Answer and Explanation:
This question is asking for a personal opinion. Consider the following answer an example, and feel free to change and adapt it to your own point of view:
When people hear perspectives that are hurtful to themselves or to others, they have, in my opinion, two options. They can either choose to ignore them or to argue against them. Some things must be taken into consideration when deciding which way to go, though. The person who is thinking of arguing may ask him/herself whether this discussion is worth the time and effort. They may consider their audience - perhaps the person who voiced the hurtful perspectives in the first place is rude, aggressive, even violent. In that case, it may very well be better to just let go, to just find a better place - and a better audience - to comment and discuss that matter.
If, however, he or she decides to argue - if the audience is open to it, if he or she feels it is worth their time and effort- , he or she must do so with confidence and patience. No hurtful perspective is worth getting angry over. As a matter of fact, once someone displays anger, he or she loses face.
The main difference is that third person limited happens when the story is told from a character’s perspective, while a story in third person omniscient is told by a narrator that is external to the story (i.e. not a character).
B. They funded good distribution in remote regions
1. I don't think she was betraying her black identity, I think that she was trying to show unity, or make a difference in people's opinion
HOPE IT HELPS
