Notes on Early Soviet Attitudes to Homosexuality

Notes on Early Soviet Attitudes to Homosexuality

Fragments of information concerning the attitudes of the Bolshevik government in its early years to homosexuality.

Note: Still in rough form, this text may be subject to change and editing.

Notes on Soviet Attitudes to Homosexuality

Article 121

Quote:
‘Pederasty
Sexual relations of a man with a man (pederasty),
Shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to five years.
Pederasty committed with the application of physical force, or threats, or with respect to a minor, or with taking advantage of the dependent position of the victim,
Shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of up to eight years.’

(Butler, WE, Translator & Editor, Basic Documents on the Soviet Legal System, Oceana Publications, 1983, Page 344)

For the past couple of years there has been increased interest in the history of gay rights in the Soviet Union. Unfortunately outside of the queer community in the ex USSR most of this interest is less about learning and more about trivial point scoring either on “western society” or between sects of communists.

To demonstrate the latter I’m going to do something I’d never thought I would do, quote someone from the Stalin society and agree with them (the quoted bit, I disagree with much of the rest of the article and will touch on some of those disagreements later).

Quote:
“The fact that homosexuality was criminally sanctioned under Soviet law is something that is often thrown in the face of communists in general, and used to “discredit” Comrade Stalin in particular. Indeed, “Stalin hated gays” is something I’ve seen posted online numerous times by trots and anarchists. I doubt Stalin ever wrote or spoke a single public word on the matter. In any event, such an accusation is by, its very nature, decontextualized and misleading.”

http://www.stalinsociety.org/2015/04/08/homosexuality-in-the-ussr/

Most of the rest of the article including the rest of the paragraph I cut off is full of half truths, fabrications and weak justifications. But from what I’ve seen over the past few years the first part isn’t really wrong. Indeed much of the discussion on this issue generally relies on the repeating of misunderstandings, generalisations and outright myths, and that’s after you cut out the homophobes and social conservatives masquerading as communists.

So I’m writing down what I’ve learned so far in the hopes that it’ll add some clarity and stop the reproduction of at least a few myths. I should point out this isn't meant to be the last word on the subject, on the contrary I'm still finding information on this subject and period, work is slowly being translated and some articles are leaking out of the pay walls.[1]

I originally started writing this months ago, but each time I started drafting something I would find a bit more information on the topic and would put off. This is true of this version, while writing it I've discovered some more sources, some of which I've managed to include, but others I'm still working through. So this may be subject to additions, changes or another update in the future.

To start with lets just handle some factual inaccuracies.

Common myths about the USSR and gay rights:

The Soviet Union was the first government to decriminalised homosexuality: I used to see this one a lot when Western states started passing same sex marriage legislation. Its not as common now but it does still pop up. The answer is it simply isn’t true. Ignoring nations and societies that never had laws against same sex relations, and leaving aside that quite a lot of the laws against it often specified male same sex relations, the USSR was beaten by several societies and nations.

Probably the first nation to decriminalise sodomy was the French Republic in 1791 when its new penal code (one of many) was enacted which contained no references to sodomy. I say probably because for much of world history decriminalisation of same sex relationships hasn’t been explicit, usually a new code or constitution would be adopted that just removed it as a category of crime. This was also the case with the Bolsheviks, they decriminalised by declaring the old Tsarist code and published a new one.

Other notable earlier decriminalisations were the 1830 Imperial penal code of Emperor Pedro of Brazil, the Ottoman Empire in 1858 who largely adopted a Napoleonic legal code, and Japan in 1880 striking down a law enacted in 1872.

It may seem harmless on the face of it, but the prevalence of this myth does show some of the problems with the discourse on this subject.

The Bolsheviks Were Unique in Decriminalising Homosexuality: This is tied to the first myth. Its not entirely accurate and obscures some important details. Before and during the early days of the revolution there actually was some public agitation to decriminalise homosexuality. However curiously the Bolsheviks were absent from this. The most prominent advocate was from a group of Cadets (Constitutional Democrats) most importantly Vladimir Nabokov and some anarchists, Berkman and Goldman’s advocacy in the United States having made an impression on some in the Russian Empire.[2]

This is important to remember because it explains quite a bit of what happened after the Revolution. There was no real pressure from within the Bolshevik party to decriminalise homosexuality, they decriminalised in a de facto manner by abolishing the old code in its entirety, as a result they never took any initiative to combat homophobic prejudices. On the contrary the few people who publicly tried to combat homophobia soon became the enemies of Bolshevik government.

The law against homosexuality was against paedophilia: This is something else that you see dug up from time to time. The text of the law Stalin’s government drew in 1934 Article 121 refers to Pederasty. So some have argued that it didn’t actually criminalise homosexuality at all, but protected children. This despite that the article defines all sexual acts between men as pederasty regardless of age. The article I quoted at the start makes this excuse later on for an example.

Stalin had no role to play in the recriminalisation of homosexuality
: This is an odd one, but its not surprising given how many Stalinists are squeamish about homophobia, but don't want to admit a fault. I’ve seen it argued repeatedly that Stalin had nothing to do with the revised criminal codes, or he did but not the anti homosexuality articles. For example the text by the Stalin Society says this “I doubt Stalin ever wrote or spoke a single public word on the matter” odd since the recriminalisation of homosexuality was carried by the Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party of which he was the general secretary.

To be completely accurate in the 1934 criminal code the article against homosexuality was originally listed as Article 154-a but the text remains unambiguous.

“154-a. Sexual relations of a man with a man (pederasty)--

deprivation of liberty for a term up to five years.

Pederasty, done with the employment of force or use of the dependent situation of the victim, --

deprivation of liberty for a term from five to eight years.
[1 April 1934 (SU No 15, art. 95)].”

http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/uk136-e.html

The Soviet Union Legalised Gay Marriage: There is no evidence of this. There are records of gay couples having marriage ceremonies in the aftermath of the revolution, which probably explains the confusion. However none of them received official recognition or any of the civil benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoyed. And in at least one case a lesbian couple -discussed later on- who got married were ordered to dissolve their union, and when they refused to comply the couple were taken to court.

