"Objection, your Honor, the question calls for a narrative answer,” is what a lawyer present at the Salem Witch trials could have declared. This would have diminished the evidence as solely based on a conjecture that can often be misconstrued. Unfortunately for the victims, the trials were purely biased with fictitious evidence; the fraudulent accusations are made obvious to be part of a revenge plot between the townspeople of Salem. Once the accusations are made, they are blindly seen as the veracity by the people. The truthfulness behind the allegations comes into question when well respected folks are implicated. In the play The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, truth is a considerable motif that prompts Reverend John Hale to shift perspectives
…show more content…
He then parallels Hale and his crucible to the McCarthyism trials. The McCarthyism trials were based solely on hearsay instead of hard evidence of one being communist. During this time, Miller was afraid of speaking his mind with the fear that he too could be condemned. He wrote the Crucible in order to showcase how any belief based on mere talk was not substantial enough to base a trial. Yet, that is exactly what happened during the Red Scare. Wildly enough, the people followed McCarthy, “brash and ill-mannered but too many authentic and true,” blindly in his simpleminded claims (Miller “Why I Wrote the Crucible”). It was believed that people were communists just like people during the early 1690s believed that people were witches. Miller bluntly wants to let people know that unless you have concrete evidence for a claim, it should not be proclaimed as the truth, just like Hale did not want to go ahead with the trials until he was sure that everything was right. Miller establishes Hale’s credibility, alluding that Hale 's transformation is well-founded. Because he is a well respected judge, his shift in perspective of the trials is powerful enough to impact the people. Miller incorporates obvious facts to make people see the logic behind Hale’s switch. Miller then parallels Hale to the people involved to demonstrate how they are making poor judgement and are poor arbiters by accepting falsehoods as evidence. By producing an alteration in Hale’s point of view, Miller wishes to show how even if one has a set side or point of view, it is not wrong to look both way before making a decision, that way it can be the most informed decision that is just, and by accepting that a certain claim may not be what one believes, it will
He then parallels Hale and his crucible to the McCarthyism trials. The McCarthyism trials were based solely on hearsay instead of hard evidence of one being communist. During this time, Miller was afraid of speaking his mind with the fear that he too could be condemned. He wrote the Crucible in order to showcase how any belief based on mere talk was not substantial enough to base a trial. Yet, that is exactly what happened during the Red Scare. Wildly enough, the people followed McCarthy, “brash and ill-mannered but too many authentic and true,” blindly in his simpleminded claims (Miller “Why I Wrote the Crucible”). It was believed that people were communists just like people during the early 1690s believed that people were witches. Miller bluntly wants to let people know that unless you have concrete evidence for a claim, it should not be proclaimed as the truth, just like Hale did not want to go ahead with the trials until he was sure that everything was right. Miller establishes Hale’s credibility, alluding that Hale 's transformation is well-founded. Because he is a well respected judge, his shift in perspective of the trials is powerful enough to impact the people. Miller incorporates obvious facts to make people see the logic behind Hale’s switch. Miller then parallels Hale to the people involved to demonstrate how they are making poor judgement and are poor arbiters by accepting falsehoods as evidence. By producing an alteration in Hale’s point of view, Miller wishes to show how even if one has a set side or point of view, it is not wrong to look both way before making a decision, that way it can be the most informed decision that is just, and by accepting that a certain claim may not be what one believes, it will