What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government
*Winner of the Randy Shilts Award in Gay Nonfiction*
*Winner of the Herbert Hoover Book Award in U.S. History*
*Winner of the Gustavus Myers Book Award in Human Rights*
*Now an award-winning documentary film by Josh Howard, narrated by Glenn Close*
The McCarthy era is generally considered the worst period of political repression in recent American history. But while the famous question, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" resonated in the halls of Congress, security officials were posing another question at least as frequently, if more "Information has come to the attention of the Civil Service Commission that you are a homosexual. What comment do you care to make?"
In The Lavender Scare, historian David K. Johnson relates the frightening, untold story of how, during the Cold War, homosexuals were considered as dangerous a threat to national security as Communists. Republican charges that the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were havens for homosexuals proved a potent political weapon, sparking a Lavender Scare more vehement and long-lasting than the more well-known Red Scare.
Relying on newly declassified documents, years of research in the records of the National Archives and the FBI, and interviews with former civil servants, Johnson recreates the vibrant gay subculture that flourished in New Deal-era Washington. He takes us inside the security interrogation rooms where thousands of Americans were questioned about their sex lives. He documents how the homosexual purges ended promising careers, ruined lives, and pushed many to suicide. But, as Johnson also shows, the purges brought victims together to protest their treatment, helping launch a new civil rights struggle.
The Lavender Scare shatters the myth that homosexuality has only recently become a national political issue, changing the way we think about both the McCarthy era and the origins of the gay rights movement. And perhaps just as importantly, this book is a cautionary tale, reminding us how governmental actions in the name of national security can unjustly harm entire groups of American citizens.
*Winner of the Herbert Hoover Book Award in U.S. History*
*Winner of the Gustavus Myers Book Award in Human Rights*
*Now an award-winning documentary film by Josh Howard, narrated by Glenn Close*
The McCarthy era is generally considered the worst period of political repression in recent American history. But while the famous question, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" resonated in the halls of Congress, security officials were posing another question at least as frequently, if more "Information has come to the attention of the Civil Service Commission that you are a homosexual. What comment do you care to make?"
In The Lavender Scare, historian David K. Johnson relates the frightening, untold story of how, during the Cold War, homosexuals were considered as dangerous a threat to national security as Communists. Republican charges that the Roosevelt and Truman administrations were havens for homosexuals proved a potent political weapon, sparking a Lavender Scare more vehement and long-lasting than the more well-known Red Scare.
Relying on newly declassified documents, years of research in the records of the National Archives and the FBI, and interviews with former civil servants, Johnson recreates the vibrant gay subculture that flourished in New Deal-era Washington. He takes us inside the security interrogation rooms where thousands of Americans were questioned about their sex lives. He documents how the homosexual purges ended promising careers, ruined lives, and pushed many to suicide. But, as Johnson also shows, the purges brought victims together to protest their treatment, helping launch a new civil rights struggle.
The Lavender Scare shatters the myth that homosexuality has only recently become a national political issue, changing the way we think about both the McCarthy era and the origins of the gay rights movement. And perhaps just as importantly, this book is a cautionary tale, reminding us how governmental actions in the name of national security can unjustly harm entire groups of American citizens.
312 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
About the author
David K. Johnson
39 books28 followersFor the Philosophy writer, see David Kyle Johnson
David K. Johnson is an award-winning historian and author. His first book, "The Lavender Scare" was made into a documentary film that garnered best documentary awards at over a dozen film festival. His book, "Buying Gay: How Physique Entrepreneurs Sparked a Movement", chronicles the rise of a gay commercial network in the 1950s and 1960s. Featured in a "starred review" in Publishers Weekly, it was released in February 2019 by Columbia University Press as part of its series on the History of U.S. Capitalism.
David earned a B.A.from Georgetown University and a Ph.D.from Northwestern University, both in history. He has enjoyed fellowships from the National Humanities Center, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Social Science Research Council. As an associate professor in the History Department at the University of South Florida, he teaches courses on the post-1945 U.S. and the history of gender and sexuality.
David K. Johnson is an award-winning historian and author. His first book, "The Lavender Scare" was made into a documentary film that garnered best documentary awards at over a dozen film festival. His book, "Buying Gay: How Physique Entrepreneurs Sparked a Movement", chronicles the rise of a gay commercial network in the 1950s and 1960s. Featured in a "starred review" in Publishers Weekly, it was released in February 2019 by Columbia University Press as part of its series on the History of U.S. Capitalism.
David earned a B.A.from Georgetown University and a Ph.D.from Northwestern University, both in history. He has enjoyed fellowships from the National Humanities Center, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Social Science Research Council. As an associate professor in the History Department at the University of South Florida, he teaches courses on the post-1945 U.S. and the history of gender and sexuality.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews
July 22, 2020
We must contextualize the Trump administration’s targeting of trans people within the history of state-sanctioned scapegoating of queer people and political subterfuge. “The Lavender Scare” refers to a moral panic in the mid-20th century when gay men and lesbians were deemed a national security risk. This led to the firing of gay employees, the rampant criminalization of gay communities, as well as countless suicides. In 1953 President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10450 which barred gay people from working in the federal government, leading to thousands of people losing their jobs and being forcibly outed. Literature was created on how to identify homosexuals who were uniformly labeled as “sexual perverts.” This gave license to police as part of the “Pervert Elimination Campaign” to go undercover to catch people in cruising zones and gay bars. Kenneth Wherry, a Republican senator said: “Can you think of a person who could be more dangerous to the United States of America than a pervert?”
This witch-hunt relied on homophobic character assassination: officials asserted that because gays were “gregarious,” they were more “susceptible to blackmail.” They would refer to “nests” of homosexuals hiding in the US government. Gay people were discussed as a collectivity, never an individual the “homosexual clique,” “these gentlemen.” Officials maintained that gay people were emotionally unstable, selfish, and pathological in their desires. The police perpetuated the homophobic narrative that homosexuality was a learned behavior and justified their moral crusade in the name of protecting youth and the American public from perversion.
In this moment of hyper-nationalism, an antagonistic attitude of “either you’re with us, or against us” became enforced. Not just a “Communist” or “American,” but also a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual.” State politics were enmeshed with intimate lives. Prior to this moment gender non-conforming “fairies” were seen as the “true sexual deviant” because of their “conscious inversion of gender norms.” But in this juncture of history, gender conforming gays and lesbians were likened to them because of their sexual activity. Homosexual activity, which had not been as vehemently scorned previously, became seen as a marker of degeneracy. This is because as Johnson argues, “monogamous, heterosexual marriages were seen as a key weapon in the arsenal against internal subversion.” Diplomats were already wary of being framed to the public as “ineffectual and unmanly,” from pursuing negotiation rather than war. Excising the homosexuals was a recuperative gesture to maintain masculine power.
In response to this persecution, many middle-class gay people attempted to differentiate themselves from gender non-conforming people who were part of nightlife. They referred to these queers as “contrived,” “exaggerated,” “campy,” and wanted to hold on to respectability to protect their jobs. Some gays and lesbians pretended to be straight together. Some came out and joined the emerging gay liberation movement.
What we learn from this history is that the federal government fortifies gender norms during times of political instability as a policing tactic to foster division and evade culpability. Queers become seen as responsible for the ills of society, not the administration. We have to learn from history and come together to support trans people who continue to face the Lavender Scare.
This witch-hunt relied on homophobic character assassination: officials asserted that because gays were “gregarious,” they were more “susceptible to blackmail.” They would refer to “nests” of homosexuals hiding in the US government. Gay people were discussed as a collectivity, never an individual the “homosexual clique,” “these gentlemen.” Officials maintained that gay people were emotionally unstable, selfish, and pathological in their desires. The police perpetuated the homophobic narrative that homosexuality was a learned behavior and justified their moral crusade in the name of protecting youth and the American public from perversion.
