Text Analysis –
Williams Jennings Bryan – In Defense of the Bible
Theron has presented a summary of the reading in a clear, concise and balanced way, giving due respect to each side of this highly controversial and contemporary debate. When discussing the reading, it is important remember that not only was the proceeding itself highly inflammatory, but the court proceedings themselves were very unorthodox. Evolution and Christianity were not on trial here. A teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, John T. Scopes, had violated the State of Tennessee’s Butler Act by teaching evolution. What is not revealed in the introduction is that the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) offered to defend anyone accused of teaching evolution in defiance of the Butler Act. A group of Dayton businessmen approached Scopes with the proposition that he “break the law” by teaching evolution to bring the notoriety of a trial to Dayton, thereby gaining national publicity. So while the issue of law was being decided, a greater drama was being played out and the court even allowed the defense attorney, Darrow, and the prosecutor, Bryan(former Secretary of State under Wilson) to cross-examine each other. The conflict between William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow was personal, and the comments that Theron highlights illustrate this point. This trial was a metaphor for two conflicting American interests: urban and rural. This sectional tension has been with America since colonial days. Northern, urban settlers with industrial development more often than not were at odds with the agrarian South regarding customs and institutions. Fundamentalist Christianity was not a new development, either, but rather a deep-rooted part of American culture. Although divergent groups swam in the same Progressive pool, a faction of progressives who believed in efficiency, scientific progress and expert management believed their view was superior to the more orthodox Christian approach to social ills. The theory of evolution wasn’t news either. Charles Darwin published On Origin of the Species, in 1859. What was new was the ability of the media in 1925 to disseminate daily accounts of the trial across the nation. The radio brought the trial into family living rooms where the discussion of creationism v. evolution in public schools would continue to this date. Darrow instigated the “cross-examination” by calling Bryan as “an expert witness.” Bryan never made any claim to be a biblical scholar. This was a courtroom trick of Darrow’s to use his cross-examination techniques to trip up a witness to refute their testimony. Bryan was thoughtful and courteous in response to questions like “do you think about the things you do think about?” Darrow and the ACLU weren’t interested in the legal issues of the trial (as noted above). They wanted to discredit Southern Fundamentalist Christianity and their literal interpretation of the Bible in favor of their belief in evolution.
H.L. Mencken – To Expose a Fool
I also agree that your analysis was excellent. You carefully examine the flow of Mencken’s writing from “irritated but amused to livid.” That is a perfect description. H.L. Mencken’s scathing attack on William Jennings Bryan in his essay “To Expose a Fool” puts modern political pundits to shame (yes, even Ann Coulter). Mencken’s writing is so clever and articulate and the images that he creates are so vivid, that the reader almost forgets to be repulsed at the hatred and calumny contained in this article. The sneering tone of the article implies that anyone who actually agrees with Bryan, or for that matter, lives a country lifestyle is a “yokel” and “anthropoid rabble.” Highly revered as a voice of “reason” by the younger generation in the 1920s, his stinging words were most likely received with enthusiastic endorsement. He was a popular satirical writer and well known for his coverage of the Scopes “Monkey Trial.” Mencken was an intellectual, an atheist and an elitist who was not enamored of populist democracy. His distaste of all things Southern was evident in his writing (even though his beloved wife was from the South). Mencken’s attitudes influenced young college students across the country as he disparaged the “old” and promoted a more cynical, non-religious and urban point of view through his magazine, American Mercury, one of the most influential of its time. This article reveals the ongoing antagonism between modern intellectuals of the 1920s and the more conservative rural residents of America as typified in the heated debate of evolution over creationism.
No comments:
Post a Comment