WE the People.

The National Constitution center was a very cool place and it was a good place to go to after reading about heritage museums. The center is a place where someone can go to and be proud to be an American. You can go and read the Constitution of America and stand in a room with everyone who signed it. I personally thought that was very cool and gave you a sense of what would it would have been like to stand in a room with Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and Madison during such an important time in the history of this country. Although I though they didn't think they had that much information compared to size of the building, they did have information that you could learn from and see the important cases and events that happened and changed this country. From the Civil War, WW II, Roe v Wade, Reagan, 9/11, and the election of the first black president, it did show how not only how the country changed, but the people as well. Also, you could participate in activities that happened years ago, vote for your favorite dead president, and learn about how laws and amendments were passed.
One thing that I got out of the reading by Natalie Hopkinson, was that it is good to have both National and Heritage museums. A congressmen makes the excuse that only black people would go to a black museum, Native Americans will go to their own place and so on. My question is what's the difference if most of the people showing up to a heritage museum are from that heritage? The article says this is not true, but if it was at least people are learning about their heritage and can be proud of who and where they came from. The historian Faith Davis Ruffins makes a great point, he talks about how everyone knows about MLK, Rosa Parks, Rabbi Heschel, but there are others who you never hear about who fought the cause just as much as these people. And at a museum dedicated to their faiths and heritages, people will be able to go and learn about them.