Revisionist History Of The Mad Revisionist example essay topic

The Mad Revisionist's The Parthenon: A Post-Hellenistic Fabrication is an interesting piece, of which there are many different arguments are made in order to prove that there is no apparent evidence that (the Parthenon) was the majestic temple which the authorities claim. The Mad Revisionist is an individual who puts an extraordinary amount of effort into poking fun at Holocaust revisionists, but, at the same time, he also indirectly poses another intriguing question: What if this is true You cannot completely ignore revisionism, even though much of what they argue may appear to be inaccurate. The Mad Revisionist uses a variety of techniques and a heavy dose of sarcasm in order to accomplish this feat. There are also dangers that accompany this branch of history, the foremost being the possibility that there is truth to these theories. The Mad Revisionist uses a number of different techniques to prove his Parthenon fabrication theory. They range from simple sarcasm to finding a weakness in the story and blowing it wide open, not unlike a crack in the sidewalk.

For example, the Mad Revisionist, when delving for an answer to the conspicuous non-existence of two, rather large statues in the Parthenon, states, apparently it was "lost" in the first years of the Byzantine period, after the Roman Empire conveniently converted to Christianity. What a flippant excuse to explain away such glaring lack of evidence. Revisionists are not so easily fooled. Is the excuse flippant, or is it credible I am sure, with a little more research, that one could see that the sources used to establish this point are credible.

This, however, leads to another technique used by the Mad Revisionist: the fact that the evidence is controlled by the so-called establishment, where experts are shepherds to our sheep, we blindly trust that they would never lie to us. Another technique used by the Mad Revisionist is t point out obscure inconsistencies that are probably essentially meaningless. The Mad Revisionist uses this technique to further blur the line between real and fake. When referring to the Parthenon display at New York's Metropolitan Museum, which he recognizes as a fake right away, his further research opens one's eyes to the fact that several of the sponsors of this exhibition had suspiciously Greek-sounding names. This boils down to a sort of conspiracy theory that lies behind this Parthenon fabrication and other historical hoaxes.

Another technique utilized by the Mad Revisionist is that he takes a simple, unimportant idea and makes it seem utterly important to the entire fabric of the hoax. The Mad Revisionist says that the lack of evidence as to the origins of the Parthenon implies a structure that could have been anything a storeroom, a schoolhouse, government offices, or a stable. Who knows The status of the Parthenon should be rather irrelevant to the importance of the Parthenon and the Acropolis and the things learned from its very existence. It is tantamount to saying that the only gas chamber left standing at Auschwitz was a building that may have contained actual showers. As for the Revisionist's final technique, it is one used throughout this essay, as well as the Mad Revisionist's website, sarcasm. There is any number of examples of sarcasm throughout his text There are only two dangers than can be associated with the revisionist history of the Mad Revisionist.

The first danger is the slim chance that the Mad Revisionist may actually be right. If this is the case, then it could have major repercussions throughout not just history but all of society. Mind you, this also raises the issue that revisionism might not be dangerous; it might just be the truth. The other danger is that the revisionism may end up attacking a group or organization that may not respond kindly to this kind of treatment. Many people can view the Mad Revisionist in many different ways; Mainly, he is a fool, albeit an educated one. He does prove to entertain some, but his effects on other members of society may not be conducive to the betterment of today's society, which is what the social sciences are meant to do.

His methods only attempt to disprove what other people have worked hard to prove; they have never shed new light on any part of the Acropolis or Parthenon. The argument is one that is based on a pure lack of fact and is propped up by a variety of logical techniques, which serve no purpose, but to confuse and obscure the truth. 32 e.