Answer;
-If the English had populated Latin America and the Spanish North America, the two places would have had their cultures switched.
Explanation;
-North America was actually quite populated before the Europeans discovered it. The problem was that European disease spread faster than the explorers such that 90% of the population died before ever seeing an explorer. So we might expect that Mexico, Central America, and South America populations would have been equally destroyed.
-The differences in today’s Latin and North America are not due to the Indian societies that had lived there because they had all been basically the same. The difference is because of the Spanish and English culture in the two places. If the English had populated Latin America and the Spanish North America, the two places would have had their cultures switched.
Ella Baker at Shaw University in April 1960.
The only genuinely true item I see is: The Pilgrims elected a governor prior to settling on the new land.
Matthew Cradock was elected as the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company before any group even set sail to the New World. Then John Endecott became the one sent to go with the settlers to be first governor of the colony itself.
As for the other answers, the first winters were harsh and took a toll on the Pilgrim population.
The Massachusetts Bay Colony eventually became part of the Plymouth Colony (the opposite of how things were stated above).
The Pilgrims did not disband. The most famous of Massachusetts Bay Colony governors was the 3rd governor, John Winthrop. And Squanto was helpful to them.
The chaos in Spain made the perfect excuse to rebel and yet not commit treason: many said they were loyal to Spain, not Napoleon. In places like Argentina, colonies "sort of" declared independence: they claimed that they would only rule themselves until such a time as Charles IV or his son Ferdinand were put back on the Spanish throne. This half-measure was much more palatable to some who did not want to declare independence outright. Of course, there was no real going back from such a step and Argentina formally declared independence in 1816.
The independence of Latin America from Spain was a foregone conclusion as soon as the creoles began thinking of themselves as Americans and the Spaniards as something different from them. By that time, Spain was between a rock and a hard place: the creoles clamored for positions of influence in the colonial bureaucracy and for freer trade. Spain granted neither, which caused great resentment and helped lead to independence. But had they agreed to these changes, they would have created a more powerful, wealthy colonial elite with experience in administering their home regions - a road that also would have led directly to independence. Some Spanish officials must have realized this and the decision was taken to squeeze the utmost out of the colonial system before it collapsed.
Of all of the factors listed above, the most important is probably Napoleon's invasion of Spain. Not only did it provide a massive distraction and tie up Spanish troops and ships, it pushed many undecided creoles over the edge in favor of independence. By the time Spain was beginning to stabilize - Ferdinand reclaimed the throne in 1813 - colonies in Mexico, Argentina, and northern South America were in revolt
The answer is actually option B "There was history of anti-Semitism in Europe." It isn't option D because Germans weren't jealous of their thriving businesses and it's a really bad reason to mass murder millions of Jews. It wouldn't be option C because some Jews did but they had different religions and ideas on the world. It wouldn't be option A because Jews did NOT support the soviet political ideals. It's option B because Jews did not agree with Semitism and it's basically the way Jews should be treated.
Hope this helps.