The Soviet Union Decriminalised Homosexuality: This is actually a big one, to be clear at no point did the Soviet Union abolish legal sanctions against homosexuality. It was decriminalised only in the Russian part of the Union, officially the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). In the other territories controlled by the Bolsheviks, the Central Asian Republics, and Georgia, laws against homosexuality remained in force. So yes even under Lenin men were still being legally punished for homosexuality in territories controlled by the Bolsheviks.

In effect the USSR did not decriminalise but the Russian territory the RSFSR did until 1934. This my seem pedantic but I think its important to keep I mind. I have seen the 1934 recriminalisation of homosexuality depicted as a sort of unprecedented event, but it had plenty of precedent. I haven't seen any details but I have read that after 1934 some of the Soviet Republics actually updated their anti homosexuality laws to be even harsher than the Soviet punishments.

Homosexuality in the early Soviet period

Now that we’ve got that out of the way I’d like to address some misconceptions instead. Its not entirely accurate to credit Lenin with decriminalising homosexuality. Well at least not in the way its usually done. Typically this is depicted as a benevolent act from a progressive government consciously correcting a great social evil. Its not entirely incorrect the law codes for the Russian territory used to contain bans on homosexual activity (article 516 in the last code to be enforced), then at some point after November 1917 the new codes in use did not, but it leaves out a lot of important context. Some of which I’d like to address here.

The often-overlooked Provisional government formed after the February Revolution had made a start on dismantling the old Tsarist framework,

Quote:
“which hesitantly assumed responsibility for affairs of state after the fall of the monarchy in February 1917, represented the liberal impulse among the political elite. Cautious in regard to formal niceties, the new rulers refused to consider themselves the nation’s legitimate successor government until the anticipated convocation of a constituent assembly. They nevertheless began piecemeal to dismantle the legal structure of the old regime. It was under the Provisional Government that women achieved civil rights, that religious and ethnic discrimination was abolished, along with the death penalty and deportation to Siberia, and that the possibility of divorce was enlarged.”

[3]

But it didn’t get to the decriminalisation of sodomy. That would have to wait until the October Revolution when the Bolsheviks declared the rest of the code obsolete and worked on a new one.

Quote:
“By contrast, when the Bolsheviks came to power in October, they showed no timidity in overturning the legal basis of the old regime. Indeed, they immediately ordered the newly instituted ‘‘people’s courts’’ to obey Soviet decrees and to reflect ‘‘revolutionary legal consciousness,’’ while selectively applying only those existing laws that did not contradict socialist principles. By the end of 1918, the Soviet authorities had prohibited the application of any tsarist law. To fill the legislative gap, the new government issued numerous decrees imposing penal sanctions for specific transgressions but failed to introduce any clearly defined order or precise definitions on which the courts could rely. During 1920-21 the Commissariat of Justice authorized the production of a new criminal code, which went into effect on June 1, 1922, to be revised four years later”

[4]

As stated previously the absence of a criminal charge for same sex acts only applied to the RSFSR, but even then, the authorities were mixed in their approach. For example in 1930 an entry by the medical expert Sereisky in the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia reads as such, “Soviet legislation does not recognise so-called crimes against morality. Our laws proceed from the principle of protection of society and therefore countenance punishment only in those instances when juveniles and minors are the objects of homosexual interest.”[5]

However another expert the Psychologist Vladimir Bekhterev who worked with the Bolsheviks after the revolution including organising the First Conference on Scientific Organization of Labour in 1921 publicly testified at a trial of Russian homosexuals that “‘the public demonstration of such impulses might attract unstable people into the ambit of perversion. The introduction of homosexual tastes and activities to the broad public…is socially harmful and cannot be permitted. The creation of clubs or dens for such purposes must be punished under the criminal law.’

In practise generally speaking homosexuality was treated as a social illness to be cured if possible. To quote Sereisky again “while recognising the incorrectness of homosexual development… our society combines prophylactic and other therapeutic measures will all the necessary conditions for making the conflicts that afflict homosexuals as painless as possible and for resolving their typical estrangement from society within the collective.”[6]

Its not perfect but it sounds like an improvement, though it would depend on the procedures actually used. At this time “therapeutic measures” for homosexuality were often very brutal. Such as aversion “therapy” which was practised at the time. So far I’ve not been able to find any information on what was typically practised by therapists at this time in the Soviet Union. I have however come across some information on how young lesbians were treated in the 80s which involved commitment to psychiatric wards and mind altering drugs.

Quote:
“A typical scenario, recounted by more than a dozen young Russian lesbians ages 15-19 who were interviewed from 1991 to 1993 by Masha Gessen (1994), involves a parent or other guardian (such as a teacher at a residential school) finding out about a lesbian relationship and committing one or both of the - usually - very young women. A diagnosis and a relatively brief hospitalization - two to three months - and forced treatment with mind-altering medication followed. After her release from the psychiatric hospital, the patient was to remain registered with a local psychiatric ambulatory clinic, (pp. 17-18)”

[7]

Now that’s a different time and political climate, but my knowledge of therapeutic cures at that time doesn’t fill me with optimism.

However that was official policy and just like in every other society on earth there’s major differences between how things are supposed to be and how they actually are.

I think a good introduction of the immediate post-revolutionary period is a BBC news story called 1917 Russian Revolution: The gay community's brief window of freedom
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41737330)

It’s a selection of stories from 1917 to the early 1920s about Russia’s queer community. The first story is from 1921 when a member of the secret police staged a fake gay wedding to round up Petrograd’s gay community. He arrested 95 people in all. Fortunately for them he couldn’t get anything to stick, but its still not a good sign that he was able to plan an elaborate sting operation and mass arrest. And indeed in 1922 the year the Bolshevik government published its first criminal code, there were at least two public trials for homosexuality in the RFSR even though the criminal code contained no such category.

Its a very confusing period and its not helped that the early Bolshevik government was open about arbitrarily punishing people even when they had not technically committed a crime. To give an example of this bizarre attitude in 1921 at a national congress Alexandra Kollontai admitted that sex workers were being sent to labour camps despite the fact that there was no actual law against sex work. Indeed she criticised party members who had been looking into drafting some laws against sex work, but maintained her support for the current policy that included sentencing sex workers to labour camps.

Quote:
“A prostitute is not a special case; as with other categories of deserter, she is only sent to do forced labour if she repeatedly avoids work. Prostitutes are not treated any differently from other labour deserters. This is an important and courageous step.”

