Answer:
Colin is making a(n) external or situational attribution, whereas Jim is making a(n) internal or personal attribution.
Explanation:
In psychology, the attribution theory explains that people try to understand or make sense of a behavior or event by assigning causes to it. An external or situational attribution explains the cause for the event as a matter of luck, of interference by other people or the environment etc. In short, the behavior or event is caused by something external to itself. On the other hand, internal or personal attribution explains the cause as resulting from the involved person's personality, abilities, skills, mood, efforts, etc. That means the cause would be the very person, not something else. From those explanations, we can conclude Colin is making an external attribution - traffic is the cause - while Jim is making an internal attribution - the caterer is disorganized.
Territorial expansion remained popular with the U.S. public, as did the idea of spreading republican government. Many pro-slavery Southerners sought to expand southwards, allowing for more territory where slavery could continue to grow and expand.
Human Sacrifices is the act of killing one or more humans, usually as an offering to a deity, as part of a ritual. Human sacrifice has been practiced in various cultures throughout history.
I mean.
They're both in history and ''practiced''.
Though a connection, no, Territorial expansion went along with slavery. The act of killing another human being is not very humane nor a connection. Slavery deals with principles of property law are applied to them, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property. A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration. Human Sacrifices deal with people who have really no choice and are dead either way, victims were typically ritually killed in a manner that was supposed to please or appease gods, spirits or the deceased. Slavery doesn't deal with death. So, no.
That people were supposedly being treated improperly
