Slatta (2001) argues that the widespread popularization of Turner's frontier thesis influenced popular histories, motion pictures, and novels, which characterize the West in terms of individualism, frontier violence, and rough justice. Disneyland 's Frontierland of the late 20th century reflected the myth of rugged individualism that celebrated what was perceived to be the American heritage. The public has ignored academic historians' anti-Turnerian models, largely because they conflict with and often destroy the icons of Western heritage. However, the work of historians during the 1980s–1990s, some of whom sought to bury Turner's conception of the frontier and others who have sought to spare the concept while presenting a more balanced and nuanced view, have done much to place Western myths in context and rescue Western history from them. 
I have a relatively large committee, compared to the norms for my program. I value all of the inputs and suggestions that I receive from all of them as well. However, I have one individual that is overbearing with their opinions (not the committee chair). All other members have agreed on the edits to my document and have signed off, but this particular person who wants a major rewrite of all but one chapter. They waited until I went to collect signatures to propose all of their changes and refuse to sign until they are made. Many of the edits are based on opinion, not fact and don’t better the resulting thesis. How should I handle this? My committee chair doesn’t seem to want to set in on this issue.