In this moment of hyper-nationalism, an antagonistic attitude of “either you’re with us, or against us” became enforced. Not just a “Communist” or “American,” but also a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual.” State politics were enmeshed with intimate lives. Prior to this moment gender non-conforming “fairies” were seen as the “true sexual deviant” because of their “conscious inversion of gender norms.” But in this juncture of history, gender conforming gays and lesbians were likened to them because of their sexual activity. Homosexual activity, which had not been as vehemently scorned previously, became seen as a marker of degeneracy. This is because as Johnson argues, “monogamous, heterosexual marriages were seen as a key weapon in the arsenal against internal subversion.” Diplomats were already wary of being framed to the public as “ineffectual and unmanly,” from pursuing negotiation rather than war. Excising the homosexuals was a recuperative gesture to maintain masculine power.
In response to this persecution, many middle-class gay people attempted to differentiate themselves from gender non-conforming people who were part of nightlife. They referred to these queers as “contrived,” “exaggerated,” “campy,” and wanted to hold on to respectability to protect their jobs. Some gays and lesbians pretended to be straight together. Some came out and joined the emerging gay liberation movement.
What we learn from this history is that the federal government fortifies gender norms during times of political instability as a policing tactic to foster division and evade culpability. Queers become seen as responsible for the ills of society, not the administration. We have to learn from history and come together to support trans people who continue to face the Lavender Scare.
June 15, 2020
David K. Johnson's The Lavender Scare looks at the hidden side of the Red Scare, specifically the efforts by the US government to purge gay and lesbian employees. That thousands of bureaucrats and officials saw their careers ruined merely for existing remains a shamefully underreported chapter in American history. While Johnson's writing style is occasionally dry and academic, the fascinating content of his book makes up for it. Beyond sketching Washington's reputation, somewhat earned but often exaggerated, as a gay mecca during and immediately after WWII, Johnson demonstrates how easily Red hunters tied sexual "perversion" with political subversion. The excuse that gay and lesbian employees were security risks liable to blackmail, or just plain unreliable or unstable, became a self-fulfilling prophecy due to the era's mixture of political paranoia and sexual repression (the saga of Lester Hunt, the Wyoming Senator who committed suicide after his son was outed, is merely the best-known outgrowth of this tendency). Still, Johnson argues, some good belatedly emerged from this grim period, as the dispossession of thousands of intelligent, articulate and well-placed LGBTQ individuals laid the groundwork for the gay rights movement. Nonetheless, it remains a sadly relevant cautionary tale, showing how reactionary politics, sexual repression and rank bigotry can ruin lives, destroy people and turn an entire class into criminals.
April 24, 2024
Very informative, and very important history. Post WWII America was rife with paranoia, and not just because of Communism. The conservative cult got it in their heads that LGBT people working in the State Department were threats to national security since they could be blackmailed. So instead of removing the strictures putting them in jeopardy - or even just investigating if any actually had been blackmailed - they decided the best thing to do was terminate their employment. What starts in the State Department quickly branches out into other departments, and all levels of government employment on the state and federal levels, whether national security was involved or not.
Seeing the extremes that they went through to alienate, persecute and vilify LGBT peoples, often based on nothing but rumor, and whether it was linked to Communism or not, was infuriating. This was at a time when people still blindly trusted the government and didn't know they didn't have to answer questions or cooperate with investigations voluntarily. And knowing that even though strides have been made, that civil liberties and rights have been won, that attitudes have changed towards tolerance and then acceptance for the majority of American citizens, it's important to be reminded of where we came from and how we came to enjoy the protections we have now, because there are those who are still actively seeking to rip those rights and protections away.
Listening to this, I could see where Orwell got his ideas for 1984. It wasn't just the Communists screwing over their citizens, and these kinds of raids on people's homes and invasions into their private lives were happening in the UK as well as the US. For all they like to pretend otherwise, there was a lot more overlap in how the US and UK treated their LGBT populations and people of color and how dictators treated their citizens.
It's easy to forget about this stage in our history, since the TV shows and movies of this time didn't showcase this part of reality. The news only highlighted it to stir up more anger and paranoia, not to report facts, and the majority of the population had no sympathy for the hardships LGBT people faced - though there were still voices of reason that tried to speak up and get through the hysteria.
Johnson leaves this history when things start to turn around for the better, but there was still a long, hard battle ahead to get to where we are now.
Seeing the extremes that they went through to alienate, persecute and vilify LGBT peoples, often based on nothing but rumor, and whether it was linked to Communism or not, was infuriating. This was at a time when people still blindly trusted the government and didn't know they didn't have to answer questions or cooperate with investigations voluntarily. And knowing that even though strides have been made, that civil liberties and rights have been won, that attitudes have changed towards tolerance and then acceptance for the majority of American citizens, it's important to be reminded of where we came from and how we came to enjoy the protections we have now, because there are those who are still actively seeking to rip those rights and protections away.
Listening to this, I could see where Orwell got his ideas for 1984. It wasn't just the Communists screwing over their citizens, and these kinds of raids on people's homes and invasions into their private lives were happening in the UK as well as the US. For all they like to pretend otherwise, there was a lot more overlap in how the US and UK treated their LGBT populations and people of color and how dictators treated their citizens.
It's easy to forget about this stage in our history, since the TV shows and movies of this time didn't showcase this part of reality. The news only highlighted it to stir up more anger and paranoia, not to report facts, and the majority of the population had no sympathy for the hardships LGBT people faced - though there were still voices of reason that tried to speak up and get through the hysteria.
Johnson leaves this history when things start to turn around for the better, but there was still a long, hard battle ahead to get to where we are now.
November 18, 2019
Eye-opening and, at many points, riveting. It left my blood boiling but also inspired me — especially the segments on queer survival and resistance. So much has changed, yet so much is still the same.
Shelved as 'research'
August 29, 2022⤑ research tag: in an effort to organise my shelves, I’m going to be labelling the books I’m using for study purposes as I tend to dip in and out of these.
Essential reading.
There’s also an interview with the author on the book here on the Teaching Tolerance: Queer America podcast.
See also: The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America.
Essential reading.
There’s also an interview with the author on the book here on the Teaching Tolerance: Queer America podcast.
See also: The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America.
Shelved as 'dnf'
June 7, 2021nope this is too boring life is too short love and light ❤️
December 3, 2023
Finally getting around to reading this outstanding 2004 non-fiction book focused on the persecution and witch hunts of gay male and lesbian government workers during the 1950's. Watching Fellow Travelers has made me want to dig deeper into this era. The most shocking take away from the book is that disgusting, hateful behavior by Congress and other government officials is not something new to our era. It has been going on since the Eisenhower era 1953 forward, beginning with the the Ike campaign implying that Stevenson (the Democratic candidate) was gay. The Lavender Scare ruined more lives than its counter Communist scare happening simultaneously. Densely packed with facts, David K. Johnson's book is a must-read as we prepare for the 2024 election next year. And a reminder to all that the only way for history not to repeat itself is if we educate ourselves on the past and find ways to avoid going down the same paths in the future.
February 26, 2009
The Lavender Scare’s first two chapters lay out the book’s premise and background. In the aftermath of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s famous declarations about communists in the State Department, department security officer John Peurifoy stated that 91 people had resigned from the State Department while under investigation as security risks, most of whom were homosexual. Following this statement, many more government employees lost their jobs under suspicions over their sexual conduct as this conduct became an issue of major national concern. Central to the ideology of the Lavender Scare was the notion that gays and lesbians could not restrain their sexual urges and that they had other qualities such as mental instability which supposedly made them incapable of being loyal government employees. Among other things, this meant people charged with sexual ‘misconduct’ not only lost their jobs but had their character and quality as persons called into question.
Prior to the Cold War, there had been an era of sexual openness and tolerance in Washington, D.C. Johnson notes that many openly gay men worked in feminized white collar jobs, in civil service and elsewhere, arguing that these men felt more comfortable within the gender norms of these environments than in other workplaces. Local bigots eventually reacted against D.C.’s vibrant gay community. Given D.C.’s status as a national center, and given the post-war context of the Cold War, this local repression quickly became more than a local issue.
