Is this what they call "What aboutism" ?
Beside, what ever your rabble is, Malahayati is recognized as Indonesia National Hero.
Though I agree with you that Hang Tuah is fictional character. We don't have a ship of his name at this moment and shouldn't have ship name of fictional character anymore.
Not whataboutism, but historiography.
Historiography is different from history. Historiography talks about how the history itself is formed, or "approach to history".
It's like investigation about historical "facts" or data itself: Who is this Brawijaya? Who is this Malahayati? What is the first manuscript mentioning Brawijaya and Malahayati? Is it recorded in its supposed era or in the later era? Is there a contemporary (from their era) source supporting their existence?
Historiography is the reason we can conclude
Salakanagara was not the oldest kingdom in the archipelago. Through historiography, we are able to know that the Wangsakerta Manuscript, the most definitive "history" manuscript of the Nusantara archipelago, was actually a
modern fabrication made no earlier than 1960s.
Through historiography, we can differentiate between popular facts and the actual historical data. What is cetbang? When was cetbang first recorded? Did Majapahit actually deployed a lot of cetbang? What is a jong? Can the jong really reached the size of Aircraft Carrier? What is actually recorded in the sources?
It's common to encounter something like these in historical discussion:
"Malahayati must have existed because her grave/tomb is real (existed)"
Ans: Nope. The grave associated with her is a 19th century grave or later. Associating a grave with some popular character is common in Nusantara; the Wali Songo may have more than one graves, claims of Gajah Mada's graves are everywhere. Same as Hang Tuah's graves. The point is, the existence of graves/tombs cannot be used as a definite proof, because the association/assignation of a grave with a character can be made in recent era (i.e. after the independence) -- a critical analysis must be done to the claims.
"You hate Malahayati because she killed Cornelis de Houtman, one of the most renowned colonizer of Nusantara"
Ans: That claim was never verified, both from Indonesian, Dutch, or English sources.
The most important thing in historiography to prove that some people existed is to find out the source mentioning their name in their respective era. Can't really prove Brawijaya existed if the indicated source only mentioning "O Rei de Java" -- the name "Brawijaya" itself must be recorded in that sentence. Can't really prove Hang Tuah existed if the source only mentioning "lesomana" or "lassemane", because it could be anyone. While John Davis mentioned a woman admiral in Alauddin Riayat Shah's court, he did not record "Keumalahayati" or "Malahayati". Where do these names come from? From Marie van Zeggelen's book
Oude Glorie. Van Zeggelen
was mistaken by author(s) as a "Historian".
Is this what they call "What aboutism" ?
No Ardezzo, the sentence that you write after that is the real whataboutism: "Beside, what ever your rabble is, Malahayati is recognized as Indonesia National Hero."
That sentence did not debunk my previous post, or the research done by the writer of the research article I linked. The recognization event itself did not prove she was a real person: It only ratified Malahayati's status as National Hero, regardless of her actual existence. Ever wonder how that sentence sounds like?
"No way Malahayati doesn't exist. What about her status as a National Hero? Claim debunked!"
Instead of critically analyzing each claim or her feats, or analyzing the source cited that backs up such feats, you're using her National Hero status as a Trump Card to invalidate my previous post and the research done by historian(s).
The twitter post was an inquiry by a local researcher about the existence of Malahayati. There is not much work available on the topic of Malahayati, because she had a pretty recent historiography.
