Category: Failure

Since this is the last week of my 20s. For some reason, I don’t know why I’m taking it so hard. Maybe because I worked my entire 20s away to start my dream and missed out on fun times. Maybe it’s because I feel like I should be a little further in life itself. I do realize that from where I am now and where I was 10 years ago I know I’m not the same person. Some of the mistakes I made in life that I still sometimes hate myself for I know made me who I am today. But the reason I push myself so hard is the biggest fear in my life is failure.

I grew up in a trailer till 18 with a single mother who sacrificed so much for me to have nice clothes so I didn’t look like a bum. I know where you come from doesn’t define who you are. But I wanted to do big things with my life so I didn’t have to have myself or my future family struggle like my mom did. I don’t expect to be rich. I am fine with just being comfortable in life and never having to worry. So when I fear failing it drives me to the point where I would do anything to succeed. Whether it’s working 90 hours a week or getting side jobs so I can take a pay cut for my employees and bills to get paid first when things get slow.

Life is not meant to be easy. It is a challenge and some days are tougher than others. With every challenge, I gain the opportunity to grow stronger. I can continuously improve what I am capable of achieving. Instead of allowing a challenge to bring me down, I keep pushing forward. I turn each challenge into a lesson that makes me stronger and stronger. I think if you do something every day that scares you thats the way to challenge yourself every day.

I know new doors are opening in my life and a new chapter is starting. I had to make some very very hard decisions. I am sad, excited, and so fearful. But I know that I will continue to work hard and see what the future brings me with the hurdles I will have to jump through. I’m hoping that in the next 10 years, I can say that I made a difference and feel more accomplished. I still feel like I can do better and keep working on myself and continue to improve. Here’s to my 30S

We all are aware of the phrase ‘failure is the first step towards success’, but have you ever thought about it, what does it mean? Friends’ failure doesn’t mean we are not capable but it can be we didn’t the things in the proper manner and we need to work on it.

Failure is the first step towards success” is one of the most heard quotes and is again and again told to us in every step of life, but how often do we realize its importance or live by its mantra? Honestly, we don’t! We just expect the fruit to come to us without working over its plant.

Failure is not just in studies, a person can fail in many ways at different places, positions, etc. A person may have failed in his love life, his start-up plans, or expressing his feelings or thoughts, but this doesn’t mean we should sit and cry or start blaming others as well as god. Instead, we should plan things properly and work on them and make them a success. According to me, failure is of course a first step towards success as we come to know we aren’t perfect and we need to make things work properly and even we need to boost ourselves and motivate ourselves that we can do our best. Failing for the first time doesn’t mean committing suicide and even failing for years doesn’t mean we are useless, according to we should always positively take failure and start improving ourselves.

The three foundations of learning: Seeing more, suffering more & studying more.”

I think if we fail then we are lagging in something, all of you might have a question, how? I will give you a small example of one of my friends, she was living in the hostel as she belonged to the village, she was a daughter she was pampered a lot she used to attend school in the moring and coaching in the evening. She got addicted to city life and she started wasting her time. When we all started telling her to start studying she would reply I would start in the last 20 days. After the exam she went to her village her father was ill and died. Pihu is an only child she needs to take all responsibility for her family. After a few days, the result came and she failed. Friends I just want to let you know this type of failure is our mistake and we can’t blame anyone for it. Failure always helps us to do things in a better and perfect way positively take failure and keep trying.

Finding the courage to overcome obstacles in our lives often molds us into the people we become. One of my largest and most recent setbacks has changed my perspective on life, it taught me how to deal with disappointment, and face my problems. Eight months ago I failed my driver’s test after it had been postponed a handful of times. While this might seem like a minor inconvenience to many, obtaining my driver’s license felt like a lifeline to me. Throughout high school, I have dealt with a fair amount of anxiety and depression. I always envied my older friends who had licenses because I saw that small card as a ticket to freedom. A license was more than the ability to go wherever I wanted whenever I wanted. It represented an escape from the cage I was locked inside at home. I felt alone. I fought constantly with my family. I felt ignored like no one ever listened to me. I was biding my time until I finally got my license, then I would no longer feel trapped. I spent many nights crying alone in my room while my family gathered in the family room below me to watch a movie. I thought when I got my license I would be able to drive as far away as I could get, and without that license I felt stuck, suffocating in my own home. So when I failed my driver’s test I was devastated. I had been so intent on getting my license and the sense of freedom that came with it, that when I failed I instantly broke down; the two weeks until my retake seemed impossible to survive.

Once I had regained my composure, I returned to school, but I spent the entire day on the verge of tears, replaying every little detail that contributed to my failure. I was furious with myself. Later that day I got a text from my aunt. She told me that she knew I would be okay and that I would pass the next time. She said that when she was trying to get her cosmetology license she failed her first state board test. She was devastated but determined. She took it again, passed, and today she owns a successful salon. Her story inspired me, and her advice that day was a turning point for me.

