Between the modernists and the traditionalists, it could be posited that both groups of people see the need for a changing of perspectives and ideas as humans progress through the shared experience of life. Even better than that however is the idea that two conflicting groups could acknowledge something that seems to be at the root of the argument. Yet the argument does not remain in whether or not changes in common thought and philosophy occurs, but rather what an informed thinker is to do with such a notion as whether to “stick to the status-quo” or to change and radicalize the popular opinion into something that is fresh and different. As unusual as going against a norm tends to be, it is likewise the only way that real change can ever …show more content…
The popular fake news is hard to avoid when the alternative is real news that does not get received well and is seen as dry and unappealing to the average person. This is where the frustration as a historian comes, because it is almost as if the public is asking for a much more appealing record, yet still expects a comprehensive and correct result on the end of the person that is recording all of these massive amounts of events and deciphering what is of importance to the general public and what can be overlooked for the most part. Himmelfarb has a good rationale for that very issue, citing how the Holocaust has so many individual stories of suffering and anguish that it can be hard to distinguish which ones are worthwhile. Thus, it is concluded that “there are no limits to the kinds of stories the historian might choose to tell and no grounds on which to reject one or another mode.” She then goes on to talk about the postmodernist, and the very fact that postmodernism is breeding graphic novels such as Maus, in which Jews were portrayed as mice to much more dominant cats. While this conveys the message of sheer domination that the Nazis had over their constituents, it still abandons a lot of the sheer gruesomeness that came with humans being brutalized in the concentration camps and such. With all of that humanistic nature removed, many argue that Maus is just watering down the realities of a truly terrible event. So in that regard, many historians must find some comfortable level of exposing someone to something as touchy as the holocaust, yet still convey the themes that hold dominance in that