The correct answer to this open question is the following.
During the French and Indian War that started in 1756 and ended in 1763, both nations fought for territory disputes. French troops used the land to built strategic forts such as Forts Duquesne in the Ohio River. Then, many Native American Indian tribes allied on the side of the French because they treated Indians much better than the English colonist. The key issue was that the French did not want the land to settle in or to send French people to inhabit those lands. They were mostly interested in the fur trade. The English, on the other side, wanted more and more land to settle in and make a profit from it. After many battles, the English started to change the situation and won the war after sounded victories in the Battle of Louisbourg and the Batlle of Quebec.
The American Revolution was not a civil war because a “civil war” is typically between two groups within the same country. For instance, Parliament and the King fought each other in the English Civil War. Similar conflicts occurred between the Union and the Confederacy during the American Civil War.
Contrarily, the American Revolution was a conflict between a colonizer and a colony. Usually, these are not referred to as "civil wars," but rather as "rebellions," "revolts," or (to their supporters) "wars of liberation."
Any of these might constitute a "revolution," so long as it alters society, the economy, and culture fundamentally as well as the leadership. As you can expect, this makes the word "revolution" very political. The proponents of change refer to it as a "revolution," whilst the opponents use a less admirable term.
The Civil War would have been referred to as a "revolution" if the Confederacy had prevailed, and the Union may have even done so at some point. Instead, it fell short, and now we refer to the conflict of 1861–1865 as a civil war. It's just another instance of how the winners write history.
Because it required less work to make??
The answer to this question is tribes
