Lastly.

I have had a little bit of a struggle making a significant comment this week because I feel like I'd be repeating commentary from past weeks, just with slight changes. I'm also tired of the formula of not having anything comment about what the book is saying, so the answer is to resort to commenting on how the author is saying it instead. 

For these last two sections and the conclusion, let me take a brief, topical approach.

As the author addressed in her conclusion, I did wonder why there weren't more recent examples for both the Hispanic candidates section and the Asian American section. However, I found the examination of the San Antonio elections relevant and interesting considering the proximity of that area. In fact, San Antonio feels like sort of an irony with regard to racializaiton. Here is a city that celebrates its cuisine culture and latin influence while simultaneously celebrating the myths and stories surrounding the Alamo that seem to magnify the colonial American paradigm. Also ironic is the enormous American (or at least American-like) pride that Texas has considering its history and how it came to be, especially with how much Mexican culture permeates and has influenced much of the state. 

The section on Asian-American candidates only further emphasizes an underlying message of this whole textbook as well as the whole of American media.  That is, when it comes to the film and entertainment side of media, the eye behind the camera is likely trying to portray the world the way they have observed it. While it is certainly arguable that much of media is agenda-driven, sometimes a discourse is perpetuated because its all a media maker knows. I know that's exactly what so many CDA critics argue—there really is no reason or excuse for racialized media anymore. Even so, I think in the long run an effort to change the way every storyteller tells their story will be less effective than creating more storytellers who tell stories with eyes that are opened to race. In other words, it seems like displacement will be more effective than conversion when it comes to presenting paradigms through media. 

As CDA folks we're fixated on the "prevailing discourse" and what it maintains. Often the discussion approaches the discourse by talking about its problems and pleading that people open their eyes; that current filmmakers and media portray the world in a way that detracts from the minority and it needs to stop. The acknowledged problem is that a whitewashed worldview produces whitewashed media that perpetuate a whitewashed discourse. But, when you try to convince a people that see a white-dominant world to make media that isn't predominantly white, you're asking them to recreate something they think is subjectively false. That is, you're pleading with them to pretend enough that the pretended idea becomes real. I think in some circles that's called faith.  My argument (and my experience) is that trying to change someone's faith is a hard thing—especially the older they get. I think it will be more fruitful to displace a prevailing discourse by introducing new discourses by whatever means. Time spent trying to change the old faithfuls might be wasted when it could be spent creating new discourse instead. The internet has changed the face of mass media. The way we communicate now convinces me that a curtailing of the prevailing discourse will not be through some kind of mind-changing inside coup, but instead through an overthrowing by the louder, bigger voices. Airtime and radio waves are no longer the shackles they have been in former decades. Let the white people have their television and radio pawns in high number. Meanwhile, the kings and queens of the internet can prepare for their checkmate on the prevailing discourse and finally realize the change they've been waiting for.

... well, that got awfully preachy and lofty. Yet, most of our discussion is based on one or more of these things: blaming, ideals, dreams, and muckraking. The textbooks and discussion from this semester have given me a stronger hope for the rise minority media. Yeah, you know I'll still be calling out the errors of prevailing discourse. But, I think that is a dead end road of name calling. I'd rather cross my fingers and promote minority media in the hope that one day America's media will be (at least) a bi-partisan discourse.