Tonight my mother and I watched a documentary. It was titled "The Taking of Patty Hearst", based on the foundation of SLA and obviously her kidnapping, along with her little Stockholm syndrome.
Short run through: SLA (
Symbionese Liberation Army) was a result of a prison visitational program and political film. Their main belief was "...we define its (
symbiosis) meaning as a body of dissimilar bodies and organisms living in deep and loving harmony and partnership in the best interest of all within the body." As usual, most radical urban parties end up going too far, the SLA became a form of terrorist group within the States. Their activeness lasted for about two years, during these years they managed to commit acts of violence, two murders, bank robbings and the very famous kidnapping of Patricia Campbell Hearst.
The whole documentary focused on Hearsts kidnapping. How her family tried to help her and get her back home, how she converted into one of the guerillas, and so on. Although she was mainly a victim here, a victim of brainwash and merely a bate for national attention (if you didn't know, the Hearst family is like - as said in the documentary -
uncrowned royalties) I for some reason can't find sympathy for her. Okay so the SLA's fundamental belief was good; the whole Robin Hood idea, the thought of equality and freedom for everyone - race irrelevant. They were doing these things for the poor and oppressed organisms. Okay so I feel bad that Hearst got kodnapped; no one should have to experience that, she was brainwashed, she was the key to the $400 million dollar food program (a program donateing $70 worth of food to every needy person in California), she was the one who put SLA's words and wants in to action. The SLA wants to stand for freedom yet they deprive her of hers and of the two people they murdered (parents!). Talk about hypocracy...
Yes, this radicalness was probably what it took for the government and the right-wing to actually bend over and try and enhance the poverty-issue. But somewhere along the way, what started out as a semi-good only wanting harmony and equality seemed to have turned into something terribly unnecessary. Towards the end of the documentary, SLA didn't seem too be fighting for harmony, it all seemed so menacing, all they wanted to do was annoy the shit out of the government and all the Californian polices. they managed with the food program but there were only two or three distributions that went well until chaos broke out. Equality will never truly be gained in our world, maybe in script but I doubt that it will be there fully in mind and teaching. Unequality can be found anywhere, we do it without thinking - that's at least what I've observed, to be honest.
Either way, I feel that I'm losing my thread here, my main point and what suprisingly annoyed me was the sympathy for Hearst. I find it strange that a hostage, who became such a vivid member of the SLA, had her chances of escaping but never took them. After all she is an actress, I don't know when she wanted to persue that dream but I always think that an actress is someone who can be an actress all the time. What if she wasn't brainwashed but acted brainwashed? She is a Hearst, which comes with responsibility and probably a need of good appearance to the public. Why couldn't someone who regrets what she did, act brainwashed? It seems like such a typical upper-class cover up, to blame it on something else. Besides, they did such awful things, e.g. during a bank robbery when they murdered a mother of 4 and kicked a pregnant lady in the belly causing and leading her to miscarriage - it's awful. It's embarrssing to have participated in something like that. The shame I would have if it was me! I suppose she feels ashamed about it, but somehow with all the fame she has gained with this somehow she portrays to me, to be living without guilt. What would I know though, I'm just a very harsh and judgemental person towards those I think have done morally wong things. In this case she was "brainwashed". I have a hard time believing it though. What sucks right now is that I can't explain more thuroughly why.
I'm probably not making sense now, I just have a hard time trusting what is to be the truth when I get a bad vibe from it. the whole sympathy and lets reduce her sentence and come to these talkshows, you are our sweetheart - people, she robbed a bank and seemed to sincerely support SLA's actions... what?? Plus I'd like to know why she deserved a presidential pardon from Bill Clinton. they just said she recieved one but not why, unless i'm very ignorant and don't understand the very obvious reason. (Please enlight me if you know the reason!)
I probably shouldn't say more since I haven't read anymore deeper into this happening or read her biography about it so that I can get her side too (although I guess I'm not even enlightened about this from any side), and there are things I think and feel like saying which I probably shouldn't because lets face it, I'm no expert on this case. Plus I don't know what it's like to be kidnapped or to be put in her situation. So I think it's best to bite my tongue...