Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Inherit Silent Socratic Extension

We are going to have a silent discussion today.  Please follow ALL directions.  For the first part of class, we will be discussing Act 3 in itself, then we will transfer to real world questions.
 

1.  Respond to 3 of my questions first-please use textual support where need be.  Your choice!
2.  When you are done responding to my questions I want you to ask a critical real world question (in a different text box)  You must respond to one another (at least 3-4 others) and continue to ask more critical questions as you move through.  I want analysis, depth of thought and thoughtful insight.  

1.  Why did the jury find Cates guilty even after there was so much support for Drummond at the end of the trial?  Why did Cates "win"according to Drummond?  What is the personal significance to Cates of the outcome of the trial?

2.  What did you think of Hornbeck at the end of the play?  What impression did you leave with concerning his characterization?

3.  What is the significance of Drummond's final gesture at the end of the play?  (see stage direction)

4.  What did you think of Drummond's advice to Bert with regard to the story he told about Golden Dancer?

5.  What important first in history does the trial introduce?  Why was this so groundbreaking?

6.  How does Rachel change at the end of the play?  What does she ultimately understand?

97 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. The jury probably found Cates guilty because even though Drummond explained that Cates had a right to think, He still explain why he should be let up from committing a crime against a law that the state had passed. Cates still won the case because he stood up against a stupid law and stood his ground so even if he was fined, people everywhere will hear about this law and how a school teacher fought it. The personal significance of this trial for Cates is that he didn't commit a crime, he didn't hurt anybody or rob them of anything, he taught kids things they will need to learn later on in their lives.

    2. Towards the end of the play we got to see Horn becks true self, we knew he was this way but it still was kinda shocking how much venom he had pent up for Brady and the towns people. Even after Brady died he mocked him and called him an unloved child to the nation because he wanted popularity and fame. an impression he leaves us with is his cynical nature which even Drummond does not appreciate.

    6. Rachel's character has really changed. She had more confidence and decided that her father was a jerk and left to go with Cates. At the end I don't think she chose a side; but instead she chose to leave. She decided to run off with Bert. Why? maybe to go to a bigger city, a place where none of this really matters to anyone. I can't fully provide an answer on how she changed because she is evolving and running away with Bert was a big step. She ultimately understands that everyone has their own opinion and ideas and their just gonna be said or done not matter if there good or bad.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Critical questions:
    What will happen to Cates and Rachael now that they have escaped Hillsboro?
    What does the Reverend think of all that has happened?
    Will the townspeople be a little more open minded after this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The townspeople will be a little more open-minded after the trial happened.

      Delete
  4. 1. I think that the jury found Bert guilty because even though Drummond got so much support when he made the great, powerful, and spiritual Brady to actually be confused by the Bible. Another good point that he made was when Drummond talked about Jonah and the Whale and all Brady could say was it was a big fish and that was the only explanation/reasoning that he could think of, or when he talked about the seven day creation period when Drummond proved that the day’s could have lasted more than 24 hours.

    2. Hornbeck throughout the play never really gave us a reason to hate him but at the end he crossed a line when he talked so much crap about not only Brady after he had died but Drummond too. He only did it is because of the trial Drummond opened and accepted new ideas and actually listened to what people were saying and thinking.

    3. At the end of the play when Drummond takes both the Book of Darwin, and the Bible I thought it was a very powerful gesture because Drummonds foundation was built on science, so for him to open up to the Bible is a big step for him, because it shows that even big Atheists like Drummond can accept new ideas and stories which also shows a big part of his character and how he has learned to accept things.

    ReplyDelete


  5. Rachel changed in one significant way. By the end of the play, Rachel learned how to step out of her father's wrath. ex. page 124,”I’m not sure, but I’m leaving my father” She was able to find her own opinion about Bert. I think her biggest realization was that it isn't wrong to believe something different from others.

    My opinion on Hornbeck is complex. I think that what he said to drummond was true. “ Why should we weep for him? He weeped enough for himself.” -Hornbeck, page 125 “Well what do you know! Henry Drummond for the defense even of his enemies!”-Hornbeck, page 126. These quotes both speak truth about Drummond and Brady. I Find Hornbeck to be courageous. He is able to tell out loud what everyone else sees. It is obvious he is intelligent. My lasting impression left me with a realization. Although he is smart, the most intelligent person knows a time and place. I think this could also apply to Bert. If Bert truly believed what he advertised to be truth and accurate. He would have known he didn’t have to break the law to prove it.

    I think that the Jury found Cates guilty because Cates was guilty. Although it is not against the law to believe in evolution, it was a law for teachers to teach it. No matter how correct Cates believed he was he still broke the law. I think that it is difficult to understand that concept because of all the time spent talking about evolution and christianity. I think that in Drummonds eyes, Cates won because not only did he only have to pay 100 dollars, but he also made his beliefs known to the world.more so then he would have if he ceased to teach it in the classroom. Finally, the prosecutor did not get what he wanted which was jailtime for Cates. Cates won because he gets to live his life. ‘“There is one at five thirteen, Bert, you and I can be on that train too!”-Rachel.”I’ll get my stuff!”-Cates.’ Page 128. That intimidates the town because there is a chance people will learn they have a choice. including Rachel. The significance of the outcome of the trial is that it really isn't so sinister for Cates to try to teach evolution. Which contradicts the opinions of the town and Reverend Brown.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 2. I think that Hornbeck really wanted others to just think for themselves and be able to stand up for what they want to but not have to be kind about it since he said “‘Be-Kind-To-Bigots’ week, Since Brady’s dead, We must be kind. God, how the world is rotten with kindness!” (page 127). The impression I got was that Hornbeck couldn’t accept other people’s opinions and that he was just like the townspeople only on the opposite side. I got this impression because Hornbeck said
    4. I think that Drummond’s advice was very inspiring because of how Drummond says "And if it's a lie - show it up for what it really is!" (page 110) which is like saying that sometimes the things that have beauty are really just in disguise. Drummond wants Bert to show others the truth and to help them become thinkers again.
    6. Rachel changes after the trial because she learn that people have the right to think and that she can be whoever she wants to be because “I was always afraid of what I might think - so it seemed safer not to think at all.” (page 124). Rachel begins to understand that Darwin is neither good nor bad; she also knows that what she does understand, she doesn’t like.
    Why do people always fear change?

    ReplyDelete
  8. How can minor conflict be an excuse or loophole to handle other issues?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Minor conflict can be an excuse or loophole to handle other issues by seeing to sides of the situation.

      Delete
    2. Minor conflict lots of times can give people a reason to peruse another idea. In the case of this trial it may be a good thing. Bert was about to be arrested which might not have been minor but Drummond used this case to prove another point. He tried to prove that this law was unjust and just used Cates as a bridge to fight this battle.

      Delete
  9. Why do people always fear change?
    Why are some people scared of thinking for themselves?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think change is so feared because people don't know what to expect. Most people are creatures of habit because they like to know what to expect, but when change comes around we don't know what to expect. That brings fear because you don't know how to prepare correctly or what's going to be expected of you.

      Delete
    2. People can fear change because they like the way things are already. This trial took place in the 1920's where everything was changing, and people didn't want the new technology or ways of living. The same goes for any time period, including today.
      I think people are scared to think for themselves because they are afraid of what other people might think of them. If they think what everybody else thinks, then they fit right in and nobody can reject them.

      Delete
    3. People always fear change because they are afraid to try something new in their lives.

      I think people are scare to think for themselves because they don't want to be judged by others.

      Delete
    4. People fear change because they don't want to realize that they possibly could have been wrong their whole life. We grow up learning one thing so when that thing can be proven wrong, we feel betrayed.
      We are scared of thinking for ourselves because we fear being judged based on what we like. We don't want to be challenged or to have people turn against us, so we confine ourselves to what they believe.

      Delete
    5. I feel like many people are scared of thinking for themselves because naturally, people fear the unknown. Bravery is less common in our society today because people would rather criticize others ideas than evolve their own.

      Delete
    6. Some people fear change because they are afraid of what will change. They fear that change could come and change something they don't want to change.

      Delete
  10. Critical Questions: Why do people think that they’re always right and everyone else is wrong

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because if things don't go their way then they become lost trying to find the right answer, so they tend to avoid the confusion.

      Delete
    2. People like to feel powerful and like they have control, and if they are wrong, then they lose the feeling of power and knowledge. People also like other people to see them as smart, so if they always have the right answer, then people will like them more.

      Delete
    3. people often times refuse to think that they are wrong because the refuse to look at the flaws in their opinion or idea. Many times in arguments people refuse to believe others because they refuse to look from their point of view. I think another question worth asking is, why are people so afraid to change perspective?

      Delete
    4. Probably because people are stubborn and don't care to change what they think. They're just more concerned with being right in their own terms and not in the big picture.

      Delete
    5. People always believe they are right because they hate accepting the fact that they are wrong and they never can be wrong without them being upset that they are wrong.

      Delete
    6. I agree with Caleb. People in our society today are more concerned about being right that doing the right thing. Many times, people would rather be able to say, "Im right!" opposed to admitting their opinion is not the only one that could be correct.

      Delete
    7. I agree with Allison, because today a lot of people just care about being right and they think that if they admit they're wrong, then they won't be known as the person who was always right. Some people just think that it's all about them and that they're perfect.

      Delete
    8. People always think they are right because they probably know more about something or just doesn't want to change what they believe in. People get really protective when someone says that what they grew up believing in is wrong so they want to be right and think the same as they always have.

      Delete
    9. People think that they are always right over other people because they have a hard time looking at other viewpoints. If people looked at what other people thought, then they might find themselves to be wrong.

      Delete
  11. 1. Why did the jury find Cates guilty even after there was so much support for Drummond at the end of the trial? Why did Cates "win"according to Drummond? What is the personal significance to Cates of the outcome of the trial?
    The jury still found cates guilty because they were probably still firm with their beliefs and wouldn’t let Drummond convince them otherwise. Cates won according to Drummond because he proved the law wrong according to Drummond. Drummond says “What jury? Twelve men? Millions of people will say you won. They'll read in their papers tonight that you smashed a bad law. You made it a joke.” Cates had a personal connection with the outcome of the case because he didn’t serve any jail time after and just had a fine of 100 dollars, also Rachel and him left the town because of the trial and that could have some personal meaning to him.
    3. What is the significance of Drummond's final gesture at the end of the play? (see stage direction)
    “(...Then Drummond notices the Bible, on the judge’s bench. He picks up the bible in his other hand; he looks from one volume to the other , balancing them thoughtfully, as if his hands were scales. He half-smiles, half-shrugs. Then Drummond slaps the two books together and jams them in his briefcase, side by side. Slowly, he climbs to the street level and crosses the empty square.)” This gesture shows how the two topics of all this crazy conflict happening in the story will one day or already were starting to intertwine and get along with each other. This is significant because it shows how after the trial people were a lot more accepting of other peoples religious thoughts.
    5. What important first in history does the trial introduce? Why was this so groundbreaking?
    The trial was the first in history to be radio broadcasted. This was so groundbreaking because it took place in the roaring twenties when people were actually getting radios in their homes and could listen to the broadcast. This also helped use technology to its utmost potential.

    ReplyDelete
  12. How do people negatively react when things don't go their way?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of times people like to feel in control of the situation they're in and when they feel thats been taken away from them that results in a negative reaction. We as people typically like to be right and when we aren't that can also cause a poor reaction.

      Delete
    2. People mostly will react negatively and we will become very defensive on certain situations. But we can also be accepting of the outcome because we aren't always right. We will have the ability to take away from the situation and learn from our mistakes.

      Delete
    3. If people don't get things their way, then most of the times they will take it out on other people just to feel better. There are type of people who always get things their way and when they don't they get really upset and might try again until they finally get things to go their way.

