From Marathon Filibusters to Historical Contradictions: A Report on Cory Booker’s Speech and Columbus’s Letters
Introduction
This report examines two contrasting historical events, drawing connections between past and present.
First, I will delve into Senator Cory Booker’s 25-hour marathon Senate speech in 2025, a contemporary filibuster against the policies of President Donald Trump. I will analyze the motivations behind his speech, highlight key remarks, and discuss public and peer reactions, while also comparing it to Senator Strom Thurmond’s record-setting filibuster in the 1950s. (Booker, 2025).
Subsequently, I will turn to the age of exploration, examining Christopher Columbus’s letters praising the Indigenous peoples of the Caribbean. However, this seemingly benevolent portrayal starkly contrasts with the subsequent violence, exploitation, and enslavement that followed his arrival. (Columbus, Letter).
I aim to illustrate how words and actions can diverge significantly, and how such contradictions shape historical legacies.
Senator Cory Booker’s 25-Hour Filibuster (2025)
Reason for the Filibuster and Issues Addressed
So, early 2025, the Democrats were kinda shook after losing the presidency and Congress in the '24 elections, bringing Trump back to the White House (Time.com). Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), he stepped up to the plate, taking over the Senate floor for a straight-up 25 hours and 5 minutes. This wasn't just talk; it was a filibuster aimed at pumping up the frustrated Democratic base and calling out what he saw as some seriously dangerous policy shifts coming from the Trump administration (Time.com, HuffPost.com).
Booker laid out a few key issues he was fighting against:
- Messin' with Government Programs: Booker went hard against the administration's plans to "demolish government agencies" and gut social programs. He warned that these big budget cuts were gonna mess with folks who depend on essential services (HuffPost.com). He specifically pointed to talk about slashing safety nets like Medicaid and maybe even Social Security, saying these moves would hurt regular folks something awful (Time.com).
- Tax Breaks for the Already Rich: He wasn't having it with Trump's economic policy of cutting taxes for billionaires and big corporations, saying that kinda agenda "disproportionately benefits the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans" (Time.com).
- Healthcare Hang-Ups: Reading letters from folks back home, Booker shined a light on people's fears of losing their access to affordable healthcare if they rolled back the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid. He made it clear, "These concerns ain't just something on paper; they hit millions of people right where they live," telling stories of those who depend on these programs to get by (Time.com).
- Attackin' Our Democracy: Booker saw Trump's way of running things as a straight-up attack on how our democracy is supposed to work. He even called the President's behavior "tyrannical" "taking our Constitution and just trashing it" (Time.com). He pointed out how even judges were trying to step in and stop Trump from going too far. He argued that "the threats to the American people and American democracy are grave and urgent," and that "we all must do more to stand against them" (APNews.com).
- Immigration, Education, and Security Shenanigans: Throughout the whole night, he touched on Trump's approach to immigration and education, and he wasn't feeling the national security decisions that he thought were making the U.S. look bad (Time.com). For example, Booker clowned on Trump's wild ideas about buying up new land (reportedly thinking about annexing Greenland and even Canada), calling 'em reckless moves that "undermine America’s credibility on the global stage" (Time.com). He also warned that Trump's trade wars – like those new tariffs dropped on what Trump called "Liberation Day" – were gonna backfire: "It’s going to hurt us more as a nation in the long run" (Time.com).
Basically, Booker's marathon speech was him calling out the whole Trump-Musk administration (since Elon Musk got a key spot) and where they were trying to take the country. By holding the floor like that, Booker wanted to put a spotlight on what he called the "reckless dismantling" of programs and norms under Trump (Time.com), and to show folks that at least one person in the Senate was ready to stand up and say, "Enough is enough" (Time.com).
Highlights from Booker’s Marathon Speech
Booker’s address was rich with historical references and moral appeals, delivered with a mix of outrage and optimism, even though he was physically strained from speaking for over a day without a break. He kicked off his speech by calling on the late civil rights icon John Lewis, declaring, “I rise with the intention of getting in some good trouble” (HuffPost.com).
