History largely consists of the intersections between fact- and evidence-based truth, and myths, legends, fables and tall tales, convenient or illustrative, which conceal as much as they reveal. Throughout human history, all societies have had their own foundational myths, heroes and villains that solidify into time-honoured “fact.” People believe a myth’s essential truth (or otherwise) because they want to believe it; nuance, for many, remains a profoundly uncomfortable space. The centuries-long history of the Portuguese in Asia offers an illustrative, multilayered example. A long-prevalent myth, perpetuated during Portugal’s fascist Salazar regime (1932-68), was that the country’s legacy of overseas expansion was profoundly different from other European colonial experiences. Evidence for this, allegedly, was the extent of racial intermarriage and cultural intermingling, creating new and distinctly different peoples, cuisines, languages and modes of living, from Brazil to tropical Africa to maritime Asia. Picturesque hilltop forts bristling with antique cannons, gently mouldering tropical Baroque churches and the like, lend a beguiling atmosphere to its former colonies in Goa, Malacca and Macau. But was the 16th century Portuguese presence and its later legacy really as benign as it was fondly recalled by a right-wing dictatorthree centuries later? Abundant historical evidence indicates their conquistador ferocity. In Further India (1904), British administrator Hugh Clifford noted: “The strenuous spirit of Portugal at the beginning of the sixteenth century – the spirit that made possible the miracles of conquest which were then wrought in Asia, the spirit which awoke that bitter, impotent hatred of the white men which still lingers in the East …” He further noted that “the misconduct of the early European filibusters […] caused the name of the white man to stink in the nostrils of the brown peoples”. Another prevalent myth maintained that “Asian Portuguese” – or “Luso-Asians” as some scholars term them – had some connection to Portugal; many, especially in India, had only the most tenuous biological descent. Socio-economic advancement was chiselled out by claiming connections to long-ago, mythical Portuguese ancestors, or assumption of Lusitanian surnames. This assimilation provided an escape route from the Hindu caste system for untouchables, as Muslims in India had discovered centuries before. Chinese assimilation into Macau’s Portuguese community followed a similar trajectory. Another comforting myth maintains that “Asian Portuguese” got along amiably with everyone. In fact, many were openly condescending towards their Asian neighbours, arrogantly deploying the cloak of Roman Catholicism around “pagans” to disguise their disdain. Colonial socio-economic realities also played a role; being “white but not quite” allowed them proximity to economic advancement, and the material security that increased wealth provided. Religious schools also offered advancement through education. Many Asian groups followed similar paths. In Hong Kong Holiday (1946), American author Emily Hahn (later the wife of Charles Boxer , a leading international scholar of the overseas Portuguese) mentioned Hong Kong Portuguese attitudes in her usual sharply observant, incisive manner. “The Hong Kong Portuguese are a special group. Purists call them Macanese […] They represent about five centuries of race mixture: pure Latins from Lisbon, Formosans, Chinese, Goanese from India, and even Japanese and Filipinos. “They don’t claim to be pure white, but they do consider themselves, haughtily, far above the British Eurasians in social standing. The other Eurasians don’t share this conviction. Neither do the British, so the Portuguese struggled along on the same insufficient wages that the other Hong Kong half-castes got.”