      Delete
  13. Question #3
    When Drummond took the book of evolution and the bible and puts them together he is showing us that the idea of creationism and evolutionism can go hand in hand. He is showing that you don't only have to believe in one. We make this topic such a big controversy because many believe that there is only one right way when really there is no full proof that either way is correct. There are so many different interpretations of what could have happened and there is nothing wrong with people having their own beliefs. Drummond putting the two books together really just enforces that whole idea of there is no right answer. And really as well as symbolizing the fact that they can go hand in hand it also symbolizes the fact that they can coexist. The two can coexist as long as people can have respect for the others beliefs. Part of living in a free country is having the right to believe in what you want and show that. Where is the harm in everyone not believing the same thing? Why do so many people think that you have to believe in one or the other? Why couldn’t creationism and evolutionism go hand in hand? Even if you don’t believe that they can where’s the problem in people having their own beliefs?

    Question #4
    Drummonds message to Bert was so real. I thought it held a great message and was something everyone should hear and learn. “...I woke up in the morning and there was Golden Dancer at the foot of my bed! Ma had skimped on the groceries, and my father’d worked nights for a month. I jumped into the saddle and started to rock- And it broke! It split in two! The wood rotten, the whole thing was put together with spit and sealing wax! All shine, and no substance!...”(P109-110) I think as well as good message within the book this is simply just a great life lesson. Everything and everyone has something below the surface they’re trying to hide. Even the most perfect seeming person or present has flaws and hardships that they do a great job of hiding. As Drummond says they’re all shine. He’s in a way telling Bert his key to being a good lawyer. You have to find someones lie and show them for who they really are. Everyone has that dark spot you just have to dig further to find it in some.

    Question #6
    Rachel shows so much progress by the end of the book. She went from not understanding how one could oppose a law and as well believe in evolution to accepting Bert. “.. This is your book, Bert. I’ve read it. All the way through. I don't understand it. What I do understand I don't like. I don’t want to think that men come from apes and monkeys. But I think that’s besides the point.” (P.124) Rachel loves Bert enough to read and try to understand something that she doesn’t believe in. She read the book of evolution and she still doesn’t believe in evolution which is perfectly fine, but Rachel now has all of the information. Rachel is starting to understand the right to think and choose. She knows both sides of Creationism vs. Evolutionism and she can now think for herself and make her own choice of which side she wants to believe in. She gets to out from under her father and his opinions and interpretations and maker her own. She learns to exercise her right to think and choose. I think that really shows what kind of person Rachel is in that she’s not afraid of knowledge even if she knows she won’t like what she reads. Why is the rest of the town so afraid to do what Rachel did? Why is there fear of knowledge and the right to think?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I believe that the significance of Drummond's final gesture at the end of the play is that he thinks that the different beliefs can coexist and people don’t have to choose a side. When Hornbeck says, “I must get me to a typewriter and hammer out the story of an atheist who believes in god,” I think that he doesn’t want to think that certain things can coexist. When I think of science and religion going together it makes me think of Peanut Butter and Jelly because whoever thought to put those things together had the idea that one day people would also eat it, or in this case that people would believe this. Drummond is that guy that looks at all the townspeople and can tell that not a single one of them had even tried to look into what evolution was. Just like when Drummond was questioning Brady about knowing about the bible and the book of evolution. Brady’s response to have read the book of evolution was, “And I never will.” That is why the little Howard was called to the witness stand because he was the only one who had that open mind toward learning about it. Drummond was questioning him because he know that he would be the next generation to believe this, just like the people and the pb&j. Drummond can believe that one day people won’t just believe in one thing and they will know that they can coexist.
    I think that Drummond’s advice to Bert regarding to the story of Golden Dancer was given to tell Bert that not everything is golden and perfect, sometimes the stuff inside is weak and will break under the pressure of someone else. When Drummond states, “I jumped into the saddle and started to rock- it broke!” I think that he is trying indirectly explain that people can also break under things that are hard. Also when Drummond is explaining that his parents worked their butts off to buy him that horse, I think that he feels that when we are trying to get something so bad you forget what other people that love you are doing for you.
    I think that this trial introduces a huge first in history. It introduces the fact that we can’t just think that our religion or belief is the only one because that in fact is not the case. There are other beliefs and religions that others are passionate about and will sacrifice their lives for. I think that is is groundbreaking because it opened so many people’s eyes to other religions. I also believe that it is very important because it made so many people more respected in a way that they were looked up to. More people wanted to believe that the religion that they were taught wasn’t the only one that was correct. Like Howard, they were more open to other thoughts than what they were originally told.
    Critical Question: Why are so many people so closed minded about change?

    ReplyDelete
  15. 1. The jury still saw Cates as guilty, because he still broke the law. People supported Drummond, because they saw that’s it’s ok to change and being stuck with one religion or belief doesn’t allow freedom. On page 115. Cates states “I feel I am … I have been convicted of violating an unjust law.” This means Cates feels the law is an untruthful law and Cates shouldn’t be taken to jail.
    2. I saw Hornbeck as a serious person and didn’t want to joke around. He seemed sarcastic in the beginning and then it completely changed right when he started talking Drummond. Sense he is a reporter he kinda has to be a little serious sometimes but his character is very sarcastic.
    3. On page 129. The narrator talking about Drummond says, “He picks up the Bible in his other hand; he looks from one volume to the other, balancing them thoughtfully, as if his hands were scales. He half smiles, half shrugs. Then Drummond slapes both books together and jams them in his case, side by side.” This shows Drummond thinks they’re equal to each other and should be put together.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 3: At the end of the play Drummond picks up both the Bible and Darwin’s book of evolution, slaps them together and puts them both in his bag side by side. By doing this he is saying that one day people might come to learn understand each other’s beliefs. This is significant in the play because in the town of Hillsboro the townspeople only believe in the Bible, and nothing else. As Hornbeck says on page 33, “...A few ignorance bushes. No Tree of Knowledge”. If the people of the town learned more about what other people believe, then they would realize that everybody has the right to think, so they should respect everybody for what they believe.