A few weeks later when I retook my test and passed, the feeling of accomplishment and relief had me crying tears of joy. After practicing every day for weeks, my determination and hard work paid off. I finally had obtained the freedom I craved for so long. It seems like perseverance and working through the problems you face in life is something you’ve been taught from early childhood, and maybe truly learning that lesson at 17 years old is behind the curve, but this was one of the first times I had ever really wanted something and worked tirelessly to get it. I quickly came to the realization that literally driving away from my depression wouldn’t actually solve anything, and that my problems would still be there when my gas tank ran out. I tried escaping my family, thinking that the more distance I put between me and my house would lessen the pain I felt, but I knew that I couldn’t leave forever and that when I returned nothing would be different. Even though my driver’s license didn’t come with the magic cure I thought it would, I still gained the ability to handle disappointing setbacks. I was able to recover from my failures and work harder to succeed the next time, although I was tempted to give up. I’m so thankful that this experience has taught me that I’m capable of getting through difficult times even if at first it doesn’t seem possible.

Failure is a feather of any fighter. Without any experience of falling, a flying man cannot call himself flying. Everyone of us already failed at something, be it as simple as failing to hit a high note during a school musical play, or as frustrating as failing to close a business deal and failure to achieve promotion, everyone of us have experienced our own taste of failure. And yes, since everyone fails on something, I can accept a medicine as bitter as failure. If I stumble and fall on my knees, I would accept my wounds and learn from it. Now, if you would ask me for a stronger antiseptic than a 70% alcohol, I would tell you it’s acceptance. Not trying again is not an option. Surrendering is never a choice.

Fear of failure leads to a distortion of your perceptions. How does it do it? First, failure makes the same goal appear more unattainable. However, if we are to use a fine-tooth comb, the goal was unmoved, hence, how did it become unattainable? The answer is because your perceptions have been greatly changed. Failure also makes you doubt your abilities and make you believe that you’re helpless. This increases your performance anxiety and instill inferiority complex to you. Fear of failing creates a psychological feeling of pressure to succeed, which increases performance anxiety. Hence, overthinking should not overpower your understanding of your abilities.

Simply put, fear of failure makes you do two things: overthink of your weakness, and underestimate your strength. And since I have presented you the negative impacts of fear of failure, i’m sure you all are asking: how can we cope with this psychological fear? Psychologically, focusing on variables in control is the healthiest response to failure. What aspects are in your control? What aspects are out of your control? Now, start by knowing how can these aspects be improved. Improving skill sets, planning, and relationships are few of the many things that help us turn our weakness into strength. Now, focus solely on what variables are in your control. This will help you overcome your inferiority and eradicate the feeling of helplessness and demoralisation. This way, you will be motivated to try again, minimizing your chances of failure, thus increasing the likelihood of your success.

All things must be done properly. Hence, we strive to avoid and not to repeat the same mistakes we previously committed. Looking forward in any situation, trying out different strategies will serve as a principal key to all doors of success.

My mother had always told me, “Failure is just room for opportunity.” For the longest time, I disagreed with this, thinking that failure is purely dishonorable. Failure yields shame and sorrow. I never truly understood what she meant until I played a violin solo. Since the day I performed that solo, I began to believe in the power of failure.

Previously, last year, I entered a solo performance at the ISSMA Solo and Ensemble Contest for the very first time. I stepped into the building, anxious yet excited, to play Seitz’s violin concerto. I started excellently, and I felt lost in the music until I made my first mistake early on; I stumbled on a series of notes with a shaky bow. I felt the blood rush away from my face as I let this mistake take over my mind. My musical tone and emotion were traded out for the everlasting desire to get out of the judge’s sight, and I had even rushed the tempo slightly in a desperate attempt. I finished fine, but it certainly had more potential. When I finished, I did receive a gold medal for my performance, but that did not mean it was perfect. The majority of the judge’s criticisms were, as suspected, my interpretation of the piece, which was slightly dull. I left the building feeling disappointed by my performance.

Afterward, I stood in my living room, vigorously honing my bow articulation and dexterity. My shoulder ached, but I did not care. In the end, I tested my skills by playing Seitz’s violin concerto once again, and I had surely grown. It was then I realized that I would have never been able to improve as much as I did in that one session of practice if I had not failed. I would have never learned the importance of adapting under stress if I had not failed. Ever since then, what I had once looked at with disgust was looked at with appreciation. My philosophy of life changed. I began to believe that failure is needed for success. I realized that failure is only a failure when one does to see the opportunity it holds.

Today, I believe in failure, and I believe in the power it holds. When I get poor grades, I learn my weaknesses and set goals to improve instead of loathing its displeasing score. When I perform with the violin, I learn from my mistakes from past performances and change them to play with confidence. From failure, I learn. Now, I understand the meaning of my mother’s words. Failure really is just room for opportunity.

Did the rise of Chartism mark the failure of the ‘Great’ Reform Act?

It cannot be disputed that the increased nature and prevalence of the Chartism movement in the 19th century was down to the failure of the ‘Great’ Reform Act in 1832. It was expected that the Act would erase government corruption by creating a fairer electoral process, alongside providing a remedy for social injustices which ultimately failed. Therefore, with the emergence of the Chartism in the 1830’s, an immediate correlation indicates that the injustices from the Act became the source of motivation for the activists, as explicitly evidenced in their First National Petition of 1839 where they state that the people were ‘bitterly deceived’ by the ‘Great’ Reform Act.

With Chartism’s main aim being to advocate for better social and industrial conditions for the working class especially, it is important to delve into these aims by exploring key themes such as the political approach of the movement and its legacy. Therefore, with these themes in mind, it can be evidenced where Chartist actions correspond directly to the failures of the predeceasing ‘Great’ Reform Act of 1832 and thus marking its overall failure.

Politically, the initial aims of the Great Reform Act involved establishing a fairer electoral process and capturing a wider range of voters. Pre-1832, glaring inequalities were seen between rural counties and wider industrialised cities such as Manchester in terms of the electoral process, with rural smaller boroughs being controlled by the nobility and maintaining more seats, and bigger cities being widely under-represented. Some temporary success can be credited to the Act redistributing seats and increasing the electorate by 200,000.

This was simply a limited change and therefore, became the catalyst for the rise in Chartism. The political link between the Great Reform Act and Chartism is witnessed because of the movements’ focus on highlighting the failures of the Act. This is seen specifically in the first National Petition of 1839 where it explicitly mentions the failed legislation, stating that people have been ‘bitterly and basely deceived’. This statement regards the political failures of the Act, such as the property qualification that meant the majority of working men still could not vote unless they owned property. Alongside the formal exclusion of women within the electoral process, the ‘Great’ Reform Act did not issue reform at all, but rather a temporary solution to the outcry from those wanting change. Thus, with the Chartist movement gathering a wide amount of support and 1.2 million signatures towards the first National Petition in 1839, it is clear that support for Chartism demonstrates the failure of the Act in bringing the political change promised. Another key analysis of the National Petition is the time in which it was written. With it being published 6 years after the Great Reform Act, it is clear that the Act was a cause of contention and failure due to it being explicitly blamed for the lack of reform years on and not a knee jerk reaction to the events.

The People’s Charter of 1838 again clearly indicates that the Reform Act failed in its aims. With the objective of giving all working men the vote and the want for secret ballots, it evidences the point that the Great Reform Act could clearly have not brought about the fair electoral distribution that it promised.

A clear argument can also be seen based on the time that the Chartist movement took full effect. With Chartism being credited to have increased in popularity since 1838 onwards, it can be argued that the movement was not a direct protest to the Act or an instant reaction, but rather a deep-rooted issue based on the difference between the introduction of the Act in 1832 and the rise in Chartism later in the decade. Alongside the long-lasting effects of the Act, there were also more immediate consequences. For instance, the introduction of the Poor Law Amendment in 1834 provoked a further rise in Chartism that was born out of the failed actions of the 1832 Act. The Amendment deprived people of outdoor relief, drove the lower class into workhouses and separated families.

This created a further divide in society and demonstrated that there was still a dramatic class divide, something the Act of 1832 was supposed to decrease. This in turn strengthened the Chartism movement.

Intertwined with the political grievances of the ‘Great’ Reform Act, it could be argued that the public reaction towards the Great Reform Act fuelled the Chartist agenda further. The Act created controversy amongst society, including churches and chapels as reform was considered a Holy necessity to bring equality to all classes and genders. Therefore, the failure of the Act created a level of crisis in both society and religion too. Often underplayed in history, riots took place that had severe consequences such as the burning of Nottingham Castle and Bishop’s Palace in Bristol. These radical actions were created by a lack of cohesion and failure to create reform. Philip Salmon provides the argument that Pocket Boroughs continued, and corruption was still rife throughout constituencies, all resulting in an eventual decrease in electorate instead of an increase. He also states there was little difference in political conditions post 1832 and the state of the 1820’s.

This information is vital in understanding the increase in radical and extreme reactions to the failed reform and thus provides a clear understanding why a progressive and potentially radical movement like Chartism began to thrive. It was a movement that wanted the change that the people were once promised but ultimately left deceived.

Interestingly, historians John A. Philips and Charles Wetherell suggested that the Reform Act has been downplayed in history and was critical in creating progression in politics in the 19th century.

However this view is littered with contradictions. Slight progress was made in removing seats from ‘rotten boroughs’ and reprised the want for parliamentary reform that dramatically decreased after the French Revolution.

However, despite these initial successes, the consequences of the Reform Act outweigh any progression made and therefore cannot be credited with being ‘critical’ as Philips and Wetherell suggest. For example, the historian, Norman Gash stressed that government was still corrupt after the Act and if compared to later Reform Acts such as the work under Benjamin Disraeli between 1866 and 1888, a clear comparison can be seen between unsuccessful and successful reform. He stated that ‘it would be wrong to assume that the political scene in the succeeding generation differed essentially from that of the preceding one’ and issues the idea that the Second Reform Act of 1867 was the first sign of modern democracy. This is further seen with the need for further reform in the electoral system in 1852, which could be linked to the Chartists and their widespread support for electoral equality. With this in mind, Gash highlighting the failures of the Reform Act evidence the argument that the subsequent birth of Chartism can be linked to the failure of the Act based on its want for social and political reform that was absent immediately after the Act was passed.

The exploration of the Chartists and their symbolisation of the failure of the Great Reform was further demonstrated in the media of the time. For example, the discontent with the Great Reform Act was seen through newspapers. A new perspective was seen in Chartist newspapers such as the ‘Northern Star’ which issued the want for electoral equality across classes and genders, something that the Reform Act failed in. This newspaper in particular was credited as being the first truly National newspaper in Britain due to its weekly 50,000 issued copies of the time, surpassing papers such as The Times. This reiterates the popularity of Chartism and thus the shared feeling against the Great Reform Act.

Further evidence of media dissatisfaction that stemmed from the Great Reform Act was seen in the ‘Poor Man’s Guardian’ which issued news on male suffrage and specifically condemned the Act which issues the correlation between the spread of Chartism and the failure of the Act.

This new form of media expression demonstrated the feelings towards the Act from female Chartists too, emphasising the Act’s failure in exempting women from the vote as it expanded the Chartist movement further.

The legacy of Chartism can also be used to understand the origins of the movement and demonstrate the failures of the ‘Great’ Reform Act. For example, the permanent effect Chartism had on politics and society, demonstrates how important the rise in the movement was in rendering the failed consequences of the ‘Great’ Reform Act and attempting to carry out what the Act was intended to do. This is seen in the following decades where further reform took place, such as the Reform Act of 1867.

Therefore, with the continued legacy of Chartism, it becomes clear that the movements’ aims carried on throughout the 19th and 20th century, issuing the explanation that the need to correct the grievances left by the ‘Great’ Reform Act were indeed important and permanent in nature.

To conclude, the rise in Chartism explicitly highlights the failures of the ‘Great’ Reform Act. The Act of 1832 never deserved the title of ‘Great’ and the explored themes evidence this. Although credit can be given to slight success in granting fairer representation such as creating a further 200,000 voters and broadening the property qualifications to be electorally represented, these successes are greatly overshadowed by the rise in Chartism due to the failures of the ‘Great’ Reform Act. Politically, Chartism condemned the Reform Act repeatedly, as seen in the first National Petition, and thus with such a wide amount of support, it is clear that the Act did indeed fail its people in bringing political and social change. The Act became a catalyst for a decade of further needed reform which the Chartists laid the foundations for. It can also be argued that the social climate of the 1830’s demonstrates the failure of the reform, with rioting and public outcry, it could be understandable that a movement based on change and justice proved popular for that time and thus provoked the increasing progression of Chartism. Therefore, in itself, the fact that Chartism was born to begin with, is the clearest indicator that representation was not achieved and therefore the multiple Reform Acts that spanned the rest of the century can only suggest that the bill that was supposed to improve legislation and widen opportunity, failed completely. Overall, giving us the orthodox interpretation of the ‘Great’ Reform Act that we are familiar with today.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

1. “The Poor Law Amendment Act”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Law_Amendment_Act_1834#cite_note-3 ,(1834)
2. T. Attwood, “First Chartist Petition”, http://www.chartistancestors.co.uk/first-chartist-petition-1839/ (1839)
3. Secondary Sources
4. B.Breton. “Violence and the Radical Imagination”, Victorian Periodicals Review, (2011)
5. M.Chase, “Chartism: A New History”, Manchester University Press, (2007)
6. N.Gash, ‘Politics in the Age of Peel’, W.W Norton and Company, Reprint edition (2012)
7. E.Griffin, “The making of the Chartists: popular politics and working-class autobiography in early Victorian Britain”, English Historical Review, (2014)
8. M.McKisack, ‘Parliamentary Representation of English Boroughs in the Middle Ages’, (1932)
9. J. Phillips; C.Wetherell, “The Great Reform Act of 1832 and the Political Modernization of England”, The American Historical Review, (1995)
10. Robert Saunders, “God and the Great Reform Act: Preaching Against Reform, 1831-32”, Journal of British Studies, (2014)
11. R. Saunders, “Malcolm Chase, Chartism: A New History”, Manchester University Press, review, https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/699 (2007)

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a beloved president, decorated soldier, and American Icon. His name is one that forever holds intrinsic value to the citizens of the United States. Kennedy’s legacy is one unmatched as his personality, public image, and wisdom won over the hearts of millions. The presidency he overtook however, faced countless amounts of criticism as he stumbled amongst foreign policy and came to term during a time of instability both abroad and on the home front. Though our 35th president might be memorable because of his persona, his leadership within America through the 1960’s was an utter disaster. The notorious Bay of Pigs catastrophe shows how Kennedy’s failure as a leader resulted from his inheritance of a country, constantly fearful of a communist uprising, and a government hesitant to inform or assert confidence in his ability to lead.

In analyzing Kennedy’s upbringing it is easily seen where his values, motivations, and charisma come from. John F. Kennedy was born May 29th 1917 to a high class, Irish Catholic family living in Brookline, Massachusetts (Hackwork 6). The Kennedys were an extremely wealthy clan of high prestige and status. Consistently seen as the picture perfect family, it’s fitting Kennedy’s distinguished by his poise, knowledge and morals. Joseph Kennedy, John’s father exhibited the same persona as a youthful, attractive, businessman coming from a well to do family of politicians. Both parents, Rose and Joseph instilled in their children from a young age the prestige and status of the Kennedy name (Obrien 36). Wealth and power were rooted in their eight children as their parents pushed them to their fullest capabilities, giving them the greatest opportunities to succeed and to uphold the family legacy.

