B was the answer my teacher gave me
I would say either A or C, but i'm not positive, my research didn't tell me much, sorry!
Hernan Cortes (1485-1547) was a Spanish colonizer and conqueror, who leaded the conquest of the Mexican territories, that started in 1519 with the occupation of Veracruz. The tales about the sacking of the Mexican capital, Tenochtitlan, are still legendary nowadays.
After the takeover of Veracruz, Cortes gave the order of sinking his own ships (it was thought they were burnt, but nowadays that hypothesis is being questioned). Anyway, he destroyed his ships on purpouse to force his men to go forward and conquer the New World, both in the militar and spiritual (goal of spreading the Christian religion) dimensions.
- Agreement with his decision: of course it is an incredibly effective manner of ensuring that his men would be motivated to conquer the territory, mainly because they did not have an alternative choice. They had to become rulers there or be lost in the middle of unknown lands. It can be claimed how the ultimate goal justifies the means.
- Disagreement with the decision: it can be argued how unethical is that he prevented his men from deciding if they wanted to participate or not on the mission. He eliminated the choice.
I believe the answer is D correct me if I’m wrong
Answer:
The official British reply to the colonial case on representation was that the colonies were “virtually” represented in Parliament in the same sense that the large voteless majority of the British public was represented by those who did vote. To this Otis snorted that, if the majority of the British people did not have the vote, they ought to have it. The idea of colonial members of Parliament, several times suggested, was never a likely solution because of problems of time and distance and because, from the colonists’ point of view, colonial members would not have adequate influence.
