{"word_count": 409, "character_count": 2644}
 Continuing the question about the definition of museums as an inclusive narrative space, in the previous postcard, where we approached this issue from the Portuguese national museums, we concluded about the difficult inclusion of modernity. There is some tension between the Portuguese national discourse, which seeks to affirm a socially constructed identity, with a deep connection with nineteenth-century historical narratives (of affirming nationalities); and the acceptance of narratives that assume the plurality of voices that exist in their context.Portuguese museological narratives are essentially elitist and univocal (monovocal). Its place of enunciation is palatial, built on an ideological reading of history, silencing communities and memories. It is true that there are some exceptions, which confirm the rules. In Mértola, in the continuity of a work that comes from David Lopes, Borges Coelho, assumed by Claudio Torres in a context of a life dedicated to cultural diversity, some plurality of voices was affirmed. Few influences radiated, although Torres has a (archaeological) school with several works south of the Tagus.We also noticed a concentration of this equipment, qualified as national, in the capital city. Result of the time of museums, it is certain. But also in the city of Lisbon, as we have noted elsewhere (The Role of cultural Diversity for Sustainable Cities, 2018, 144)  Here, too, there is a concentration of “equipment” in its historic and tourist “center”. We are talking about national museums and municipal museums. Contrary to what happens, for example with libraries or as cultural centers, the neighborhoods where Lisbon residents live, do not have museums. There are no museums in Chelas, in the neighborhood of Padre Cruz, in Musgueira, in the Alcântara Valley, etc.There are no memories of the people from Lisbon who built the city, there is no inclusion work or about the diversity of the city. It is not that the work that is now subordinated to EGEAC is bad. The point is that a strategy focused on tourists and elitist narratives continues to prevail.Inclusion and Diversity are now round concepts. Politically correct, they are not critically questioned by museum professionals. What does inclusion mean? Etymologically it means to put inside. As a public policy concept, it means bringing marginal (peripheral) communities to the center of public policy. As the idea of ​​ICOM's DIM 2020 is inclusion in diversity, it would imply giving voice to the plurality of these communities.And how do you work museologically with these marginalized communities to include them in their diversity?