Answer:
Flashbulb memory
Explanation:
Flashbulb memory is that memory that learns that something shocking and surprising, it creates a strong and appear very accurate memory related to the event but not exactly the event itself. Our traumatic and vivid memories are stored and capture the event when, where and how it happened. Sometimes people are very sure about their flashbulb memory. They thought their memories are preserved in the memory storage but are is not exactly the correct way to limit the flashbulb memory. But if someone added another incorrect information about events with a leading traumatic event, that memory does not correct the information in the future but even misleads the information.
The term Parenteral was taken into the body or administered in a manner aside from through the digestive tract.
An instance of manner is the manner in which someone plays her job. A manner or approach wherein something is accomplished or takes place; mode or style of process. characteristic mode of performing, conducting, wearing one's self; bearing; recurring style. His natural manner makes him look like the boss.
Some not unusual synonyms of way are bearing, carriage, demeanor, deportment, and mien. even as a lot of these phrases suggest "the outward manifestation of character or attitude," manner implies function or normal manner of transferring and gesturing and addressing others.
While you exercise proper manners, you are showing others that you're thoughtful in their feelings and respectful. you're also placing requirements for different's behavior and inspiring them to deal with you with a similar appreciation.
Learn more about manners here:
https://brainly.in/question/3055191
#SPJ4
A sit-in is a type of peaceful civil disobedience that took place during the 1960s where protesters sat themselves in businesses and public areas until they were evicted by force or their demands were met.
The U.S. Supreme Court hands down its decision on Sanford v. Dred Scott, a case that intensified national divisions over the issue of slavery.
In 1834, Dred Scott, a slave, had been taken to Illinois, a free state, and then Wisconsin territory, where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Scott lived in Wisconsin with his master, Dr. John Emerson, for several years before returning to Missouri, a slave state. In 1846, after Emerson died, Scott sued his master’s widow for his freedom on the grounds that he had lived as a resident of a free state and territory. He won his suit in a lower court, but the Missouri supreme court reversed the decision. Scott appealed the decision, and as his new master, J.F.A. Sanford, was a resident of New York, a federal court decided to hear the case on the basis of the diversity of state citizenship represented. After a federal district court decided against Scott, the case came on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was divided along slavery and antislavery lines; although the Southern justices had a majority.
During the trial, the antislavery justices used the case to defend the constitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, which had been repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. The Southern majority responded by ruling on March 6, 1857, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories. Three of the Southern justices also held that African Americans who were slaves or whose ancestors were slaves were not entitled to the rights of a federal citizen and therefore had no standing in court. These rulings all confirmed that, in the view of the nation’s highest court, under no condition did Dred Scott have the legal right to request his freedom. The Supreme Court’s verdict further inflamed the irrepressible differences in America over the issue of slavery, which in 1861 erupted with the outbreak of the American Civil War.