[8]

The justification being that they were guilty of the crime of labour desertion, but what exactly counted as labour desertion wasn't defined very well either, hence the confused attitude to sex workers within the party committees concerned with it.

This legal arbitrariness is not unprecedented; funnily enough, it was a common feature of the Tsarist period.

Quote:
“While it is true that few men were ever prosecuted in tsarist courts for the crime of consenting (homosexual) sodomy, it is not the case that imperial legislation, or even the dominant opinion among progressive legal scholars and lawmakers, exempted sodomy from repression. The tsarist regime was notorious both for ignoring the law (acting through imperial fiat or passing ‘‘emergency legislation’’ that superseded formal procedures and guarantees) and for its laxity in implementing the laws it did endorse. The relative neglect of sodomy in the courts may say more about the inefficiency of the legal system than about active tolerance for sexual diversity.”

[9]

The early Bolshevik regime fighting a civil war also had severe issues with upholding its laws and even determining clearly what was and was not a crime. It largely ruled by decree which didn't make for a very coherent legal system.

Quote:
“the definition of crime was itself in flux, as the violence of revolution and civil war created its own exceptional standards. It was not considered murder, for example, to kill in defense of the revolution or as a matter of ‘‘class justice.’’ Such conduct was thought the stuff of heroism, not delinquency. Yet the absence of codified laws and the state of general uncertainty did not mean that all behavior formerly considered criminal was now officially sanctioned or left unpenalized”

[10]

Technically the Bolsheviks had decriminalised murder at the same time that they decriminalised homosexuality, because the way they did it was to abolish the entire code at the same time. And while decrees covering that crime were quickly instated it took years for the Bolsheviks to codify a proper legal sanction against it. But in practise the courts and tribunal system where they still existed continued to hand out sentences for guilty verdicts for all sorts of offences in the meantime.

The penal code of 1922 is very important, as it finally clarified the official views of the government. And the absence of an article against same sex relations is also important. Its absence shows that while the Bolshevik government wasn’t interested in the rights of homosexuals, at the time it wasn’t interested actively prosecuting them. In Russia, anyway the code was for the RSFSR, it still didn’t apply to the other republics.[11]

However even after 1922 there is a problem causing confusion. The Penal Code allowed for the prosecution of people for acts which were not against the letter of the laws in the name of public welfare. This lead to a number of strange cases including the two trials of homosexuals in the RSFSR in 1922 mentioned earlier.

One was similar to the events in the BBC story, Secret police raided what they thought was a political meeting of sailors only to find that it was a meeting of homosexuals and cross dressers. They arrested them all and tried them as a danger to public welfare. It was at this trial where Bhekterev made his testimony urging the crackdown on public displays of homosexual behaviour.

Quote:
“The first case arose when the local security police (Cheka) noticed that small groups of men, mostly sailors (voenmory), often congregated in a Petrograd apartment. Interrupting one such meeting, which they suspected of harboring a political agenda, the officers were surprised to discover a peaceful domestic scene apparently consisting of brides and grooms, gentlemen and ladies, decked out in appropriate attire. Upon closer inspection the participants all turned out to be men. They were not political conspirators, the press report indicated, but members of a ‘‘club’’ or ‘‘den’’ (priton) for ‘‘sexual perverts,’’ who presented no less of a public danger. ‘‘Homosexual behavior,’’ the report warned, ‘‘spreads not only among people obviously afflicted with organic abnormality, but also by attracting suggestible people, drawn to their example by curiosity, who accidentally succumb to perverted urges.’’

[12]

The second case in 1922 involved a lesbian couple (Well one of the pair may have been transgender or impersonating a man to take a wedding certificate the reports allege fabrication of documents). Which appears the first time in Russian history.[13]

Quote:
“The other 1922 case concerning homosexuality evoked that same conflict between public interest and private right. It involved the conduct of a woman from a provincial town who changed her name from Evgeniia to Evgenii, adopted male attire, and settled down in marriage with another woman. Instructed by their employers to dissolve their ‘‘marriage,’’ the two refused, claiming that ‘‘no one had the right to interfere in their intimate lives.’’ ‘‘Unsuccessfully defined’’ as a ‘‘crime against nature,’’ the press report noted, the case had bogged down in the courts as investigators tried--and failed--to find signs of abnormality in the defendants’ behavior. A psychiatrist, it was suggested, might have been more successful in defining as deviant the pair’s falsification of documents and stubborn refusal to part.”

[14]

So even in 1922 in the territory of the RSFSR there was still some form of official persecution. Though by 1926 there does seem to have been a trend of genuine improvement. The revised RSFSR criminal code kept sodomy off the books and it doesn’t appear that similar trials or raids by the police took place, as far as I’m aware, though I’m still finding more information. Curiously the most tolerant period seems to be the early years of Stalin’s rule. By this point Soviet experts were taking part in international conferences for sexual reform[15] and supported the German Communist parties agitation against Germany’s law against sodomy Paragraph 175. The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia entry quoted earlier from 1930 also comments positively on Magnus Hirschfeld arguably Europe’s most important homosexual rights activist at the time.

Note: Dan Healy in his coverage of this case states that after the prosecutions case collapsed the Commissariat of Justice agreed to let the marriage stand. This is interesting although the source given [A.O. Edelshtein. “K klinike transvestitizma”] has not been translated as far as I know and all the other accounts of the case I'm aware of such as Engelstein and Igor Kon don't state this as a result of the trial, indeed all references I can find to this are either Dan Healy's work or others citing Dan Healy. In addition it seems the relationship collapsed soon after with Evgenii being transferred to Moscow in 1925 and then fired without a clear reason stated. Evgenii would go on to be rearrested in 1926 for impersonation and interviewed by a psychiatrist whom got Evgenii to write a short autobiography which was published under the title "History of my Illness".

So Evgenii's case may have extracted an important concession from the Soviet government, but it seems to be a case of them having to fight for their limited concession and it doesn't appear to have led to a change in the attitudes of the authorities after the incident.

As a final comment both of these trials against homosexuals were the subject of an article in the Commissariat of Justice's Journal arguing that homosexuals could still be tried under the Soviet criminal code the issue was that the local prosecutors inexperience resulted in flawed charges. The author believed the charge of "hooliganism" applied to the Evgenii case and had a good chance of resulting in conviction.

