stirringwind:

i swear the Mulan post full of misinformation is annoying me so much because it’s all over my dash. I don’t really blame the people who reblogged it, I’m more annoyed at OP.

Mulan is kind of more like King Arthur: very possibly based on a real historical figure, but the story we know is more of a legend, been told in many different adaptations by different Chinese writers throughout history. Going around and saying she’s ‘real’ like the way we know the first emperor Qin Shi Huang is real is totally erasing the very interesting fact that this legend has been so popular over the centuries despite the patriarchal inclinations of Chinese culture. It’s something to think about why this story circulated throughout dynasties.

is it too much for people to do some research when talking about my culture? That post says she’s a real historical figure, when all the info about how she’s a character from a 1400 year-old poem is all on wikipedia! OP literally cut and paste the 1964 Hong Kong film version’s plotline and this is being spread as ‘historical fact’! Did they even bother to check? We have our own legends and myths too. She doesn’t need to be real for her story to matter- it’s enough that this legend existed and was so popular across dynasties. It’s enough that in this culture where only one woman ever was empress regnant, for some reason, chinese poets and playwrights loved reinventing and portraying this character.

And then of course, all the people thinking this version is more ‘badass’ then the Disney version when the Disney version is in some ways closer to the poem. Like ok, it doesn’t matter if she didn’t actually duel her father to go fight in the Chinese army, there’s also a story about filial piety in Chinese culture and the Disney version certainly brought that across well.