Page 127 Seeing #1

    I think Akiko Busch answered her own question best when she mentioned the incident involving the FBI agents snatching a piece of rubble from the World Trade Center. Victim families outrage towards the agents for taking a pieces of concrete, metal, and various nicknacks that would otherwise be a just that without the incident. Its the history that the item held. The emotional and personal girth that compelled the families to protest was the same properties made the agents want to gather such artifacts; to remember catastrophe and reteach it, not to sensationalize it. To hold a piece of history that would otherwise be an intangible to people who weren't there can prove to be valuable tool for learning.  I find this to be the most compelling argument, no matter how monumental or personal an event is, the object that accompanied us through it will be cherished as bookmarks to the past. Though I did think that Ms. Busch covered the more personal exchange of objects from one to another. A necklace, watch, ticket stubs, or even notes, are some object people hold dearly despite what they truly are. Take the note for example, its message can hold a beautiful poem from a loved one or a simple goodbye from a close friend; the word choice and illustration of the message is completely irrelevant to the actual action of the exchange. Its the thought that counts, if taken in a humble sense of the expression, it is the value behind cherished objects