View Full Version : My thesis

March 27th, 2009, 03:55 PM
Here is my thesis on The Crucible

Miller tells us that people should question the ethics of their government. This means that leaders who are corrupt should be criticized, not the establishment they run. A government isn’t inherently evil, but its well being is often held at the mercy of selfish and greedy people who happen to be in power. The Crucible holds undeniable examples of these ideas.

Just because one follows a set of rules in a government, that doesn’t mean he or she holds them at heart. Minister Parris is an example of this. He is looked upon as being spiritual, but he is often concerned with material possessions. Having a position as minister in Salem, he feels that he shouldn’t live in poverty. Even though he is paid fairly by the people of Salem, his sense of importance encourages him to strive for more than what he already has. Increases in pay for firewood and the ownership of the house he lives in are what he asks for. But these two conditions are met with criticism by others because Parris is under a strict contract. He simply defended himself by asserting his importance as a man of God, making the need for more seem valid.

A person’s judgment isn’t made more valid by being projected through a state of influence and power. The court in the Crucible would object to anyone who would oppose them during the witch trials. Such would be that Judge Danforth said that people are either with or against the court and that there be “no road between”. By using his apparent rank in power as leverage, the judge was able to persecute others of witchcraft with little resistance. Danforth’s flawed judgment was exposed when he realized that many people died because of him. Having pride and fearing persecution himself, he attempted to make a scapegoat that would take the blame for the recent atrocities.

Having an institution of power makes it easy for someone to take advantage of it to achieve his or her own agendas. Abigail exploited the townspeople by accusing others of witchcraft. This allowed her to abuse the good intentions of institutionalized religion by destroying any who opposed her. So by using people’s fears, a government could become the very thing it wasn’t intentionally created to do. Her influence would even challenge Danforth’s authority when she threatened him by encouraging the possibility of witchcraft corrupting even high-level figures.

A government, in reality, isn’t what defines what it is meant to govern. You can love your country, but that doesn’t mean you have to blindly follow its government. A religion is similar in a few ways also. A religion can be good, but the people who run it are easily corrupted, making it to be a tool for personal gain. Also, just because there is a government, that doesn’t mean even the people in it will agree with it. Often they will change it to their own liking. In conclusion, Miller is trying to tell us that you should be against your government if it is wrong, and therefore should try and change it for the well being of your country and people alike.

Give your comments on it.

March 27th, 2009, 05:00 PM
your theses smell like feces!

gentle pastor
March 27th, 2009, 07:36 PM
You stated fact without giving much evidence.

March 28th, 2009, 02:24 AM
You stated fact without giving much evidence.

oh ya!?!?

well your mom is a bitch!!