
In your course you combine historical analysis with contemporary museum visits - from the Humboldt Forum in Berlin to the Musée du quai Branly in Paris and the Palace of Versailles. This year’s EUCULTURE students will have the chance to visit the Versailles Palace, where you are curating the exceptional exhibition “1725. Native American Allies at the Court of Louis XV ». What is the main idea in the setup of this exhibition and how does this visit help students integrate indigenous perspectives and values into institutional cultural policies?
The exhibition 1725. Native American Allies at the Court of Louis XV is designed around a remarkable historical event: in the autumn of 1725, five Native American delegates from the Mississippi Valley visited Paris and Versailles to negotiate military alliances with King Louis XV. These delegates represented four Nations – the Otoe, the Missouria, the Osage and the Illinois Confederacy – and their mission reflects a broader context in which French colonial presence in Louisiana relied heavily on diplomatic alliances with Native Nations rather than outright control.
Visiting the exhibition at Versailles allows students to experience history in the very space where these political and cultural exchanges took place. The Palace itself was not just a symbol of French royal authority but also a site where alliances with Indigenous Peoples were recognised, enacted and negotiated. By engaging with the objects and stories presented in the exhibition, students can see how transatlantic diplomacy, material culture and ceremony intersected with the lives of Native American allies.
What makes this exhibition particularly unique is the collaboration with the descendant Nations. Our work with the Choctaw, Quapaw, Miami, Peoria, as well as consultations with the Osage and Otoe-Missouria, ensures that Indigenous perspectives, values, and interpretations of these objects are central. For instance, objects brought to France in the 17th and 18th centuries are treated in the show not simply as artifacts but as vessels of knowledge, heritage and memory. For these Nations, seeing these objects in Paris allows for reconnection with ancestral knowledge, artistic techniques and historical narratives, while also fostering cultural revitalisation.
For students, visiting Versailles through this exhibition is not only about learning history but also about observing how museums can integrate Indigenous voices and ethical approaches into institutional practices. It highlights methods of collaborative curation, the importance of acknowledging sovereignty, and how collections can serve as bridges between communities separated by centuries of colonial upheaval. Students can witness firsthand how the past informs present responsibilities in cultural policy, including respecting Indigenous ownership, knowledge systems and lived experiences.
In essence, the exhibition transforms Versailles from a static monument of royal power into a living site of dialogue, where past alliances are made relevant to contemporary debates about cultural heritage, museum ethics and intercultural understanding. It demonstrates that history is not only something to study but also something to engage with collaboratively, encouraging students to think critically about the roles of museums and cultural institutions in fostering respect, exchange and justice for Indigenous communities.
Many European museums are currently addressing questions about restitution, representation and decolonisation. In which way do you address these questions?
This is a complex and sensitive question, and I try to approach it with both intellectual rigour and humility. Given my education, profession, and cultural background, I cannot claim to produce a fully non-Eurocentric perspective on my own. What I can do – and what I see as my responsibility – is to work critically within the archives and collections I have access to, particularly French sources, to understand how and why these collections were formed, under what political and scientific frameworks, and sometimes under what forms of violence.
In some cases, this means confronting uncomfortable realities, for example, understanding what led European scientists to exhume human remains in response to academic demands. That archival work is only a first step. It must be complemented by collaboration with the communities from which these collections originate.
Through the CROYAN project on the Royal Collections of North America at the Musée du quai Branly-Jacques Chirac, we have sought to build precisely that model. With the support of French and American foundations, we work in close partnership with sovereign Indigenous Nations such as the Choctaw, Quapaw, Seneca and others. This collaboration is not symbolic; it involves joint research, material analysis, shared interpretation, and the co-construction of exhibitions.
Regarding restitution, I believe we must avoid overly simplified or ideological positions. Ethnographic collections are extremely diverse. Some objects were taken through violence; others were diplomatic gifts exchanged between sovereign nations. Each case must be studied individually. In the case of items from the Mississippi Valley preserved in France, consultations with Native American representatives whose ancestral homelands are in that region led to the shared conclusion that many were diplomatic gifts, offered at a time when Indigenous Nations were politically autonomous. This does not erase the colonial context, but it does complexify the narrative.
What has been particularly meaningful for me is that some of our Indigenous partners have expressed that access, collaboration and long-term relationships can sometimes be more transformative than the immediate physical return of an object. One Seneca ritualist, artist and curator, Jamie Jacobs, put it very clearly: the fundamental issue is not always the return of the object itself, but the return of knowledge, techniques and ancestral know-how. If an object is simply transferred from one museum storage facility to another, without revitalising the knowledge embedded within it, little has truly changed.
At the same time, I am cautious about how restitution debates are framed in Europe. Sometimes they risk reproducing a colonial posture, as if European institutions were still positioning themselves as moral arbiters. The more urgent question, in my view, concerns the sovereignty and territorial rights of Indigenous Nations today. Restitution cannot be a substitute for addressing those structural issues.
In practical terms, I address questions of decolonisation through method: provenance research; transparency about colonial contexts; shared authority in interpretation; facilitating access to collections; enabling objects to travel back to communities; and building long-term institutional partnerships. Decolonisation, for me, is not an abstract label – it is a slow process of rebalancing knowledge, authority and relationships.
Ultimately, museums can either perpetuate colonial asymmetries or become spaces of dialogue and recognition. I try, within my field of action, to contribute to the second path.
The interview with Paz Núñez-Regueiro took place on 20 February 2026.