Party Haus

PHOTOS: Your Winter Is Their Summer In Gorgeous Cape Town

It might be arctic in the Northern Hemisphere, but they were chilling poolside at the Glen, a gay boutique hotel in Cape Town, South Africa, where its sunny and summery. (Lucky dogs!) Peep some pics we took there recently at the weekly Shame party a private New Year’s party with some Bel Ami models and kiss those winter blues away. Well, at least for a minute or two. Then it’s back to wool and mittens.

Click through for photos from the pool party at Cape Town’s Glen Hotel

Images via the Glen

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #goods #capetown #glenhotel stories and more


  • Anjouan

    Whites make up 9.6% of the total population of South Africa. They appear to make up close to 100% of the guys pictured in these photos. Why no photos of folks representing the other 90% of South African gays?

  • Mike in Asheville

    @shannon: “Biblically Native”??? what does that even mean?

    Did Moses travel to the south of Africa to write the Old Testament? Did Luke, Mark, John and Matthew travel there to write the Gospels?

  • Stefan

    Very valid point about the demographics of the photos being skewed towards white. It’s something that needs to be addressed.

    But black people being “tortured”??? Jeez, are you still living in the 80’s? Who’s doing the torturing, the overwhelmingly black government? It’s one thing to be an ideologue, and that served South Africa well in the apartheid years, but at some point you have to catch up on the situation without sounding like a antiquated scare-monger.

  • Chris

    The weirdness of the whiteness aside, most of these guys are Bel Ami models, which means their gayness is somewhat questionable and their Africaness is not at all. I don’t really object to gay for pay porn if that’s what you want, but it is somewhat odd that Queerty would publish what appears to be a Bel Ami promotional event as somehow typical of the South African summertime.

  • Kylew

    I certainly pity any gay guy at that party who is less than amazing looking, or over 30. Some cute guys though.

    To answer the reasonable racial comments of the previous posters, I suppose this is no different to going to Chinatown for a shoot. Nobody claimed that this event was representative of life for the average south african. The primary tone simply seems to be “It’s summer somewhere, look how much fun people are having.”

  • Brad

    Ok, so i ventured to the website for “The Glen” and took a look at their galleries. You will find these exact photos in the galleries on their website, but for some reason Queerty clearly left out the photos that had black people as the focal point.

  • Esculapio Mitiríades Torquemada de la Cueva

    Dan Tracer … the link to The Glen at the end of the article is for the wrong Glen Hotel (one in Australia.)

  • mikcheo

    I can’t help but notice there are no blacks in this pix. Could it be that black south africans, and black africans in general see homosexuality with major disdain

  • bradleyarm


    “it’s summer somewhere”— yes it is.

    they could have gone to Sydney down under. thats an awesome place

  • Astro

    it appears that there is still Apartheid at the gay pools in SA

  • Brad

    It only appears that way from the perspective “Queerty” (Dan Tracer) choose to show us.

  • Steve-O

    Yes Apartheid was a horrible thing, but people should understand contemporary issues of South Africa before they judge all white South African as a bunch of racists.

    Cape Town’s population is about 1% Asian, 20% White, 30% Black and 49% Coloured….before anybody jumps on their high horse the latter is not a ‘racist’ term in South Africa but an actual ‘ethnicity group’ that describes individuals who are mixed White & Black, either with one white parent and one black, or in the majority of cases been mixed for so many generations that there is no clear idea which anscestors were black and which were white.

    Get into the city centre and the population of Cape Town jumps up to nearly 50% White. Apartheid did create a polarity within income classes, the majority of wealthy educated middle class tend be either white or coloured, and majority of the poor impovrished tend to be black living in poor neighbourhoods called townships. Many whites supported the end of apartheid and fought alongside Mandela and the ANC to end it.

    Despite South Africa having some of the most progressive gay rights in the world, the majority of the black community is still relatively anti-gay due to ignorance and lack of understanding. There is no suprise then that when going to a gay bar, gay club or party in south africa the majority of people you will see are going to be white.

  • JayKay

    Christ you diversity-pimps are a whiny, obnoxious lot.

