SPORTS HAVE LONG BEEN POLITICAL. ‘COMRADE GRITTY’ IS NO EXCEPTION.
In hindsight: That the Philadelphia Flyers mascot has been adopted by radical leftists should not come as a surprise.
by Jubilee Marshall
When the Philadelphia Flyers revealed their new mascot, Gritty, earlier this year, initial reactions were mixed at best. A terrifying creature of indeterminate species, Gritty’s fluorescent orange hair (fur?), wild, gyroscopic eyes, and gaping mouth have led some to characterize him as a “horrifying bearded man-Muppet hybrid,” or “the demon spawn of the Looney Tunes monster and Grimace.” Regardless of his appearance, it did not take long for Philadelphians — from Halloween trick-or-treaters to members of the City Council — to embrace Gritty. And they weren’t the only ones.
In the weeks following his debut, Gritty was adopted as a symbol by the Anti-Fascist movement and the radical left. This, in turn, prompted backlash from some conservatives, most notably in an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal. In it, the conservative columnist Jillian Kay Melchior decried the act of appropriation by Antifa: “Gritty belongs to Philadelphia, not to far-left activists,” she wrote. “Still, in an era when everything from Nike and the NFL to your local restaurant is a political battlefield, this development is as predictable as it is sad. Not only can’t we have nice things, we can’t even have silly, creepy things.”
The column relies on a familiar trope: that in an increasingly partisan world, politics has invaded every aspect of society. She cites the controversy surrounding NFL player Colin Kaepernick — whose decision to kneel during the National Anthem to protest the killing of black men by police has been met with both derision and support — as further evidence of this phenomenon.
However, this assertion ignores crucial historical realities. It falsely portrays sports as apolitical, ignoring the fact that, for decades, athletics have served as a battleground for local, national, and international political questions. It also characterizes Philadelphians and leftists as mutually exclusive groups, eliding a civic culture of the city that has endeared Gritty to local activists and sports fans alike. In so doing, Melchior fails to recognize Gritty’s adoption by leftists as inextricably linked to the current political moment, in which battles over who gets a political voice have played out in elections across the country.
For decades, Philadelphia sports have served as a battleground for local, national, and international political questions.
Philadelphia sports have been an arena for political debate as early as 1950. In that year, the Philadelphia Phillies, the baseball team owned by R.R.M. Carpenter Jr., were nicknamed the ‘Whiz Kids’ for their mostly-rookie team and their impressive skills on the field. Playing just three years after Jackie Robinson broke Major League Baseball’s color barrier, the all white Whiz Kids played during a time where teams faced increasing pressures to integrate their rosters.
The Phillies and the Whiz Kids were the last National League team to sign a black player. They finally did so with John Kennedy, a full decade after Jackie Robinson’s debut. A 1957 article from the Philadelphia Tribune, an African-American newspaper, wrote about the decision: “Thousands of negroes are happy because the Phillies have finally seen the light.” The Phillies’ continual resistance to integration frustrated its black fans, who regarded the eventual signing of John Kennedy as long overdue. Political questions about inclusion and influence were intertwined with Philadelphia sports even then.
The adoption of Gritty as a political figure reflects, on one hand, Philadelphia’s own history of protest and leftism.
Philadelphia sports have continued to serve as a focal point for political questions of racial conflict, protest, and dissent. In the 2017–2018 season, after the franchise’s first Super Bowl win, the Philadelphia Eagles were uninvited to the White House after it became clear that most players would refuse to attend the victory celebration. The players were motivated by President Trump’s negative comments toward the national anthem protests, in which several of the team’s players participated. The team had reportedly planned to send fewer than ten players to meet the President in the Rose Garden.
It is little surprise, then, that Gritty has become a political figure, a face of the radical left in Philadelphia and, indeed, across the country. This reflects, on one hand, Philadelphia’s own history of protest and leftism, a history that makes the adoption of Gritty as a leftist icon particularly fitting. Philadelphia, reliably Democratic, frequently makes headlines for its progressive policies such as the creation of safe injection sites and its establishment as a sanctuary city. A recent counter-protest saw Philadelphians use Gritty as the face of resistance to an alt-right gathering.
Beyond the city limits, Gritty’s rise to fame coincides with a fraught political moment wherein questions over representation, free speech, political voice, and partisanship have played out in the recent midterm elections. Activists and political newcomers ran and won on liberal and leftist platforms, even in districts that have historically leaned right. Voter turnout for the midterms was at a 50-year high. The political landscape is experiencing a surge of debate, activism, and heightened public attentiveness. This includes sports, much as it has in previous eras. As such, Gritty’s timely debut to a city and a country rife with political tension puts his adoption by the radical left into clearer perspective.
Jubilee Marshall is a History major at Villanova University with a concentration in Peace and Justice Studies. She is a 2018–19 History Communication Fellow at the Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest.