Quote:
The article’s author, identified only as G. R., offered broad interpretations
of criminal code articles against “hooliganism” and brothelkeeping
to secure convictions against “homosexuals.” Charges of hooliganism
would presumably have proved successful in the women’s case,

[16]

Of course it didn’t last, by 7th of March 1934 homosexuality between men was again a serious crime and the official toleration and links with sexual reform movements were shutdown. The second edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia now said this

Quote:
“The origin of H[omosexualism] is linked to everyday social conditions; for the overwhelming majority of people indulging in H[omosexualism], these perversions stop as soon as the person finds himself in a favorable social environment.... In Soviet society with its healthy mores, H[omosexualism] as a sexual perversion is considered shameful and criminal. Soviet criminal legislation regards H[omosexualism] as punishable with the exception of those instances where H[omosexualism] is a manifestation of marked psychic disorder. (Gomoseksualizm, 1952, p. 35)”

[17]

In addition high profile Communist party members like Maxim Gorky and the then Commissar for Justice Nikolai Krylenko publicly attacked homosexuality.

Gorky 1934

Quote:
“In the land where the proletariat governs courageously [muzhestvenno; also translated as manfully] and successfully, homosexuality, with its corrupting effect on theyoung, isconsidered a social crime punishable under the law. By contrast, in the ‘‘cultivated land’’ of the great philosophers, scholars, and musicians, it is practiced freely and with impunity. There is already a sarcastic saying: ‘‘Destroy homosexuality and fascism will disappear.’’

Krylenko 1936

Quote:
“The laboring masses believe in normal relations between the sexes and are building their society on healthy principles. In this environment there is no place for such effete gentlemen

[gospodchiki]. Who provides our main clientele for such affairs? The laboring masses? No! The déclassé riff-raff, whether from the dregs of society or the remnants of the exploiting classes. With nowhere to turn, they take up pederasty. In their company, in foul secret dens, another kind of work also takes place, using this pretext—counterrevolutionary work. These are the people who destabilize [dezorganizatory] the new social relations we are trying to establish between people, between men and women, within the laboring masses. And therefore it is these gentlemen [gospoda] whom we prosecute in court and deprive of five years of freedom”

[18]

This attitude would continue until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, but even today its effects are still being felt in the ex USSR.

Bibliography

In addition to the sources directly referenced in the footnotes below this essay relied on the information produced from the following sources.

Article published by the Stalin Society
http://www.stalinsociety.org/2015/04/08/homosexuality-in-the-ussr/

Partial translation of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR
http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1924-2/socialist-legality/socialist-legality-texts/first-soviet-criminal-code/

Constitution of the RSFSR
https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/index.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41737330

Speech by Kollontai in 1921
https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/prostitution.htm

Translation (partial) of Soviet Criminal Code published 1936
http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/uk136-e.html

Interview with Ira Roldugina "The inner lives of queer comrades in early Soviet Russia "
https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/artem-langenburg/interview-with-ira-roldugina

Soviet Homophobia by Professor Igor Kon
http://gay.ru/english/history/kon/soviet.htm

Sociolegal Control of Homosexuality a Multi nation Comparison

Soviet Policy to Male Homosexuality by Laura Fingelstein

The Pink Triangle the Nazi War Against Homosexuals by Richard Plant
_______________________

1: I've made extensive use of the article Soviet Policy Towards Male Homosexuality. In order to read that article I had to pay £36 for the privilege of having access to it for 24 hours.

2: Though to be clear I don't believe either group had a majority, Nabokov seems to have been a minority, occasionally solitary voice, and many anarchists don't appear to have made public statement at all on the issue. Tolstoy for example vilify a fictional homosexual activist in his novel Resurrection.

3: Soviet Policy Towards Male Homosexuality, Laura Engelstein.

4: Idib.

5: pg 593 of the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, taken from Sociolegal Control of Homosexuality a multi nation comparison pg 224

6: Idib.

7: Sociolegal Control of Homosexuality pg 225-6

8: https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/prostitution.htm

9: Soviet Policy Towards Male Homosexuality,

10: Idib

11: A partial translation of the RSFSR criminal code (revised in 1924) can be found here http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1924-2/socialist-legality/socialist-legality-texts/first-soviet-criminal-code/

12: Soviet Policy Towards Male Homosexuality

13: To be clearer, the court and the media treated the pair as a lesbian couple and accused Evgenii of posing as a man to trick the authorities.

14: Soviet Policy Towards Male Homosexuality

15: In the early 20's and 30's there were numerous conferences around the question of sexual reform. Usually pushing for legalisation of a number of activities like birth control, abortion access, sexual activities, homosexuality. And additionally educational campaigns were conducted.

16: Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia

17: pg 35 of the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, translation taken from Sociolegal Control of Homosexuality pg 224

18: Both quotations come from Soviet Policy Towards Male Homosexuality. Krylenko's are taking from a speech in 1936 given to the Central Committee

Comments

Reddebrek
Nov 22 2018 22:29

I'm a bit embarrassed but this article contained a prominent error, the title was supposed to be Notes on Early Soviet Attitudes to Homosexuality. I did find quite a bit of information on post 40s attitudes to homosexuality right up to the break up of the Soviet Union but didn't include it here since that wasn't in line with my aims.

I'm actually planning an appendix of sorts cover the later period.

I've also received some criticism from some telling me that some Bolshevik members did actively and openly push for decriminalising homosexuality, but they wouldn't tell me there names or cite sources or give me any clues.

Dyjbas
Nov 23 2018 11:34
Reddebrek wrote:
I've also received some criticism from some telling me that some Bolshevik members did actively and openly push for decriminalising homosexuality, but they wouldn't tell me there names or cite sources or give me any clues.

Look into Nikolai Semashko, Mark Sereiskii, Grigorii Batkis, N.F. Orlov, P.B. Gannushkin, etc. And some of the debates within the People's Commissariat for Health. Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia by Dan Healey seems like a good starting point.

Reddebrek
Nov 24 2018 01:01

Thanks but I meant pre 1917 advocacy. I'm already aware of the discussions in the 1918-34 period and have included some of it in here.

Dan Healy's book is very interesting (though not perfect and it contains omissions) but it doesn't cite any early Bolshevik advocacy either. It specifically states they had nothing to say on the subject and the closest the pre split Social Democratic party got to the subject was its members making vicious denunciations of Russian homosexuals and homosexual texts and authors.

