LONG OVERDUE

Here's a fascinating perspective on renaming the Redskins

Here's a fascinating perspective on renaming the Redskins
Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images.

When Brett Favre was lighting up the scoreboard as quarterback for the University of Southern Mississippi in the late '80s and early '90s, the school's nickname was "The Golden Eagles." But when Jimmy Buffett went to Southern Miss in the mid '60s, the nickname was "The Southerners." And a few decades before that, the nickname was "The Confederates."

Both times, "The Southerners" and "The Confederates" made students uncomfortable and they voted to change the nickname, landing on "The Golden Eagles," which happens to be one of the best nicknames in college sports, that everybody can rally behind, and nobody's offended.

See? That didn't hurt.

The NFL's team in Washington, our nation's capital, appears ready, finally, to drop "Redskins" in favor of something that isn't a horribly offensive racist slur against Native Americans. Owner Daniel Snyder is doing this totally on his own, without any pressure from sponsors or retail stores that are pulling his team's gear off their shelves, or polls that show Americans are repulsed by the term "Redskins." He just wants to do the right thing. Yeah, right.

This isn't the first time an NFL team has changed its nickname – about one-quarter of teams have done it. The Washington case is unique for one reason, however. It's unbelievable that the league allowed a team, since Washington's inception in 1932, to call itself a racist epithet. And allowed its owner to defend the nickname for so long and promise never to change it. Now Snyder says he's committed to a "thorough review" of possibly changing the nickname. I'm guessing he wants to thoroughly review how much money this is going to cost him.

Several college programs have changed their nickname from Native American imagery to less offensive, more socially acceptable terms. Stanford was the "Indians," for decades, changed it to "Cardinals" in 1972 and shortened it to "Cardinal" in 1981. It hasn't seemed to put a dent in Stanford's winning ways. St. John's University changed its nickname from "Redmen" (including an unflattering cartoon logo of a Native American in full headdress) to "The Red Storm" in 1994. Miami University (Ohio) teams were called "Redskins" until 1997, when they switched to "RedHawks."

A very similar controversy, changing a school's nickname from something unimaginably offensive to something everybody could cheer for, happened in Houston less than 10 years ago, and I eavesdropped on it many times in my living room.

In 2014, under orders from Houston Independent School District officials, Lamar High School changed its nickname from "Redskins" to "Texans." Some of the school's athletes and, this surprised me, some of the parents were very angry about the change. I heard several of the players say, "We're still going to call ourselves 'Redskins.' We're still going to break huddles by shouting 'Redskins.' That's not going to change."

I stuck my nose into the discussion. It's not one of my more attractive qualities, and it wasn't the first time I heard, "Why can't you just stay upstairs and leave my friends alone?"

"Let me tell you something, guys. I know this nickname business is important to you now, but I promise it won't matter one bit once you leave high school for college or the military or a work career. This isn't a big deal. If the nickname hurts people's feelings, that's enough to change it. I went to Thomas Jefferson High School. Our nickname was 'The Minutemen.' Not once, not for a moment, have I identified as a Minuteman or thought of myself as a Minuteman. Although I was called that a couple of times early on … and it wasn't a compliment."

Three other HISD schools were directed to change their "culturally offensive" nicknames: Hamilton Middle School switched from "Indians" to "Huskies": Westbury High School went from "Rebels" to "Huskies"; and Welch Middle School dropped "Warriors" for "Wolf Pack."

Two years later, HISD officials changed the names of eight local schools named for leaders of the Confederacy. Among them, Robert E. Lee High School became Margaret Long Wisdom High School, and Jefferson Davis High School became Northside High School.

I believe these were positive steps for Houston. The names of Confederate heroes belong in history books, not on school buildings. Nobody is denying our history or heritage, but history belongs in museums, not on school uniforms worn by descendants of slaves. If it hurts people's feelings, stop doing it.

