How did the british colonies in the south pacific differ from those in india? a. they were ruled by native leaders rather than british authorities. b. they were used as military bases rather than sources of raw materials. c. they were more attractive to immigrants from great britain. d. they were founded by missionaries instead of charter companies.

The correct answer is letter C.

The creation and maintainance of the British Empire was the greatest achievement of the British and the migration of its people to conquer, administer, control, farm and develop the colonies was essential to its success.

C.They were more attractive to immigrants from Great Britain.

Explanation:

The different south pacific destiantions that the British colonies had were diverse, less occupied and more tropical, some of them had large lands of fertile soil, others had also gold, and they were portions of them were it was just white-british only, this meant that they didn´t have to mix with the locals, also there were more incentives to go to the south pacific colonies and live there than there were to India, because India was already heavily populated.

others, still angry about the revolution, argued against a commercial treaty with the britain promised to withdraw all of its troops from america after the in the northern frontier, however, the british refused to surrender several military posts on a stronger central government in america may have resolved these foreign.

hope this : d

lol   that was   funny : >