I'm re-reading my copy and there's a part that I forgot about, in 1918 the Commissariat of Justice started drafting a new criminal code, the head of the Commissariat was a member of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, Shreider.

The LSRs based their 1918 draft largely on the proposed code of 1903 which was never fully implemented. In particular Shreider proposed getting rid of the sodomy clause about consensual sex between men over the age of 16 but keep coercive sex or sex with a minor punishable.

When the Bolsheviks and the LSR coalition broke down the Commissariat was staffed fully with Bolsheviks, who criticised the 1918 draft as bourgeois, but didn't make much progress until 1920.

Dyjbas
Nov 24 2018 11:42
Reddebrek wrote:
Thanks but I meant pre 1917 advocacy. I'm already aware of the discussions in the 1918-34 period and have included some of it in here.

To be honest I'm not aware of any Bolsheviks, anarchists or revolutionaries in general who advocated homosexuality in Russia before 1917. You've listed Berkman and Goldman, but they don't really count - they lived in the US since the 1880s and didn't set foot in Russia again until 1920, when they were deported. So that only leaves Nabokov, who wasn't a revolutionary in any shape or form, but a liberal.

In your article you do claim Berkman and Goldman’s advocacy in the US "made an impression on some in the Russian Empire" but you don't provide any sources. I'm curious where you got that information from!

Reddebrek wrote:
the closest the pre split Social Democratic party got to the subject was its members making vicious denunciations of Russian homosexuals and homosexual texts and authors.

At least two Social Democrats (Iu M. Steklov & G. S. Novopolin) made those kinds of denunciations. Gorky argued along similar lines. But again, this wasn't restricted to Russian Social Democrats. The two most famous Russian anarchists at the time - Tolstoy & Kropotkin - were both hostile to homosexuality and sex-politics.

Reddebrek
Nov 24 2018 17:44
Quote:
To be honest I'm not aware of any Bolsheviks, anarchists or revolutionaries in general who advocated homosexuality in Russia before 1917. You've listed Berkman and Goldman, but they don't really count - they lived in the US since the 1880s and didn't set foot in Russia again until 1920, when they were deported. So that only leaves Nabokov, who wasn't a revolutionary in any shape or form, but a liberal.

In your article you do claim Berkman and Goldman’s advocacy in the US "made an impression on some in the Russian Empire" but you don't provide any sources. I'm curious where you got that information from!

Ok a few things, a lot of your comment is telling me things I wrote about above, I made clear who Nabokov was politically

Quote:
The most prominent advocate was from a group of Cadets (Constitutional Democrats) most importantly Vladimir Nabokov

So I don't really see why you're telling me that here. Nor am I claiming that Berkman and Goldman were active in the Russian underground. I actually do provide sources for the claim about some Anarchists being early supporters in the bibliography http://gay.ru/english/history/kon/soviet.htm the claim is made by both Kon and Karlinsky, the most detailed bits about this isn't online as far as I know but that site does host an extract of Kon's work where he mentions it briefly. I suppose I could of made that more clear, but to be honest mate, that paragragh ends with a footnote, number 2 which discusses Tolstoy's homophobia, so I'm guessing you wouldn't pay much attention to the footnotes or source list anyway.

And as discussed the Left wing of the SRs seem to have been early advocates as well if Dan Healy is to be believed since they had been supportive of the draft code of 1903.

Reddebrek wrote:
the closest the pre split Social Democratic party got to the subject was its members making vicious denunciations of Russian homosexuals and homosexual texts and authors.

At least two Social Democrats (Iu M. Steklov & G. S. Novopolin) made those kinds of denunciations. Gorky argued along similar lines. But again, this wasn't restricted to Russian Social Democrats. The two most famous Russian anarchists at the time - Tolstoy & Kropotkin - were both hostile to homosexuality and sex-politics.

Uh yes, like I said I have read Dan Healy's book, and again literally the second footnote.

Quote:
Though to be clear I don't believe either group had a majority, Nabokov seems to have been a minority, occasionally solitary voice, and many anarchists don't appear to have made public statement at all on the issue. Tolstoy for example vilify a fictional homosexual activist in his novel Resurrection.

Now looking back I'm not happy about how this is worded but it is quite clear about Tolstoy being hostile.So I'm fully aware anarchists could be terrible on this issue too and went out of my way to bring this up. But this is a piece about the Soviet Union, hence the focus.

Dyjbas
Nov 24 2018 18:31
Reddebrek wrote:
a lot of your comment is telling me things I wrote about above

Sorry, I mentioned Nabokov, Berkman, Tolstoy, Goldman, etc. to make a wider point, that before 1917 homosexuality was hardly discussed among the Russian revolutionaries of all tendencies. I am well aware that you referenced them in your article.

Reddebrek wrote:
number 2 which discusses Tolstoy's homophobia, so I'm guessing you wouldn't pay much attention to the footnotes or source list anyway

Footnote 2 does indeed mention Tolstoy's homophobia, but it doesn't provide a source for the following claim: "Berkman and Goldman’s advocacy in the United States having made an impression on some in the Russian Empire.[2]"

Reddebrek wrote:
I actually do provide sources for the claim about some Anarchists being early supporters in the bibliography http://gay.ru/english/history/kon/soviet.htm the claim is made by both Kon and Karlinsky, the most detailed bits about this isn't online as far as I know but that site does host an extract of Kon's work where he mentions it briefly.

This is what I mean, so the "source" for the claim is hidden in the bibliography, not the actual footnote! Anyway, let's look at that "source"...

Kon wrote:
The initiative for revocation of antihomosexual legislation, following the Revolution of February 1917, had come, not from the Bolsheviks but from the Cadets (Constitutional democrats) and the anarchists (Karlinsky, 1989).

I guess we won't know what Karlinsky meant without getting access to that book, but what this seems to imply is that the initiative for the abolition of the old Tsarist code came from the Kadets and the anarchists. We know this is not the case, because the Soviet government (composed at the time of Bolsheviks and Left SRs) was the one to abolish it. Are we really to believe that, had it not been for the united forces of Kadets (!) and anarchists, the Soviet government would not have abolished the Tsarist code?

There is also nothing in your "source" about the impact that Berkman and Goldman's views on homosexuality allegedly had on the anarchist movement within Russia, which is what I was interested in.

