Nash’s article focuses on the reexamination of symbolism encompassed within the Liberty Bell through use of African American history. Nash’s article targets the INHP and their lack of commitment to create a “close collaboration with historians and other scholars, as well as the public, in arriving at a final exhibition plan” (Nash, 101). Beginning with Nash’s many challenges to change the INHP’s exhibition plan of the White American history, he questions the INHP’s conscious decision to ignore the “deep historical significance of the site” (Nash, 80). This “deep historical significance of the site” revolves around the slavery within the William Master’s Mansion, later to be the home of George and Martha Washington, who was “probably Philadelphia’s largest slave owner” (Nash, 78). Nash argues …show more content…
Another way that they are similar is in the importance of remembering and including histories that are often excluded, resulting in hiding information from the public. Even though the Holocaust and slavery was a national, even a worldwide, issue while both containing history all over the world; Nash and Imort have their subtle differences in how public engagement played a role. While Nash and many others were able to make William Master’s mansion into a central memorial of the Liberty Bell combined with African American history, the stumbling blocks were monuments sustained by individuals (Imort, 233). These stumbling blocks paved the way of mapping out deportation, it placed individual names in front on their last voluntary residence, and there is focus to create a large community in different parts of Europe in order to “exemplify the unfathomable magnitude of the Holocaust” (Imort, 236). Even though Nash explains one moment of historical significance through the Liberty Bell, it does not ignore the magnitude of