I interviewed my friend Mona, a twenty-year-old, second-generation immigrant who was born in Buffalo New York and is currently a Junior at Auburn University. While administering the questions, I kept to the exact wording of the survey asking 80% of the questions in section I. As the interviewer saw no reason to veer from the line of questioning because the follow-up questions that were asked were diverse and thorough. However, starting in section II (Trustworthiness of Sources of Information About the Past) the questions were formatted in a close-ended scale format, based on the responses that were given by the subject, I made the decision to ask follow up questions because, as I found to be true, it prompted the subject into deeper thought about their answers and the justification behind it. On section IV (The Importance of Various Pasts) minority samples were asked additional questions about the importance of various pasts. Even though my subject would not be considered a part of the minority sample in the original study, she would be considered a minority if the study was to be done in Auburn, the subject being an Iraqi Muslim. Regardless of people’s ethnic or racial identity, there is considerable data that is being missed because this line of questioning is only being asked if the subject is a minority. There are people that don’t feel like they have a common history with other Americans and might more identity with another countries history. It would be interesting to see what, if at all, people that don’t Identify with the United States history would say. What county’s history do or don’t they identify with and why?