Johnson returns to this repression and its growth in his third chapter. This chapter and the next three deal in painstaking detail with government policy and implementation of the Lavender Scare, practices which now look like little more than coordinated harassment and bullying, and popular perceptions of sexual conduct among civil servants.
The book’s final two chapters turn to first-hand accounts of the experience of these purges, and the formation of a collective push-back against institutional homophobia. Johnson focuses mainly on the Mattachine Society of Washington, which used the courts, lobbying, and eventually public pickets on the White House to protest discriminatory policies. Johnson suggests that these formed an important and still overlooked aspect of activism against oppression based on sexuality.
Johnson’s book contains an insight with ramifications beyond the history of sexuality, one which cuts against the impulse of some (myself included) to refer to ‘the state’ as one homogeneous entity, namely the relative autonomy and internal heterogeneity of state. For example, the main agenda of the State Department and the White House was avoiding negative publicity about employees’ sexual ‘misconduct.’ This agenda conflicted with the demands for greater publicity placed by some people involved in Congressional investigations and tribunals. To the degree that the government acts as one body, this is at least in part the product of hegemony and discipline within and across government agencies, produced by processes such as the investigation and screening programs which scrutinized the private behavior and moral character of government employees.
I have one reservation about the book. Throughout the book Johnson uses the term homosexual rather than queer, and writes at least implicitly in favor of his subjects’ goal of inclusion in the form of citizenship and civil rights. From what little I’ve read, these terms and goals are contentious within queer theory and the history of sexuality, I would have liked an appendix or preface dealing with these controversies in relation to his own decisions in the book.
Additional random thoughts:
Johnson treats several things briefly that merit more extensive treatment than they have received in scholarship, as far as I know. For example, Johnson notes that many openly gay men worked in feminized white collar jobs, in civil service and elsewhere, arguing that these men felt more comfortable within the gender norms of these environments than in other workplaces. Perhaps someone has already written it, but the world needs a book on that link between labor processes, gender norms, and sexuality. The world could also use a book that presents more detailed history of the making of gay D.C. than Johnson is able to present – he cites an unpublished 2002 dissertation about D.C., “A Queer Capital” by Brett Beemyn, hopefully that will be published as a book soon.
Prior to the Cold War, there had been an era of sexual openness and tolerance in Washington, D.C. Johnson notes that many openly gay men worked in feminized white collar jobs, in civil service and elsewhere, arguing that these men felt more comfortable within the gender norms of these environments than in other workplaces. Local bigots eventually reacted against D.C.’s vibrant gay community. Given D.C.’s status as a national center, and given the post-war context of the Cold War, this local repression quickly became more than a local issue.
Johnson returns to this repression and its growth in his third chapter. This chapter and the next three deal in painstaking detail with government policy and implementation of the Lavender Scare, practices which now look like little more than coordinated harassment and bullying, and popular perceptions of sexual conduct among civil servants.
The book’s final two chapters turn to first-hand accounts of the experience of these purges, and the formation of a collective push-back against institutional homophobia. Johnson focuses mainly on the Mattachine Society of Washington, which used the courts, lobbying, and eventually public pickets on the White House to protest discriminatory policies. Johnson suggests that these formed an important and still overlooked aspect of activism against oppression based on sexuality.
Johnson’s book contains an insight with ramifications beyond the history of sexuality, one which cuts against the impulse of some (myself included) to refer to ‘the state’ as one homogeneous entity, namely the relative autonomy and internal heterogeneity of state. For example, the main agenda of the State Department and the White House was avoiding negative publicity about employees’ sexual ‘misconduct.’ This agenda conflicted with the demands for greater publicity placed by some people involved in Congressional investigations and tribunals. To the degree that the government acts as one body, this is at least in part the product of hegemony and discipline within and across government agencies, produced by processes such as the investigation and screening programs which scrutinized the private behavior and moral character of government employees.
I have one reservation about the book. Throughout the book Johnson uses the term homosexual rather than queer, and writes at least implicitly in favor of his subjects’ goal of inclusion in the form of citizenship and civil rights. From what little I’ve read, these terms and goals are contentious within queer theory and the history of sexuality, I would have liked an appendix or preface dealing with these controversies in relation to his own decisions in the book.
Additional random thoughts:
Johnson treats several things briefly that merit more extensive treatment than they have received in scholarship, as far as I know. For example, Johnson notes that many openly gay men worked in feminized white collar jobs, in civil service and elsewhere, arguing that these men felt more comfortable within the gender norms of these environments than in other workplaces. Perhaps someone has already written it, but the world needs a book on that link between labor processes, gender norms, and sexuality. The world could also use a book that presents more detailed history of the making of gay D.C. than Johnson is able to present – he cites an unpublished 2002 dissertation about D.C., “A Queer Capital” by Brett Beemyn, hopefully that will be published as a book soon.
May 11, 2020
Celebrating gay pride is celebrating that we have rights
January 15, 2018
Excellent account of the persecutions of homosexuals during the 50s and 60s. This is not some kind of lurid account, it is a scholarly study of the systematic exclusion of an entire group of people from being able to live a normal life and contribute to society. The thousands and thousands who lost their jobs and had their lives destroyed through innuendo and by not so well meaning people who used the system for petty reasons to destroy another persons life.
October 22, 2024
3.5 stars. I was expecting some more theory and discussion…I felt like this book was just reading a bunch of Wikipedia articles
December 12, 2021
Used it for my History essay, might reread the whole thing if I got the time!
October 20, 2020
wasn't going to write a review for this at first but then thought about it some more and you know what I Do Actually Have Some Thoughts. I read this book for school & found it severely lacking in that it focused mainly on white cis gay men and like. i get that because that was the majority demographic in the state department at this point but other lgbt people were treated as an afterthought so it did feel very strange for this author to argue "the gay purges of the lavender scare contributed to the formation of an organized LGBT rights movement, as shown by stonewall" when black & brown trans women were instrumental in that event. like. truly. what an oversight. i do feel like putting this entire argument into the context of the (racial) civil rights movement that was literally happening at the same time would have produced more fruitful discussion, instead of saving that conversation for the Very Last Chapter. UNRELATED but this author well & truly thought Mata Hari was a Japanese spy during WW2 which is quite honestly hilarious to me lol like it TRULY beats me how someone can be so wrong. anyway this review reads like a long-winded complaint but in actuality i did find this an interesting read, not super engaging (actually it got pretty annoyingly repetitive when detailing the political aspects of the purges), but all the anecdotes were very informative and tied neatly back to the author's main argument, and such a painful topic was, in my opinion, handled with careful elegance & grace.
July 8, 2023
As a leisure read, the text can be a bit dry. As an exploration of how homosexuality was viewed and penalized in the United States during the pre-Stonewall Cold War years, however, it's quite excellent and full of details not present in more general histories of sexuality in this country. It's a great resource to reference in academic and historic write-ups.
November 9, 2020
OK Duckies. So here is my opinion of this book because I actually lived through the horrible period that Johnson writes about. First of all, don't assume that the targeting of LGBT folks started with Donald Trump. This crap has been going on for a very very long time with lives being lost along the way. YES! The fear and intimidation that was imposed upon closeted LGBT people who were "outed" was so great that many committed suicides as there were those who were married with children, or either lost jobs, families, and friends, or were either so ashamed for being Gay because they had unfortunately bought and internalized the homophobia that had been projected upon them. If you want to know about homosexuality during the 1950s and 1960s - pre Stonewall - then you must read this book.
February 17, 2022
makes a compelling case, I think, that we cannot talk about the Red Scare without talking about the federal government's purge of queer people from its payrolls. in terms of sheer numbers, more gay men and lesbians, or people accused of being gay or lesbian, lost their careers to the national security state apparatus than suspected Communists.
June 19, 2024
On July 3, 1975, the U.S. Civil Service Commission issued new regulations to remove "immoral conduct" from its list of disqualifications for federal government employment. After years of activism and, largely, manoeuvres through the federal legal superstructure, this was a watershed moment after which sweeping panoptic power found itself sustainably undermined. The vague, paranoid and power-grabbing pretense of homosexuality as an international "security risk" and of some shadowy, loosely-organized group(s) seeking to use it to undermine the United States had to give way to more clearly defined battles.