Though growing up as a Kennedy seemed luxurious and limitless, John (often called Jack) faced countless health barriers throughout his childhood. Battling numerous illnesses such mumps, scarlet fever, and whooping cough, he found his passion in history and refused to let his health problems set him back from living a fulfilled life (Hacksworth 8). The happy go lucky, well rounded young man everyone viewed him as never let his weaknesses show, rarely talking about his health conditions or letting them interfere with his goals. Kennedy’s charismatic manner started early on, carrying him through high school and athletics, later leading him to Harvard (Hackworth 8). At Harvard his love for politics and history of government blossomed. His father Joe Kennedy was appointed ambassador to Great Britain around this time, pushing John to leave Harvard briefly to advise under him and partake in English High Society’s Court of Saint James (Hacksworth 10). Observing the outbreak of World War I, he returned to Harvard later on, publishing his thesis on England’s role in the war. After graduating with honors from Harvard Kennedy looked to join the military, working under the United States Naval Intelligence during World War II and later becoming an active soldier. He was awarded for his efforts, receiving the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for lifesaving and the Purple Heart for injuries endured (Hacksworth 24). Kennedy was viewed as a true American hero. His tenacious and strong willed character is clearly evident through his military excellence, love of learning, and fascination with politics, all contributing to his success to come as a politician.

From war hero to aspiring politician, Joe Kennedy pushed his son to enter the political realm and run for the congressional seat in Massachusetts. In the election of 1941, Kennedy as the underdog, won the seat over republican candidate Lester Bowen (Hacksworth 30). He later went on to serve six years in the House of Representatives, becoming more critical of President Truman’s foreign policy and the victories communist countries were quickly seizing abroad. After serving three terms in Congress, Kennedy continued on with two more elections to the United States Senate (JFK Library). From here his political career flourished as his good looks, patriotic nature, and whole hearted character ignited a spark amongst Americans. For the first time citizens felt they had found someone who’s competitive and strong willed nature would put their interests first and bring a well need change to society. On January 2nd 1960, John F. Kennedy announced his decision to run for president (JFK LIB). In her thesis JFK: An Assessment of the Man and the Image, Sandra Hacksworth summarizes Kennedy’s road to presidency, emphasizing the importance of his campaigning tactics and the platform he was distinguished by. The Kennedy family used their affluence and power to back the campaign efforts for their eldest son, capitalizing on the use of media to enhance Kennedy’s handsome appearance and excellent public speaking skills. Kennedy’s appeal to both blacks and whites along with his promise for a brighter future for Americans gained him the victory over his opponent Richard Nixon (40). The 35th President, newly elected and full of aspiring hopes for the country, faced a time of turbulence and uncertainty, however. With the rise of Communist parties in Europe and the fear growing amongst Americans as a result, Kennedy was in for a slew of problems that required solutions quickly. The incident nicknamed The Bay of Pigs, is the most noteworthy and one that contributed to the leadership failures amongst Kennedy’s Presidency.

The Bay of Pigs was a plan designed to overthrow Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro through the use of Cuban exiles, backed with American support and oversight. In Defeat is in Orphan Eric Martell analyzes the events that led up to the failure of the plan and the lack of leadership exhibited by President Kennedy. The plan to overthrow Castro was created by the Central Intelligence Agency under President Eisenhower and started off as training a small Cuban force that would rebel against the current dictator. Kennedy, believing he was approving a plan that was covert and small scaled, sanctioned a decision that was uninformed and much too complex to ever be carried out successfully. The lack of communication between the President, the C.I.A and the Joint Chiefs resulted in a national embarrassment for the United States and the failure of the Bay of Pigs.

The decision making process that took place during the planning and execution of The Bay of Pigs was a significant factor in why it was unsuccessful. Eisenhower had originally drafted the plan during his administration however, it’s implementation was left to Kennedy when he took office. The plan had started to take a new direction when Kennedy came to office, as it looked to use American troops and guerilla warfare to support the rebellion ( Martell 96). Kennedy had to no idea in the end the type of military plan he ended up approving and just how involved the United States military and Air force would be in its execution. Ultimately, the information conveyed between the President and C.I.A was often censored, misleading, and manipulated (Martell 95). Kenney though, lacked the authority and confidence to question a plan created by his successful predecessor and knew his approval was needed to affirm his zero tolerance on communist regimes. Vanden brings to light the secrecy amongst the C.I.A who had been accused of proving unreliable reports to Kennedy that clearly underestimated the power of Castro’s regime while overestimating the expected support from the Cuban people (476). The President’s perspective had been skewed from the beginning as he was consistently pressured to conform to the majority and given inaccurate information to confirm such beliefs. When unwilling to conform the C.I.A used his own platform (strong discontent for the spread of communism) against him, pressuring him to believe that Cuba would fall at any moment to a communist regime and that American troops were absolutely necessary to prevent such a catastrophe from happening (Martell 94). A product of his own inexperience and ignorance, Kennedy allowed others to manipulate and control both him and his decision making process in the execution of the Bay of Pigs.

Secrecy of the plan created to overthrow the communist regime did not last long as Castro quickly learned of the American backed revolt. The Cuban revolt was quickly halted on the beaches of The Bay of Pigs. The air support provided by the U.S after also failed after the planes were shot down by the Cuban military (JFK Lib). All blame fell to Kennedy as the U.S. was forced to renegotiate with the Cuban government to free those imprisoned during the revolt. Failing utterly and leaving Americans disappointed with the “new future” Kennedy had promised, the President’s legacy and success was forever dampened by the execution of The Bay of Pigs.

