Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabe
If the tribes refused the money, do you think Cleveland would stop selling the items? If the answer to that is no, if you're the tribes, wouldn't it better to get something out of it if the selling is going to happen anyway?
|
Chris,
In Post #308 I responded to another person's comment referring to the payment of money to the native Americans as a type of bribe, albeit a "legal" bribe as he called it. I mentioned how in the case of illegal bribes that both parties are normally considered guilty, so shouldn't that same logic carry over to both parties in "legal" bribe situations as well then? And if that logic does carry over, then wouldn't the acceptance of a "legal" bribe make the native Americans guilty, at least the ones who took the money, of also not really caring so much about the use of the word "Indians" or the Chief Wahoo image? To be truly innocent, isn't the only real way a party involved in a bribe situation could not be considered guilty or complicit to some extent is to simply not accept the bribe money at all?
Look at the case of Joe Jackson, who is deemed guilty mostly due to his having kept money given to him to allegedly throw a World Series. He supposedly tried to not take the money, and even went so far as to tell the team owner Comiskey about it, and even asked Comiskey what he should do with the money. According to testimony, Jackson was told to keep it, and as the story goes he eventually used it to pay for a relative's hospital bills, so he technically didn't benefit from it himself. Now put the native Americans in Jackson's place and ask yourself the same questions!