As the hours dragged on, Booker framed the fight in moral terms rather than partisan ones. “This ain't a partisan moment , it is a moral moment,” he urged around the 20-hour mark, gripping a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution in his hand. “Where do you stand?” he challenged his colleagues (Time.com), implying that every senator would be judged on whether they stood on the side of upholding American ideals or acquiescing to what he depicted as authoritarian behavior. He periodically read aloud from the U.S. Constitution and from testimonies of constituents, and invoked the words of heroes like Martin Luther King Jr. and John Lewis, linking his marathon oration to the legacy of past struggles for justice (Time.com).
Even though he was tired, Booker’s delivery got real impassioned at key moments. At one dramatic point, he thundered, “How much more will we take of this? … How much more of these indignities will we take as [Trump] turns his back on our allies? How much more of a person that is doing tyrannical things — as he takes our Constitution and continues to trash it…?” (Time.com).
His voice, hoarse but resolute, rose as he answered his own question: “This ain't who we are or how we do things in America… Enough is enough. You’re not gon' get away with this” (Time.com). These lines brought murmurs of agreement from Democratic colleagues in the chamber.
Booker’s feat required extraordinary stamina and preparation. He remained standing the entire time, foregoing any breaks. (He later revealed he had gone without solid food for days beforehand and even stopped drinking liquids the night before so he could last without a restroom break (Time.com).)
Finally, after eclipsing the previous Senate speech record (more on that record below), Booker prepared to close.
Reactions from Colleagues and the Administration
Booker’s unprecedented speech drew strong reactions across the political spectrum. Democratic senators rallied behind him enthusiastically. The Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, joined Booker on the floor as the marathon wound down and offered glowing praise. “Your strength, your fortitude, your clarity has just been nothing short of amazing, and all of America is paying attention to what you’re saying,” Schumer told Booker in front of the chamber, adding that “all of America needs to know” about “the disastrous actions of this administration” (Time.com, APNews.com).
Other Democratic colleagues filled the Senate floor in the final hours to cheer Booker on, breaking into applause when he broke the record (APNews.com). Perhaps the most poignant support came from those who had personal ties to the issues and history Booker invoked. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus from the House of Representatives gathered at the edge of the Senate floor to witness the moment (APNews.com). House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (the first Black lawmaker to lead a party in Congress) slipped into the chamber on Tuesday afternoon, calling Booker’s stand “an incredibly powerful moment.” Jeffries noted the historic resonance of a Black senator “fighting to preserve the American way of life and our democracy” while breaking the record of a segregationist filibuster from decades past (APNews.com).
Other senators who had led marathon speeches in the past showed camaraderie. Senator Chris Murphy, whose own nearly 15-hour filibuster after the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting helped force a vote on gun safety, stayed with Booker throughout the night and into the next day (HuffPost.com, APNews.com). “Cory ain’t doing it to break a record,” Murphy wrote on social media during the speech, “but I do know it would be amazing to have a racist pro-segregation speech erased from the Senate record books” (HuffPost.com).
This was a pointed reference to the longstanding record held by Strom Thurmond (more on that below). Murphy’s tweet underscored that Democrats saw poetic justice in Booker’s feat: the content of Booker’s speech was the polar opposite of Thurmond’s 1957 segregationist tirade, and now Booker had literally talked long enough to supplant Thurmond in the record books (HuffPost.com). On the other side of the aisle, Republican reaction was far less congratulatory. Many Republicans regarded Booker’s marathon speech as a stunt or mere political theater, especially since it was not delaying any major legislation permanently (at most, it pushed a planned vote by a day) (HuffPost.com). Senate GOP leaders did not engage Booker directly on the floor, allowing him to speak but largely abstaining from debate during his talk-a-thon. White House officials openly mocked the effort. A presidential spokesperson derided Booker’s marathon as “another ‘I am Spartacus’ moment” – a sarcastic reference to a previous time Booker grandstanded during a 2018 Supreme Court hearing – and quipped, “When will he realize he’s not Spartacus, he’s a spoof?” (Time.com). This dismissive comment (given to Fox News during Booker’s speech) conveyed the Trump administration’s view that Booker’s act was a self-aggrandizing spectacle. In essence, the White House message was that one marathon speech wouldn’t stop the Trump agenda. Republican allies echoed this sentiment, arguing that Democrats were resorting to theatrics because they lacked the votes to win fights through normal procedure.
Nevertheless, Booker did achieve one concrete delay: by holding the floor past Tuesday’s session, he postponed a Senate vote that had been scheduled. The Senate had planned to vote on a bipartisan resolution to overturn Trump’s new tariffs on Canada, but Booker’s control of the floor pushed that vote to Wednesday (HuffPost.com). (This was a small side effect; Booker’s aim was broader awareness, not specifically filibustering that tariff measure.) Once Booker yielded, Senate business – and the partisan legislative agenda – continued, but Democrats had made their point.
Public and Media Response
Beyond the headlines, analysis was mixed on the impact of Booker’s filibuster. Political analysts agreed the speech was a remarkable display of endurance and passion, but asked, “Will it rally anti-Trump resistance?” (APNews.com). Some noted that, practically, such a speech wouldn’t change votes in a Republican-controlled Senate and was “unlikely to directly impact the broader legislative landscape” (Time.com). However, many believed it served as a morale boost for Democrats. The Associated Press observed that Booker’s feat was a way to “show [Democrats’] frustrated supporters that they are doing everything possible to contest Trump’s agenda” (APNews.com), even if they lacked the votes in Congress. In interviews after his speech, Booker himself said he hoped his action would “embolden Democrats who feel increasingly sidelined” and inspire “a new generation of leaders” to stand up (Time.com).
Public reaction also reflected some fatigue with partisan paralysis. A CNN poll in February 2025 had found nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters thought their lawmakers weren’t doing enough to oppose Trump (Time.com). Booker’s marathon was in part an answer to that cry for bolder opposition. In the short term, it succeeded in focusing public attention – at least for a news cycle – on Democratic grievances with the Trump administration. Whether it changed any minds was unclear, but for a moment, one senator’s voice speaking nonstop captured the nation’s attention.
Historical Comparison: Strom Thurmond’s 1957 Filibuster
Booker’s marathon speech naturally invites comparison to the previous record-holding filibuster, one of the most infamous in Senate history. The prior benchmark for the longest Senate speech was set in August 1957 by Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes straight (Time.com). Thurmond’s marathon was way different in motive from Booker’s; it was a one-man crusade against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, a modest law intended to ensure African Americans could exercise their right to vote.
During his 1957 filibuster, Thurmond pulled out every trick to stretch the speech as long as possible. He read aloud from the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. criminal code, and even George Washington’s Farewell Address, far-afield material used to consume time. Famously, he read the entire text of each state’s election laws. At one point, he recited a pastry recipe from his grandmother, seemingly irrelevant to the civil rights bill, just to kill time. Thurmond had physically prepared for the ordeal by taking steam baths to dehydrate (so he could avoid bathroom breaks) and stockpiling throat lozenges to keep his voice going.
The legacy of Thurmond’s filibuster is one of infamy. At the time, Southern segregationists cheered Thurmond’s defiance, but civil rights supporters were dismayed. Over the years, that feat of endurance came to symbolize entrenched racist resistance to civil rights.
For decades, Thurmond’s 1957 marathon was the longest single speech in Senate history, and it stood as a challenge to anyone who might try to break it. Other marathon speeches came close: for instance, in 2013 Senator Ted Cruz spoke for just over 21 hours in a protest against the Affordable Care Act (HuffPost.com), and in 2016 Senator Chris Murphy’s filibuster on gun control lasted almost 15 hours (HuffPost.com).
In Booker’s eyes, reclaiming the filibuster record was a way to symbolically turn the page on Thurmond’s legacy of defiance to equality. The contrast between the two marathon speeches could not be more stark. Thurmond’s speech in 1957 was aimed at preventing African Americans from securing their rights, whereas Booker’s in 2025 was dedicated to defending rights and democratic norms under what he portrayed as an authoritarian threat.
Booker’s and Thurmond’s marathon filibusters, separated by nearly seven decades, illustrate how the same parliamentary tactic can be used in service of very different causes. One was an effort to halt progress; the other, an effort to protest regression. This historical context gave Booker’s act a deeper resonance. As one commentator put it, “filibusters can be heroic or villainous, depending on what principle the speaker is serving.” In 2025, Booker sought to transform the legacy of the long-winded Senate speech, from Thurmond’s record of obstruction to his own record of resistance.
Columbus’s First Contact: Praise Versus Reality
Columbus’s Admiration for the Indigenous People (1492–1493)
Turning from modern political theater to a seminal event over five centuries ago, I’m gon' examine the words of Christopher Columbus during his first encounters with the Indigenous peoples of the Caribbean – and the stark contrast between his written admiration and his subsequent actions. When Columbus rolled up on the islands of the “New World” in October 1492, he came into contact with the Taíno/Arawak people. In letters and reports back to his folks in Spain (like that famous letter to Luis de Santángel in 1493), Columbus praised the Indigenous inhabitants in glowing terms! He seemed real struck by their generosity, innocence, and peaceful nature. Describing the people of the Bahamas (who he called “Indians”), Columbus wrote: “The Indians … are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone…” (jacobinmag.com). He marveled at their lack of guile and materialism – in his eyes, they were trusting and open-hearted.
Columbus’s own journal from the first voyage echoes this admiration. Upon meeting the Arawaks of an island he named San Salvador, he noted they were “full of wonder” at the Spaniards and exceedingly friendly. He recounted how “they brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things” as gifts and traded everything they owned willingly for trifles the Europeans offered (jacobinmag.com). Perhaps most tellingly, Columbus observed that these people had no modern weapons and seemed to know nothing of iron or swords. “They do not bear arms, and do not know them,” he wrote, remarking that when a sword was shown, an Arawak man innocently grasped it by the blade and cut himself out of ignorance (jacobinmag.com). Far from portraying the natives as hostile, Columbus repeatedly emphasized their gentle and kind demeanor. He described them as “guileless and honest,” “exceedingly generous,” and “so unsuspicious and so generous with what they possess, that no one who has not seen it would believe it” (gilderlehrman.org, nationalhumanitiescenter.org). “They never refuse anything that is asked for. They even offer it themselves, and show so much love that they would give their very hearts,” Columbus wrote of the people’s hospitality (nationalhumanitiescenter.org)!
These excerpts from Columbus’s letters convey a tone of admiration and optimism. He even mused that such docile, well-dispositioned people “might become Christians and inclined to love our King and Queen” with relative ease (gilderlehrman.org). In other words, Columbus saw the Arawaks as good candidates for conversion to Christianity and loyal subjects for the Spanish Crown, given their trusting nature. In one oft-cited line, he remarked, “They would make fine servants” – noting that with just a small force of Europeans “we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want” (jacobinmag.com). This comment foreshadowed a more sinister intent even amid the praise; however, on its face, Columbus’s initial reports painted the Indigenous Caribbean islanders as affectionate, unthreatening, and generous people who lived in a bountiful land. To his patrons in Spain, Columbus emphasized the idyllic qualities of the islands and their inhabitants, likely to assure Ferdinand and Isabella that this new discovery was ripe for colonization and missionary work with little resistance.