One big difference between HISD becoming enlightened about school names and mascots and the situation with the NFL team in Washington? It cost HISD about $1.5 million to research the name changes and buy new uniforms and logos. In Washington, owner Dan Snyder will make millions from longtime fans buying up old Redskins gear and hitting the Nike store for first-edition T-shirts and jerseys with the new name and logo. The early favorite seems to be "Warriors" without any images of Native Americans or feathers. It's about time – just long, long overdue.

Most Popular

SportsMap Emails
Are Awesome

Listen Live

ESPN Houston 97.5 FM
Is leadership the main problem for Houston? Composite Getty Image.

With the Astros now officially ten games under .500 for the season, manager Joe Espada is taking a lot of heat from the fanbase for the team's struggles.

While we don't agree with the sentiment, we even hear fans clamoring for the return of Dusty Baker and Martin Maldonado, thinking the Astros wouldn't be in this mess if they were still here.

Which is ridiculous. First of all, Maldonado has been awful for the White Sox, hitting .048 (even worse than Jose Abreu's .065). And for those of you that think his work with the pitching staff justifies his pathetic offense. Let me say this: Where was Maldy's game calling genius for Hunter Brown, Cristian Javier, and Framber Valdez last year? All of them regressed significantly.

And as far as Baker is concerned, we have no idea how much a difference he would make, we can only speculate. Baker would also be dealing with a pitching staff ravaged with injuries. And let's not forget, Baker was the guy that refused to move Jose Abreu down in the batting order, even though he would finish the regular season with the ninth-worst OPS in baseball.

The reality of the situation is managers can only do so much in baseball. Which leads us to something else that needs to be considered. Is Espada being handcuffed by the front office? Espada and GM Dana Brown both said recently that Jon Singleton was going to get more at-bats while they give Abreu time off to try to figure things out. Yet, there Abreu was in the lineup again in the opening game of the Cubs series.

It makes us wonder how much power does Espada truly have? The Astros have some other options at first base. Yainer Diaz may only have eight games played at the position, but how much worse could he be than Abreu defensively? Abreu already has four errors, and Diaz is obviously a way better hitter. Victor Caratini isn't considered a plus offensive player, but his .276 batting average makes him look like Babe Ruth compared to Abreu. Let him catch more often and play Diaz at first. Starting Diaz at first more often could also lengthen his career long-term.

Maybe that's too wild of a move. Okay, fine. How about playing Mauricio Dubon at first base? I understand he doesn't have much experience at that position, but what's the downside of trying him there? If he can play shortstop, he can play first base. He's driving in runs at a higher rate (11 RBIs) than everyone on the team outside of Kyle Tucker and Yordan Alvarez. And he's producing like that as part-time player right now.

The other criticism we see of Espada is his use of Jon Singleton to pinch hit late in games. Let's be real, though, who else does Espada have on the roster to go to? Batting Abreu late in games in which you're trailing should be considered malpractice. Espada can only use who he has to work with. This all really stems from the Astros poor farm system.

They don't have anyone else to turn to. The draft picks the club lost from the sign-stealing scandal are really hurting them right now. First and second rounders from 2020 and 2021 should be helping you in 2024 at the big league level.

Maybe they go to Astros prospect Joey Loperfido soon, but after a hot start he has only two hits in his last six games.

Finally, we have to talk about what seems like a committee making baseball decisions. Lost in a committee is accountability. Who gets the blame for making poor decisions?

As time continues to pass it looks like moving on from former GM James Click was a massive mistake. He's the guy that didn't sign Abreu, but did trade Myles Straw (recently DFA'd) for Yainer Diaz and Phil Maton. He also built an elite bullpen without breaking the bank, and helped the club win a World Series in 2022.

The reality of the situation is Dusty Baker and James Click are not walking back through that door. And all good runs come to an end at some point. Is this what we're witnessing?

Don't miss the video above as we hit on all the points discussed and much more!

Catch Stone Cold 'Stros (an Astros podcast) with Charlie Pallilo, Brandon Strange, and Josh Jordan. We drop two episodes every week on SportsMapHouston's YouTube channel. You can also listen on Apple Podcast, Spotifyor wherever you get your podcasts.

SportsMap Emails
Are Awesome