Intolerance In The Crucible

Intolerance is not a new idea as can be seen in the play The Crucible written by Arthur Miller, which takes place in 1692 during the Salem Witch Trials. The Puritans specialized in narrow-minded beliefs as anyone who did not conform to their ideals was not tolerated in their society. Without their ignorance, it would have been much harder for the Witch Trials to occur if they did at all. It may seem like dangerous intolerance is an ancient concept, but discrimination lives on in today’s society. Recently, a 14 year old Muslim boy, who was an avid engineering student, was believed to have brought a bomb to school, however it was a clock he had made at home. It is blatant that the teacher took part in racial profiling and believed the young boy …show more content…
There has been a realization among many as they hear about this not so peculiar case. This Muslim boy was seen as incapable of innocent tinkering, while if he had been white he would have been praised for his dedication to engineering. This kind of racial profiling is an abomination and deserves the attention being given to it in the media. Conversely, in The Crucible, those who are not as religious or seem to be outcasts are subject to suspicion on them. Citizens who do not go to church often, like John Proctor, and those who are older and more isolated are assumed to be hiding something and are persecuted for it. The treatment of the people in both situations is completely indignant as if they looked or acted different they would not be in said …show more content…
In Ahmed Mohamed’s case, he showed the clock to police and explained how it worked. Even with the undeniable proof that he had simply made a clock and brought it to school to show his teachers, he was still suspended and treated as a criminal. Similarly, in Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible, John Proctor came up with very good evidence supporting his innocence, and that evidence was Mary Warren. She was once a girl who accused people of witchcraft and claimed to have seen them with the Devil. Once she came out and admitted she was lying, it should have been case closed, or at least case open for discussion. Instead, all her adversaries had to do was reiterate that they are not lying. After this, Mary Warren was not seen as a credible witness and John Proctor was back to being prosecuted. Whether it was Salem in 1692, or Texas in 2015, the people involved were guilty from the start and could virtually not be seen as innocent to those accusing