    4: When Drummond was telling Bert the story about the Golden Dancer, he was trying to say don’t believe everything you see. This is good advice to Bert because even though he lost the case, it feels like he won. Bert gets to believe what he wants while the people realize they have the right to think. This is relevant to the story because the townspeople believe just what they have been told about the Bible. The people don’t look deeper into it to look at possibilities of other things that might have happened. As Brady says on page 91 “The Bible satisfies me, it is enough”. When Drummond got through to Brady that you have the right to think what you want, it was kind of like telling him the Golden Dancer story in a different way.

    6: At the beginning of the play Rachel is scared to be seen with Bert and thinks that he a criminal for what he has done. At the end of the play she starts thinking about what she sees and looking at other perspectives. She realizes that she doesn’t have to necessarily like what other people believe, but it is not wrong for people to believe separate things. At the beginning of the play she was scared to think because nobody in Hillsboro questions the Bible, but at the end, Bert and Drummond have opened her eyes to having the right to think. As she states on page 124, “I was always afraid of what I might think- so it seemed safer not to think at all”.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Q#3: I believe that the significance in the placing of the Bible and Darwin side-by-side is that both “forces” as I will call them [evolution and creationism] can work together, there is no right or wrong as its all opinion. It is a moulding of minds.
    Q#4: I think that Drummond’s advice is very realistic and can be applied in many ways. The moral of the story is the advice… Pretty much being: Don’t chase something to find its not what you thought.
    Q#2: I think that Hornbeck is kind of drastic and critical. My impression was that of an egotist.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Critical Question: How do people get their “impression” of others, how do we judge each other from the first moment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We mostly judge others from physical phenotypes. The appearance of someone can define behavior, like dirty clothes on a grown man gives the sense of lack of organization. But people also judge others by looks. The most common is facial phenotypes. A "bad" facial appearance causes others to stay away. We get an "impression" of each other through simple yet unjust way of appearance.

      Delete
    2. I agree with William because most of the times we judge others by their physical appearance and we never actually get a chance to know them.

      Delete
    3. When someone first meets someone, they judge them based on how they look and act. They judge based on how normal they look and act. If you met someone for the first time and they looked weird or a bit different, you would judge them differently than if you met someone else for the first time who was dressed nicely and was able to carry a nice conversation.

      Delete
  19. Critical Question: Do we let our beliefs stand in the way of friendship?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that when we are first searching for a new friend, we tend to base our decisions on our similarities on how we live. We want to become close with those who have the same morals or interests so we never feel judged. I don't think we necessarily let our beliefs stand in the way of friendship, but we instead initially look for someone who believes in the same things as us.

      Delete
    2. I don't. I don't think that just because my friend likes vegetable pizza and I don't makes us enemies. Different beliefs can create conflicts, but it can also change a belief! I have changed so many perspectives of things from "discussions" with friends. We should never let beliefs get in the way of friendships.

      Delete
    3. I personally do not but I believe there are people who do. I think that if someone is a good person and you like them then you should be friends with them. I don't understand how people can let what they believe get in the way of friendship. What is going to happen if someone doesn't believe the exact same thing as you? We shouldn't let our beliefs get in the way of friendship although I believe they probably do in some cases.

      Delete
    4. I think that some people do let beliefs get in the way of friendship usually other people don't. It really just depends on the belief and if it's extremely important tot stand by but I don't know of any belief that is that important. There is no excuse in this time to let beliefs get in the way of friendship.

      Delete
  20. What is the significance of Drummond's final gesture at the end of the play? (see stage direction)

    Drummond showed that these two beliefs can go together as one and can be equal. This was a very important part of the novel because it shows that one small book has been the center of attention and caused so much anger but when Drummond slaps the two books together he showed that one day these two beliefs can go together. I believe there was so much argument because the townspeople never read the book and made so many false accusations that gave the book a bad reputation. These two books that have totally different ideas and were the center of attention in the whole trial but none of the people cared to read the one on evolution. If the people read the book on evolution it could maybe change the viewpoint of the townspeople. On page 129 the narrator clearly described how Drummond weighed the two books and then slapped them together and put them into his brief case. This was a powerful scene because everyone in the trial had the one idea of the Bible being the only thing correct up until Drummond said, The bible is a book. A good book. But not the only book.(pg 98) This quote also set the tone of the trial because the audiences attention of Drummond change and the people were intrigued by his points he stated. Drummond played a huge part of this book and his quotes and actions made a difference in the town of Hillsborough.
    5. What important first in history does the trial introduce? Why was this so groundbreaking?
    The trial was held in 1925 and in a very small town in Tennessee. This Trial was very huge because it was broadcasted on the radio. All most all the people never even heard of this before and it really change the town socially. This was really good for the nation because even though Bert lost the trial many other people all over could have different views of the outcome. On page 110 the Radio man says, ... “We are making history here today”. This was very good that it was on the radio because it got more people to think about the outcome of the trial.

    6. How does Rachel change at the end of the play? What does she ultimately understand?
    Rachel really change because in the start of the book she really did not have a clue what the trial was about let alone what each side's argument was. In the beginning she wanted Bert to say he didn’t mean what he did so he would be done with it. Then towards the end of the book she read the whole book of evolution and understood what Bert did. Rachel learned to think for herself and not let others to force her what to believe like Rachel's father. “I’ve read it. All the way through. I don’t understand it. What I do understand I don't like....”(124). Rachel chose to break away from her father's ideas and choose her own.

    ReplyDelete
  21. 2. I think that Hornbeck was having enthusiasm toward Brady. “Brady ignores him” pg. 95 shows that Brady was trying to ignore him because he knows that he was just enthusiastic to him. The impression that left me with concerning his characterization was that Hornbeck was just wanting to get into the newspaper where he was from. “I’m E. K. Hornbeck, Baltimore Herald” pg. 14. This shows that he wants to be put in the newspaper in his hometown.

