Are there any similarities between The Salem Witch Hunts and the Communist Witch Trials?

Answer 1

I'm assuming you are reading Arthur Miller's play, "The Crucible" -- a favorite in high school English lit classes this time of year, but NOT a solid piece of history. Of course, that wasn't it's main intent. Miller wrote to criticize the McCarthy hearings, and used the Salem witch trials as a vehicle. In the process he changed (sometimes for dramatic purposes or to strengthen his point, sometimes because he probably believed he was being "true to" the basic happenings at Salem).

So the "parallels" Miller draws between the two are deliberate --and many of them are HIS parallels, which might be historically questionable or even outright wrong.

The question then should not be "what are the parallels" but "How does Miller, in his play "The Crucible' draw parallels between the McCarthy hearings and the Salem witch trials. (That's a LITERARY question, not a historical one.)

Even if you aren't reading Miller's play, it is SO widely used in high schools that it is nearly certain someone's familiarity with it is what inspired the question.
______________

An online sources like "sparknotes" can probably explain the LITERARY parallels. But in the interest of HISTORY (which is the subject head you asked under!) I wish to point out a few things that I hope help you begin to get a more accurate picture of what we know about both these events.

To begin with, note the importance to Miller's version of the adulterous affair between a 40ish John Proctor and 17-year old Abigail Williams. Minor historical problem -- there WAS no affair! When you discover that not only is there no historical evidence of such, but that Proctor was actually in his 60s, Abigail was 11 years old in 1692 (and the affair would have happened earlier), it's all pretty obvious.

That's not to mention numerous other errors (deliberate or not) on very substantial matters, such as those about the beliefs of the Puritans (who were generally well-educated), esp. about their views on witchcraft (not a specifically Puritan belief but something common in Europe at that time), how such affairs were handled in New England (Salem was an aberration, charges were usually NOT lightly accepted, and deliberately false accusations were dealt with severely), and the role of Cotton Mather (who was not ever in Salem during the matter) and of the clergy in general. (Miller suggests the affair was an expression of "theocratic rule" --controlled by the clergy. But it was more a result, as witchcraft trials often were, of an fringe area NOT in the control of such authorities.)

A key point here -- it is not at all true that people in New England woud or could be easily accused, or that folks would generally throw around accusations. And it is CERTAINLY not true that someone was automatically considered guilty just because someone accused them.

Miller seems also not to have known about, or to have ignored such important matters as how the matter ended (when they stopped paying attention to "spectral evidence", partly at the urging of Increase Mather --Puritan pastor, father of Cotton) and all the work of apology, restoration and restitution to the families of those hurt, much of it by those who made the accusations ..

As for the McCarthy hearings -- the Senator himself was a self-aggrandizing, irresponsible blow-hardc. and brought disrepute on himself. But that does NOT mean that ALL of those looking into Communist sympathizers and agents in the U.S. government, etc. were simply paranoid. In fact, once the Soviet Union fell we found from their archives the names of people accused of being Soviet spies ... they actually WERE!!

So, based on what REALLY happened... well, the HISTORY parallels aren't quite so neat as Miller's STORY parallels.

Several good sources on what really happened at Salem. Perhaps the best quick overview on the web (with links to more materials) is
"The Witchcraft Trials in Salem: A Commentary" by Douglas Linder
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SAL_ACCT.HTM

Answer 2

i think you're searching for something slightly deeper than the actuality that one among them grew to become into actually a hunt for witches? ... My know-how of the Salem witch trials is constrained, yet my awareness is that their result grew to become into greater alongside the lines of rigidly enforcing particular social values, while the McCarthy hearings worked greater as a rapidly-forward political device.

Answer 3

Yes. Obvious ones. Neither hunt required proof, just accusation. Both relied on testimony gotten under threat, and both were driven by paranoia and ignorance. Do some reading on the subject.

Answer 4

in regards to both trials, only suspicion was needed to burn at the stake (or blacklist) those who did not conform to the norms of society.proof was not necessary