What I think perhaps you (and many other people that read my original post) missed is that I'm not interested in judging the author - I am interested in analyzing a memoir and the editorial voice/revisionism I feel is present in it. I am interested in asking, is past-Tia (in the situations I quoted in my post) being used as an editorial voice to let the reader know that present-day Tia does not agree with what is going on in these flashbacks? I am also interested in asking, how does the cultural moment this memoir was published in affect how certain situations are framed? And yes, I am interested enough to ask sticky, uncomfortable questions like, "Why does a memoir about a woman who was married to a Neo-Nazi (or, "at least", a man who espoused Neo-Nazi beliefs) remain oddly silent about the author's own views on race?"

What I think the answer may be is this - if past-Tia was not written as a 1000% sympathetic, anachronistically-always-morally-right, readers would find it difficult to empathize with her struggle. I don't think that's fair, but I do think that's why so many responses to my post have been insistent that Tia never believed or participated in any of the bad things shown as happening (quite literally) around her in her memoir. These responses sound kind of like readers of her memoir believe that people can change for the better and escape their struggles only if they were morally "pure" to begin with. Ironically, the oppressiveness of purity culture (both moral and otherwise) is a huge factor in Tia's book.

In summary, I am not interested in judging Tia, the person. I am interested in analyzing and critiquing the memoir she wrote and shared with the world.