I don't understand that premise. How do you feel about lawsuits? Should someone accept a monetary award for something they were wronged by?

I'm going to wind this down because I don't see any real value in continuing now that I'm being called a racist.

I could cite a lot of statistics about how non-whites are treated by the criminal justice system; here's one article.

"In an analysis of 4,653 fatal shootings for which information about both race and age were available, the researchers found a small but statistically significant decline in white deaths (about 1%) but no significant change in deaths for BIPOC. There were 5,367 fatal police shootings during that five-year period, according to the Post’s database. In the case of armed victims, Native Americans were killed by police at a rate three times that of white people (77 total killed). Black people were killed at 2.6 times the rate of white people (1,265 total killed); and Hispanics were killed at nearly 1.3 times the rate of white people (889 total killed). Among unarmed victims, Black people were killed at three times the rate (218 total killed), and Hispanics at 1.45 times the rate of white people (146 total killed)."

https://news.yale.edu/2020/10/27/rac...d-over-5-years

I hope everyone's doing well with their collections.

Ted Clayton

Are you suggesting that the fault lies with the recipient of the (legal) bribe rather than the entity offering it?

Went right over your head that you - as in you, vintagetoppsguy - would be dead based on your response.

Well, I do need to practice for my Rubik's Cube competition on August 28th, thanks for the reminder.

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?

Lawsuits for what? There is no lawsuit that anyone has officially filed against the Cleveland team to my knowledge. And even so, you usually have to show there are some monetary damages incurred to be able to get anything significant money-wise through the courts.

I was simply speculating earlier on how the use of the word "Indians" and the image of Chief Wahoo may have been perceived by the native American community had the Cleveland team been giving/donating money to them all along as a sort of residual/licensing type of payment for the use of that term and image. I was aware of the fact that even though the team stopped using the Chief Wahoo image after 2018, they still held the copyright to it and have continued to produce and sell items with the image on it. Except now, they are going to be donating some of the future proceeds from those sales to native American groups. I didn't bring that point up before, but since a link to a story telling about the future donations was posted by someone else, I figured I'd bring it into the discussion as something else to keep in mind and look at in the overall scope of things. I am merely putting the question out there that if a group feels wronged about a name or image that is associated with them, does the fact that someone offers them money to more or less pay for the use of that term or image change the situation somehow. Also raising the question of how does it possibly impact the feelings and actions of other members of the "wronged group" that aren't getting any of the money now being paid or, don't care about the money and still want the use of the name and image eliminated entirely. You potentially end up with different factions of the "wronged group" possibly arguing among themselves as to what is the correct thing to do. So now who's right or wrong? Which group do you listen to as to how to make things right if the "wronged group" can't even agree among themselves as to the proper way to handle or fix things?

There are very few universal truths we have in life as humans that are going to be 100% accurate, 100% of the time. The old adage is always about death and taxes, but there are still people currently, and in the past, that have been on this planet that ended up never paying taxes, so that just leaves death as a universal given. However, another universal truth for humans is that we will never all agree 100% on anything. There either is, has been, or will be, at least one human that will disagree with every other human to ever exist on literally every topic, idea or question that ever has or will come up. It is human nature, and the fact that we are all different is possibly the greatest and worst things about us, all at the same time.

Saw this today and from the Washington Post
 

I am not suggesting anything, merely raising the question about how others would perceive this issue given that money may be involved. I was asking the question to you to think about it and how you would answer it to yourself and others. In your response, you didn't answer the question, just asked me a question in return, if I was implying something. And no, I am not.

However, you made a comment about a bribe being made. My understanding of the definition of a bribe is that it is a payment in some form to get someone to do something for, or act in one's favor. So if you are suggesting that such a payment may be being made to get the native Americans to stop complaining about Chief Wahoo while the Cleveland team keeps selling images of him for a profit, I think you are technically correct and that could fall under the perceived definition of a bribe. But my further understanding of a bribe, at least in regards to an illegal one, is that both parties are at fault and equally guilty. So if you assume the same logic holds true for a legal bribe as well, wouldn't you assume that both parties are also guilty in that instance/situation as well?

It doesn’t matter if it is 99%, what matters is that woke whites are offended, which of course they are.

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!

I awoke and this thread needs to go to sleep. Peace and prosperity to all.

One of my fave postcards. I paid 2x what an expert said it was worth and don't regret it a bit.

https://luckeycards.com/ppcunc1909nativeindians.JPG