Wren and Swatez’s contextual model is extremely useful in analyzing the contextual factors surrounding Kennedy’s failure with executing the Bay of Pigs. The model works from the outside in starting with the historical context, moving to the contemporary context, then to the immediate context, and ending with the leader follower relationships (Wren and Swatez 246). In using this model one is able to observe the context much more clearly and thoroughly, understanding the impact of both long term and short factors in the leader’s success or failure.

Starting with historical context we look to the persisting factors that have been deeply rooted within society. Wren describes the historical context as, “The long term trends and influences which most impact any given leadership scenario and shape the resulting leadership options” (Wren 247). In the case of The Bay of Pigs Kennedy’s ability to lead was drastically effected by numerous long term political and social factors. The notion of American Exceptionalism and supremacy played a major role in Kennedy’s rash decision to approve the Bay of Pigs. With America’s notorious reputation as the global policemen and enforcer, a potential rise in a Communist regime so close to American territory was a red flag. The president’s execution of The Bay of Pigs was largely influenced by the country’s long term standing as a world superpower, suppressing any threat to the principles of democracy. From a long term political perspective, it is evident throughout history that the power of the President has often been undermined and manipulated by those working with or under him. Since the time of Lincoln’s presidency and the Reconstruction Era there has always been turmoil between the President and his advisors as they debated and fought over what policies were best for the future of the nation. The Bay of Pigs was just a result of the differing opinions between both groups and who’s interests they were primarily concerned with.

Moving now to the contemporary context one must observe the current social and cultural mores that impact the present context of the situation. Wren and Swatez define the contemporary context as being “The norms, values, and the customs of the surrounding society” (Wren 249). In the context surrounding The Bay of Pigs the most evident contemporary context would be Americans’ concern with the spread of communism. In the mist of the Cold War, the spread of communism across Europe, and the Red Scare, Americans were consistently on edge of a foreign dictator gaining popularity and supremacy over the U.S.. Kennedy was pressured to back and approve a revolt that would reestablish the confidence Americans held in their government along with upholding the principles of democratic republic.

Lastly one comes to the Immediate context of Wren and Swatez’s model. Wren and Swatez define the immediate context as the structure and goals, the culture, and the task characteristics (Wren 247). Ultimately the failure of the plan started with its organization and development from the beginning. Constructed under President Eisenhower and mostly analyzed and reviewed by the C.I.A., Kennedy was constantly kept in the dark, fed information that had been twisted, and was persuaded into changing his opinion on multiple accounts because of his lack of experience ( Martell 96). His relationship with the American people, being the leader and follower context within the immediate context also played a significant role in the situation. Kennedy had campaigned himself in this new light that would bring a brighter future to America. Americans were won over by his good looks, charm, intelligence, and well to do upbringing. Though hesitant to the newly revised plan constructed by Eisenhower, Kennedy had big hopes of living up to his campaign promises and providing a new America for it’s citizens. Approving The Bay of Pigs operation seemed like the opportunity to do so as he hoped to set the precedent as a stronger, more dominant world power. Unfortunately, Kennedy was manipulated too easily by his advisors and the C.I.A, leading to the approval of a plan he himself was never confident in but was assured consistently, would be an easy victory.

In analyzing the flaws of Kennedy’s leadership and why the executed plan of The Bay of Pigs failed, it is critical to recognize the role groupthink played. In The Leader’s Companion Irving James argues the effect groupthink had in The Bay of Pigs Invasion. Irving defines groupthink as “A mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive ingroup that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action” (Janis 347). It is clear the notion of groupthink occurred in the decision to implement The Bay of Pigs covert option, as Kennedy was pressured to conform to the C.I.A.’s beliefs along with various other white house officials. Factors including morality, pressure, censorship, pride, and stress are all key elements that lead to the creation of groupthink (Janis 363). Kennedy was clearly under a considerable amount of stress coming to office, after following his well respected and well educated predecessor. The Bay of Pigs plan had also been created under former President Eisenhower, creating even more pressure for Kennedy himself to approve it and execute it successfully. The pride and morality of those involved also played a key role as they felt the American backed revolt would help to end the growth of Communism and reestablish American supremacy and patriotism. As Irving quotes President Kennedy “How could we have been so stupid? (Janis 360). In reality the failure came down to the lack of leadership exhibited by President Kennedy along with his inability to confidentially stand on his own and not fall victim to the deceitfulness of groupthink.

The Myers Briggs Personality Indicator is also an excellent tool to use in analyzing Kennedy’s leadership and how it impacted the decision to carry out the American backed, Cuban revolt. In Understanding Yourself, Komives, Lucas, and McMahon summarize Carl Jung’s findings of four categories, that break down the human personality according to specific characteristics. These three authors state “These combinations describe where we get our information from (extrovert and introvert), how we gather information from the world around us (sensing and intuition), how we prefer to process that information (feeling and thinking) and ways we prefer to make decisions (judging and perceiving) (Komives et al. 122). In observing Kennedy’s decision making process and personality traits, the Myers Briggs Indicator becomes extremely helpful in understanding how and why he fell victim to approve a plan that failed tremendously. Kennedy was described as having an intuitive personality, constantly looking at all of the options and analyzing the big picture (Anastasi 14). This made it very difficult for the president to make decisions in a timely manner as he constantly relooked options and wanted to address all possible outcomes of from the decision. Kennedy’s thinking personality type also made it difficult for him to reject the plan when the C.I.A had constructed it in the first place and believed in it wholeheartedly (Anastasia 14). The president operated constantly by the book, wanted to check all the boxes and make sure he had all advisors in agreement. He ended up approving The Bay of Pigs and conforming his beliefs to those of the C.I.A. as all boxes seemed to be checked from their (skewed) reviews and analysis. Looking at a few different aspects of Kennedy’s personality traits helps to show why he reluctantly approved The Bay of Pigs, and why some of his personality traits hindered his ability to lead.

