I been wondering about this considering the island's reputation for capitalism and as a prostitution hub esp in tandem with its strong film industry famed for exporting martial arts movies to the rest of the world.........

Why didn't Hong Kong develop a strong adult video market and other XXX goods the way Japan did? Especially as an export market (which Japan is known to be the largest in Asia for porno movies)?

And before someone brings up some rant about CCP censorship and stuff of that sort, it can't really be the answer at all since even back at the height of Hong Kong martial arts cinema in the 70s and 80s, there was no profitable adult niche market sending videos to all over the world of sexy HK girls the way Japan's AV industry makes huge profits from Western subscribers and exporting DVDs worldwide. Especially when you consider the fact increasing censorship inspired by pressure from China, the Hong Kong movie industry still releases stuff that would be R Rated in America for sexual content such as Due West: Our Sex Journey.

So I'm wondering why despite the mass issues with prostitution and how Hong Kong got a reputation for "happy massage parlors" internationally (or at least in many Western countries POV), did HK not create a local AV industry early on to become one of the great powers of the XXX market in the world just like Japan did?

i've been having some trouble trying to understand the first chapter of benedict anderson's "imagined communities", the one called "cultural roots". can you guys please help me?

Any one who begins reading on the barebones of the Boxer Rebellion will quickly be horrified as they discover more and more of the atrocities committed by the 8 Nations alliance. From the decimation of uninvolved villages who have nothing to do with the Boxers along the way as German armies march to Peking to the brutal torture and execution of surrendering Boxers and innocent victims who are suspected of supporting the rebellion or the Qing dynasty by Russian soldiers and mass rapes so widespread that not only gets treated with laughter like its a game by France's troops but a high ranking French general even dismisses them instead actually praising the "gallantry of French soldiers" for committing the sexual assaults and so much more........

Its so common for laymen just getting into the 101 of this historical event to start making comments in online forums, chatrooms, and Youtube videos of the shock that European armies were doing Rape of Nanking kind of human rights violations. To the point esp once they start reading how the Imperial Japanese divisions involved in this war were along with the Americans easily the most behaved soldiers and were actually so horrified by what the Europeans were doing that citizens of Japan took actions to stop them such as a Japanese lieutenant ordering his grunts to aim their rifles at German soldiers with threats that they will be shot if they don't leave Chinese women alone and that Chinese people in Peking and other cities that got turned into warzones actually fled to Japanese units as they seeked their protection.

And with this you'll often see Netizens in these historical discussions often make a comment asking about why Rape of Nanking and other Japanese warcrimes that will take place in China 40 years later are still so remembered today and receiving continual criticism in international politics and attention on the news despite the fact it will soon be the 100th anniversary of World War 2 while the horrors of the Boxer Rebellion is practically forgotten by everyone today except for history buffs and students of Sinology.

However as I read more deeper into the war and more so into the entirety of the Qing dynasty and I saw this comment on a blog.

You are making massive errors in this post

the majority of northern China was NOT affected by the foreigners. Only the Hebei province (Beijing and Tianjin) and Manchuria were. The rest of northern China including Shanxi, Shaanxi, Gansu, Henan and Shandong were NOT occupied by the Eight Nation Alliance. The “Southeast pact” by the governor generals staying out of the war included Shandong which was governed by northern General Yuan Shikai.

“Mutual Protection of Southeast China” was just a name, it included the north as well, and even northern provinces like Shanxi, Shaangxi, Henan and Gansu whose governors didn’t sign the pact were not invaded. Only Manchuria and Zhili (Hebei),, the Beijing Tianjin area were ocucpied.

The majority of Beijing was also inhabited by Bannermen, Manchu Bannermen and Mongol bannermen. That’s the reason why the inner city of Beijing was called the “tartar city”. Over 50% of the Manchu banner population of the Qing dynasty was stationed in Beijing and surrounding areas of Zhili (Hebei) and Manchus disproportionally suffered from the rapes and massacres.

Also the southeastern mutual protection governors like Yuan shikai and Zhang Zhidong and Li Hongzhang warned the alliance that they would go to war against the foreigners if the alliance invaded any part of China beyond Zhili. None of them cared about Manchu bannermen enough to plunge the whole country into war.

So I'm wondering esp as how I read throughout the entire run of the Qing Dynasty of how hated the Manchus were, was the reason why nobody outside the Sinologist community and Chinese history specialist (including most people in China today) seems to know about the crimes against humanity of the Boxer Rebellion is simply because almost all of the vile acts was focused predominantly against Manchus? And to further enhance this argument, much of the brutality was pretty much isolated to the Hebei region esp at the capital (then called) Peking and some of the nearest cities that were immediately closeby such as Tianjin is also another reason why the European savagery wise so forgotten today unlike the Rape of Nanking and other vile acts done by Imperial Japan in World War 2 which was more widespread across China and impacted a lot of other ethnic groups?

After all you never see demands against European countries today to do reparation to China for the harms done in 1899-1901 in contrast to how Imperial Japan's crimes are still very sensitive stuff given so much to attention to and Japan's refusal to halfheartedly give a public sincere apology is such hot stuff all the way to today.

