Sandi Cooper argues that World War I gave rise to a heightened state interest in rebuilding families that took two different app
roaches. According to the Cooper reading, what were these approaches and what claims can be made for why a state would adopt one approach and not another
Sandy Cooper argues that the First World War was very important in changing the mentality of the people and that they had a great impact in shaping the mentality of the common people.
After the First World War, families of different states and countries took two different positions, one of which was that the natives did not support the attitude of their countries in which they would take part in any war with other countries, and they would not cooperate for the betterment of the country.
In this, the second attitude is that the countrymen support whatever attitude their country takes and support their country at all levels. Here, the most important thing to know is that the US is one of the countries that has received considerable support from its citizens in many areas, despite reports of some inconvenience from some corners of the country.
The state had to choose between one policies, the two policies were very contradictory and ended up as a whole to each other. The country had to stand by one of the attitudes of its citizens because the country could choose to remain skeptical of war or accept it wholeheartedly.
C. Artisans, shopkeepers, and farmers made up a large middle class, but the gentry held the most power and wealth.
Explanation:
In New England and the mid-Atlantic colonies, the elite were wealthy farmers or urban merchants; in the South, they were wealthy planters. Hope this helps!
