Use your Diversity, Oppression, and Social Functioning text to read the following:
Chapter 6, “African Americans: Consequence of Discrimination,” pages 78â88.
Chapter 8, “A Multi-Diversity Perspective on Latinos: Oppression and Social Functioning,” pages 108â123.
Chapter 9, “Native Americans: Oppression and Social Work Practice,” pages 126â142.
Use the Capella University Library to read the following:
Constantine, M. G. (2007). Racial microagressions against African American clients in cross-racial counseling relationships. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(1), 1â16.
Croff, R. L., Rieckmann, T. R., & Spence, J. D. (2014). Provider and state perspectives on implementing cultural-based models of care for American Indian and Alaska native patients with substance use disorders. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 41(1), 64â79.
Rangel, D. E., & Valdez, C. R. (2017). A culturally sensitive approach to large-scale prevention studies: A case study of a randomized controlled trial with low-income Latino communities. Journal of Primary Prevention, 38(6), 627â645.
For this Discussion, your fellow learners have created a presentation that contextualizes practice with African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos. After you view their presentation, use your post to discuss one or more of the following:
What are the key factors that need to be addressed when working with African American clients? With Native American clients? With Latino clients?
Are there similarities among these three groups?
Are there similarities between any of these groups and the groups that you researched?
How would you incorporate the key factors into your plan for working with clients from these groups?
Sample Solution
since they have accomplished something out of line. Different variables should be thought of, for instance, Proportionality. Thirdly, Vittola contends that war ought to be stayed away from (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we ought to continue conditions strategically. This is upheld by the “final retreat” position in Frowe, where war ought not be allowed except if all actions to look for discretion comes up short (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This implies war ought not be proclaimed until one party must choose the option to pronounce battle, to safeguard its domain and freedoms, the point of war. Notwithstanding, we can likewise contend that the conflict can never be the final retreat, considering there is dependably a method for attempting to stay away from it, similar to assents or settlement, showing Vittola’s hypothesis is imperfect. Fourthly, Vittola inquiries upon whose authority can request a formal statement of war, where he infers any district can do battle, yet more critically, “the sovereign” where he has “the regular request” as indicated by Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is additionally upheld by Aristotle’s Governmental issues ((1996), Page 28): ‘a ruler is the regular unrivaled of his subjects.’ Notwithstanding, he really does later stress to place all confidence in the sovereign is off-base and has results; a careful assessment of the reason for war is expected alongside the eagerness to arrange rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is upheld by the activities of Hitler are considered treacherously. Additionally, in this day and age, wars are not generally battled simply by states yet additionally non-state entertainers like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s regularizing guarantee on power is obsolete. This is additionally upheld by Frowe’s case that the pioneer needs to address individuals’ inclinations, under real power, which joins on to the fourth condition: Public statement of war. Concurred with many, there should be an authority declaration on a formal statement of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). At long last, the most questionable condition is that wars ought to have a sensible likelihood of coming out on top. As Vittola emphasized, the point of war is to lay out harmony and security; getting the public great. In the event that this can’t be accomplished, Frowe contends it would be smarter to give up to the adversary. This can be legitimate on the grounds that the expenses of war would have been greater (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7). Thusly, jus promotion bellum involves a few circumstances yet in particular: worthwhile motivation and proportionality. This gives individuals an aide regardless of whether entering a war is legitimate. Nonetheless, this is just a single piece of the hypothesis of the simply war. In any case, it tends to be seen over that jus promotion bellum can be bantered all through, showing that there is no conclusive hypothesis of a simply battle, as it is normatively conjectured.>
GET ANSWER
since they have accomplished something out of line. Different variables should be thought of, for instance, Proportionality. Thirdly, Vittola contends that war ought to be stayed away from (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we ought to continue conditions strategically. This is upheld by the “final retreat” position in Frowe, where war ought not be allowed except if all actions to look for discretion comes up short (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This implies war ought not be proclaimed until one party must choose the option to pronounce battle, to safeguard its domain and freedoms, the point of war. Notwithstanding, we can likewise contend that the conflict can never be the final retreat, considering there is dependably a method for attempting to stay away from it, similar to assents or settlement, showing Vittola’s hypothesis is imperfect. Fourthly, Vittola inquiries upon whose authority can request a formal statement of war, where he infers any district can do battle, yet more critically, “the sovereign” where he has “the regular request” as indicated by Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is additionally upheld by Aristotle’s Governmental issues ((1996), Page 28): ‘a ruler is the regular unrivaled of his subjects.’ Notwithstanding, he really does later stress to place all confidence in the sovereign is off-base and has results; a careful assessment of the reason for war is expected alongside the eagerness to arrange rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is upheld by the activities of Hitler are considered treacherously. Additionally, in this day and age, wars are not generally battled simply by states yet additionally non-state entertainers like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s regularizing guarantee on power is obsolete. This is additionally upheld by Frowe’s case that the pioneer needs to address individuals’ inclinations, under real power, which joins on to the fourth condition: Public statement of war. Concurred with many, there should be an authority declaration on a formal statement of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). At long last, the most questionable condition is that wars ought to have a sensible likelihood of coming out on top. As Vittola emphasized, the point of war is to lay out harmony and security; getting the public great. In the event that this can’t be accomplished, Frowe contends it would be smarter to give up to the adversary. This can be legitimate on the grounds that the expenses of war would have been greater (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7). Thusly, jus promotion bellum involves a few circumstances yet in particular: worthwhile motivation and proportionality. This gives individuals an aide regardless of whether entering a war is legitimate. Nonetheless, this is just a single piece of the hypothesis of the simply war. In any case, it tends to be seen over that jus promotion bellum can be bantered all through, showing that there is no conclusive hypothesis of a simply battle, as it is normatively conjectured.>