In summary, Columbus’s early letters and journal entries express a kind of awed benevolence toward the native people. He seemed genuinely impressed by their kindness and the beauty and riches of the islands. His writings spoke of the Indigenous people as loving, devoid of greed, and possessing an innocence that made them stand out in Columbus’s Old World mindset. However, this initial tone of respect (or at least appreciative observation) in Columbus’s words stands in shocking contrast to the brutality that was soon unleashed upon those same people!
Violence, Exploitation, and Enslavement After First Contact
Despite Columbus’s written admiration for the Indigenous inhabitants, his actions in the years that followed revealed a whole different attitude – one of exploitation and straight-up cruelty. Matter of fact, even in Columbus’s 1493 letter, right after praising the natives’ generosity, he switched gears to a proposal that foreshadowed their messed-up fate. He wrapped up his report to the Spanish monarchs by promising that, with their support, he’d deliver to them “as much gold as they need ... and as many slaves as they ask” from the newfound lands (jacobinmag.com)! This chilling promise made it crystal clear that Columbus saw the people not just as hospitable hosts, but also as a resource to be exploited. The admiration in his writing was all mixed up with opportunism; the very naivety and kindness he saw led him to believe the natives could be easily bossed around and put to work for Spain’s profit.
Columbus wasted no time turning these intentions into reality. On his second voyage (1493-1496), he came back with a much larger crew – 17 ships and over a thousand men, specifically to colonize and snatch up wealth (jacobinmag.com). Columbus and his men put policies of slavery and forced labor into place almost immediately in the Caribbean. One of the most messed-up things that happened was in 1495, when Columbus organized a massive slave raid on the island of Hispaniola. In that raid, his forces rounded up about 1,500 Arawak men, women, and children all at once (jacobinmag.com)! These folks were snatched from their villages and herded into pens under Spanish guard. Columbus then sent the “best” 500 of these enslaved individuals to Spain as a sample of the human cargo he could provide (jacobinmag.com). The journey was horrific; roughly 200 of those 500 captives died during the Atlantic crossing, their bodies tossed into the sea (jacobinmag.com)! This was the grim beginning of the transatlantic slave trade from the Americas. Columbus reported to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella on the shipment of slaves, not even tripping about the loss of life, basically making good on his promise to deliver slaves to the Spanish Crown.
Those Indigenous people who remained under Columbus’s control in the Caribbean didn’t fare any better. Columbus imposed a brutal tribute system to satisfy Spanish demands for gold. Every adult native on Hispaniola had to deliver a certain amount of gold dust to the authorities regularly. If they didn't meet the quota, the punishment was terrifying; Spaniards would cut off the hands of those who didn’t deliver, leaving them to bleed out as a warning (jacobinmag.com)! Eyewitness accounts by Spanish friar Bartolomé de las Casas (who documented Columbus’s regime a few decades later) confirm these messed-up acts. Las Casas wrote that Spaniards under Columbus’s governorship “thought nothing of knifing Indians by tens and twenties and of cutting slices off them to test the sharpness of their blades” (jacobinmag.com)!
The scale of this cruelty was so massive that it wiped out the local population. Columbus’s men went on raiding expeditions, hunted Indigenous people for sport or punishment, and forced survivors to work in mines and plantations (the early encomienda system of forced labor) (jacobinmag.com, jacobinmag.com). The results of this violence were catastrophic! The Indigenous population of Hispaniola and surrounding islands plummeted within a single generation. Estimates vary, but historians generally agree that hundreds of thousands of Taíno people lived on Hispaniola when Columbus arrived in 1492. By 1515, after two decades of Spanish occupation, only about 50,000 were left alive on the island (jacobinmag.com). By 1550, that number had fallen to 500 – basically a 99% collapse of the original population (jacobinmag.com)! And by 1650, the Taíno/Arawak people were effectively extinct in those islands; none of the original inhabitants’ descendants remained in a pure line (jacobinmag.com). This ghastly toll was the direct result of mass murder, enslavement, harsh labor, malnutrition, and European diseases – a combination often summed up as the fate of Indigenous Americans under European colonialism.
