I know it refers to hostages identifying with their captors, but what is the context? What was the event referred to her?
I think this page will give you all the information you need.
Many years ago, a bank robber in Stockholm took hostages and kept them for quite a while in the vault. When they got released and the bank robber captured the hostages defended him. At the time, everyone thought “what is wrong with those fools?” It was studied and that is when the came up with the Stockholm syndrome.
According to this it refers to a 1973 bank robbery/hostage situation in (surprise) Stockholm. Apparently, four bank employees (three woman and a man) were held hostage in a vault for six days, but resisted rescue attempts and later refused to testify against their captors. According to one site two of the women actually were later engaged to the two bank robbers.
Talk about desperate. Maybe it was as close as they’d come in years to having anyone pay them any attention, but that’s still hard to believe. I doubt I’d give up my convictions that easily.
S or L - if it makes you feel any better, sometimes people who have been in a similar situation have so much hatred for the criminals (or abusers) that they have a hard time going forward with their lives.
People have many responses to such dramatic events.
Now that I’ve seen and can understand.
If those people made it their pet project to attend every hearing and trial for years until the robbers were put away, I would totally understand.
The Patty Hearst case is what really brought the term to prominence, though currently it’s being bounced around the name “Elizabeth Smart”, probably with a lot less accuracy as it seems to have been less love than mortal fear that held her to her captor.
Not true.
Well, I phrased it that way because I wasn’t sure. Sorry for inadverdently perpetuating lies. I’ll have to be more careful in the future.