Origami activism, inalienable collections, and crumbling concrete: Material engagements with Histories of violence

Abstract

The World War II mass incarceration of Japanese Americans was a traumatic event that had lasting repercussions on multiple communities. Archaeologists have sought to productively pursue community-based methodologies in studying this period, employing object-based oral histories, outreach events, and community participation in fieldwork. However, less scholarly attention has looked to the ways in which materials have become central to understanding and mobilizing around the incarceration camp history. Acts of pilgrimage, memorialization, scholarly study, and activism constitute key arenas through which this heritage is participated with, each interacting with materials in different ways. This article discusses three cases of material engagements, from the politics of object ownership to origami activism and their importance in reckoning with this violent past. Materials in these cases are not passive objects but rather spur actions and create new publics. Furthermore, the physical qualities of materials shape both the ways in which they are engaged and the politics that surround their rhetorical deployment.

Archaeology in 2022: Counter‐myths for hopeful futures

“…Contemporary and historical archaeologists increasingly demonstrate that histories of slavery, colonialism, dispossession from land, and extraction (theft) of natural and cultural “resources” are what connect nationality and poverty with race today (Bradley and Noronha, 2022, 18; González‐Ruibal, 2018). For example, contemporary human migration and displacement have received increased attention from anthropologists and archaeologists (e.g., Caraher and Rothaus, 2018; Hamilakis, 2018; Kiddey, 2020a; Lau‐Ozawa, 2023; Pantazatos,, 2019; Radzinwinowiczówna, 2018; Rehman and Riggs, 2021; Soto, 2022; Stewart et al., 2018). Contemporary displacement and “illegal” migration are caused by legacies of colonialism and capitalism and “managed” using unethical bordering practices, themselves justified by laws and policies rooted in historical myths.…”