Re: Popular Media Creatures vs. Mythological Creatures
Technically, I could be a Chupacabra, in the loosest sense that I like eating goats. Delicious goats.
Does a dragon know they are oriental or western? Those are human definitions. If you're a five-toed dragon, humans might call you an Eastern dragon, but your dragon culture might call yourself a "Xinghualan'kynthos" (I made that up; I don't know what dragons call themselves.)
I could call myself a smart-ass, for instance. I can't call myself whatever you'd call me in Russia, because I don't know Russian.
What I mean to say is that, for all we know, there are bunch of 'kin who might actually be chupacabras, or gnomes, or drow, or thundercats, or whatever, but they're calling themselves something completely different because that's the label they know of in the contextually and culturally relevant world they currently exist in.
I mean, if I've never heard of a transvestite, I could very well be one, but I wouldn't call myself by such a word as I don't even know the term exists.
So what if a person claiming to be Pikachu-kin comes in? Maybe they've never heard of Pikas. Maybe they really are a rodent-like creature that can channel electricity. Maybe they're a thunderbird(which has mythological origins) who happens to be a thunderrat.
However, did the creators of Pokemon genuinely sit down one day and base their entire storyline, anime, manga, videogame franchise on real events, whether actual or perceived? I doubt it.
Then you go, but hey! Griffins and dragons may not have existed either.
Here's the tricky deal. We don't know that. Maybe they were never physically here, like a ghost or in the sense that an angel appears in a spiritual sense. Maybe dragons manifested and un-manifested to a realm outside of our perception.
We can't guarantee humans sat down one day and went, "Hey guys, I wanna tell this cool story about a knight and a damsel in distress and I need a big, scary, non-human creature to be the villain. How does the word dragon sound?"
We can definitely guarantee some guys sat down and created Pikachu. Of course, in the interest of fairness, there may have also been women involved.
Of course, if you ascribe to the idea that none of our kin-types actually ever existed and this is largely a big psychological adoption of archetypes to the point we completely identify as them, then none of this theoretical mumbo-jumbo applies and you can be Pikachu all you want.
Although personally, I'd refrain from identifying with a character who rakes in large sums of money for a corporate trademark and franchise. It's kinda like selling out as Otherkin.
Simim: Rainbow poop at your disservice.