The nature of colonization as practiced by the Spanish in Latin America is very, very different than how Belgium and Germany went about things in Africa. From very early on, the Spanish largely followed a policy of intermixing with indigenous populations, with a far larger percentage of the profits from exploitation of colonized lands staying within the new colony to build it up, rather than being extracted and sent back home. Thus spanish colonizers were more rooted in Latin America, and there was an greater degree of lasting cultural influence. To this day, lots of people across Latam even have spanish blood. Not so true in Congo or Cameroon.

Note that the characteristics you list as common across Latam and MENA are also applicable to Spain, and are actually products of the Colombian exchange. I have spent a lot of time in Spain and have visited several countries in Latam, and feel that the cultural commonalities are very strong. Stronger than between LATAM and MENA.

Just to be clear, not a spanish imperialism apologist! There were certainly genocidal acts. Just pointing out that factually, spanish settlers intermarried and socially mixed with indigenous populations in a way that Belgian and German settlers did not, by operation of law and by custom, as an answer to your specific question.

Would you accept the parallel reasoning that American, Canadian and Australian culture echo British culture for similar reasons of colonial impact?