Were the colonists justified in resisting British policies after the French and Indian War? The colonists were justified in revolting against the British. If the colonists wanted to revolt that was their choice. ... Also the brits had no right making the colonists pay for taxes of the French Indian War.
I don't really understand the wording of your question but, I can give you it in a nutshell:
The convention was called to address the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation.
<span>War became a symbol of liberty because it showed that a country could handle any issues at came its way from other nations. Also, it showed that the economy could withstand the loss of a major part of its workforce. In addition, it made it known to the rest of the world that a country was willing to fight for a certain set of ideals, apart from what other nations might want of the country.</span>
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Although there are no options for this question we can say the following.
Mass culture of the 1950s became increasingly homogenous for the following reason.
The decade of the 1950s was homogenous because the government and conservative society tried to establish uniform conduct to alienate the young generations. After World War II, the government used mass media outlets to broadcast information, entertainment programs, and social messages that aimed to maintain control of the status quo in American society.
The result was the conformity of the youngsters and society in general. People decided consciously or unconsciously, to follow the rules established by social norms. Traditional roles and norms for men and women in the family, the workplace, and society were reinforced. Nobody really thought on defy the rules established.
The first signs of rebellion arrived until late that decade with the advent of rock and roll and its many exponents.