    5. The importance the trial introduce is the right to think. “A thinking man! And he is threatened with fine and imprisonment because he chooses to speak what he thinks.” pg. 64 shows that Drummond is trying to fight for the right to think. This is so groundbreaking because this was the first trial for teaching evolution in history. “Ladies and gentlemen, this is Harry Esterbrook, speaking from the courthouse in Hillsboro,” pg. 100 shows that people cared about the trial since it was the first in history to be on the radio.

    6. Rachel changed at the end of the play caring for Cates. “I’ll help you,” pg. 115 shows that Rachel cares about Cates because they are a couple, and they are in love. She ultimately understand that Cates loves her, and wants her to make the right decisions. “I’ll help you,” pg. 115 shows that they want to be together.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Does love conquer everything in the world?
    What prevents people from doing change?
    What helps change in order to change the world?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People may not want to change for many reasons. They may have found positive or effectiveness in their ways and are reluctant to give that up. They may have been doing the same thing for a long time so that it has become a tradition. People may also just have a lack of open-mindedness; ignorant.

      Delete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 2. At the end of the play, we were introduced to Hornbeck as he really is, cynical and judgemental. He attacks Brady after he dies, which shows how much disrespect he had for him. “Why should we weep for him? He cried enough for himself.” (pg 125) Hornbeck surprises us and Drummond with his lack of respect and disregard for Brady’s death and existence. We are exposed to his true colors which throws me off because in the beginning, I thought he didn’t really have an opinion on the trial, but in the end he obviously shows his carelessness for the whole situation.

    3. At the end of the play, Drummond does something that significantly symbolizes his point of view on religion and on the town. He expresses, through simple motions and artifacts, that he isn’t who everyone thought he was. Drummond displayed that he not only idolizes Darwin, but reveres the Lord as well. On page 129 in the play Inherit the Wind, the stage direction that is provided shows his nonchalance for picking a side. “He weighs the volume in his hand... He picks up the Bible in his other hand... Then Drummond slaps the two books together and jams them in his briefcase, side by side.” This proves significant because it not only represents his beliefs, but how the town has evolved into questioning their own faith also. They are starting to advance and catch up with the rest of the society. Drummond implies that he has changed his views and how the town is finally starting to accept the idea of questioning their faith. Should the townspeople celebrate new ideas brought forth within their ways of living?

    6. By the end of the play, Rachel has notably changed. She has become more supportive of her lover’s, Bert Cates, views and is more endearing towards his actions. Before the trial took place, she felt discontent toward Cates rebellious actions. Rachel took many attempts to convince him to feel regretful upon his decisions. After the trial, Rachel finally comprehends the idea of self-expression. She compliments the fact that Cates defied the rules in order to grant the people the right to question or to think. On page 124, it states,”A thought is like a child inside our body. It has to be born. If it dies inside you, part of you dies, too!” This is saying how she understands that everyone should think and have an opinion, no matter if its right or wrong. The town needs to generate more thoughts so that they can question and inquire the truth. A main part in creating controversy and thinking critically is challenging what people say and bringing in new ideas that force us to question old ways. This is what they seemed to have lacked previous to the trial, but not only did Rachel begin to question her belief, but Brady did too. She majorly changed at the end, though and let her mind travel to ideas beyond the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  25. What influences us to stray away from the social-norms of society?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that us as humans just want the satisfaction of being different, and try to have our own opinion. Although, I would have to disagree. Most people nowadays stick to social norms.

      Delete
  26. 2. By the end of the play I realized Hornbeck despised Brady. I felt the impression of him as being sour and negative. Hornbeck was characterized as a sarcastic man, but in the end he really turned into a disrespectful newspaperman. "You(Drummond) knows what he(Brady) was: a Barnum-bunkum Bible-beating bastard!"(pg.125) Hornbeck felt no sympathy toward Brady's death whatsoever. He fought with Drummond over the legacy of Drummond, claiming that he does not care and the future tourists will not care for what Brady stood for. "And tourists will ask the guide: 'Who died here? Matthew Harrison who?'"(pg.126). Hornbeck made fun of Brady's appetite, religion, and his importance. Hornbeck ultimately was characterized as a rude, annoying newspaperman.

    3.The significance of Drummond taking both books is that the act symbolized that ideas can join together, coexisting as equals. Both the Bible and Darwin's Theory are books, and neither is greater than the other. Both present great ideas, and it is up to the reader to decide which one best suits him/her. "He looks from one volume to the other, balancing them thoughtfully, as if his hands are scales. He half shrugs, half smiles. Then Drummond slaps the two books together and jams them in his briefcase, side by side."(pg.129) I also see this as important because it shows that Drummond favors no book. He is open-minded enough to study both books and find importance in looking at the entire spectrum of beliefs. I think this act also gives the reader a message to be thoughtful, look at both sides of an argument before making judgements, and stay open-minded.

    6.Rachel changed at the end of the book by finally understanding why Cates and Drummond are determined to fight for the right to teach a theory; she understood that Drummond wanted the freedom to think. “A thought is like a child inside our body. It has to be born. If it dies inside you, part of you dies, too!”(pg.124) Rachel is saying that people create amazing imaginations in their head, and that should come out to share with the rest of the world. Darwin had a brilliant idea, and it should be OK if he wanted to share it. If he is not allowed to share it, his contribution to the world would be neglected. Rachel now knows that everyone should have the right to think whatever they want.

    ReplyDelete
  27. How do our beliefs shape the sense of justice, right, and wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We always want to be right, so our overall decisions may be warped because of our need of being right.

      Delete
    2. Our beliefs shape our sense of justice because our beliefs are our sense of justice. Our beliefs shape what we want to believe and if someone else disagrees with us we believe them to be wrong.

      Delete
  28. 1.) I think the reason the jury found Cates guilty at the end was because they were ignorant and stubborn in their own religious views. The Jurors still despised the thought of what Cates did, and found him guilty even though they showed support for Drummond in the end. An example of the arrogance took place in the courtroom when Rachel was speaking, Dunlap stands, rudely shakes his fist at Cates and yelled “Cates, you sinner!” when Cates angrily blurted out.

