The articles

Larsen wrote two journalistic pieces about the event, in which he elaborates on the political landscape on the islands and on his own role as a journalist (Larsen 1998;

1998a).⁹¹ The first piece, ‘Tumult på de vestindiske øer’⁹² (1998a), was published in a Danish newspaper two days after the event happened. The article describes the events from Larsen’s own physical perspective. It explains where he was standing when it

91 The articles were published in 1998 and the documentary was broadcast in 2005. The two journalistic products are therefore not contemporary, though I am using them here to shed light on a further point about journalistic production on the islands in general.

92 ‘Turmoil on the West Indian islands’ (my translation).

happened and it details the sequence of events from his outlook post on the wall of Fort Frederik. It describes the ‘rustling’ of the crowd when Bryant approached the stage, the ‘shouting’ and the ‘pushing’ of him and the bodyguards surrounding the invited guests and the violence which occurred. Larsen also writes that the actor Ravn and the gospel singer Cameron join him on the wall, thus giving a view into the context and the environment surrounding the interviews presented in the documentary. It is the journalistic articles by Larsen that present the information the documentary lacks; that the man who interrupted the re-enactment was in fact a local senator with a controversial political agenda, well-known to the Crucians. The article also manages to spell his name correctly (it is Bryan, not Bryant). Bryan is a politician who is working toward introducing ‘the original African values’ to the Virgin Islands and to ‘reserve the islands for people who can trace their roots to before the year 1927’ (Larsen 1998a, my translation).⁹³

Bryan originally proposed the idea of a re-enactment of the events of emancipation on the 3rd of July, Larsen writes, but Larsen’s article reveals that Bryan did not intend it to be a celebration of the Danish governor, von Scholten. As Larsen approaches the stage filming Bryan, who is known to detest journalists and never to give interviews (the article says), his supporters point out Larsen to Bryan and makes Bryan aware of the approaching journalist. Bryan sees the opportunity to relay a message to the Danish people, which the documentary repeats and which I reiterated above. But in the article Larsen also quotes Bryan saying: ‘You have nothing to celebrate. It was not von Scholten who emancipated the slaves. It was my ancestors – following general Buddhoe – who took their freedom’ (Larsen 1998a, my translation). The quotes from the written interview with Bryan are thus much more explicit in the discourses presented by the disruption of the event. They introduce the reader to the political and historical tensions on the islands as well as presenting Larsen in a particular role within this tension. Bryan then demands of Larsen to make a formal apology on behalf of the Danish people in the absence of the Danish queen and Danish politicians. Larsen declines and excuses himself with the words: ‘I am a journalist. I am here to collect data and ask questions. I do not represent the official Denmark.’

(Larsen 1998a, my translation). Larsen’s explicit position as ‘journalist’ places him

93 This particular year corresponds to the time in history when the USVI population were granted US citizenship, but this is not explained in the documentary.

simultaneously within and outside the cultural tension. I return to the significance of Larsen’s positioning as journalist-subject below and make note of how ‘objectivity’

serves as detachment from the political intention which I believe Larsen to have.

Larsen’s use of positioning himself within the stories he is telling shows how he is struggling to remain the ‘objective’ journalist while having a political agenda. It is the same professional tension, I argue, that is present in the three minutes of turmoil in his documentary Slavernes Slægt.

The second article, ‘Dansk Vestindien: Se, hvad I har gjort’⁹⁴ (Larsen 1998), which was published a couple of months after the event had happened, elaborates on the political tensions in the USVI between views respectively emphasising and down-playing the African heritage of the population. Again, Larsen’s political interest is apparent and his journalistic ‘fair’ reporting or ‘objectivity’ urges him to ‘show both sides’ of the political story. The article also makes available more details about Larsen’s journalistic role as he describes how the police, who are investigating the turmoil and Bryan’s role in it, pick Larsen up for questioning. Larsen writes that he, Larsen, is of no help to the police. I will elaborate below on this double role, hinted at here and which is apparent in a cultural analysis of Larsen’s work. As previously noted, journalism as well as academic investigations into colonial pasts and presents are always political. Larsen is political in his newspaper articles, but in a covert way – hiding behind (or perhaps bringing in the political through) a notion of journalistic

‘objectivity’. Through his claim of being the outsider within, Larsen thus represents a certain representational and political view from a Danish perspective to his Danish readers while staying disembodied in the function as ‘journalist’. His claim to the journalistically objective practice in terms of epistemological objectivity allows him to present his political assertions as commonsense and universal.

Before introducing the journalistic subjectivities of these issues I will have a look at how the re-enactment of 1998 was described and experienced in USVI journalism. In this analysis I bring to the fore the interrelation between the journalist-subject’s claim to epistemological and ethical objectivity and the notion of freedom of expression. As already implied, Bryan’s disruption pointed to some skewed structures in relation to

94 ‘Danish West Indies: Look what you have done’ (my translation)

the ‘objectivity’ of the cultural re-enactment of emancipation which silenced him.

Journalistic practice as part of the making of the cultural memory can reinforce the silencing effect or offer Bryan a more or less edited voice. In the following I present the different journalistic approaches to the re-enactment event and Bryan’s disruption within it and I argue for a re-thinking of journalistic cultural memories in light of postcolonial and neo-imperial relations between Denmark, the US and the USVI.