Answer:
the just-world hypothesis
Explanation:
When misfortunes befall a person, others sometimes think the victim of circumstances deserved what happened. One reason put forth to explain why someone would think like that has been called <u>the just-world hypothesis</u>.
The just-world hypothesis is the idea that people need to believe one will get what one deserves so strongly that they will rationalize an inexplicable injustice by naming things the victim might have done to deserve it.
Answer:
The U.S. government made reservations the centerpiece of Indian policy around 1850, and thereafter reserves became a major bone of contention between natives and non-natives in the Pacific Northwest. However, they did not define the lives of all Indians. Many natives lived off of reservations, for example. One estimate for 1900 is that more than half of all Puget Sound Indians lived away from reservations. Many of these natives were part of families that included non-Indians and children of mixed parentage, and most worked as laborers in the non-Indian economy. They were joined by Indians who migrated seasonally away from reservations, and also from as far away as British Columbia. As Alexandra Harmon's article "Lines in Sand" makes clear, the boundaries between "Indian" and "non-Indian," and between different native groups, were fluid and difficult to fix. Reservations could not bound all Northwest Indians any more than others kinds of borders and lines could.
The right-brain vs left-brain theory has lead many people to believe that one side of their brain is dominant over the other. This would mean that they would either be “left-brained” or “right-brained”. Thus attributing to left being rational and right being artistic.
This is like: logical is to artistic
They felt that it gave the federal government 2 much power.
It’s the light coming from a star