With the federal government's legal positions made clear, and the 'gay vulnerability to blackmail' claim undermined by increasing openness among LGBTQ civil servants, state agencies could finally be compelled to back down from their more brazen assault.
Johnson's detailed history of the lesser-known (or lesser-discussed, at least) shade of McCarthyism is an essential work of American Cold War history. Dealing with the monitoring, firing from civil service and private (particularly 'defense') contractors, and the fomenting of a climate of fear, suspicion, and harassment in the LGBTQ community by federal agencies, this account through the eyes of contemporary persons targeted by the "Lavender Scare" illustrates the extent of moral panic in post-war America's pursuit of self-portrayal through militaristic machismo.
While this illustrates the dialectical process of oppression triggering a response by the oppressed, spontaneity can settle into being co-opted. One revealing episode of a gay rights movement, the "Mattachine Society", sums this up as follows:
This (and the brevity of reference to class) illustrates how contradictions in the superstructure can end up resolved in what historian John D'Emilio has called "a retreat to respectability" after earlier direct activism---and how the narrow-mindedness of trivializing superstructural struggles actively foments movements' liberal co-optation. If, as shown in Kelly v. United States and Guarro v. United States, a sufficiently high-level judicial body is sympathetic to curbing police-state action, it will absorb much of the pressure. That's not to say it's a wrong avenue for activists to pursue--the lesson here is it can and has had more 'give' than more intransigent structures. But there are consequences when "In both its planning and rhetoric, the MSW sought to place itself squarely within the tradition of lawful American protest."
Where the economy does figure into this narrative, it is to highlight the tactical adoption of a 'libertarian' view of the private life of the citizen as a space separate from relations of production/employment. While this work thoroughly explores the limits of a compulsion to frame LGBT rights as expressing a private life of sexuality cordoned off from federal/private contractor employment, and while Johnson notes the personal financial consequences loss of employment held for activists, the book does not explicitly draw the connection between economic autocracy and cultural scapegoating (Why would *bourgeois interests* put so much emphasis on purging gay men especially from state positions?). Questioning the 'rational connection' between personal life and professional function and reifying such a division of space may be tactically useful, but its manifestations in "Don't ask, don't tell" have shown their limits since. That limit is not just one of a stepping stone on the way to legal equality, as the book legalistically suggests, but an expression of an enduring idea ("Do what you want, just don't flaunt it" is still a common enough cry from reactionaries during Pride). The vague dimensions of public opinion make it something for reactionaries to weaponize, but a reckoning with some concrete form of it is needed in the critique of decades of sustained policies and ideology. This work notes the increasingly flimsy use of public moral outrage as a pretext for suspicion of LGBTQ employees, but sets aside a broader look at why that perspective may have shifted (shifting legal opinion is no mere proxy for shifting public opinion).
In fact, the split between an emphasis on creating space for private life and an emphasis on radical or direct community activism came up concretely in struggle:
Lessons?
1. A movement that openly challenges a prevailing and weaponized prejudice takes dedicated, militant action, but with enduring results.
2. The militant core is necessary (manifest in Kameny's call to "move from research and education efforts to 'social action.'"), to drive a sustained political direction and adapt in the face of suppression.
3. That said, "Knowing that organizational resources were available to defend them emboldened gay and lesbian civil servants." So a dedicated core gave a sense of empowerment to broader action just by its presence. Employees facing denial of security clearance and/or termination came to actively resist, broadening the movement and forcing negotiations.
4. Moving the needle of the legal superstructure is a channel for activism with historically tangible results, but resisting the pushback takes long-term grassroots organizing even to keep the legal position from retrogressing.
===
There's more to explore here. Specifically:
1. The contentious relationship between erstwhile medical experts & upstart demagogues even in the 1950s re: Homosexuality as medical vs. Homosexuality as moral. ("physicians complicated the committee’s task by suggesting that gender and sexuality were fluid.")
2. The stark and complete absence of any mention of pinkwashing of imperialism.
I may elaborate soon in a comment below.
With the federal government's legal positions made clear, and the 'gay vulnerability to blackmail' claim undermined by increasing openness among LGBTQ civil servants, state agencies could finally be compelled to back down from their more brazen assault.
In an era known for the phenomenon of ‘naming names,’ the almost total anonymity of the thousands of gay men and lesbians touched by the purges is remarkable. This strategy of deliberate concealment served the purgers well. It allowed a fantastical image of sexual perverts to reign without the countervailing weight of any reference to reality. Gays, even more than Communists, were phantoms, ciphers upon whom could be projected fears about the declining state of America’s moral fiber.
Johnson's detailed history of the lesser-known (or lesser-discussed, at least) shade of McCarthyism is an essential work of American Cold War history. Dealing with the monitoring, firing from civil service and private (particularly 'defense') contractors, and the fomenting of a climate of fear, suspicion, and harassment in the LGBTQ community by federal agencies, this account through the eyes of contemporary persons targeted by the "Lavender Scare" illustrates the extent of moral panic in post-war America's pursuit of self-portrayal through militaristic machismo.
The purges facilitated the formation not of a singular community but several insular ones divided by class interests and the need to protect one’s job. But within such insular groups, the purges created a sense of solidarity, particularly between lesbians and gay men, who came to rely on one another in social settings requiring a display of heterosexuality.
While this illustrates the dialectical process of oppression triggering a response by the oppressed, spontaneity can settle into being co-opted. One revealing episode of a gay rights movement, the "Mattachine Society", sums this up as follows:
[After noting that the CPUSA at the time was less than forward-thinking about LGBTQ+ rights:] Too many of our people are involved in their social oppression, their personal love adventures in an atmosphere of legal persecution, and their day-to-day problems of making a living and paying their bills to have any energy, let alone inclination, to participate in revolutionary movements.
This (and the brevity of reference to class) illustrates how contradictions in the superstructure can end up resolved in what historian John D'Emilio has called "a retreat to respectability" after earlier direct activism---and how the narrow-mindedness of trivializing superstructural struggles actively foments movements' liberal co-optation. If, as shown in Kelly v. United States and Guarro v. United States, a sufficiently high-level judicial body is sympathetic to curbing police-state action, it will absorb much of the pressure. That's not to say it's a wrong avenue for activists to pursue--the lesson here is it can and has had more 'give' than more intransigent structures. But there are consequences when "In both its planning and rhetoric, the MSW sought to place itself squarely within the tradition of lawful American protest."
Where the economy does figure into this narrative, it is to highlight the tactical adoption of a 'libertarian' view of the private life of the citizen as a space separate from relations of production/employment. While this work thoroughly explores the limits of a compulsion to frame LGBT rights as expressing a private life of sexuality cordoned off from federal/private contractor employment, and while Johnson notes the personal financial consequences loss of employment held for activists, the book does not explicitly draw the connection between economic autocracy and cultural scapegoating (Why would *bourgeois interests* put so much emphasis on purging gay men especially from state positions?). Questioning the 'rational connection' between personal life and professional function and reifying such a division of space may be tactically useful, but its manifestations in "Don't ask, don't tell" have shown their limits since. That limit is not just one of a stepping stone on the way to legal equality, as the book legalistically suggests, but an expression of an enduring idea ("Do what you want, just don't flaunt it" is still a common enough cry from reactionaries during Pride). The vague dimensions of public opinion make it something for reactionaries to weaponize, but a reckoning with some concrete form of it is needed in the critique of decades of sustained policies and ideology. This work notes the increasingly flimsy use of public moral outrage as a pretext for suspicion of LGBTQ employees, but sets aside a broader look at why that perspective may have shifted (shifting legal opinion is no mere proxy for shifting public opinion).
