In 1996 Kerri Strug was praised as a hero for the "courage" it took to land a several vaults, at the relenting of her perfectionist coaches, with a crushed ankle. Courage was sacrificing yourself for the success of your team.
Fast forward twenty five years and Simone Biles is praised as a hero for the "courage" it took to put her mental health first. Biles' unfortunate adolescence aside, costing her team the gold is quite the opposite of the win-at-all cost determination that landed Kerri Strug on a Wheaties box a quarter-century ago.
So, I thought this was interesting because I don't totally think it's correct, but it does remind us that "courage" is a very dependent thing.
Like, if Biles gutted through an ankle injury, she get's praised for "courage" today. One difference in the world is how she'd get praised. Stories like that, ones free of vitriol, tend to resonate less, probably in itself a sign of the times. We also don't believe in the
Wheaties box as an institution. (Interestingly, at the time, it was said the coach told her not to do it, but later, some report had him saying, we need you to do it, which is what it is).
Anyway, I think one could argue both ways. There is some degree of courage to do something that goes against the grain. Doing the thing you're supposed to do when you're supposed to do it often doesn't take much. Doing something you're not supposed to sometimes does. Lord knows, stepping aside means thousands of folks will speak badly about you, and if you just gutted through people would say far less. Accepting the former requires some sort of courage. It's an interesting dynamic.
The counter factual would be gutting through, maybe doing worse, and catching a different round of criticism, and perhaps that is the sign of the times. In 1996, we still built stories into enduring uplifting myths. Today, things need more bite to stick.
