To be rather pedantic in the case of Hong Kong, the main reason why it seems so Han-dominant is that the majority of its population migrated there in the wake of various disturbances on the mainland (the Taiping Civil War, Japanese invasion, Communist Revolution and Cultural Revolution being the main events), rather than being chiefly the descendants of the original local population.

During the early colonial period, there was a moderately-sized Eurasian (mixed Chinese-European) elite which included people such as the philanthropist Sir Robert Hotung (half-Dutch). And, of course, one of Hong Kong's biggest cultural exports, Bruce Lee, was probably one quarter German through his mother. It is true that being Eurasian could be a source of stigma, as one was generally viewed as being apart from the European community and kept at relative arm's length by the Chinese, but there was a distinct Eurasian identity which, although somewhat subdued and not often publicly acknowledged even in census data, nonetheless did manifest at times – there was, for example, a distinct Eurasian cemetery established. Even today, there is a moderately sized mixed-race community, with the 2011 census showing around 25,000 people being of mixed descent including one Chinese parent – around 0.3% of the population, which given that 92% of the population identifies as full ethnic Chinese is still pretty sizeable.

Similarly, the British colony of Singapore has had quite a substantial Eurasian community. During colonial times, the Eurasian population was usually about equal to the European, today still forming around 0.4% of the total, and even after independence Eurasians have generally been the only mixed-race category allowed to self-identify as such, rather than being required to pick one ancestry or the other for census and administrative purposes.

Obviously Hong Kong and Singapore represent quite distinct cases, but the rather simple reason for the general low number of Eurasians in both is that there were never that many Europeans relative to other ethnic groups, and moreover that the period of colonisation was in both cases around 150 years, so maybe 5 generations give or take – 1840-1997 for Hong Kong and 1819-1963 for Singapore. Given a historical European population that in neither case has historically exceeded 2% (and was typically closer to 1.5%), even without social taboos regarding miscegenation the opportunity for large-scale mixing simply wasn't there, especially given the aforementioned frequent influxes of new immigrants futher reducing the proportion of mixed couples and children.

Those are lots of questions (you basically mention the whole world), so I'll try and give you some starting points:

• This gets asked for a comparison between British and Spanish America quite often and has its own FAQ section you might find useful.

I've also written about mixing (both forced and through marriage) between native people and Spaniards before:

• here on intermarriage between Spaniards and indigenous people in colonial Mexico. I should add that Spaniards only ever made up a small percentage of the American populace during colonial times, with the majority being indigenous. And that while tactical intermarriage between elites happened as I described in that post, mixing was due more to rape and forced marriages in the conquest and early colonial periods; and to illicit relationships (concubinage) during the colonial middle.

• here on immigration of Spanish women - another important factor because few women migrated until the later 16th c., in contrast with e.g. British America.

Hope this helps!

This is an interesting question and a lot of history involved, As a Latino American I know about this history because it is very remarked in our history courses (like a lot).

Well, there are many factors that happened during history. I feel like Spaniards were the less racist of the european conquerors by a lot, they also were very frustrated in their country , the middle class and lower class, because religion was really strong at that times in Spain, specially things related to sex, so there were a lot of sexually frustrated men in Spain.

Firstly I will tell you that when they came to America, they only sent men, and they raped and steal children of the natives once they came, they had needs and no Spaniard women to get satisfied or religion to tell them that not marital sex was a sin, so they satisfied themselves with natives. They also wiped out native people with small pox, it killed millions of natives, it was the most powerful weapon of the Spaniards, they had a lot of viruses that the native people never had any touch with, so it mean in a lot of deaths, the population was wiped out, so they started to repopulate it bringing more Spaniards and mestizos with more intermarriages. Latin America was the sexual scapegoat of Spaniards and once mixed people were born, they felt not only sexual needs but attraction to the mestizos because they have some features of the Spaniards, also they automatically in America acquired a higher degree and they had the opportunity to be rich, so it was the land of opportunities for Spaniards who were not rich (specially middle class and poor), also other nations like Italy were invited to go to the new world and many Italians went to Latin America, a land of opportunities. The majority of the people that went from Spain and Italy never came back, they found a home and got married, they even made this lands completely theirs, that is why for example Mexico was called “New Spain”, Spain saw this lands as an extension of Spain, they embrace them and built cities with their architecture style all over Latino America, they truely saw Latino America like the major prize, the mixing among natives and Europeans happened, and the Spaniards didn’t care about this mixing, also African slaves mixed, this is why Latino countries have this mixing and the people of this countries are so diverse.

Spaniards were not like the British in USA, who were racist at the grade that they almost erased all native people of that lands.

I don’t think Filipinos have significant Spaniard blood, in fact I think that Filipinos are one of those countries that its ethnicity is very pure, I have watched DNA test videos of a pair of Filipinos and they only had like les than 1% of Iberian blood , which is very small, it’s even greater the percentage that we (Latinos) have of Northern Africa than what Filipinos have of Iberian (Spaniard) . This tell me that Spain didn’t show the same interest in going to Philippines than going to Latino Countries and they didn’t go to Philippines a lot even if it was a colony of Spain for a long time, I feel that it was because of the huge distance between both lands, the trip must have been maybe it would have taken weeks and was very dangerous, it was more accessible to go to Cuba or Mexico than to go to Philippines, they managed by using other people I feel. I don’t think that ethnically Filipinos have anything to do with Spaniards and Latinos in a significant way, physically wise, facial features are very evident. Kind of the same happened in Equatorial Guinea. In fact a Latino will most probably identify just by looks a Filipino, we identify them as Asian, just by looks. So many of uneducated Latinos would call a Filipino “a chino”, which means Chinese because of ignorance.

Greetings