Reddebrek
Nov 30 2018 19:43
Dyjbas wrote:

Sorry, I mentioned Nabokov, Berkman, Tolstoy, Goldman, etc. to make a wider point, that before 1917 homosexuality was hardly discussed among the Russian revolutionaries of all tendencies. I am well aware that you referenced them in your article.

Erm sorry but that just further proves my point that you aren't reading this properly (or being deliberately obtuse) I mentioned that Nabokov was a minority voice on the issue (though in 1903 he did get a number of jurists on his side for draft proposals).

But assuming you're being genuine you point that

" that before 1917 homosexuality was hardly discussed among the Russian revolutionaries of all tendencies"

Is not only incorrect, but hardly credible since you recommended Dan Healy's book Homosexual Desire in Revolutionary Russia: The Regulation of Sexual and Gender Dissent. The first two chapters of which deal extensively with the pre 1917 discussions of homosexuality and it shows that on contrary discussions of sexuality and same sex attractions got quite a lot of discussion pro, negative and neutral. We have police reports, political tracts, coming out novels sociological case studies and the occasional debate in courts of law and in the press.

Quote:
Footnote 2 does indeed mention Tolstoy's homophobia, but it doesn't provide a source for the following claim: "Berkman and Goldman’s advocacy in the United States having made an impression on some in the Russian Empire.[2]"

??????Uh yeah, I didn't say it did....

Quote:
This is what I mean, so the "source" for the claim is hidden in the bibliography, not the actual footnote! Anyway, let's look at that "source"...

Ok, look you can scare quotes on things all you want, but unless you have reasons why Karlinsky and Igor Kon aren't reliable sources on this topic that's not rebuttal.

Kon wrote:
The initiative for revocation of antihomosexual legislation, following the Revolution of February 1917, had come, not from the Bolsheviks but from the Cadets (Constitutional democrats) and the anarchists (Karlinsky, 1989).
Quote:
I guess we won't know what Karlinsky meant without getting access to that book,

Again sure if you have a reason for doubting the work of Kon on this subject or his reading of Karlinsky. Do you have a reason?

For example I can think of a reason why it would be very foolish to take Shemashko at face value, since he's most positive comments on homosexuality were all made in Germany while in the company of sex reformers like Hirschfeld and under his watch the Health Commissariat was practising at times very brutal invasive surgeries to "cure" homosexuality.

Quote:
but what this seems to imply is that the initiative for the abolition of the old Tsarist code came from the Kadets and the anarchists.

?????????

Ok so first of all you're claiming its not good enough information to tell what it really means, but then in the next sentence you're 90% it means this?

Quote:
We know this is not the case, because the Soviet government (composed at the time of Bolsheviks and Left SRs) was the one to abolish it. Are we really to believe that, had it not been for the united forces of Kadets (!) and anarchists, the Soviet government would not have abolished the Tsarist code?

Well good news then, you're not supposed to believe that at all because this is something you've just made up.

The bit you've quoted makes clear its talking about after February 1917, I don't believe the Bolsheviks were in power during the February revolt. Again you're reading isn't correct, it was abolished in 1922 in the RSFSR which was after the Left SR's whose drafts included abolition as early as 1918, were no longer part of the government.

How you dream up an alliance out of an admission that early advocates came from two political backgrounds I don't know.

Quote:
There is also nothing in your "source" about the impact that Berkman and Goldman's views on homosexuality allegedly had on the anarchist movement within Russia, which is what I was interested in.

Fair enough, although in Free Comrades by Kissack, it explains how Goldman and Berkman's contributions on sex reform including Berkman's Prison Memoirs and lectures on homosexuality from about 1912 being very influential on American audiences, including the North American Anarchists many of whom as I'm sure you know travelled or communicated with comrades back in the Empire. He was speaking in general terms, but I think its a fair supposition. It seems clear in Goldman's Disillusionment in Russia the pair were at least familiar to the wider Russian revolutionists, otherwise I doubt they would have gotten as many interviews with Bolshevik leaders or invitations to clandestine Anarchists and Left SR meetings otherwise.

I know earlier on you said they shouldn't count because they spent much of the years before 1917 outside of the Empire, which is a strange stance to take since many of the dominant figures of Russian politics of this time also spent a lot of their time outside including Kropotkin (whom you do seem to think did have an impact on views on homosexuality) and Lenin and Trotsky.

I also thought it was a well known feature of the Russian Underground that it had very deep and extensive contacts with its exile/expat communities all over the world. Indeed you're the first person I've encountered who doubts this.

Dyjbas
Nov 30 2018 21:21
Reddebrek wrote:
The first two chapters of which deal extensively with the pre 1917 discussions of homosexuality and it shows that on contrary discussions of sexuality and same sex attractions got quite a lot of discussion pro, negative and neutral. We have police reports, political tracts, coming out novels sociological case studies and the occasional debate in courts of law and in the press.

Again, I specifically meant public discussion of homosexuality among pre-1917 Russian revolutionaries. And not just general references to sexual liberation, which were more common, but discussion of homosexuality in particular. And while I haven't read Healey's book in full, he doesn't mention anarchists in it at all (he only references a libertarian socialist approach to sexuality, when discussing e.g. Kollontai), and says that, pre-1917, "Russian Marxists did not discuss these issues". Which seems to prove my point.

Hence my initial comment, that "I'm not aware of any Bolsheviks, anarchists or revolutionaries in general who [publicly] advocated homosexuality in Russia before 1917." I'd like to be wrong, but you haven't given me any examples to convince me otherwise.

Reddebrek wrote:
Ok, look you can scare quotes on things all you want, but unless you have reasons why Karlinsky and Igor Kon aren't reliable sources on this topic that's not rebuttal.

Well, for a start here's what Healey has to say about Karlinsky:

"[Karlinsky's account has] necessarily been founded on a limited base of published sources. They have also been shaped by his totalitarian schema, thereby obscuring the diversity of Russia's radical traditions and revolutionary utopian dreams. Karlinsky asserts that Bolshevik leaders had no intention of legalizing homosexuality when they abrogated tsarist criminal statutes in 1917. He implies that sodomy decriminalization in 1922 was the result of neglect or oversight. Such a view satisfies a desire to discredit Russian social democracy (as lawless, arbitrary, and anachronistically, homophobic), but it evades a compelling truth: Bolsheviks conspicuously removed sodomy from the books. Karlinsky's account passes over or presents incompletely the medical, legal, and social contexts within which Bolsheviks deliberately chose to legalize sodomy between consenting adults."

Reddebrek wrote:
The bit you've quoted makes clear its talking about after February 1917, I don't believe the Bolsheviks were in power during the February revolt. Again you're reading isn't correct, it was abolished in 1922 in the RSFSR which was after the Left SR's whose drafts included abolition as early as 1918, were no longer part of the government.

Nope, the Tsarist code was abolished with the October Revolution of 1917. It's true that it was only in 1922 that the RSFSR criminal code was introduced, but by then the Tsarist code was long gone.

Reddebrek wrote:
Fair enough, although in Free Comrades by Kissack, it explains how Goldman and Berkman's contributions on sex reform including Berkman's Prison Memoirs and lectures on homosexuality from about 1912 being very influential on American audiences

Yes, American audiences. Is there any proof they discussed homosexuality with specifically Russian audiences? Afaik for example Berkman's Prison Memoirs have not been translated into Russian to this very day (hopefully someone can correct me here if I'm wrong).

Reddebrek wrote:
I also thought it was a well known feature of the Russian Underground that it had very deep and extensive contacts with its exile/expat communities all over the world. Indeed you're the first person I've encountered who doubts this.

I don't doubt this. What I do doubt, is that they were discussing homosexuality, as I've not seen any proof of it so far.

Please, before you question my reading ability again or claim that I'm incorrect, at least try to address what I'm actually saying.

Reddebrek
Nov 30 2018 23:56
Quote:
Again, I specifically meant public discussion of homosexuality among pre-1917 Russian revolutionaries. And not just general references to sexual liberation, which were more common, but discussion of homosexuality in particular. And while I haven't read Healey's book in full, he doesn't mention anarchists in it at all (he only references a libertarian socialist approach to sexuality, when discussing e.g. Kollontai), and says that, pre-1917, "Russian Marxists did not discuss these issues". Which seems to prove my point.

????? I never said he did mention Anarchists, but he does talk about the left SRs being publicly supportive of the draft 1903 accord and that they would later base their 1918 draft largely upon it including the articles on sodomy.

Quote:
"Russian Marxists did not discuss these issues". Which seems to prove my point.

Not really, it does expose your political biases though, Marxist did not equal revolutionary, plenty of Russian Marxists worked for the provisional government.

Quote:
Hence my initial comment, that "I'm not aware of any Bolsheviks, anarchists or revolutionaries in general who [publicly] advocated homosexuality in Russia before 1917." I'd like to be wrong, but you haven't given me any examples to convince me otherwise.

Well no lets be clear I have provided contrary information to you some of which is in your favoured source,and you've disputed each one on shaky ground. Given your strange commentary I don't really think convincing you

Quote:
Well, for a start here's what Healey has to say about Karlinsky:

"[Karlinsky's account has] necessarily been founded on a limited base of published sources. They have also been shaped by his totalitarian schema, thereby obscuring the diversity of Russia's radical traditions and revolutionary utopian dreams. Karlinsky asserts that Bolshevik leaders had no intention of legalizing homosexuality when they abrogated tsarist criminal statutes in 1917. He implies that sodomy decriminalization in 1922 was the result of neglect or oversight. Such a view satisfies a desire to discredit Russian social democracy (as lawless, arbitrary, and anachronistically, homophobic), but it evades a compelling truth: Bolsheviks conspicuously removed sodomy from the books. Karlinsky's account passes over or presents incompletely the medical, legal, and social contexts within which Bolsheviks deliberately chose to legalize sodomy between consenting adults."

None of what you've quoted backs up your scepticism at all though. Healy (who throughout the book will use Karlinsky's work where appropriate) says a weakness of Karlinsky is that he used a limited number of sources, not that he makes arguments without proof. So this would mean that his limited sources informed him that some Anarchists and Nabokov and his circle were early advocates of homosexuality.

This isn't a rebuttal you're just using unrelated criticism to obfuscate. If anything Healy is given the claim more weight.

Quote:
Nope, the Tsarist code was abolished with the October Revolution of 1917. It's true that it was only in 1922 that the RSFSR criminal code was introduced, but by then the Tsarist code was long gone.

Sure, but the Tsarist code also contained laws against murder, are you suggesting that was also legal until 1922?

Quote:
Yes, American audiences. Is there any proof they discussed homosexuality with specifically Russian audiences? Afaik for example Berkman's Prison Memoirs have not been translated into Russian to this very day (hopefully someone can correct me here if I'm wrong).

Er, Yes American audiences (with a large number of Russian migrants and exiles). There's plenty of evidence that Berkman and Goldman were active amongst the Russian community in the United States on every topic. And as was stated earlier plenty of Russian Bolsheviks, Anarchists and SRs were familiar with both otherwise they wouldn't have had the reception and access they had when deported to the Soviet Union. Have you read Disillusionment with Russia?

Quote:
I don't doubt this. What I do doubt, is that they were discussing homosexuality, as I've not seen any proof of it so far.

What??? Yes you did, you said they didn't count because they spent many years outside of the country.

Quote:
You've listed Berkman and Goldman, but they don't really count - they lived in the US since the 1880s and didn't set foot in Russia again until 1920

If they don't really count because they were outside Russia on the issue of homosexuality then they shouldn't count at all on any subject, and neither should anyone else who spent much of this time outside the country.

You can't come up with a disqualification like this and then pick and choose when it applies and when it doesn't.

Quote:
Please, before you question my reading ability again or claim that I'm incorrect, at least try to address what I'm actually saying.

I address what you say every single time, and have gone out of my way to be polite with your very bizarre and often bad faith comments. Pleas stop complaining when discussions don't go in the way you'd like its very rude.

Dyjbas
Dec 1 2018 00:21

Ok, this is going nowhere. I'll come back to this discussion when/if you find any examples of Russian revolutionaries (be they anarchists or Marxists) who publicly advocated homosexuality in Russia before 1917, or what impact (if any) did Berkman and Goldman's views on homosexuality had on the anarchist movement within Russia.

This is what I was interested in, not in pointless circular arguments.

