the novelty of restoration

i think it is important to realize that people, as a whole, do not like change. the average person - maybe. however, people, the masses, are generally against change. historically speaking, people have gathered by the majority of masses against radical thought, unconventional shifts within society, and the implementation of taboo ideals. the civil rights movement which marked a turn in the middle of the 20th century, which is now honored as a great stride in American History and is considered a victory for America's ability to change and mature, was initially a time of unrest, fear, crime, rampage, and anger. on both sides of the civil rights movement, there existed a general and overwhelming amount of criticism about whether or not the movement should even take place. at the time, black-only communities were beginning to flourish, and the integration of white communities and white schools meant that these very same maturing communities would be deemed second rate, passed-over, and ultimately passed-up for more viable options in other neighborhoods. the white-only communities of the time also met this change with resistance, as it meant sharing the businesses they owned and operated with a culture they did not know, did not trust, and generally thought to be inferior to their own. now, i'm no historian, but believe that this resistance was met with government force, as the integration of communities and cultures began to make sense in terms of capitalism and gentrification. it was also supported by the powers that be after change seemed to be inevitable, a force that was picking up momentum, either in the direction of the non-violent Christan movement led by Dr. King, or in the direction of black-superiority and defensive aggression, led by the Nation of Islam and Malcolm X. with those "powers that be" considering the better of the two, Dr. King was nationally exalted for his work and cause, and it was then pushed throughout America that if one were to join this force of change, his would be the direction to go. and though history tends to be kind to positive moments of change in a given society, this push for change was a by-product of the civil unrest that the same change initially started, and was a socially painful time in which to live because of it.

i bring this up to not to attest whether or not change is necessary when it is implemented, but rather to point out that, necessary or not, history shows us that it is almost always met with civil unrest, harsh criticism, and frustration among the masses. where monumental change is seen, you will find initial resistance from the masses and overall disapproval from the people it affects. the cases stretch far and wide. Jesus introduced radical concepts that led to his publicly endorsed death for the world to witness. Lincoln introduced taboo ideals into law that led to his public downfall and assassination. Galileo was considered crazy. Einstein was a laughing stock. Marcus Garvey was deemed a "traitor and lunatic" even by fellow black idealist of the day.

change is not accepted by the masses. and is especially rejected by American culture.

and so, when considering why the campaign of Barack Obama, one that was centered on the pillar of change, was so accepted and renowned, the thought initially seems to be an anomaly. the notion that, all of a sudden, the masses support and corroborate this pledge of change in Washington, this idea of change in racial barriers, and the concept of change in our society, appears to contradict history itself by implying that masses and multitude do, in fact, welcome change where change is needed. and though this implication may seem air-tight, i choose to stand on the side of history. i propose that when analyzing the cause and and reason behind the colossal support of Obama's platform, one need not believe that people have reach some new level of maturity or courage. one need not think that history has shifted and that people as a whole now welcome change for no reason, or because it is now exceptionally needed where before it wasn't. no, i beg of you not to think that people are now, for the first time in the history of people, ready to welcome change in a way that has been undocumented since the beginning of time simply because Obama is that uplifting, that inspiring, that encouraging, or that cool. i would rather you look at this phenomenon from a different angle: that Obama's administration does not represent change at all.

on the contrary. Obama's campaign does not represent an era of change, but rather a return to the familiar. during the campaign, they likened him to figures such as JFK and King, his proposals like that of Carter and Clinton, and his swagger to that of a young Bobby Kennedy. Obama does not represent change, he represents a return to a golden era. his promises are that of fixing that which is broken, not creating something new. his speeches are of returning America back to power, not to taking a new stance in the world. Bush, if anything, represented change in American policies and practices - Obama is a return to the illusion of morality that American prides itself on. the change in which he speaks, is change from change, changing back, changing from the beast that America has become to the beast that we once were. and it is this change that the American masses support. it is this change that American masses are addicted to. even his racial identity, though seemingly a change in American prejudice, is more so a return in the American superiority complex. we raise our banners and flags to say "look what we did! look what we accomplished! America has overcome it's own history of hatred and bigotry! look countries that have ousted us from your circles of trust! we can change! we are different! we are better!"

and i, i do not fall outside of this mass of people. i am not on the outside looking in. i lift that banner to, in my own American pride, in my own cultural superiority complex. i too want to return to the way things were. i too long for the economy i grew up in, and the education programs that i was schooled. i too long for this change from change, this return from destitution, this revival of America. i long for it. i love it. i support it and the catalyst in which it has been represented - this man that has given us all hope to return the familiar and the greatness our country once was.

and though, a part of me possesses this hope of return, there is a larger part of me telling myself that it can never go back to the way it was. things have changed for real. over the last decade, things have changed so slowly, it did not receive the resistance it deserved. i do not fault Obama for selling his campaign on change, when it is really restoration, because that is simply a matter of semantics. a play on words. i simply want to keep things in perspective, respecting the history of change and what it means to be amongst it. because, though his intentions may be to restore America, his efforts to do so may really result in actual change. and history tells, that change is a hard thing for people to truly accept. i pray for the best. i prepare for the impact of what may be a defining decade for our generation, our nation, and our people as a whole.