    3.) Drummond’s final Gesture of the play represented how the world would come to accept both creationism and evolutionism. When he looks at both volumes, half-smiles and half-shrugs, he shows how maybe the idea of both could work or maybe it will remain opposite and never come together. In the book before the trial, the townspeople never wanted the two to mix because they were taught one belief and they were too stubborn to look at new ideas. After the trial, the townspeople saw that maybe, just maybe, they could accept both ideas. When drummond put the two books in his brief case, it represented that schools could teach both and let children be open-minded about their own beliefs.

    6.) Rachel changed at then of the play through opening up to new ideas. In the beginning of the book, Rachel was begging Cates to give up on his case and tell the world he was wrong. But towards the end of the play, Rachel had learn to accept new ideas and believe not what her father or anyone else wanted her to, but what she wanted to believe in. In the book, Rachel had approached Cates at the end and told him that she was leaving her father, even though she wasn't quite sure of what she wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Critical Question: Why are people so stubborn in their own belief, that they can’t accept other views of the world?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we always want to know that we are right and won't except anything less.

      Delete
    2. I think people are so stubborn because they don't want to be judged by anyone and they want to fit in.

      Delete
    3. I believe that they don't want to accept others beliefs because they think it will affect there own.

      Delete
  30. 4. When Henry Drummond tells Bert Cates about the golden dancer Henry is not only explaining to Bert a story of his childhood but a common theme that in society today is valued. Today in our world people are always looking for something shiny or something new. From cars to rocking horses humans naturally go towards what is new. “Bert, whenever you see something, bright, shining, perfect seeming-all gold, with purple spots-look behind the paint! And if it’s a lie-show it up for what it really is.” (Drummond P.110). Cates thinks that his case is in the drain but after Drummond tells him this story he might actually have a chance to win. In this case the shiny gold is Brady, and the purple spot is that a man guilty of defying god is going to be thrown in jail. After a while the shine is going to lose its glow and the spot will fade away and the people of Hillsboro will see the case for what it really is, a joke. People will finally realize that this case was not worth all the media and attention, this case was unreasonable and should never have even taken place.

    6. At the end of the play Rachel finally understands that there is no right and wrong. people should be able to have their opinions and nobody should be able to defy the right of thought because after all it is our only absolute right. Rachel, unlike others, decides to look into both sides and read Darwin's book. After reading it she still does not agree with it but that is respectable because she actually did the research unlike the rest of hillsboro. “I’ve read it. All the way through. I don’t understand it. What I do understand I don’t like. I don’t want to think that men come from apes and monkeys. But I think that’s beside the point.” (Rachel P.124). Rachel has done her research and does not agree with darwin, but along the way she realized what this case was all about. Cates and Drummond weren’t really fighting for Darwin there were fighting for the freedom to chose, and now Rachel finally understands that.

    3. When Henry Drummond slaps the Bible and the Book of Darwin together he is signifying that there is a possibility for a combination. He is suggesting that two two ideas that interfere could meet halfway and leave the clashing morals behind. There is room for improvement in both items and maybe the improvement for the Bible is some modern day science and maybe the improvement for Darwins Theory is a little bit of faith or religion. These two ideas can coexist and even if people don’t want to combine their ideas they can still stand together just on different paths. “Drummond slaps the two books together and jams them in his brief case, side by side.”(P.129). Drummond by this simple act has done what many in this country have been trying to avoid for many years, but little do they know, it could be the answer to all the disputing between the two sides.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 1. Cates was found guilty at the end of the trial because regardless of how right he was, he broke the law that was in play at that time. Teaching evolution in schools was not allowed. Drummond told Cates towards the end of the book, “Tomorrow it’ll be something else- and another fella will have to stand up. And you’ve helped give him the guts to do it!” This is the reason that Drummond told Cates that he won. He made a bad law look like a joke. In addition to that, he gave others the confidence to stand up for what they believe and have an opinion. With Cates losing the trial, even though he was right, it might’ve shown people that the government isn’t always right.
    3. The book says, “He picks up the Bible in his other hand; he looks from one volume to the other, balancing them though Drummond’s gesture of slamming the books together and putting them in his suitcase symbolised a couple things. One is that both religions can both exist because people after that case will understand that everyone can have their own opinion on religion. Another could be that some theories can mix the two religions. People could think that God could create the monkey and then we evolved. Their wasn’t as much of a one sided religion anymore.
    5. This trial introduced the first time people were okay with the idea of change. After the trial, some people were swayed toward Cates. They were alright with excepting being wrong about their religion being the only right one, and they were alright with the idea of change. In addition to that, it introduced the right to think. Cates had the opinion that evolutionism is the religion that is real. At the time, he didn't have the right to think that, or have an opinion.Now, there are amendments that make sure that there are no opinionated laws. We all have the right to think, speak, and have the right of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  32. How different would the world be today if all people were willing to accept change and were willing to conjoin ideas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People need to question change because not all changes create good benefits. Without resistance to change nothing would ever modernize. Technology, cooking, learning, teaching, etc. We need change because without it we would be going through the motions in life with no excitement, no hope, no anything.

      Delete
  33. Critical questions:
    At what point do our opinions affect others?
    Why are humans so entitled?
    Why do we not care if we are wrong, we will still think we are right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our opinions start to affect others when we start to convince them into our opinions, good or bad. For example of good: If your friend is doing drugs and you tell them that its nasty, nicely, then it may affect them in the way that it makes them stop doing drugs.

      Delete
  34. Question 1:
    The reason the jury found Cates guilty, even though there was much support for his case in the end of the trial, was because he broke the law in a very sensitive way for the stubborn people of that town. Some people’s beliefs are really calliced, very rough and unchangeable, hard to break through, and that is what Cates was facing. A jury, a courtroom, and a prosecuting attorney that built walls around their faith so high so that nothing, including the book of Darwin, could get over these walls. This is why Cates didn’t win, even with the momentum shift near the end of the case. Because there calluses were just too thick and their walls were just a little to high to climb over. Cates’ attorney told him that he had won the case because he had spread the word of evolution. Cates had ‘stood up’ for the next guy. He led such a strong attack against the theories that were set in stone by the state of Tennessee and made the stone weaker, provided a position for an evolutionist revolution. On page 123, Drummond says this, “‘You don’t suppose this kind of thing is ever finished, do you? Tomorrow it’ll be something else--and another fella will have to stand up. And you’ve helped give him the guts to do it.’” The personal significance of the outcome of the trial to Cates is that he had won the victory for everyone after him. He had paved the way to a revolution and he knew it, and he was proud of his accomplishments.

