It refers to, or at least how Jean Baudrillard puts it, he being the one who formally defined the concept to me, be the loss that the intellectual and aristocratic class feels upon realizing the culture and possibilities that were destroyed post conquest, being members of the empire that committed the act themselves, that represents itself in the common zeitgeist through a resurgence of interest for the culture of indigenous tribes and appropriation of their attire/symbolism by artsy types.
It occurred to me that what Jean Baudrillard called offhandedly white man’s guilt in Simulation and Simulacra, could also come to mean perhaps a warriors own coming to terms with his or hers violent actions done in perceived or real self-defense and survival, when the raging hormones and fervent emotion or lack of, when some minds come to such a state after so much pain provoked by an excess as a method of survival.
Perhaps upon chancing upon an item of interest of the other man or woman’s way of life that relates to one’s own style of life, realizing that perhaps, he or she could have sat down and had a beer, some sake, grape juice, fermented potato, glass of clean water and a meal with that person now gone, in silence, to the sounds of nature, or with music, and have had a decent or even a great time with that person, whether in silence or communication.
And that sentiment touching with one’s own recognition of his or her self as a man or woman forged from a certain part of the world, under certain elements, thoughts molded to words using a different pattern and styling of a human beings capacity to vocalize sounds and communicate sentiments and sensory data pertaining to that person. Even the Japanese Katana and Tanto traditional swords taken by American warriors as trophies, or even the weapons when soldiers would find some path to return the artifact home, even when taken in-malice were the takers impressing that fragment of their human emotion upon the object, turning it perhaps even, to art. Adding yet another element of anthropological and archeological interest when examining the history of that item.
Japanese swords taken during the Pacific theater of that particular war, but few decades ago, being of special interest given their traditional status as family heirlooms, some having decades or centuries of history within a particular families descendants. Such, the emotion can come to be either toxic or even positive, though ultimately it is always mythologizing the vanquished enemy, who is not here to tell his own tale in word or through his acts no longer.
To desecrate or banish from public presence, even if that is solely as part of a museum, artistic presentation or monument, these weapons, is to, as pulp fiction, cosmic horror, and historical fiction author Stephen King defines in his fantasy cosmic horror anthology The Dark Tower; ‘forgetting the face of the father.’ that act which is so reviled, feared, and commonly used as an insult when speaking in detriment to someone’s wit, ability, or competence in Roland Deschain’s fictional feudal warrior culture based on fire arms and horseback riding proficiency, which is the forgetting of your roots, where you came from, the history of it however horrific, and not denying such from one’s heart even when we strive to do better and not return to such depraved depths in the present or future.
The practice was also quite prevalent among many frontiersman who earned their fame and cemented their names to folklore and history during the United States Western expansion, such as Jim Bowie, Theodore Roosevelt, Davey Crockett, and Hugh Glass, who would often come to even adopt Native American practices or items in their daily operations, for the rest of their lives or for a time being. The final, Hugh Glass, even being fictionally depicted by Hollywood actor Leonardo diCaprio as having fathered a child in a mutual relationship with a Native American woman in Alejandro González Iñárritus 2015 historical fiction epic The Revenant. The real man, whom cannot be known to have had sexual contact with any Native American women consensual or otherwise, having instead embarked upon his quest for vengeance upon being left for dead by a pair of opportunists following a battle against native warriors, and following encounter with an enraged, starving grizzly bear seizing upon the opportunity to devour the bodies of the dead and wounded, that blasphemous act driving the man quite literally back from the death in the fervent rage it left him upon being insulted so, to track down the transgressors, pardoning one, before slaying the other after catching up to him in Texas. Why a Mexican, or Latin American screenwriter would replace love of a rifle with love for a son who is also the memory of a woman loved, should be quite clear truly, for us as a collective it is harder to fathom such love of fire-arms, but love for a woman is more intimate to us, though I do declare myself in particular to share both if such is truly possible. Or perhaps the deviation from historical objective truth derives from the acting department, where to a man whom has been free to love many, Leonardo diCaprio, may find it easier to identify and express the rage and emotion of a man mourning both son and wife, than a man enraged at feeling so thoroughly disrespected by his supposed comrades at arms that he defeats death itself only to enact justice on the thieves of an object of personal value. Or from administration itself, in their endless concern for financial gain, may have sought to change historical details in favor of broader market appeal.
Those decades since that particular, all-encompassing war which absorbed even Latin America through our participation in anti-German u-boat campaigns, and meager but present contribution to the Pacific theater of World War Two and all that the United States renewed interest in our individual economies and well-being, or lack-of, has begotten since then, despite being of truly insignificant length if one abstracts from the limits of mortality, have felt like perhaps many, even centuries.
This is clearly due to the numerous advances which few had perceived to be possible by our current day and age, few beyond optimistic scientists, eager capitalists, fearful traditionalists, fantasy, and science fiction authors of decades and even centuries past. If one were to observe societies collective loss of the lessons it had imparted upon us as a species, even if bringing such impact back to the forefront would also return to us the post-war reasoning behind our collective approval of allowing a global economy and entrepreneurship through Laissez-faire capitalism to soften within us our appeal for strong tribal nationalism, and others to identify with it stronger, ultimately if only to simply sell to both. Because strong nationalism, was leading us to tie too strongly our identities and personal sense of indignation or emotional response, much too strongly to our individual countries sovereign identities. to the point it easily led many to genocidal violence and brutality.
Even if such came to be retained by groups of ultimate interest to the new norms of influence by the rising major powers of that era, American and Soviet patriotism, coming to appropriate capitalist and socialist sentiments, and absorb them into the new post-war nationalism, as the nation states in power saw beneficial to do to ease their control over global affairs.