And thanks for bringing up the Left SRs again and again, but that was in 1918 (so not pre-1917). And as a side note, as you say, it was the Commissariat of Justice (composed of both Bolsheviks and Left SRs) that drafted the code, so not just the Left SRs.

Reddebrek
Dec 1 2018 01:41
Dyjbas wrote:
Ok, this is going nowhere. I'll come back to this discussion when/if you find any examples of Russian revolutionaries (be they anarchists or Marxists) who publicly advocated homosexuality in Russia before 1917, or what impact (if any) did Berkman and Goldman's views on homosexuality had on the anarchist movement within Russia.

This is what I was interested in, not in pointless circular arguments.

Huh? That isn't how this started at all, I asked for information, you chimed in but not what I asked for. I thanked you but pointed out that this was the case and you proceeded to "criticise" mostly by telling me things I had already written...

Quote:
And thanks for bringing up the Left SRs again and again, but that was in 1918 (so not pre-1917). And as a side note, as you say, it was the Commissariat of Justice (composed of both Bolsheviks and Left SRs) that drafted the code, so not just the Left SRs.

Again, you should of bothered to read Healy before you cited him. Healy makes it very clear that the Left SRs were the ones in control of the 1918 draft, the only time the Bolsheviks had any significant input in his version of events was after the two had started fighting, at which point they criticised it heavily for being "Bourgeois" and scrapped it entirely... So if you want to give the Bolsheviks credit for it that's fine, but all that would mean is that your accusing them of Bourgeois legalism...

And once again if you had bothered to read Healy you would know that he discusses Shreider and the Left SRs legal views being a continuation of their stance since 1903. 1903 comes before 1917...

I keep mentioning the Left SRs because they're a big problem with your narrative.

Dyjbas
Dec 1 2018 13:43
Reddebrek wrote:
I keep mentioning the Left SRs because they're a big problem with your narrative.

Ok, so are there any examples of SRs (since Left SRs did not exist pre-1917) advocating for homosexuality specifically pre-1917 then? Do we know that the party discussed homosexuality anytime between 1903-1917?

Because my only "narrative" here is that before 1917 Russian revolutionaries (of all tendencies) did not really advocate homosexuality publicly (and even if sexual liberation was to include homosexuality, it was not made evident).

And yeah I know Healey calls the 1918 draft "Shreider's draft" but at other points he says it was drafted by the Justice Commisariat, and that the archives of the Commisariat show that between 1918-22 "there was a principled intent to decriminalize" homosexuality (even if they did not discuss the sodomy statute in detail) - so both Left SRs and Bolsheviks on the Commisariat must have had a similar position on that particular question. But again, that's all post-1917 (relevant to your article but less relevant to my inquiry).

Reddebrek
Dec 1 2018 17:54
Dyjbas wrote:
Ok, so are there any examples of SRs (since Left SRs did not exist pre-1917) advocating for homosexuality specifically pre-1917 then? Do we know that the party discussed homosexuality anytime between 1903-1917?

Huh? No they did exist, Maria Spiridonova et al didn't sprout out of the ground in 1917. Again Healy say's they did, you seem to trust the man's work when you think it agrees with you, so I don't see why you question it when you think it didn't.

Quote:
Because my only "narrative" here is that before 1917 Russian revolutionaries (of all tendencies) did not really advocate homosexuality publicly (and even if sexual liberation was to include homosexuality, it was not made evident).

Uh yeah and as it has already been covered you're wrong, even the work you occasionally cite contradicts you on this point.

Quote:
And yeah I know Healey calls the 1918 draft "Shreider's draft" but at other points he says it was drafted by the Justice Commisariat, and that the archives of the Commisariat show that between 1918-22 "there was a principled intent to decriminalize" homosexuality (even if they did not discuss the sodomy statute in detail) -

He calls it the Shreider draft and also doesn't provide any evidence that Bolshevik members had any input on it. Again you aren't providing evidence of your claim. You can't base your argument on Healy's work and then gloss over his work when it gets in your way.

Also your second part is one of the weaknesses of the book Healy doesn't prove intent he assumes it. He admits much of the history of 1918-22 code drafting is obscure and with very little to go on. His main evidence that there was intent was that some of the drafts by Kozlovski had consensual sodomy off the books.

But the issue there is that some of Kozlovski's drafts also didn't have charges for many more practices usually criminalised like male rape, child molestation and bestiality. Rape against a woman or insult to her honour as Kozlovski wrote it seems to be the only act consistently criminalised.

He also undermines this point in a later chapter when he talks about how consensual sodomy remained a crime in a number of other SSR's controlled by the Bolsheviks. He comes up with explanations cultural racism, institutional prostitution etc. But the issue there is that since consensual sodomy was still punished in these codes, it completely undermines his belief that the 1922 Sodomy code was principled.

That's the main weakness of Healy's answer to Karlinsky, Karlinsky believed that the abolition of sodomy was an oversight because he couldn't find any evidence that the absence on some of the drafts and proposals was deliberate.

Healy by his own admission hasn't found any evidence that it was deliberate, but assumes it was based on circumstantial evidence, ignores a serious problem with this assumption i.e. retention in other territories, and that evidence he relies on has a number of issues which he doesn't address.

Quote:
so both Left SRs and Bolsheviks on the Commisariat must have had a similar position on that particular question. But again, that's all post-1917 (relevant to your article but less relevant to my inquiry).

I notice you keep passing over this part in the middle of the text.

Quote:
The March 1918 resignation of the LSRs from their coalition with
the Bolsheviks over the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk entailed a Bolshevik
take-over at the Justice Commissariat, with P. I. Stuchka then appointed
people’s commissar, who was supplanted in 1919 by D. I. Kurskii.
Shreider was dismissed as deputy commissar and Bolshevik M. Iu.
Kozlovskii was assigned to review criminal legislation. The LSR draft
code was criticized by Stuchka for defending bourgeois interests and
for insufficient revolutionary consciousness

This is the first time in Healy's narrative that the Bolshevik members are given any input, and it is entirely hostile and negative. You haven't proved the Bolsheviks had any input on the sodomy clause in 1918, on the contrary your only source flatly contradicts you and the kicker being that the Bolsheviks themselves were busy distancing themselves from Shreiders work.

You do this a lot, either your not paying attention when your reading or you're deliberately cherry picking your sources.