Miller

Despite their final fall out, Arthur Miller and Elia Kazan must be acknowledged for making imminent contributions to the life of man through their liberal and art activities. Each of them consciously took their stance in the pursuit for their self- justification. In deed, The Crucible is a typical representation of the oppressive Catholic and US anti-communism wars. Based, on this, I would like to agree that Miller’s comments on this play for asserting that the Salem tragedy is quite paradoxical and in a way, demonstrate the suppressive autocratic and theocratic leadership styles.

Just like the way suspected communists were subjected to ruthless treatments in the 1950s in the United States of America, an intensive man hunt was launched in Salem to counteract the emerging witchcraft tendencies. This is why people likeSara Good, Tituba and Osburn were jailed and forced to repent.  Therefore, Miller convinces me when he says that all these were done because of fear. Surely, the state was afraid of the possible disunity that was now establishing itself in the society. This is contrasted with Pope John Paul’s efforts to collaborate with the government to use all the possible coarse strategies to counteract communism within their jurisdiction.

Instead of subjecting the suspects to the due process of the law, they are punished. This is what happened to Senator Joseph McCarthy, Hollywood crew and the likes of Sara in the Miller’s Crucible. True to his argument, this is a misplaced priority. Instead of defending the people and serving them with dignity, the government becomes a tool for inflicting pain to the life of its citizens. I agree with Miller for claiming failing to testify. As we all understand, the constitution grants individuals the right speak. No one should be forced to give a testimony in the court of law. Hence, it was wrong to force suspects to name their accomplices.

In conclusion, I would like to say that Miller’s ideas should be adopted so as to create a just, democratic and a liberal society in which the fundamental human rights are safeguarded. There should be a clear boundary between religion and state. Everyone should be accorded an opportunity to exercise their rights without interference. No innocent person should be falsely accused.