In fact, the split between an emphasis on creating space for private life and an emphasis on radical or direct community activism came up concretely in struggle:
Soon a split developed between those who wanted interesting meetings that served the needs of the members and those, like Kameny, who wanted to focus single-mindedly on changing the status of the homosexual in the larger society...While Kameny, the [MSW] president from 1961 to 1964, boasted that the group had been recognized by the local government, other civil liberties groups, and government officials, it had a tenuous relationship to its own gay constituency. The Mattachine Society of Washington may have spoken for the homosexual minority, but it never became a grassroots gay organization. Membership never exceeded one hundred people...and a group and a group of ten to fifteen people formed the core of the organization.
Lessons?
1. A movement that openly challenges a prevailing and weaponized prejudice takes dedicated, militant action, but with enduring results.
2. The militant core is necessary (manifest in Kameny's call to "move from research and education efforts to 'social action.'"), to drive a sustained political direction and adapt in the face of suppression.
3. That said, "Knowing that organizational resources were available to defend them emboldened gay and lesbian civil servants." So a dedicated core gave a sense of empowerment to broader action just by its presence. Employees facing denial of security clearance and/or termination came to actively resist, broadening the movement and forcing negotiations.
4. Moving the needle of the legal superstructure is a channel for activism with historically tangible results, but resisting the pushback takes long-term grassroots organizing even to keep the legal position from retrogressing.
===
There's more to explore here. Specifically:
1. The contentious relationship between erstwhile medical experts & upstart demagogues even in the 1950s re: Homosexuality as medical vs. Homosexuality as moral. ("physicians complicated the committee’s task by suggesting that gender and sexuality were fluid.")
2. The stark and complete absence of any mention of pinkwashing of imperialism.
I may elaborate soon in a comment below.
January 21, 2020
This book was a fascinating read about a little reported era. While I was familiar with the cold war and McCarthy's witch hunt for communists in the federal government and how I thought gays were tangentially involved, I was not aware that it was primarily LGBT individuals who were targeted. It is in incredibly important read in order to understand how this fear and shame has been handed down to future generations and affected the generations who came after those targeted. The Mattachine Society, Kameny, and others have often been overlooked. This book gives credit to those early pre-stonewall heroes.
January 12, 2023
Okay so to be fair I didn't read all the chapters of this book, only the ones that were relevant to my research and then some, so a little over half the book.
Still, I think it was well-written... I don't really know how to review a non-fiction book. Should I talk about the plot? The characters? They're literally dictated by history.
However, I thought that the writing was really effective (getting to the point quickly) and that the information was well-presented in a way that made it almost enjoyable to read. It dragged in parts (especially when it got into American politics, I was a little lost), but overall it was pretty good.
This may have nothing to do with the author, but it's still a very heartbreaking story, but one that's necessary to read about. I learnt a lot.
Still, I think it was well-written... I don't really know how to review a non-fiction book. Should I talk about the plot? The characters? They're literally dictated by history.
However, I thought that the writing was really effective (getting to the point quickly) and that the information was well-presented in a way that made it almost enjoyable to read. It dragged in parts (especially when it got into American politics, I was a little lost), but overall it was pretty good.
This may have nothing to do with the author, but it's still a very heartbreaking story, but one that's necessary to read about. I learnt a lot.
June 24, 2021
It's shocking that this era existed that that neither I nor anyone else I've talked to has heard about it. David Johnson brought to light an enormous, decades-long crusade against gay Americans, concurrent but even more damaging than the Red Scare of the 1950s. The Lavender Scare deserves a place in American history books alongside other events of the early Cold War.
February 20, 2024
not nearly as fun to read as my other books for this class if i’m being fr
April 20, 2022
I was having technical difficulties with the progress notes later on with the book so i have them under the spoilers part here in order to improve readability, and since i prefer to put my progress notes before my review so here:
So this book is only 4 stars instead of 5 stars because of 2 reasons:
- this book did an amazing job at describing why bureaucracy was so damn hated. It also connected the lavender purge with the goal of getting rid of the entire new deal bureaucracy.
- this book explains how the gay & lesbian community had racism problems & adopted/internalized a sexuality grammar taught by the purgers, which also lead to transphobia (however I'll also explain later how the prior sexuality grammar was problematic too). Further, this book barely acknowledges gays & lesbians (& bisexuals etc) of color. It does occasionally mention African Americans as part of a way to call out the movements racism, but then defends the pre-stonewall era instead of the stonewall/post-stonewall eta when the stonewall riots represented the involvement of queer people of color & a willingness to do things deemed "illegal". So basically this is, in the infighting of the LGBT+ community very much engaged in circa 2004, amounts to supporting the transphobic, racist, and legalist/assimilationist wing of the movement.
So again 4 stars because this book revealed a lot of information about the queerphobia of the anti-bureaucracy movement, it discussed historical precedent for queerphobia being used to mobilize fascists, basically so many things. However, as the "gay & lesbian" part of the title suggests it did end up being exclusionary, and doing some rehabilitations that wasn't needed, especially since circa 2004 mainstreamly no one gave a damn about the LGBT+ people. Bush was crusading against our right to marriage etc & the Dems such as Kerry were more focused on escalating the war in Iraq, etc. Like, there was no one in the mainstream to appease to, like WTF. Yeah, I'm thinking about how in 2008 the trans people got thrown under the bus, how in the early 200Xs trans people had to rely on perceived sexuality protections, and how in the 1970s the ACLU sided with Nazis in my county. Like the amount of our people not being given a shit about is what lead to deep canvassing being developed, etc.
So I would recommend this book, but urge people to keep an eye on the ball that the goal was destroying the new deal, not merely purifying the bureaucracy. Basically focus on the labor politics, the labor history, the labor organizing, and don't get caught up in the "homophobia". (Back then, TGNC people were considered to be "gender inverted" that is displaying symptoms of "homosexuality", mind you who you fuck & who you are are 2 separate matters. Personally, I prefer to use the term queerphobic since as a bisexual transgender gal I just interpreted this as the straights not knowing the letters of the alphabet to begin with! So anti-lgbtqia+ could work with this too, since I suspect we're trying to move beyond the -phobia construction.)
I also think as someone who was a kid in 2004 that making more explicit comparisons to labor union & labor organizing practices would've been helpful (though I understand why inclusion of that could've been forgotten, like saying we cook with chicken eggs or freshwater or cow's milk is often forgotten), especially when it came to discussing the security culture at the 2nd Mattachine Society of Washington D.C. because as someone who was basically born post-NAFTA & grew up in a world where the labor unions were extremely gutted, I don't know whether the security culture was more or less, etc. Like this book makes a point that the desire to gut the bureaucratic infrastructure (a goal of infinite growth if you will) conflicted with the limits of the population & how far they could cast a net before they drew in non-"homosexuals".
Like discussing how these purges influenced a sexuality grammar based on physiological sex instead of gender presentation (the book says "gender-identity" but after reflecting on that usage, because literally even queer theory texts don't always have their ducks in a row either), (the prior grammar involved bottom-shaming men too mind you), I think we can see how this contradiction within this escalation tactics explains the toxicity that political lesbianism (which brought a bunch of heterofatalist straight women into the lesbian/sapphic community basically "playing indian" & fucking the rest of us up due to their sheer numbers) & comphet (as opposed to socially-enforced sexuality), we still got this bullshit today & it's bad because it's just an arms-race & we don't have a way to dearm the patriarchy. (I could go on, but my point being is that the way transphobic feminists use homophobia as a sort of class collaborationism to talk to patriarchal men is indeed a point from the lavender purges & it's not even refining it to become anti-hetero & pro-lgb+.)
So again, very good book, but the book ignores that Stonewall is remembered precisely for including people of color (to the point that Marsha P Johnson & Silvia Rivera are the ones remembered as the first responders if others are not included). There were other riots too which involved queer people of color rioting, which I remember reading about in Susan Stryker's "Transgender History". So again, the memory has to do with intersectionality to say the least, and I feel like the conclusion was unnecessarily scornful towards Stonewall becoming iconic to the point of being racist. Then in the wanting to tie a nice bow on it, the topic of labor rights in the 1970s-2004 was dropped & that seemed horrible. To be fair, they did allude to the AIDS crisis by mentioning that the Gays & Lesbians formed solidarity due to the need for fake dating, but it would've been nice to hear more about how that was organized quite frankly since the book emphasizes "Gays & Lesbians".
