According to Cherokee custom, each family farm had an area where the family could set aside part of its annual harvest for the chief. This supply of food was used to feed the needy, as well as travelers and warriors journeying through Cherokee territory. This is an example of .

buying socks and buying shoes are independent events.

if interdependence implies a two-way dependence, and if each partner is equally dependent on the other for success, then there is an equal commitment to the making the partnership successful. the advantage is sustainability of the relationship, the disadvantage is that decisions are "democratic" and therefore may take longer to reach and more likely to be a compromise (which is not always the best solution). as the interdependence moves away from equality, the decisions become more influenced by the more independent partner. in the extreme the relationship becomes more dictatorial and more like "master-slave". generally the relationship has less commitment in both directions and is more likely to be temporary.

if one generalizes (and one shouldn't), equity partnerships, which is probably what is implied by interdependence, can be slow to progress or change but durable. the extreme alternative, independent-dependent partnerships tend to be efficient but more fragile.

hope this but you will have to site your own evidence. : )

answer: that government dose not want hire eric but hire minorities and woman on affirmative action quotas.

explanation: