I think this is interesting that this pluralistic approach to provenance ends up mapping relationships between parties of interest rather than solely the relationships between parties and the records. In the minds of most people, archival or memory work seems to be one of primarily capture, a recording of some phenomenon, endogenous with respect to the individual/institution that is recording. And in the case of colonial violence, there is very much an incentive for the instigator of the violence, not to record the violence as brutal violence. I imagine a lot of lost history or the lack of documentation of this violence is done behind closed doors, or perpetrated through under-the-table interactions. So, mapping the relationships between the perpetrators of imperial violence and the colonized will in fact act as a kind of indicator or a kind of trace that something did happen or sprung up out of this particular relationship.

Not really a translatable argument. It's silly to think that sustained symbolic violence evidencing historical instances of real racial violence can be likened to a crime of passion and subject to similar judicial protocols. Exhibiting racist artifacts is also to a certain degree platforming the racist contexts and hands behind their creation, especially if they are displayed or exhibited in a setting where their violent origins aren't put at the forefront or immediately publicly-facing.