The physical book has archival pictures included, which is awesome, like chapter 4 is filled with that for several pages to the point that the last section is only 2 paragraphs & yet it was tricky to remember that that final subsection ended. I mainly read this via audiobook so i haven't taken the time to appreciate those photos yet. So I get there were space constraints, but again, I need more connections. I still need to read the citations, but again audiobooks don't provide that, so that was a big conflict between those 2 mediums.
So this book is only 4 stars instead of 5 stars because of 2 reasons:
- this book did an amazing job at describing why bureaucracy was so damn hated. It also connected the lavender purge with the goal of getting rid of the entire new deal bureaucracy.
- this book explains how the gay & lesbian community had racism problems & adopted/internalized a sexuality grammar taught by the purgers, which also lead to transphobia (however I'll also explain later how the prior sexuality grammar was problematic too). Further, this book barely acknowledges gays & lesbians (& bisexuals etc) of color. It does occasionally mention African Americans as part of a way to call out the movements racism, but then defends the pre-stonewall era instead of the stonewall/post-stonewall eta when the stonewall riots represented the involvement of queer people of color & a willingness to do things deemed "illegal". So basically this is, in the infighting of the LGBT+ community very much engaged in circa 2004, amounts to supporting the transphobic, racist, and legalist/assimilationist wing of the movement.
So again 4 stars because this book revealed a lot of information about the queerphobia of the anti-bureaucracy movement, it discussed historical precedent for queerphobia being used to mobilize fascists, basically so many things. However, as the "gay & lesbian" part of the title suggests it did end up being exclusionary, and doing some rehabilitations that wasn't needed, especially since circa 2004 mainstreamly no one gave a damn about the LGBT+ people. Bush was crusading against our right to marriage etc & the Dems such as Kerry were more focused on escalating the war in Iraq, etc. Like, there was no one in the mainstream to appease to, like WTF. Yeah, I'm thinking about how in 2008 the trans people got thrown under the bus, how in the early 200Xs trans people had to rely on perceived sexuality protections, and how in the 1970s the ACLU sided with Nazis in my county. Like the amount of our people not being given a shit about is what lead to deep canvassing being developed, etc.
So I would recommend this book, but urge people to keep an eye on the ball that the goal was destroying the new deal, not merely purifying the bureaucracy. Basically focus on the labor politics, the labor history, the labor organizing, and don't get caught up in the "homophobia". (Back then, TGNC people were considered to be "gender inverted" that is displaying symptoms of "homosexuality", mind you who you fuck & who you are are 2 separate matters. Personally, I prefer to use the term queerphobic since as a bisexual transgender gal I just interpreted this as the straights not knowing the letters of the alphabet to begin with! So anti-lgbtqia+ could work with this too, since I suspect we're trying to move beyond the -phobia construction.)
I also think as someone who was a kid in 2004 that making more explicit comparisons to labor union & labor organizing practices would've been helpful (though I understand why inclusion of that could've been forgotten, like saying we cook with chicken eggs or freshwater or cow's milk is often forgotten), especially when it came to discussing the security culture at the 2nd Mattachine Society of Washington D.C. because as someone who was basically born post-NAFTA & grew up in a world where the labor unions were extremely gutted, I don't know whether the security culture was more or less, etc. Like this book makes a point that the desire to gut the bureaucratic infrastructure (a goal of infinite growth if you will) conflicted with the limits of the population & how far they could cast a net before they drew in non-"homosexuals".
Like discussing how these purges influenced a sexuality grammar based on physiological sex instead of gender presentation (the book says "gender-identity" but after reflecting on that usage, because literally even queer theory texts don't always have their ducks in a row either), (the prior grammar involved bottom-shaming men too mind you), I think we can see how this contradiction within this escalation tactics explains the toxicity that political lesbianism (which brought a bunch of heterofatalist straight women into the lesbian/sapphic community basically "playing indian" & fucking the rest of us up due to their sheer numbers) & comphet (as opposed to socially-enforced sexuality), we still got this bullshit today & it's bad because it's just an arms-race & we don't have a way to dearm the patriarchy. (I could go on, but my point being is that the way transphobic feminists use homophobia as a sort of class collaborationism to talk to patriarchal men is indeed a point from the lavender purges & it's not even refining it to become anti-hetero & pro-lgb+.)
So again, very good book, but the book ignores that Stonewall is remembered precisely for including people of color (to the point that Marsha P Johnson & Silvia Rivera are the ones remembered as the first responders if others are not included). There were other riots too which involved queer people of color rioting, which I remember reading about in Susan Stryker's "Transgender History". So again, the memory has to do with intersectionality to say the least, and I feel like the conclusion was unnecessarily scornful towards Stonewall becoming iconic to the point of being racist. Then in the wanting to tie a nice bow on it, the topic of labor rights in the 1970s-2004 was dropped & that seemed horrible. To be fair, they did allude to the AIDS crisis by mentioning that the Gays & Lesbians formed solidarity due to the need for fake dating, but it would've been nice to hear more about how that was organized quite frankly since the book emphasizes "Gays & Lesbians".
The physical book has archival pictures included, which is awesome, like chapter 4 is filled with that for several pages to the point that the last section is only 2 paragraphs & yet it was tricky to remember that that final subsection ended. I mainly read this via audiobook so i haven't taken the time to appreciate those photos yet. So I get there were space constraints, but again, I need more connections. I still need to read the citations, but again audiobooks don't provide that, so that was a big conflict between those 2 mediums.
September 20, 2023
Super interesting!! A ton of good quotes, it was just a bit repetitive at times but def a worthwhile read😍
March 2, 2015
David K. Johnson’s, “The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government” examines the cleansing of homosexuals in our nation’s capital as a result of McCarthyism in the 1950’s. Johnson starts off by painting a picture of Washington D.C. that not many, myself included, could imagine considering it’s time in history. After the second world war, America loosened up. We drank more, had babies at an unprecedented rate (one of which we still haven’t seen), and became more open about our sexual needs than ever before. It wasn’t overly shocking to see two men or two women holding hands at Monument Square or even laying together (amongst other things) at Lafayette Park. There were even large, openly gay bars and nightclubs that both gay and straight people attended. Washington, as Johnson indicates, was the gay capitol of the world. Then 1950 happened.
Senator McCarthy’s initial document stated there were two-hundred and five reported communist working on Capitol Hill. Shortly after the release of the Senator’s “findings” came Deputy Undersecretary John Puerifoy’s report that indicated there were 91 “confirmed” homosexuals in the State Department. From these two cases came the conclusion that homosexuals were in cahoots with communists, thus, the Lavender Scare. It was a ridiculous ploy that the Junior Senator from Wisconsin and many of his Republican colleagues stood by, if not for the fear it represented, for the political advantage it gave the Republicans come election time. After all, these hiring’s were down on President Truman’s watch and not a right wing representative. Regardless, the two cases brought the first wave of fear to the American public since the war. It was a fear that Johnson proves, had no merit. It was a theme that frequently presented itself as McCarthy’s findings came to surface.
After the firing of the “91”, the author provides a play-by-play of court hearings that surprisingly fail to change the perception of gay culuture in the capitol to the American public. Instead, it altered the narrative of why homosexuals were not to be tolerated from them being undercover communists to being a prime target for communists to take advantage of. They were convinced that if they were working near sensitive material, the communist would blackmail them into obtaining information to bring back to mother- Russia or else they’ll out them as being gay. To be outted was the equivalence of having a death sentence in Washington at the time. Johnson later reveals there wasn’t a single case of blackmailing ever happening during this time frame.