So the fact the hated Qing Manchu ruling elites were the injured party and much of the barbarism by the 8 Nations being isolated to the capital province pretty much explains why no one cares today what took place in the 2 years of the rebellion?

Historically, why did Japan develop much later compared to China and Korea. Are Japanese not as smart.

Post I saw on an archived web page someone linked to on Skype before it was eventually deleted.

Multiple posters have mentioned so many times of how Latinos worship white skin which is why the Hispanista movement is foolish and also a few have mentioned one advantage is that Blanqueamiento was never instituted n the Philippines an very few white Europeans lived in the country and intermarried so while pale skin s still seen as ideal, being dark skinned n the PI isn't seen as despicable as it is across much of Latin America........................... At least the Philippines (because of far fewer Iberian colonial influence), a dark skinned male can not only work across Span's colonial system to at least rise up in wealth classes and eve if he plays his card rights, rise up the social caste system Spain enforced in the country. For males at least, while light skin is preferred, dark skinned males are not denied being considered hot and there were brown celebrities who were sex symbols. In fact some of the earliest male leading actors were dark skinned (or at least not Caucasian levels of whiteness thus appearing dark n some shots).

Yet in a paradox........ For all how much Hispanics worship white skin and the mostly European descended castizos and Criollos who are the ruling class of Latin America and have their movie stars, divas, and beauty queens as white females................. its been a tradition across Latin America for people who use a Mary Statues that reflects their ethnic, regional, racial, and socioeconomic class in physical appearance.......

So in other words in Cuba for example the Blacks who are the bottom of the social ladder often worship Our Lady of Regla who is basically a black Virgin Mary. Dominican Republic has their own local black Marys. Our Lady of Mount Carmel, a pale Virgin Mary, is worshiped very frequently across Chile which has a larger proportion of light skinned Mestizos than many LatAm nations. The Indios create Mary often to resemble Incan and other pre-conquest Indian civilization ideals of beauty.

In fact in some nations with a more balanced outspread of light skin pigmentation you may even see variety of a specific Mary. The Lady of Guadalupe was specifically seen as being very Mestizo. So while most depictions of her are stereotypical Latino brown, its common to see her with lighter shades of skin in statues and paintings across Mexico. One cartoon show depicts her as olive that can appear darker or lighter depending on the scene and who she's standing next to and I seen Guadalupe statues that are milky white. As well as some as dark as your typical black American. As well as "redskin" Guadalupe Its a common thing for Mestizos and other lower classes in Mexico to choose a Guadalupe with skin color similar to themselves or more commonly closer to how their own mother or grandma or some female matriarchal figure appeared. So you'd have pale girls from poor working class families worshiping a crayon brown Guadalupe because their mom is a typical Moreno as well as well swarthy men who work as janitors choosing yellowish Guadalupe because they were born with Southern Italian olive skin and thus identify with tanned but still light skinned variations (even though ma and pa is dark skinned). So their is variety of representation for anyone to choose for Lady of Guadalupe.

In fact many churches in the country feature dark skinned Guadalupe and more popular European tradition like Lady of Lourdes to accommodate everyone in Church. Some Churches even intentionally will try to leave a white Jesus Christ with only a brown Guadalupe statue because the local priest wants to encourage integration and fight against racism. In some cases the Jesus will intentionally be painted iron or be made out of bronze or use some color associated with metals that do not exist in humans sometimes with ambiguous facial features in order to further prove equality of races in the Catholic Church right next to the Guadalupe statue.

So I'd have to ask why in the Philippines the Mary statues are overwhelming the ones used in Europe? In particular the blue eyed Mary in white headcloth and blue cloak? I mean the country is relatively liberal about dark skinned people esp males advancing in the social stratas even during Spanish colonialism and at least its possible for a male to be brown yet still become a sex symbol and even A list celeb despite the entertainment industry's preferences for light skin.

So how come unlike Latin America, Philippines use almost exclusively white Virgin Mary? Even despite the Church openly unveiling dark skinned ones in a few locations? Why isn't the local equivalents of Guadalupe popular for personal household use?

Indeed now that I think of it I do have to ask myself. Why is white artistic representations of Mother Mary so much the norm in the Philippines unlike other nonwhite countries that suffered under colonialism? Why did no equivalent of local Lady of Guadalupe ever come to be the symbol of the Philippines as the quoted text points out? Afterall other countries with Catholics as a tiny minority such as Vietnam and Morocco have Mother Mary artwork used in reverence that looks like the commoner of said countries or at least fit the very much non-white ideals of beauty as seen in the case of Vietnam where La Vang pretty much ideal features not common in Vietnam such as pale skin while still wearing Vietnamese clothes with physical features that are unmistakenbly Vietnamese in overall physical appearance.

So why are the artwork so commonly used in religious worship of Mary in the Philippines of all things a blue-eyed undoubtedly European looking woman? Shouldn't it at least be a Mestiza artwork in the vein of Liza Soberano that dominates since thats Philippines ideal beauty standards while still also having the vibe of the Pilipinas vibe in the appearance? What happened in the PH's history that made the physical representations used by the colonizers the MO in worship unlike in Latin America and the rest of Asia where worship of Marian statues and other artworks resembling the majority populace in the vein of Our Lady of Guadalupe or at least local ideals of beauty a la Our Lady of Arabia is the standard?