Skip to main content

Killing Canadians (II)

The Righteous Politics of the Accident

  • Chapter
Canada/US and Other Unfriendly Relations
  • 72 Accesses

Abstract

On April 18, 2002 (still April 17 in Canada), four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight wounded when two F-16 fighter pilots mistakenly dropped a 500-pound bomb on a nighttime live-ammunition training exercise near Kandahar in Afghanistan. Considered as the first Canadian combat deaths since the Korean War, the “friendly fire incident” sparked both sorrow and outrage across the entire country and an almost unprecedented media frenzy such that Canadian journalists subsequently voted it as the top news story of the year. Journalists, as news media scholar Stuart Allan discusses, “are among the pre-eminent story-tellers of modern society. Their news accounts shape in decisive ways our perceptions of the ‘world out there’ beyond our immediate experience.” Indeed, news discourses serve to help naturalize a cultural politics of legitimacy that justify the distribution of modern society’s practices of power and influence.4 This is not to suggest that journalists implant a “false consciousness” upon their readership, but rather that news texts demarcate the limits of “common sense” working to “reaffirm a hegemonic network of conventionalized rules by which social life is to be interpreted.”5 For Benedict Anderson, the emergence of daily newspaper reading was a prime example of how print-capitalism worked in the formation of nations as “imagined communities,” with newspapers thus playing a key role in how the nation is understood in terms of time and space.

Meanwhile, the Athenians were trying to find each other and were taking everyone who was going the other way as an enemy, including friends who were already running back for safety… The final result of all this was that men from various parts of the army kept running into each other, once they were in total confusion—friends against friends and citizens against fellow citizens. They not only terrified each other but even came to hand-to-hand fighting and could scarcely be parted without difficulty.1

With friends like the Americans, who needs enemies?2

You can’t sue another sovereign nation over something like this.3

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Peter Nyers, “What’s left of citizenship?” Citizenship Studies 8, no. 3 (2004), pp. 204–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. See Robert Wright, Virtual Sovereignty: Nationalism, Culture and the Canadian Question (Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press, 2004), p. 268.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clifford Krauss, “Canada’s view on social issues is opening rifts with the us,” The New York Times December 2, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See David Hayes, “Fear of (and fascination with) a black planet: The relocation of rap by white non-urban youth,” Topia: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies (Fall 2004), p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See for example Clifford Krauss and Beth Gorham, “Relations with Canada in flux as Bush faces political storms,” CTV News, Monday, December, 19, 2006, www.ctv.ca; “Conservative win in Canada could help repair ties to us,” The New York Times, January 23, 2006;

    Google Scholar 

  6. Andrew Coyne, “In from the cold,” The New York Times, January 23, 2006;

    Google Scholar 

  7. Doug Struck, “Canadians move right, elect new leadership,” Washington Post, Tuesday, January 24, 2006; “Canada tilts, cautiously, rightward,” The New York Times, Wednesday, January 25, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cited in Marisol Sandoval and Christian Fuchs, “Towards a critical theory of alternative media,” Telematics and Informatics, no. 27 (2010), p. 141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mitzi Waltz, Alternative Media and Activist Media (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2005), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Richard Abel, “An alternative press: Why?” Publishing Research Quarterly 12, no. 4 (1997), cited in Waltz, Alternative Media and Activist Media, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  11. James Hamilton, “Alternative media: Conceptual difficulties, critical possibilities,” Journal of Communication Inquiry 24, no. 4 (October 2000), p. 361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Copyright information

© 2012 Patricia Molloy

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Molloy, P. (2012). Killing Canadians (II). In: Canada/US and Other Unfriendly Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137031457_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics