Answer:
First, the artwork was removed because it was made from Otter leather. Ruby whose work was removed alongside others stated that the Alaskan Natives were not the object of the policy because other kinds of items other than fur-bearing animals such as the Otter are also on the prohibited list. The list also comprised bones of rhinos, elephant ivory, etc. The sentiment here is that Etsy is executing this not just to unify their policy into a global one but because of pressure from the Federal government.
The other school which comprises of two institutions (KTOO and Sealaska Heritage Institute) as well as Dan Sullivan believe that the policy is based on erroneous logic and ought to be reversed because marine mammals in the Southeast are not endangered.
Explanation:
I'd say that Etsy ought to review its globalization strategy. It ought to adopt a <em>glocalization</em> strategy instead.
Glocalization is the integration of local considerations into policies and processes. In marketing, for instance, Coca-cola always looks out for content that appeals locally then uses that as a basis for communicating it's message.
In spite of the fact that the world is now a global village, multi-national organizations have seen that local content is valued more than ever before as peoples make very concerted effort to preserve local culture whether it is in music, theatre, food, language, or otherwise. It is understandable that the world over is trying to preserve what remains of nature, in a place where certain animals form the back bone of their local economy and is not endangered, then preserving such a local economy should take the best step for the people and the business not just the best step for the business such as tidying up her internal policies as suggested by Etsy in paragraph 9 of the article.
Instead of an outright ban on the sale of products made from Otter or other marine mammals, they should in conjunction with the Federal government consider creating conservatories and regulating the hunting of the marine mammals so that there is a balance.
Cheers
The excerpt uses explicit details in the following way: it provides a <u>physical description</u> of Sarah Penn (small woman, short waist, gray hair, mild forehead, downward lines about her nose and mouth). All of it is explicit, since there is no room for interpretation, it is what it is. In other words, such details are concrete ones, since they are physical and nothing else.
As for implicit details, we can find them in a figure of speech (a <u>hypallage</u>, which uses an adjective or participle to describe a noun other than the person or thing it is in fact describing): we learn Sarah Penn's forehead was benevolent, that is, it showed her benevolence (an implicit detail, since it was Sarah, and not her forehead, that was benevolent). It is a trait which implicitly tells something about the character's personality. There is also the description of <u>meek downward lines</u> about her nose and mouth. Again, a hypallage which implicitly tells us something about the character: it is Sarah who is gentle and humble, and not the lines about her nose and mouth.
Answer:
stuck up, use the bible to excuse them being homophobic, if they hear the word sex they go up in flames bc its a sin.... but they have 5 kids and 3 ex wives/ husbands
Explanation:
Answer:
They both sit in the fire
Explanation:
The first cat was technically in the fire to get the coal and lick it along with the second cat so the correct answer should be the first one.
Explanation:
Explosion frightened us.
plz mark me brainliest to ask me unlimited questions.
