QUOTE(wolfx @ Nov 15 2007, 09:07 PM)
And Hang Tuah is a Chinese cuz my great grand uncle who apparently was one of the archivers who was ordered to destroy the true story said so. But who's gonna believe him? 
King Arthur's historical accuracy can be questionable but he is definately a man if he ever existed based on the relative timeline he existed. There's no way a woman can be the sole monarch in the middle ages. If you said Arthur can be a woman, I can also say *insert religious prophet names here* may be women (and probably get lynched for saying so).
1) Hang Tuah might be a myth. Although there's a written history, but some of the 'facts' were likely exaggerated. There might be a man called Hang Tuah. Perhaps just a famous admiral of that time. The reason why Hang Tuah and the brothers were removed from the text book was because of this mythical aspects. Not because of being Chinese. About being Chinese, from what? His grave? He might not even real. Who dares to tell that as his fukken grave? Stop being racist, fag. Historically speaking, Chinese were just traders during ancient time here in this God forsaken land. There were Malay Kingdoms of old that were destroyed by fukken Thais. For example, Malay Champa in Cambodia. It was Hindu Malays of Champa who erected that fukken Angkor Watt under Khmer rules (after the fall of the Kingdom, Khmer ruled the area). Not even fukken Thai or Chinese. Of course that there were Muslim Saints in Java Island and other places in Malay Peninsular. But they're considered as missionaries coming from China (Kunming perhaps or other Chinese Muslim states). Not even about being Chinese that coming from Malay Peninsular. So, the basis of the origin people for Malay Peninsular is would likely baseless. Archeological aspect (this is not related with religions), Humans were emerged from Africa. Then going towards Mongolia and India. Mongoloid people were ancestors of Chinese. Same with Malays. Considering that, Chinese have same ancestors with Malays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid).King Arthur's historical accuracy can be questionable but he is definately a man if he ever existed based on the relative timeline he existed. There's no way a woman can be the sole monarch in the middle ages. If you said Arthur can be a woman, I can also say *insert religious prophet names here* may be women (and probably get lynched for saying so).
2) Joan d'Arc. Rabiatul Adawiyah. They're saints, however. How about Balqis, the sovereign ruler of a middle eastern kingdom? And of course Boudica.
Nov 15 2007, 09:51 PM
Quote
0.0321sec
0.52
7 queries
GZIP Disabled