The contradiction between Columbus’s early words and his deeds couldn’t be more stark! In 1492, he wrote of the natives’ gentleness and said he had “protected them from all injury” during initial encounters (nationalhumanitiescenter.org). Yet by 1494-1496, he was inflicting injury on a massive scale. The same letter that marveled at the islanders’ generosity also coolly discussed exploiting their labor and bodies. Columbus’s own accounts show he knew the natives were human; he saw they were intelligent, “ingenious,” and even noted they recognized the Spaniards as mortal men (initially thinking they came from heaven, but later realizing they did not) (nationalhumanitiescenter.org, nationalhumanitiescenter.org). Nonetheless, Columbus pursued a course that treated these people as disposable slaves.
Looking back, Columbus’s initial praise reads as tragically ironic. He admired the people’s innocence and kindness, yet took advantage of those traits to enslave them. He remarked on their lack of weapons and then used superior weaponry to subjugate them. He noted they would “give their very hearts” in generosity (nationalhumanitiescenter.org) – and indeed many gave their lives under the cruel yoke he imposed! This hypocrisy between Columbus’s words and actions has become a major point of examination for modern historians. It shows how early European stories about the “New World” could hide or justify the brutal reality of conquest. Columbus’s legacy, once painted as that of a bold discoverer bringing civilization, is now understood to also include the destruction of Indigenous Caribbean civilizations. The very hands he shook in friendship were later shackled; the people he called “lovable” were killed in the mines and fields.
To highlight the contradiction in simple terms: Columbus wrote of the Indigenous people as gentle hosts and potential friends, yet he and his men treated them as enemies or property. In Columbus’s own 1493 letter, you can see the beginnings of this conflict – a mix of admiration and exploitation. He saw material opportunity in the natives’ innocence. Unfortunately, when he came back, the messed-up motive won out. The violence that followed wiped out entire cultures. Today, when we read Columbus’s kind descriptions alongside the accounts of his atrocities, it forces us to reconcile the two images of Columbus – the one he presented to his bosses and the one history remembers on the ground. It serves as a sobering reminder that lofty words in historical documents can hide or come before horrific actions!
Conclusion: Connecting Past and Present, Words, Actions, and Legacies: This is the Great America Y'all Want Back?
Across the two very different topics covered in this report, a modern Senate filibuster and a 15th-century encounter, a common theme jumps out: the complex relationship between what folks say and what they actually do, and how history ultimately judges them.
In the case of Senator Cory Booker’s 2025 marathon speech, words were put to work highlighting truth and standing up for ideals. Booker’s 25-hour talkathon matched his rhetoric with principled action; he straight-up stood his ground for what he believed in, his deeds lining up with his words. The impact of his filibuster was immediately clear; it shattered a historical record set by a filibuster with a completely opposite moral aim. By outlasting Strom Thurmond’s 1957 anti-civil-rights filibuster, Booker helped symbolically flip the script in Senate history, using the longest speech in Senate history not to deny rights, but to demand attention to protecting rights! This contrast shows how history can come full circle. The Senate, once the stage for segregationist rants, became the stage for a son of the civil rights movement to speak out against perceived injustice. Booker’s marathon and Thurmond’s marathon will always be compared, highlighting how the context and content of such actions determine their legacy. Thurmond’s words tried to block progress, while Booker’s aimed to kick it into high gear. Decades from now, Booker’s stand in 2025 might be remembered as a bold moral protest (or maybe just a footnote), but in that moment he reshaped a narrative, showing that even when you don't win, an impassioned plea can inspire and reclaim historical memory.
Now, when we look at Christopher Columbus, the difference between his words and actions is not just big, it’s tragically messed up! Columbus’s nice-sounding words about the Indigenous people now read almost like a cruel joke when you see the devastation he caused. Here, what he said was meant to butter people up (to get royal favor and more support), while hiding the violent takeover that Columbus was ready to carry out. The legacy of Columbus’s actions has completely changed how we see his words. Where folks in the past might have taken his 1493 letter as proof of a peaceful meeting, modern readers, knowing about the massacres and slavery, see the ominous signs in his promises of slaves and his talk of easy conquest. The contrast between Columbus’s expressed admiration and his later cruelty highlights how important it is to look at history with a critical eye. It shows that first impressions in the historical record can be misleading or incomplete, making us dig deeper into what happened next. Columbus’s legacy today is a hot debate; once praised as a hero, he’s now often called out as the start of conquest and colonial genocide. That debate all comes down to the very contradiction we looked at – the difference between Columbus’s story of discovery and the harsh reality of what that “discovery” meant for native peoples.
When we connect these stories from the past and the present, we see how moral judgment and accountability eventually catch up with historical figures. Thurmond’s 24-hour speech didn’t stop the progress of civil rights; instead, his record now serves as a marker that a new generation wanted to overcome in the name of justice. Columbus’s polite descriptions didn’t erase his responsibility for unleashing suffering; instead, five centuries later, we hold his actions way more accountable than his words. Both cases show that history values when your ideals and your actions line up. When there’s a clear disconnect, like with Columbus, it can mess up a reputation for good. When words and actions back each other up, like Booker tried to do, matching his marathon speech with the values he was fighting for, they can create a powerful legacy, even if it’s just symbolic.
Finally, these stories remind us that progress is often about taking back the narrative. Booker literally took back a Senate record from a painful past, just like modern historians have taken back the story of Indigenous peoples from the sugar-coated myths about Columbus. In both situations, shining a light on the truth, whether through a marathon speech or through digging into history, is crucial for understanding and learning from the past.
So, when we talk about "making America great again," we gotta ask ourselves: are we looking back to a time when powerful words masked the brutal oppression of others, like Columbus promising riches while enacting genocide? Or are we striving for a greatness that lives up to its ideals, where leaders' actions match their words, like Booker standing up for what's right even when the odds are stacked against him?
This report shows us that history remembers more than just slogans; it remembers the consequences of actions. If "making America great again" means echoing policies that dismantle progress and disregard the rights of some, are we not repeating the mistakes of the past? The contrast between Booker's fight for a more just America and Columbus's exploitation of a vulnerable people forces us to confront what "greatness" truly means. Is it about dominance and exploitation, or is it about upholding the principles of democracy and human rights for everyone? The answer lies not just in the slogans we chant, but in the actions we take and the legacy we leave behind.
As we move forward, the lessons are clear: speeches and letters have power, but it’s ultimately actions and outcomes that history uses to judge leaders. Words set the stage, but deeds write the final chapter. The hope is that, unlike Columbus, our leaders today will make sure their big talk is matched by humane actions, and that when they ain't, loud voices (like Booker’s on the Senate floor) will rise up to challenge them in the name of what’s right!
Sources:
-
Time Magazine – “What to Know About Cory Booker’s Record-Breaking Speech”
-
HuffPost – “Cory Booker Breaks Record For Longest Senate Speech”
-
Associated Press News – “Cory Booker sets a record with marathon Senate speech. Will it rally anti-Trump resistance?”
-
Associated Press – Senate Television feed (Booker’s speech and reactions)
-
Columbus’s 1493 Letter (English translation) – National Humanities Center
-
Howard Zinn, via Jacobin – “The Real Christopher Columbus” (Columbus’s quotes & actions)
-
Gilder Lehrman Institute – “Columbus reports on his first voyage, 1493” (primary source excerpt)
-
Bartolomé de las Casas, as quoted in Zinn’s account of Columbus jacobinmag.com
Comments
Post a Comment