New Zealand and Australia as colonies were differnet from India because they C. attracted large numbers of settlers from Great Britain.
<h3>How were New Zealand and Austrailia different from India?</h3>
New Zealand and Austrialia were able to attract a lot of British people to stay in them which made them more loyal to the British.
India on the other hand, only provided resources to the British and never really saw a mass migration by British people.
Find out more on the Austrialia colony at brainly.com/question/4196080.
#SPJ1
Answer:
didn't they offer them a deal
Explanation:
Explanation: Opinion, if it was a fact, it would have some statistical information
Answer:
Active: Those citizens who were entitled to vote were termed as active citizens. Only men above 25 years of age who paid taxes were entitled to vote and considered as active citizens. Active citizens were required to be literate, speak French and have been resident for more than one year. Active citizens were required to pay taxes equal to about three days work a year.
Passive: Women, children, and other people were considered as passive citizens. Women, children, and other people were not entitled to vote. Passive citizens had no property rights.
They were “of low physical and mental standards.” They were “filthy.” They were “often dangerous in their habits.” They were “un-American.”
“The view was they could not fit into the American orientation toward progress and doing better, and would be forever manual laborers stuck at the very bottom,” Diner said of attitudes toward Southern Italians. She said Jews, by contrast, were viewed as “a little too successful, a little too pushy, getting on that American track too fast. They were viewed as competitors.”