In Johnson’s later chapters, he uncovers a kind of policing that the government implemented that mirrored that of the Nazi’s. The Miscellaneous M Unit was designed to troll parks, bars and even entrap any civilians that were engaging in or promoting homosexual activity. The M Unit weren’t regulated and proceeded to sentence someone anyone they see fit. Beatings often took place and often times, it led to them reporting to the “guilty” persons work place so they could be fired. This led to a dramatic swing when officer Frank Mathos, a member of the “moral squad”, set a sting on Edward Kelly. Mathos invited Kelly to touch him, which he did and inevitably led to Kelly’s arrest. Mr. Kelly challenged the ruling and won the case, stating it wasn’t illegal if he was inviting someone to touch him. The case also presented a message that it wasn’t illegal to be gay.
The author does a wonderful job making the Lavender Scare its own headline. Quite often, the events that caused the persecution of gays and lesbians are reported as a mere subplot to the “greater” Red Scare storyline but Johnson effectively links the evolution of the case against gay America in his research and presents it a way that reminds us that this was a real attack against human rights.
Senator McCarthy’s initial document stated there were two-hundred and five reported communist working on Capitol Hill. Shortly after the release of the Senator’s “findings” came Deputy Undersecretary John Puerifoy’s report that indicated there were 91 “confirmed” homosexuals in the State Department. From these two cases came the conclusion that homosexuals were in cahoots with communists, thus, the Lavender Scare. It was a ridiculous ploy that the Junior Senator from Wisconsin and many of his Republican colleagues stood by, if not for the fear it represented, for the political advantage it gave the Republicans come election time. After all, these hiring’s were down on President Truman’s watch and not a right wing representative. Regardless, the two cases brought the first wave of fear to the American public since the war. It was a fear that Johnson proves, had no merit. It was a theme that frequently presented itself as McCarthy’s findings came to surface.
After the firing of the “91”, the author provides a play-by-play of court hearings that surprisingly fail to change the perception of gay culuture in the capitol to the American public. Instead, it altered the narrative of why homosexuals were not to be tolerated from them being undercover communists to being a prime target for communists to take advantage of. They were convinced that if they were working near sensitive material, the communist would blackmail them into obtaining information to bring back to mother- Russia or else they’ll out them as being gay. To be outted was the equivalence of having a death sentence in Washington at the time. Johnson later reveals there wasn’t a single case of blackmailing ever happening during this time frame.
In Johnson’s later chapters, he uncovers a kind of policing that the government implemented that mirrored that of the Nazi’s. The Miscellaneous M Unit was designed to troll parks, bars and even entrap any civilians that were engaging in or promoting homosexual activity. The M Unit weren’t regulated and proceeded to sentence someone anyone they see fit. Beatings often took place and often times, it led to them reporting to the “guilty” persons work place so they could be fired. This led to a dramatic swing when officer Frank Mathos, a member of the “moral squad”, set a sting on Edward Kelly. Mathos invited Kelly to touch him, which he did and inevitably led to Kelly’s arrest. Mr. Kelly challenged the ruling and won the case, stating it wasn’t illegal if he was inviting someone to touch him. The case also presented a message that it wasn’t illegal to be gay.
The author does a wonderful job making the Lavender Scare its own headline. Quite often, the events that caused the persecution of gays and lesbians are reported as a mere subplot to the “greater” Red Scare storyline but Johnson effectively links the evolution of the case against gay America in his research and presents it a way that reminds us that this was a real attack against human rights.
October 10, 2014
this book is *sort of* hard to review; in terms of history it is interesting but it frames the entire issue very weakly (that is there could be some more information about developing sciences of homosexuality and how the government came to *know* what a *homosexual* was; given that this is one of the most interesting parts and is given scant attention) and the tendency to view gay rights in a simple legalistic framework and reflect on this as *the bad old days* is somewhat disingenuous although that central conceit is still worth talking about (that rights is a panacea) and how it developed as one is covered well but the discussion of the Mattachine society leaves a lot to be desired w/r/t decisions made about membership? IDK
July 26, 2024
What an eye opener. It’s crazy how much they don’t teach in schools. A good book for a 101 look into the lavender scares. Very straight forward with a little bit of stories/ accounts of the people that lives were affected by this crazy ass government regulations at the time. The affect of which I still see ripples in our culture today.
April 7, 2023
What began as the political crusade of one Wisconsin Senator slowly formed into a wide-ranging, systematic, bipartisan targeting of potential “risks” to the U.S. government. In the case of communists, backlash came swiftly and the campaign was labeled a witch hunt against honest citizens. But the other group on the chopping block had no public advocates and no recourse for years. Homosexual government employees in the 1950s lived in constant fear that they’d be called in for a fateful round of questioning by bureaucratic investigators inquiring about their sexual activity.
David Johnson only seeks to highlight the plight of gays in the federal government and around DC—but the gay rights movement was sparked by initial organizing against the government’s prohibition of homosexual employees. This prohibition was the effect of a long attack on the bureaucracy waged by opponents to the New and Fair Deals. If “perverts” festered in the State Department, according to John Peurifoy’s disclosure of 91 discharges for homosexuality, great, because it was more fodder for the Republican opposition. Almost nobody, not even Democrats in Congress, were willing to stake their careers on defending gay employees. Subsequent investigations into the presence of homosexuals in the bureaucracy received bipartisan rubber stamps. Unlike the Red Scare, hearings were mostly private and no discharged workers were called to defend themselves; but regardless panic was fomented that at times exceeded the fear of Red infiltration. The two still remained inexorably tied, though: justification for the purges included accusations of perversion as well as concerns that gays would be blackmailed by enemies of the United States. By the Eisenhower administration, it was claimed that one homosexual a day was being sacked from the federal workforce, without any public fanfare to accompany it. Discrimination had become routinized.
It didn’t have to be this way, and it eventually didn’t stay that way. Johnson does a wonderful job outlining the rich—and relatively open—gay subculture in the nation’s capital before WWII. He likewise displays how quickly the atmosphere darkened into one of paranoia and distrust when the purge began. This narrative is sprinkled with numerous personal stories of gays and lesbians living in DC at the time. Of course, the gay society did not disappear but shifted to more surreptitious gatherings and smaller communities, each person well aware that one slip-up could cost them their jobs (public or private sector). Opposition to the Lavender Scare did not pick up steam until the late 1950s and early 1960s, helped by the few brave citizens (and activists were always quick to mention their loyalty to America as a citizen) willing to publicly fight their dismissals. Frank Kameny’s leadership of the Mattachine Society co-opted the tactics and language of other civil rights movements to win key victories, first in the burden of proof to fire employees and later the very premise of banning the hiring of gays. Stonewall in 1969 occurred the same week that a federal court ruled that the practice of discrimination against employees simply for being gay was unconstitutional.
For the definitive book on an uncovered chapter in American history, a look into the rights of gay Americans in the mid-20th century, and a fascinating and cautionary tale of how minorities can face (and fight) prolonged and ingrained discrimination, read The Lavender Scare.
David Johnson only seeks to highlight the plight of gays in the federal government and around DC—but the gay rights movement was sparked by initial organizing against the government’s prohibition of homosexual employees. This prohibition was the effect of a long attack on the bureaucracy waged by opponents to the New and Fair Deals. If “perverts” festered in the State Department, according to John Peurifoy’s disclosure of 91 discharges for homosexuality, great, because it was more fodder for the Republican opposition. Almost nobody, not even Democrats in Congress, were willing to stake their careers on defending gay employees. Subsequent investigations into the presence of homosexuals in the bureaucracy received bipartisan rubber stamps. Unlike the Red Scare, hearings were mostly private and no discharged workers were called to defend themselves; but regardless panic was fomented that at times exceeded the fear of Red infiltration. The two still remained inexorably tied, though: justification for the purges included accusations of perversion as well as concerns that gays would be blackmailed by enemies of the United States. By the Eisenhower administration, it was claimed that one homosexual a day was being sacked from the federal workforce, without any public fanfare to accompany it. Discrimination had become routinized.