    Question 2:
    At the end of the book Hornbeck’s attitude and image completely changes. He was secretly really full of hateful passion towards Brady and his pride. I think Hornbeck has the right to be angry with Brady because of Brady’s pride, it was eating away at Hornbeck and I think he had the right to get angry at him to let it out. The impression he left was not a positive one, more of a negative one filled with hatred. Hornbeck says on page 126, “‘Hail the apostle whose letters to the Corinthians got lost in the mail? Two years, ten years--and tourists will ask the guide, ’Who died here? Matthew Harrison Who?’’”

    Question 3:
    The significance of Drummonds final gesture at the end of the book is that he compromised and settled the conflict that was occurring. This gesture wrapped up the entire play as best it could. The stage direction on page 129 says, “Then drummond slaps the books together and jams them in his brief case. Side by side. The most significant part about this gesture is that he decided to take the middle compromise instead of taking the task of judging and choosing.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Why are people afraid to change perspective?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People are afraid to change their perspective because they are afraid to be wrong. To be wrong is challenging your beliefs and challenging you beliefs is changing your perspective as life as a whole.

      Delete
    2. I think people are afraid to change their perspective because maybe they're scared of what other people might think of them or that they might get judged. A lot people start to care about what other people think and that makes them be afraid of changing their perspective.

      Delete
  36. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 2. What did you think of Hornbeck at the end of the play? What impression did you leave with concerning his characterization?
    What I thought of Hornbeck at the end of this play was that he was kind of showing that he cared about Brady because he was dead. He wanted Drummond to be kind because he was dead. In the book he said, “‘Be-Kind-To-Bigots’ week. Since Brady’s dead we must be kind. God, how the world is rotten with kindness!” This kind of showed me the type of guy he is because at the beginning of the scene, everything he said, he would take as a joke. When he would speak neither Brady nor Drummond would listen to him. Why would Hornbeck all of sudden want to be nice to Brady? Does he want people to think that he really cares about Brady’s death and that he wants everyone to be kind because nobody is ever kind? This just makes me think that he’s was pretending to be someone who he isn’t.


    3. What is the significance of Drummond's final gesture at the end of the play? (see stage direction)
    Drummond’s final gesture at the end of the play was significance because when he was on his way out, he grabbed both books in both of his hands and slammed them together. When both books were in his hand, he was trying to feel the volume of both the books. I think that he thought that both books weighed the same even if they were different. Maybe he realized that both books have significance no matter what. In the book it said that he half-smiles and half-shrugs. I think this means that he was surprised that both books probably had the same volume and how both books might have had some similarities because at the end nothing matters. Everyone starts to have the same opinions.

    6. How does Rachel change at the end of the play? What does she ultimately understand?
    I think Rachel changed because she realized what the changes in life are and how they occur. At first she might of not understood what was going on, and why Cates was in trial. “Bert, it’s all my fault the jury found you guilty. Partly my fault. I helped. This is your book Bert. I've read it. All the way through. I don’t understand it. What I do understand, I don’t like. I don’t want to think that men come from apes and monkeys. But I think that’s beside the point.”(pg.124) From this I think that it’s being a little hard for her to understand what really happened in order for people to become humans. That’s why maybe at first she didn't understand why Bert was in trial and why all that was going on.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Can an evolutionist believe in God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel anyone can believe anything they want. There is no set definition for anything. You make what you want of it. Just because someone says something doesn't mean you have to believe it

      Delete
  39. What is the point of a person being someone they're not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a really good question! I always wonder, who even thought of the idea of fitting in? Why do we need to be like others so much?

      Delete
  40. Can you truly fight for one side of something if you don't know both sides?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that this is a very interesting question. This relates to Brady not reading the bible and I feel like it weakens their authority in the situation.

      Delete
  41. Why did the jury find Cates guilty even after there was so much support for Drummond at the end of the trial? Why did Cates "win"according to Drummond? What is the personal significance to Cates of the outcome of the trial?

    The jury found Cates so guilty even after how much support Drummond had because of how well Hornbeck and Brady defended themselves, they wanted Cates to go to jail because of how he taught the kids about evolution. Cates won according to Drummond because Drummond wanted an end to the case, and because they didn’t wanna send Cates off to jail. The personal significance to Cates is that he doesn't have to go to jail he gets to be free and not have to deal with very many charges except 100 fine. “...to sentence Bertram Cates to pay a fine of one hundred dollars.”


    What did you think of Hornbeck at the end of the play? What impression did you leave with concerning his characterization?

    I thought of Hornbeck was sort of a smart alec at the end of the play because he was so cocky about himself and he didn’t really care what people said about him, but I honestly really liked how he showed his true character and wasn’t afraid to tell people how he felt in the end. “That’s a typical lawyers trick: accusing the accuser!” -Hornbeck pg, 127. this quote really shows how sarcastic Hornbeck can be with anyone and how he really doesn’t care what people say. The impression I left with of Hornbeck that he was sort of a jerk but I really liked how open he could be about his opinions and not have to care about what people thought, he was a true journalist who really knew how to show how he felt.


    How does Rachel change at the end of the play? What does she ultimately understand?

    Rachel changes at the end of the play by realizing that she won’t always get her way that she can’t always be the center of attention. Rachel also realized that she wouldn’t be able to get everything she wanted. She understands that things won’t always go the way she wants them to and how everything will work out how it works out and not how she wants it to work out

    ReplyDelete
  42. Why do we judge people so easily? Why is it so natural for us to be able to judge someone so easily?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mainly because we don't always no the flip side or what it is were are judging.