Burns discusses a theory known as The X Factor that is highly relevant in tying together both the agency (leader behavior, motives, and beliefs) and the structure (context) in the analysis of Kennedy’s leadership failure. Burns states “ The variables in the process of causation- human motivations such as people’s wants and needs, the ambitions of leaders and rulers, the nature and interaction of agency and of situation, the mysteries of creativity, conflict, and power- are too complex and variegated to lend themselves to simplistic explanations or monocausal analyses” (Burns 21). Observing Kennedy’s leadership throughout the process of approving the invasion allows for a deeper and more collective insight to be formed. Burns supports this stating “ Only one discipline can approach causation using the widest array of conceptual and empirical tools. That discipline is leadership- the X factor in historic causation” (Burns 22). A newly elected, inexperienced president, the growth of Communism across Europe, the lack of communication between the C.I.A and president, and the manipulated information presented in backing the plan were all contributing factors the invasion’s failure. The X Factor known as leadership however, is the only discipline that incorporates all these contextual factors along with those of agency in a more profound analysis. The primary reason the operation failed so tragically was because of Kennedy’s inability to lead amongst these contextual factors. He tried so desperately to please the American people and those advising the plan, but in the end, reluctantly approved a plan he knew from the beginning was an utter disaster. A natural people pleaser and logical thinker, his leadership style failed him in this sense as he allowed the pressure and opinions of others to dictate his decision’s.

Heavy beads of sweat ran down my eyebrows. I could already feel my arms bruising from the repeated blows, and I knew there would be more pain before this was over. I heard the sharp whistle, and the next round of the match began. My opponent landed a kick to the side of my head and I fell to the ground, every wisp of air knocked from my lungs. I was lying there on the floor, struggling to inhale, to exhale, to do anything under the thick armor strapped to my chest. The foam helmet did little to cushion the blow, and the stars twinkled around me while a constant ring filled my left ear. I struggled to rise, but the thought of my coach and friends watching came to my mind. I knew I must.

I was never going to beat my opponent. While I wasn’t what one might consider a bad fighter, I was matched against a much taller, much older, and much more experienced combatant. I was merely target practice for him—a painful target practice, as my sore body would attest. But I did not enter the fight thinking I would lose, thinking I would get crushed. During my training, I had fought many opponents larger than me, and this one seemed to be no different. I had a strategy – a solid one that worked before and should work again. However, as it turned out, fighting, even under regulated circumstances, was a chaotic affair, and strategy could only go so far to help you win. At the start of the first round, my opponent acted as I hoped he would. However, he was swift for his size. Too fast. I couldn’t evade his kicks, let alone retaliate. My plan was shredded like paper as he drove me out of the ring. No matter what maneuvers I pulled, what offense I put up, it seemed ineffective. Not my kicks, nor my blocks. That bout ended with me losing in humiliation.

After the match, I felt terrible. The sense that I had failed my coach and myself haunted me, and my aching body served as a painful reminder of my defeat. Had I overcome my opponent, I would have gone on to the next stage. But as it was, all those hours poured into training had gone to waste. Seeing how I was disappointed, my coach told me she was proud of me – the way I fought and handled defeat. I was knocked down, with no hope of winning, but I always rose back up. There was no shame in failing, she said. There was only shame in giving up. Those words changed the way I felt and viewed my failures. Had I won – had I been able to defeat my opponent as I hoped to – I would have never learned anything and I would still be the same person I was before the match. Failure helped me grow.

I could not defeat every opponent I was matched with, but that did not stop me from trying. Even when I was losing, I still fought my hardest. This was what mattered most. Failures can feel devastating and crippling, especially to those unaccustomed to it. However, failure teaches you to persevere through hardships and adversity and come out stronger than before. My failure in the ring was quite literally painful, but it taught me something I could apply to other aspects of my life. Having understood the role failures play in our lives, I now know that being defeated isn’t what matters. Rising back up is.

As I went alongside and started out reading and studying about the Progressive Era. I without difficulty began to find out that this period in history become a large flop. Although Progressivism carried greater noteworthy proficiency to the administration, set up a more and more equivalent gambling subject for commercial enterprise, and increased the political intensity of normal residents, the finest sadness of the Progressive Era was its selective nature.

The Progressive Era concurred with the Jim Crow era, which noticed first-rate isolation and segregation of African Americans. The authenticity of legal guidelines requiring isolation of blacks was maintained by way of the U.S. Incomparable Court inside the 1896 example of Plessy v. Ferguson. The decision on Plessy on this way approved isolation, which got popular in the course of the southern United States and spoke to the systematization of the Jim Crow period. Everybody should get comparable open administrations (schools, medical clinics, detainment centers, and so on.), however with remote workplaces for each race. In exercise, the services and facilities reserved for African Americans were nearly usually decrease nicer than the ones reserved for whites; for instance, most African-American colleges acquired much less public funding in keeping with pupils than nearby white faculties. Segregation became never mandated by regulation inside the northern states, but a ‘de facto’ machine grew for schools, wherein nearly all black students attended faculties that had been almost all black.

