Posted By:
JoannBryan,
You make very good points about the uniqueness and irreplacability of many of these items, and I completely agree with them. But I think the argument you make may be too far the other way (and I really don't mean you as an individual, but similar arguments made by others as well).
When you ask if we've ever seen a Cobb jersey, my answer would be no. But if ALL Cobb jerseys are in the hands of private collectors, my answer for alltime would be no because there would never be an opportunity for me to see one. The only way I could see one is in a museum.
So go to a museum, right? Maybe. Museums are accessbile to varying degrees depending on how many and location. Some people can't get to, say, the Hall of Fame to see a Cobb jersey. So ... I guess my first point is that the argument to preserve makes perfect sense so long as at least some of the intact versions that remain are reasonably accessible to the public.
Private collectors preserving for "future generations"? Again, that seems to imply the collective good of future generations. If it means future generations of private individuals (eg, over the next 1000 years the Cobb jersey could conceivably be owned and therefore seen by only 30 or so individuals -assuming a generation is approx 3/100 years), then to what purpose is it being preserved? At what point does preservation for preservation's sake miss it's own point?
I don't think there's a good answer. You are so right - you destroy a single object, or a 1 of 5, or whatever, it can never be recovered for the end of time. But the altruistic desire (which, by the way, I completely share) that these items be preserved for others is frustrated by the fact that the preservation is often for the benefit of only a very few.
So if preservation is going to primarily benefit private individuals, is there an argument that the private enjoyment could be more widespread and egalitarian by dispersing small pieces of the whole? And if they should stay intact, shouldn't they be more publicly accessible? And on the other hand, aren't there rights of individuals to own property that need to be considered, even if the property is unique and could be enjoyed via public display? This is America after all, right?
I don't know the answer to these. Balancing the interests of preserving intact rare specimens and allowing enjoyment that is not based on financial status can probably best be resolved by having at least some on public display.
Barring public display - intact for the benefit of a few, or dismembered for the benefit of the many? I'll leave that to wiser people than me!
Joann