      Delete
    2. We tend to judge people because of our own opinions. As we get older we start to realize what we like and do not like, and people want to make their voices heard, so we share our opinions out loud. negative or not.

      Delete
    3. We judge because we have our own opinion on what is "good" mainly based on what we grew up with. But we are used to speaking our minds so we began to not care whether what others may feel about whatever that was said.

      Delete
  43. What do the townspeople call a crime?

    ReplyDelete
  44. 1. What is the significance of Drummond's final gesture at the end of the play? (see stage direction)
    Drummonds final gesture was very significant. The whole book was about fighting over which one, the bible or Darwin's thoughts, were right. The final gesture shows that maybe both of them were right. Because Drummond had reviewed both the bible and Darwin, him being the “scale” was fair. “Then Drummond slaps the two books together and jams them in his briefcase, side by side.” This quote was an excellent way to conclude the story because it is showing how perhaps both of the theories could deal with one another. They didn't have to approve of each other, but it was possible to ignore the other belief in peace.

    2. What important first in history does the trial introduce? Why was this so groundbreaking?
    This story introduces the idea that people have the right to think. Because this was the first trial that questioned mans idea to think and teach whatever he wanted, it was a huge deal. This is why the trial and people involved were so determined to win and why the media was so heavily involved. The whole trial was based on a law that violated mans right to think, and the first amendment. “Then why did God plague us with the power to think?” asks Drummond (pg 93). This is a very interesting question. Cates and Drummond are questioning everything that the people of Hillsboro are.

    3. How does Rachel change at the end of the play? What does she ultimately understand?
    Rachel eventually changes at the end of the play. She has multiple realizations that don't necessarily change her beliefs on religion, but it does make her see how Cates should not have been prosecuted for teaching evolution. At the end of the story Rachel says, “I don't understand it. What I do understand, I don't like. I don't want to think that men come from apes and monkeys. But I think thats beside the point.” This quote is much different from what she said earlier in the story, “Why can’t you be on the right side of things?” (referring to Bertram Cates’ opinions). This quote shows that Rachel thought that there was a “right” side of things, (and it was most likely hers). These two quotes prove how Rachel changed over the course of this story. She realized it wasn't about being right about teaching, but more about how different opinions are okay.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 2) At the end of the play, Hornbeck hit the nail right on the head. Hornbeck was trying to show the audience Brady’s true colors, and show people what he really stood for. “Why should we weep for him? He cried enough for himself!” (125). He is trying to explain that although Brady was apart of the trial and was speaking out for what he believed in, it was still all about him. It was never about what was right and wrong. Brady just wanted the people to think the way he thought, to act the way he acted, and to feel what he felt. The only thing Brady cared for was his own popularity and power. Hornbeck was trying to bring reality to everyone. People were so engulfed with the powerful ways of Brady, that they never realized that under all that power was nothing but arrogance and selfishness. Many people were thinking this, Hornbeck was just the one to share it outloud.

    3) “...he looks from volume to the other, balancing them thoughtfully, as his hands were scales… then Drummond slaps the two books together and jams them in his briefcase side by side.” (129). This action is very significant because although Drummond doesn’t say anything while doing this, he is showing the audience that there does not have to be one side and another in an argument. Just because some people believe one thing and others believe another does not mean that boths sides cannot be right. This scene shows that more than one thing has value in the world.

    6) Rachel changed so much throughout this play. In the beginning of the book, Rachel was afraid to be seen with Bert because a lot of people thought he was a criminal, and never shared her voice. “I was always afraid of what I might think- so it seemed safer not to think at all.” (124). She was so afraid of what others might have thought about her if she was to be seen with him. But, towards the end of the book, Rachel realizes that she doesn't have to believe what others do and its ok to differ in opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  46. What drives people to question?
    How do questions lead to change?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Why do people tend to be disrespectful towards others when in an argument?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People tend to be disrespectful because they start to lose their point in the argument. They probably just want to be right in everything they say and if the other person starts to have a point, then that's when people start to be disrespectful even when it's not necessary.

      Delete
    2. People tend to be disrespectful because they feel they know more than the other. Also because they are stubborn by their own beliefs and feel that they are right when the other might be right as well.

      Delete
  48. #2) I feel like Hornbeck’s mean and sarcastic attitude comes out, along with his true colors. When he says, “Matthew Harrison Brady died of a busted belly...You know what he was: A Barnum-bunkum Bible-beating bastard!” When he says this it made me wonder, why didn’t I see this cynical attitude earlier in the book? When he makes comments like, “I do hateful things, for which people love me...I am a friend of enemies, an enemy of friends.” He seems like he always is wanting to antagonize everyone, getting on everyone’s nerves. At the end of the story, my image of Hornbeck changes when he makes the comment on Brady, basically stomping on his grave, and disrespecting the man who fought very hard for what he had believed in. Even though it seemed that Brady seemed very cocky about himself, I still think that Hornbeck should have given some credit to Brady for fighting so hard for what he believed in.
    #3) I think when he weighs the two books together side by side and then just places them both into his book bag, it to me means that he took the arguments from both sides and realized that everyone has their own beliefs and it does not matter. I think his mindset is that people can argue over things like religion and evolution, but in the end we are all here and that is what matters. I can not tell whether Drummond beliefs in creationism or Darwinism, but to him he took the beliefs from both sides and took them into mind.
    #6) I think that Rachel realizes why Bert didn’t want to back out the case. She realized that Bert wanted to stay because he was standing up for something bigger than just wanting to win the case. He stayed so he could show the world that people had the right to learn and think thoughts. When Rachel says, “I’ve read it...I don’t want to think that men came from apes and monkeys. But I think that’s beside the point.”, it shows that she realizes that there are different beliefs than just creationism.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Why do people let their beliefs get in the way of their rational thinking?
    why are some people so opposed to being open minded?

    ReplyDelete
  50. How can someone's beliefs affect the way they look at other people and judge them?
    Why do people judge some people differently than they judge other people?

    ReplyDelete