Have wanted to read this book for years but was, for some reason, not called to actually start reading.
Patty's story shadowed my late high school, early college years. When she is kidnapped in February 1974 I learned about it in my math class, as a high school junior. April 3, 1974 was my 17th birthday and also the birthday of Patty's childhood friend whose father was president of the Hibernia Bank, the bank that the SLA robs later that month.
I learned of Patty's arrest at dinner in the dining hall my freshman year at Saint Mary's College in Moraga, California. Then, a few months later during a "go to work with my dad" day, I am at the Federal building in San Francisco with some friends, and day three of Patty's trial will begin in a few hours. A line has formed--and I get in it! Did not see much during the trial. Mainly F.Lee Bailey questioning a witness from his chair and the back of Patty's head.
Realizing that the issue--did Patty deserve jail time?--has been out there, as a tiny irritant, for all these years because there didn't seem to be a clear answer.
From the book, its pretty clear why Patty would choose to stay with the SLA when she is first offered the choice to stay or leave, as I discuss below. The continuing to stay becomes less clear as time progresses, however, especially after six of the SLA members are killed. While reading, I would just feel perplexed, especially after Bill Harris hits her in the eye--more than once, she is forced to jog miles when she hates it, and then she's involved in bank robberies and bombings where there are real risks that people will be hurt or killed. ( I also talk about this more later.)
Marveling at how the terrorists of the late 1960's and early 1970's (the Manson Family, the SLA) were largely young, white middle/upper middle class judeo-christian women. These women had fathers with professions like doctor, high school teacher, minister. In high school, members did things like be cheerleaders and track stars.
What would Donald Trump make of this? Do we put a wall around beauty pageants?
Could it be that one's race or religion doesn't mean that one is automatically a criminal or a terrorist? Could it be that if we keep out certain groups, we will still have terrorists to deal with from whatever groups we deign to allow?
[Sort of related, after the SLA a big SF Area drama was the shooting of Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk--by a white, middle class, Christian, former public safety office and SF Supervisor--so how do we protect our selves from this type of fanatic?]
Also marveling at how the SLA members, including Patty, appear driven by this passionate need to benefit the people, meaning the poor people, but do almost nothing to help such people other than asking for free food for them early on. The only things they actually do are rob banks, steal cars, shop lift and, later, set off bombs. I understand the thinking (I think): their objective was to start a war with the Capitalist system in order to bring it down. And in order to have this war they needed money (so had to rob). The fact is though, when you pull back and look at the reality of their lives, the beautiful vision of a world where the poor have risen up is only in their heads and is so extreme that it can only be in their heads, making them not helpers of the poor but only criminals and killers.
Interesting, though, how others also willingly accepted the SLA fantasy. After the shoot out--the fearsome SLA consists of only a bickering couple and a kidnapped heiress. And yet it held the world in fear and was able to snare substantive recruits and assistance.
Why didn't Patty leave? When she first agrees to join the SLA when offered her freedom, one can almost understand. It is eight against one and the reality is that it is so much safer to kill kidnap victims than to set them free. The few victims who have stayed alive--think Elizabeth Smart and Jaycee Dugard--had joined with their captors.
But then as time progresses, especially after the shoot out, Patty has many opportunities to walk away. She does have a fear that the FBI or police will shoot her on sight because she had, after all, robbed a bank, stolen cars, shot at the Mels Sporting Good store and issued tape after tape where she praises the SLA and affirms her membership with them. Still, she could have safely walked up to any officer in a disguise and then explained who she was and that she wanted out.
My theory: Eckhart Tolle talks about the ego/self being separate from the true being, yet how important the ego/self/the story can be to people. So important they can freak out if that self is lost--e.g. the person who loses fame, money and/or a job, if those things formed that person's identity.
It seems that in Patty's case, her weeks in the closet and the sensory deprivation, worked to weaken her previous self/story which made her ripe to take on a new identity. Once she had this new identity, to have left that identity could have made her feel unmoored, questioning her very existence. When she is parted from the Harrises for the week she is driven across country, then reunited with Emily--a woman she continually states she dislikes--she is happy because now she again feels safe. Also, when arrested and asked her occupation she says: urban guerrilla.
The second part of this is that I don't think the people of the 1970's were ready to understand (the way they weren't ready to understand gays, transgender people and many issues of race) the idea that one could be tortured into replacing one identity with another, or how difficult it could be to voluntarily discard one's new (now only) identity. Which reminds us why it is a good thing the past is the past.
Reading more of the book, we are reminded that the Guyana People's Temple suicides happened while Patty was in jail. This may have educated society on the power of brainwashing. As John Wayne, of all people, points out to the public: if 800 people can be persuaded to kill themselves and their children by a lone fanatic then why can't we accept that a young girl could be brainwashed after being held and abused by fanatics for months?
So, bottom line: If someone has been kidnapped and treated as Patty was treated--whatever she might do after that, it would not be appropriate to treat her as one would an average person operating with free will. Therefore, in my view, from the moment Patty was found she should have been treated as a kidnap victim, psychologically evaluated to see if she had really turned into an SLA member and if not, been provided with counseling to help her heal and asked to assist in the prosecution of her captors.
One tiny positive that came from her ordeal--When she is out on bail her father hires 12--count'em 12--bodyguards. Four per each of three eight hour shifts per day. Most were off duty police officers. Patty writes that they would step in on occasion as dates for her and her sisters. In fact, from among them she finds her husband.
The mom's story is particularly touching though we see little of it. Patty mentions that while her dad had a friend and business partner with whom he could share his fears and concerns, her mom had no one but her dad. And then we learn that she may not even had the dad because, after 40 years of marriage, weathering the kidnapping, SLA membership and trial of one of their daughters--the parents wanted to divorce.
Interesting to "see" again the San Francisco of the 1970's--the SF I grew up with-- an SF that had nary a tech worker within its borders. Also interesting to think of Steve Jobs as a punky kid at a nearby high school, as Patty is growing up near Menlo Park.
So, what if the SLA had developed in the modern age? One senses it would have benefited in two primary ways:
1. With the Internet it could spread its message around the world and draw in recruits a la ISIS.
2. From the book you feel that, back in the 1970's, the "Establishment" was a much stronger, much more insurmountable presence. This was not a world where the Republican Party would be floundering around while picking a presidential nominee. Such an Establishment no longer exists, so would no longer be as protective a back stop to those who want to terrorize at the grass roots level.