In southern states, many laws were enacted that disenfranchise black electorate. State legislatures passed restrictive laws or constitutions that made voter registration and election rules extra complex. As literacy assessments and other regulations might be implemented subjectively, these changes sharply restricted the vote through most blacks. These discriminatory practices had been now not outlawed until the Fifties and later. Furthermore, racism often pervaded most Progressive reform efforts, as evidenced by utilizing the suffrage motion. Specifically, as women campaigned for the vote, most Progressives argued on behalf of woman suffrage as an essential reform to combat the influence of ‘corrupted’ or ignorant’ black voters inside the election booth. Civil rights and Progressive reforms were for that reason frequently exclusionary tasks that had little actual have an impact on each different inside the early 20th century.

The Progressive reformers of the time focused little in their attempt on improving the lives of African Americans and other minorities. Additionally, the Progressive Era become characterized by loose, a couple of, and contradictory desires that impeded the efforts of reformers and often pitted political leaders towards one another, maximum notably within the Republican Party. For example, national Progressive leaders together with Roosevelt argued for improved federal law to coordinate large enterprise practices while others, along with Wilson, promised to legislate for open competition. At the local, municipal, and kingdom tiers, numerous Progressives endorsed for disparate reforms whose concerns ranged as extensive as prisons, education, government reorganization, city development, prohibition, woman suffrage, beginning manipulate, progressed working conditions, labor, and infant hard work.

Although vast improvements were made in social justice and reform on a case-by using-case basis, there has been a little local attempt to coordinate reformers on a huge platform of issues.

After slavery ended the Reconstruction period begin, a period that many historians say was one of the most important times in U.S. history. This period of time is when freed African Americans began to be treated as humans, not like animals. But when Abe Lincoln was assassinated his vice president didn’t have the same viewpoints and the Reconstruction period began to come to what most people think of this time period, a time period when the U.S. had to finally deal with it’s innermost problem. Slaves. From the viewpoint of a freed African American, Reconstruction was a mediate failure because throughout the Reconstruction period the freedmen did receive aid from the U.S. Army and Amendments were made to help them but overall discrimination was still there and the KKK and the Jim Crow laws were made to treat the blacks as second class citizens.

The good thing about Reconstruction was during the beginning the freed slaves could depend on the U.S. for support and aid. The task of giving aid and protecting African Americans was given to the Bureau of Freedman. “All of the officers of the bureau were directed to investigate these difficulties between the two classes, [and] to settle them…. As much as possible, to punish light offences by fines, and to report more serious cases of crime to the military authorities.” This shows that the Blacks could depend on the U.S. for protection and that the U.S. was working to improve the community. Another way the government provided help was actually coming to plantations and explaining rules. From the documents of the Freedmen’s Bureau, they state, “Our Officers have been of great help in this matter. They have visited plantations to explain the difference between slave and free labor. They have also explained how contracts work.” This shows that there willing to get their hands dirty and make change happen.

After the change of the President all aid that was being given stopped. There was no longer protection and the Whites could do whatever they wanted. A hate group called the KKK rose to power and began to terrorize blacks with threats and rules. Their goal was to scare blacks and to cancel out their votes during elections and if black didn’t follow what the KKK said to do, their life was at stake. The government interviewed a KKK member and they said, “My opinion is that the purpose was to break down the Reconstruction acts; that they were dissatisfied with negro suffrage and the reconstruction [sic] measures and everybody that was in favor of them.” This explains the goal of the KKK and that their intentions were harmful. Late in the document, it is shown that they are fulfilling their goal and harm is being done. “Well, in my section of the country, the colored people are afraid now and have been for some time, to turn out at an election. They are afraid to say much, or to have anything to do with public affairs.” Now that the blacks have a say in who is voted in for the government the KKK don’t like this and are not letting blacks vote. Overall the KKK was created to degrade the Blacks and to not let them have the rights of a first-class citizen.

Another thing that the Whites did to separate themselves from Blacks was, they created Jim Crow laws. Unlike the KKK the Jim Crow laws were approved by the government and as long the blacks had something similar to the whites the government was fine. “Jim Crow was more than a series of rigid anti-black laws. It was a way of life. Under Jim Crow, African Americans were relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Jim Crow represented the legitimization of anti-black racism.” This definition sums up the Jim Crow laws, but the Jim Crow laws even effected who blacks could play checkers with or how to have a conversation with a white person. So the Jim Crow laws were another way to keep segragation and if these rules weren’t followed like the KKK rules Blacks could be killed. So because the government didn’t care about the amendments the whites were able to create these rules

Overall from the view of a Freedman reconstruction was great in the beginning because the government was participating in making life for a former slave better. The government’s acts include creating amendments, giving aid and protection, schools being created, and jobs in the government being open to blacks. But as soon as Abraham Lincoln died everything that was happening stopped. The Blacks became vulnerable to attacks of the whites, rules could be created and the Blacks didn’t have a choice of following these rules. To conclude, the Reconstruction period was a failure because at the end of it the same problem was still there. The only thing that changed was that Blacks weren’t slaves.