It didn’t have to be this way, and it eventually didn’t stay that way. Johnson does a wonderful job outlining the rich—and relatively open—gay subculture in the nation’s capital before WWII. He likewise displays how quickly the atmosphere darkened into one of paranoia and distrust when the purge began. This narrative is sprinkled with numerous personal stories of gays and lesbians living in DC at the time. Of course, the gay society did not disappear but shifted to more surreptitious gatherings and smaller communities, each person well aware that one slip-up could cost them their jobs (public or private sector). Opposition to the Lavender Scare did not pick up steam until the late 1950s and early 1960s, helped by the few brave citizens (and activists were always quick to mention their loyalty to America as a citizen) willing to publicly fight their dismissals. Frank Kameny’s leadership of the Mattachine Society co-opted the tactics and language of other civil rights movements to win key victories, first in the burden of proof to fire employees and later the very premise of banning the hiring of gays. Stonewall in 1969 occurred the same week that a federal court ruled that the practice of discrimination against employees simply for being gay was unconstitutional.
For the definitive book on an uncovered chapter in American history, a look into the rights of gay Americans in the mid-20th century, and a fascinating and cautionary tale of how minorities can face (and fight) prolonged and ingrained discrimination, read The Lavender Scare.
August 27, 2019
This is an important book for understanding how homosexuality became so vilified in America.
Beginning in 1950, after WWII and the developing Cold War, Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed the State Department was full of Communists. Shortly thereafter State Department’s John Peurifoy, in a congressional hearing, revealed that 91 homosexuals had been fired from the department as “security risks.” Republicans had expressed concerns about “sexual perverts” in government as early as 1947. After being out of power since FDR’s 1933 election, this was part of a GOP strategy to discredit the Truman administration and win votes.
Hence the Lavender Scare began, purging anyone suspected of being gay or lesbian from the State Department. Then the loyalty/security program targeting Communists and homosexuals spread to other agencies, going government-wide under Eisenhower after the 1952 election.
Such historical background, and more like the following, make this book compelling reading for all Americans: “In the 19th century, middle-class ideology insisted that…to work for a salary was considered demeaning and emasculating….to seek work from politicians…was a sign of unmanliness.”
For me the most moving part of the book recounts the personal stories of men and women who were interrogated by government agents, humiliated, and pressured to name other homosexuals. One woman “thought this was what it must have been like in Nazi Germany.”
Thousands of gay men and women were forced out of government jobs, but a brave few resisted. The later part of the book describes efforts by the gay community to fight back, organizing and winning court victories that advanced the movement for gay rights. These successes implicate “the federal government’s McCarthy era anti-gay policies,” as the genesis of the LGBTQ liberation movement.
Beginning in 1950, after WWII and the developing Cold War, Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed the State Department was full of Communists. Shortly thereafter State Department’s John Peurifoy, in a congressional hearing, revealed that 91 homosexuals had been fired from the department as “security risks.” Republicans had expressed concerns about “sexual perverts” in government as early as 1947. After being out of power since FDR’s 1933 election, this was part of a GOP strategy to discredit the Truman administration and win votes.
Hence the Lavender Scare began, purging anyone suspected of being gay or lesbian from the State Department. Then the loyalty/security program targeting Communists and homosexuals spread to other agencies, going government-wide under Eisenhower after the 1952 election.
Such historical background, and more like the following, make this book compelling reading for all Americans: “In the 19th century, middle-class ideology insisted that…to work for a salary was considered demeaning and emasculating….to seek work from politicians…was a sign of unmanliness.”
For me the most moving part of the book recounts the personal stories of men and women who were interrogated by government agents, humiliated, and pressured to name other homosexuals. One woman “thought this was what it must have been like in Nazi Germany.”
Thousands of gay men and women were forced out of government jobs, but a brave few resisted. The later part of the book describes efforts by the gay community to fight back, organizing and winning court victories that advanced the movement for gay rights. These successes implicate “the federal government’s McCarthy era anti-gay policies,” as the genesis of the LGBTQ liberation movement.
August 30, 2021
I knew nothing about this event in US history. That is, like so much of our history, by design. But a paragraph in another book sent me searching for information on this "Lavender Scare". All the information I found referenced this book as THE book to read for grounding in this incident. I agree with this assessment.
Thoroughly researched and engagingly written, this book gets you started on the history of the purges of homosexuals from government. It concentrates mostly on the State Department, where McCarthy's purges took aim. We hear so much about McCarthyism but the fear of homosexuals was, far and away, more pervasive than Communists. The devastation of lives caused by fear pervades the book. It's hard not to feel anger for these people.
Of course, I am looking through the lens of better tolerance for the LGBTQIA community, but this community, indeed, any non-white male community, is still persecuted. Just the signing of an executive order or the passing of laws saying the government can't discriminate doesn't mean the persecution stops. People have to change and we've seen how that doesn't happen.
I strongly recommend this book. Perhaps you don't particularly care about the homosexual community but it is an eye-opening reveal into the ways government persecuted one community and if they did it to them, because of ONE and only ONE factor, the have done it, and continue to do it, to other communities.
Thoroughly researched and engagingly written, this book gets you started on the history of the purges of homosexuals from government. It concentrates mostly on the State Department, where McCarthy's purges took aim. We hear so much about McCarthyism but the fear of homosexuals was, far and away, more pervasive than Communists. The devastation of lives caused by fear pervades the book. It's hard not to feel anger for these people.
Of course, I am looking through the lens of better tolerance for the LGBTQIA community, but this community, indeed, any non-white male community, is still persecuted. Just the signing of an executive order or the passing of laws saying the government can't discriminate doesn't mean the persecution stops. People have to change and we've seen how that doesn't happen.
I strongly recommend this book. Perhaps you don't particularly care about the homosexual community but it is an eye-opening reveal into the ways government persecuted one community and if they did it to them, because of ONE and only ONE factor, the have done it, and continue to do it, to other communities.
November 9, 2023
why did this audio book actually get me thru nonfiction I can neverrr read this genre
TLDR:
1. Queer life was abundant and non judged (IN GOV’t) pre WW2 & cold war in government— in fact DC was gay gay gay (unless u said u were gay they saw gay acts as just gay acts)
2. Queer was roped into communism as both posed a threat to the US & sought radical change
3. The basis of institutionalized homophobia came from McCarthy era where government agencies buckled down on their homosexual employees on the basis that a) queer ppl were perverts, thus mentally ill & have weak moral fiber, so not suitable for gov’t work and b) they posed a threat to state security as if they worked in gov’t and then were susceptible by Russia for black mail they might trade state secrets
4. Hoey investigation concluded the above through series of closed investigations
5. Thousands of queer gov’t workers were let go
6. There was no found basis of any blackmail of queer ppl or that they traded state secrets, but pentagon covered up the stats until 1976 when attorneys found the findings of these reports
7. Even in the 1950 doctors advocated for gender and sexual spectrum
8. Anything could make ppl think ur gay and stings operatives happen— also how r u a straight cop but let someone play w u for a minute and then be like okay that was enough I’ll arrest you now. AH I had to wait for this moment & then I believed it! Like ??? Arrest the cop. 22 & beautiful? Arrest him!
TLDR:
1. Queer life was abundant and non judged (IN GOV’t) pre WW2 & cold war in government— in fact DC was gay gay gay (unless u said u were gay they saw gay acts as just gay acts)
2. Queer was roped into communism as both posed a threat to the US & sought radical change
3. The basis of institutionalized homophobia came from McCarthy era where government agencies buckled down on their homosexual employees on the basis that a) queer ppl were perverts, thus mentally ill & have weak moral fiber, so not suitable for gov’t work and b) they posed a threat to state security as if they worked in gov’t and then were susceptible by Russia for black mail they might trade state secrets
4. Hoey investigation concluded the above through series of closed investigations
5. Thousands of queer gov’t workers were let go
6. There was no found basis of any blackmail of queer ppl or that they traded state secrets, but pentagon covered up the stats until 1976 when attorneys found the findings of these reports
7. Even in the 1950 doctors advocated for gender and sexual spectrum
8. Anything could make ppl think ur gay and stings operatives happen— also how r u a straight cop but let someone play w u for a minute and then be like okay that was enough I’ll arrest you now. AH I had to wait for this moment & then I believed it! Like ??? Arrest the cop. 22 & beautiful? Arrest him!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews