OK, with the caveat that this could easily be abused for so many reasons, especially the three you've mentioned, I can see it being a thing.
Firstly, we need to separate culture from race. But can we? Is race merely the colour of your skin? Or does it include some cultural understanding? I guess it, at the very least, has a sense of shared heritage. The thing that pops to mind here is the shared slave experience of the majority of African Americans. But then, Obama doesn't share that experience, but he shares many of the other experiences slave descended African Americans share; especially the racism.
However, on the flip side, I have some asian mates who were either born in Oz or came here young, and they drink beer, hoon around in cars and play football; all very stereotypical "Aussie" things to do, and they rightfully identify with that culture. On the flip side, I've taught white kids who have grown up with a lot of more "Asian" Asian kids in Australia and identify with that culture more (they're known as eggs, white on the outside, yellow on the inside). The interesting thing here is that the Asian kids will be Thai, or Viet Namese, or Burmese, but they'll all be identifying strongly with Japanese and Korean culture. Is it more legitimate for the Asian kids than the white kids because of their general appearance (Japanese, Koreans, Thais, Viets and Burmese look nothing alike, or at least, as alike as Swedes and Italians do)?
I feel the answer lies somewhere in the outsider being welcomed by the insider. In other words a white person couldn't call themselves "transnigger" without some general acceptance from some portion of the culture that can legitimately call themselves "nigger".
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-07-20 11:58 pm (UTC)Firstly, we need to separate culture from race. But can we? Is race merely the colour of your skin? Or does it include some cultural understanding? I guess it, at the very least, has a sense of shared heritage. The thing that pops to mind here is the shared slave experience of the majority of African Americans. But then, Obama doesn't share that experience, but he shares many of the other experiences slave descended African Americans share; especially the racism.
However, on the flip side, I have some asian mates who were either born in Oz or came here young, and they drink beer, hoon around in cars and play football; all very stereotypical "Aussie" things to do, and they rightfully identify with that culture. On the flip side, I've taught white kids who have grown up with a lot of more "Asian" Asian kids in Australia and identify with that culture more (they're known as eggs, white on the outside, yellow on the inside). The interesting thing here is that the Asian kids will be Thai, or Viet Namese, or Burmese, but they'll all be identifying strongly with Japanese and Korean culture. Is it more legitimate for the Asian kids than the white kids because of their general appearance (Japanese, Koreans, Thais, Viets and Burmese look nothing alike, or at least, as alike as Swedes and Italians do)?
I feel the answer lies somewhere in the outsider being welcomed by the insider. In other words a white person couldn't call themselves "transnigger" without some general acceptance from some portion of the culture that can legitimately call themselves "nigger".