From Nuremberg to Boston: when Following The Orders does not age well

Human history is full of examples that demonstrate the inevitable ideological distances between different generations. On so many occasions an entire generation - or at least a significant portion of it - was so convinced about a particular issue, only for their successors to dismiss and to condemn those particular social beliefs. Unfortunately, these critics of their ancestors are usually themselves incapable of critically evaluating their own social consciousness. It does not seem to occur to them that their notions and their actions will likewise be judged by the future societies. Or maybe, they simply could not care less? Anyway, in this manner humanity never seems to learn from its mistakes.

As our social consciousness is constantly in flux, there are always those who espouse novel ideas, those who are stubbornly stuck to old ways, as well as those that lurk in the grey zone. And the relation between the last two groups can be quite complex. To be sure, there are those who act according to their deepest convictions - no matter how ridiculous these might look to the future generations - and who die firmly holding on to them. But there are also those who act against the social changes and in favour of the status quo simply because they are following the orders. Even when the human made social rules have been challenged to a great extent. As it stands, the historical list of Nuremberg-style defendants would be endless.

This commentary will use the question of women’s participation in marathon running as a case example. First of all, it should not come as a huge surprise that “women had been forbidden from participating in the ancient Olympics. A woman who was caught even as a spectator at the Games could face execution.” Neither one should be shocked by the fact that when the idea of the Olympic games was revived at the end of the 19th century, the exclusion of women from long-distance running was a self-evident truism. After all, this was the so-called Victorian period with their peculiar social norms and beliefs, for instance that “participating in physical activity would increase a girl’s risk of becoming sterile, weak, or masculine”. Moreover:

“Well into the 19th century, only men were able to compete in sports, while women were forced to participate exclusively in noncompetitive recreation activities. These activities included archery, croquet, and tennis, which could all be played in dresses and corsets. This dress code perpetuated the idea that women had to maintain society’s view of femininity.”

And yet, the very first modern Olympic marathon in 1896 already had its peculiar female-related incident. “The one unrefuted fact is that a Greek woman ran the Marathon unofficially on 30 March 1896, and her name was Stamata Revithi.” Already at that historical moment not everybody was against her. But there is a story about how she had “asked the old priest of Marathon, Yanni Velioti, to read a prayer for her so that she would quickly reach the Stadium. The priest replied that he would be saying a prayer in the Church of Saint John. But only for the ‘official athletes’.” We might not be entirely sure regarding his motivation behind the refusal, but quite likely already here we find someone who was simply obeying the social rules of his times. In other words, simply following the orders.

Then we reach the 1960s and the famous Boston marathon. The first female runner of this race Roberta Gibb wanted to register for the run in 1966, yet the race director, Will Cloney of the Boston Athletic Association, returned a letter saying that “he was sorry not to be able to approve her request but that he had to keep her out of the Boston Marathon because women were ‘physiologically unable’ to run a marathon”. One wonders whether he still held such views while on his deathbed. But this story also provides an insight into the generational cleavages within families. The position of her parents before the 1966 marathon could and should be a historical lesson for all contemporary mothers and fathers on how to avoid historical shame:

“Both of her parents focused on how important an event the Boston Marathon was, how meticulously its organizers planned it, and the selfishness of any individual ‘crashing' the race in order to promote their pet cause, however worthy it might be.”

Again, just follow the orders of the society. No matter how outdated or ridiculous its rules are, just accept them and be “civilised”. One single event is considered here to be of greater importance than the historical social position of women. In the same manner as some national monument made out of stone today might still be considered as more important than racial equality. One might wonder whether such loyal servants of the social order will ever realise that a Van Gogh painting can never be considered as being more important than the global issue of climate change.

To return to the 1960s, a large part of the society was already prepared to see women run marathons. To Roberta Gibb’s surprise, “many of the other runners were supportive”. In her own words, “contrary to what some people think, it was not a men-versus-women confrontation. The men were glad that I was running”. The social norms were on the irreversible path of change, as they always are. But such social changes would proceed even more smoothly, were it not for the guardians of the rules and the followers of orders. The director of the race, for instance, “took the position that Gibb’s performance was a ‘stunt’ that would only embolden others to try to break the rules”. Was he more concerned about the health of the women willing to run, or more about protecting the rules for the sake of the rules? If you agree that a law is outdated or unjust, why continue to enforce it? Why continue following the orders?

The next year, in 1967, another woman, named Kathrine Switzer, also ran the Boston Marathon. But she even managed to obtain official registration via false identification as a male runner. This time the director Will Cloney and another official even tried to forcibly take Switzer's bib off her running clothes during the event. And after the race Cloney was unrepentant: “Women can’t run in the Marathon because the rules forbid it. Unless we have rules, society will be in chaos. I don’t make the rules but I try to carry them out.” Of course, just following the orders. Enforcing the rules. Would he also have defended himself in the same manner had he known how absurd his attempt to tackle Katherine during that run in 1967 would appear to the future generations? Had they all been aware of such an inevitable generational gap between then and now, would it still have taken another five years to create the women’s division of the Boston Marathon?

And it took even longer, namely until 1984, for women's marathon to be included into the Olympic games. A few years before this historic event, Kathrine Switzer, now the director of the Women’s Sports Foundation and organizer of women's races, was still trying to “prove to people that women are just as suited, or even more suitable, for marathoning as men.” From today’s perspective it seems as idiotic as trying to prove that women are capable of driving a car. But at that moment she must have felt desperate. As desperate as those who argue today that an individual’s mindset has nothing to do with his or her ethnicity, but solely with the socio-economic background. One may also wonder whether she was as assured that history would vindicate her as we can be assured today over the fact that the petty racists of our times will be ridiculed by the future generations.

There is now a statue dedicated to Roberta Gibb near the start of the Boston Marathon. A monument to a person who challenged the rules back in the day. There is also an obelisk, for example, in Edinburgh dedicated to 5 political reformers who were sentenced and deported from Britain in the late 18th century. “Their only ‘crime’ was to campaign for the right to vote.” Hence, one has to be completely incapable of reading history in order not to realise that in time there will be monuments and commemoration for activists from Palestine Action, from the Gaza Flotillas, from Soulèvements de la Terre, and so on. The tragic part here is that history has to run its full course, while many individuals continue to simply follow the orders.

Sources:
https://www.marathonguide.com/history/olympicmarathons/chapter25.cfm
https://library.olympics.com/Default/doc/SYRACUSE/353009/stamata-revithi-alias-melpomeni-by-athanasios-tarasouleas?_lg=en-GB
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/jail-sentences-for-van-gogh-soup-protest-draconian-and-disproportionate/
https://medium.com/@andrewszanton/the-marathon-journey-of-bobbi-gibb-f00044952a6e
https://edinburgh.org/900/event/thomas-muir-and-the-martyrs-monument-on-calton-hill/
https://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/acadfest/2022/all/10/

Image by Freepik.com