First of all, there was a lot more reading than I had anticipated and one of my books still hasn't come yet so I will comment about it in class when I rent the book from the library or get it in the mail. Anyway, back to my analysis. The readings I found most interesting were the articles in the Public History book written by James Gardner and Peter LaPaglia. The essays they presented in the 1st section were really eye opening and gave me a good perspective on how and why public history was started. I had to laugh a little bit when thinking about the amount of background history both authors used to describe how public history took hold on our society. I did also find it ironic that both Schulz and Mooney-Melvin inferred that the academic world isn't as important or as supportive of public history as they could be but we are reading this in an academic setting. 

I also really liked reading the selling off of the Philadelphia museum's artifacts. I don't really know how I would feel if my family had donated something to a museum and the. I heard they sold it. I'm Farley certain I'd be really upset and feel kind of entitled to some kind of money which would be counter productive to the aims of selling the artifacts. I do understand why they sold the artifacts but still. The museum community does need to make universal rules on artifact selling but even then it still seems kind of weird. 

I was really confused what I was supposed to be looking at with the other web link. I poked around a little bit but I had no idea what I was looking for. After a little bit, I figured out it was a nomination site for the best historical website based on different criteria but I think if we had been given more information as what we should've been looking for it would've been more relevant to our class discussion of public history.