how was american society in 177 6?

Answer 1

Well, considering this is the kind of thing that would be taught in college over the course of a few classes, using several books dealing not just with this subject, but rather also individual aspects of this subject, no answer I can give could be complete. Here's a quick little rundown though.

Most of America as we know it today was still uncharted and untouched by European settlers. Contrary to popular belief, that does not mean it was untouched and unspoiled by the tribes who had been living there for several hundred years. Indian tribes knew much of the land (one of the reasons they were so apt at guerilla fighting, as well as guiding settlers west). By and large, most of the tribes had not progressed beyond nomadic culture. By and large, they had no need to clear large tracts of land for towns or farming land. This doesn't mean that they were zero impact, as many hippies who don't know any better would have you believe. It's just that a nomadic culture spreads their impact over a large area, whereas a stationary culture leaves their imprint on a specified area of land. Nomadic cultures usually can't support as many individuals as a stationary culture meaning that one tribe, having less people, will have less of an impact than a town. Nomadic cultures are also generally less developed technologically, not due to an inherent lack of intelligence, but due to the nature of their daily lives. A nomadic culture becomes stationary only after it reaches a level of sustainability that allows for said culture to stop "following the herd." This leads inevitably to more and more of the citizenry to have leisure time, which allows for the development of art and engineering. This is of course a neccessary development for a stationary culture, as the technology that finally allowed for a population X in size to become stationary tends not to be enough to also support future generations. The population grows as stationary cultures start living longer, and therefore drastically change the birth to death rate of roughly 1:1 to something higher, such as 2:1. What was JUST good enough to support a stationary lifestyle for X people is not enough to also support 2X people without further advancement.

But I digress. By 1776, many of our large Eastern cities were already settled, such as Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and so forth. These were the large population centers of the time, although a very large portion of the population still lived in either MUCH smaller towns (a few families to the town), or else in single family units on frontier farms. Just as there was a contrast in life between the European settlers and the nomadic tribes, there was a contrast in life between those who lived in towns and those who lived on the frontier. There was a strong social and economic divide between those who lived in cities and those who lived on farms. Many of the early Americans living in cities felt that the frontiersman were more trouble than they were worth defending. Those on the frontier felt the cities didn't understand their struggles against the indian tribes, and didn't offer the support they needed.

For the most part, frontier life revolved around agriculture and hunting, and city life revolved around shipping. Folks on the frontier, focused around agriculture and hunting, were always trying to expand further, which was something the crown had begun limiting support of, sometimes even making it illegal. Folks in town, focused on shipping, were upset with shipping restrictions and taxation that cut into their business. So despite their differences, many Americans, whether living in towns or the frontier, held a common ground in regards to being fed up with treatment from the crown.

There have been studies done semi-recently that attempted to show that a very small percentage of the population was actually involved in the revolution, and that instead it was basically a few rich merchants who wanted to be in charge themselves who drummed up support from the common man by buying him free beer in pubs and then getting him to sign onto the continental army. Since then, the statistics used have been called into question, but there is little doubt that rich men, like John Adams, Robert Morris, and so forth were highly involved in the success of the revolution due to their bankrolls.

For the most part, many Americans actually weren't necessarily in favor of breaking from Britain. They still considered themselves English citizens, and further still considered themselves, as citizens of the crown, considered themselves to have more freedom than anyone else in the world. Personally, I wonder how true that actually is, considering they added so many more freedoms when they had it up to themselves to decide.

Anyways, I don't know what more I can really tell you on such a general and broad topic. If you specify a little more, I can give you more information.

Answer 2

I mean i do not think it is fair. I am not racist or prejudice at all. but I would think it is unfair if a White man got into Yale with a 3.0 GPA and a 150 on isat but an Asian and an African American got denied with a 4.0 GPA and a 175 isat. I mean I do not think it is fair to an extent, however I think it is not fair that African American's are denied, still to this day, way to many things. We say the white man gave freedom to the black man, that is not true. We just humiliated them and caused them more sacrifices for their families. so in a way yes, hwoever i do not think it is fair because everyoe should be treated the same regardless of their religion, color, background, sexual orientation ect. I would not want to be denied acces into a school with fantastic grades but another person did because of affirmative action.

Answer 3

Why are you asking this in the hunting section?

Answer 4

Come on now! Be nice. I'm not that old!