    Just admire the attractive men and move along. No need to start crying because they’re not the right color.

  • Manny

    Gay cultural is white why would a pic with hot guys be anything else.The hard tryth is that mist guys don’t find black guys attractive.Most of the black guys I not won’t date other black dudes.Just facts.

  • CBRad

    Black South Africa is, generaly, still not cool with gays, guys. Maybe that’s part of the reason.

  • Kylew

    @bradleyarm: “they could have gone to Sydney down under. thats an awesome place”

    You are SOOO right! :-) Whenever things are cold and gloomy here, I think about what it’s like in Sydney – happy people on the beaches, plants in bloom, blazing sun, deep blue skies. Siiigh.

    I don’t think there are many other places on earth that I’d sooner be in spring or summer. I am so ticked off that they haven’t invented teleportation yet. 8p

  • CJ

    South Africa actually offers full equality to gays. It’s a post-apartheid guarantee within their constitution. No discrimination allowed in South Africa. EVEN SO, the social racism still occurs. Whites hang out with whites… and blacks hang out with blacks. Yes, there is some crossover. But, in general, in my first trip to South Africa (including Cape Town) the division between races was extremely evident regardless of their very strong constitution that does not permit discrimination.

    p.s. Remember that South Africa is a country – not the entire continent of Africa. What is happening in other parts of Africa is horrid.

  • wowow

    these pics were taken from the glen boutique hotel in sea point, not at some oublic gay swimming pool so it was invite only. and most of these guys are not south african the few that are would be the owners of the hotel or friends of some of the organisers


    @Manny: Hmmm. I don’t know Manny. I know alot of non-black dudes who would LOVE to crack my jamaican spine.

  • Aiden

    @CBRad: Yes, let’s take another moment to blame black people. What about black gays?

  • Aiden

    Why am I not surprised that they’ve even white washed Africa. UGH.

  • CBRad

    @Aiden: I’m not blaming them. They just have to stay more in hiding, and not go posing openly at gay poolsides.

  • CBRad

    @Manny: I have to disagree with that one. In NYC, anyway, I think most black guys prefer other black guys. That’s one reason so many NYC events are so racially segregated.

  • DavyJones

    Just to note; this is a private New Year’s party at the hotel and most of the guys pictured are models for the Bel Ami porn company. Bel Ami is a Slovak company and they don’t have many black models; hence, there aren’t many black models in the pictures…

    Here’s a link to the full gallery of pictures:

  • CBRad

    @DavyJones: That makes sense.

  • Ferris

    @CBRad: I wonder why? Since the worlds largest melting pot NYC, is rather inclusive, diverse in the straight world.

  • McDonnel

    Wow there are an awful lot of white people in those pictures. White people do make up a good third of the population of the Western Cape, but the ‘real’ gay community, the clubs and bars, are FULL of black people. There are some ‘white only’ clubs and circuits that are basically exclusionary, as you need to be a member, can only join if recommended by a member etc etc etc. There is still apartheid in South Africa, although it is more social than legal, it is still very real, and these photo’s seem to confirm that.

    On a personal note, I’ve fucked my way from Cape Town to KwaZulu Natal and back again, and it is true what they say, once you go South African, I mean REAL South African, you never go back ;)

  • Tackle

    @ Manny: Most guys would NOT want to date a guy who can’t spell for shit. And who cannot even construct a simple sentence together. JUST FACTS…

  • Halston

    @Manny: How many Black men do you know and where do you live? Because Atlanta and Washington have huge Black Gay population and Black gays flock to live, party, and date other black men. As well as Philadelphia, New York, and Chicago. And have you ever heard of Houston and Miami Splash? Parties that would be equivalent that are thrown every year in the Spring in Summer that flood both cities with tons of Black Gays who are attracted to other Black Gays. I’m Black and Gay and have never dated a White man-I wouldn’t rule it out, but it is has never been my preference in dating. As to the ad “Who Cares?”!

  • Halston

    Meant to say…” Black gays flock to live with, party with, and date other Black men in those cities.

  • Halston

    And meant to say…”that would be equivalent to predominantly White Circuit parties.” Sorry guys for not proofreading. I’d also like to say that there is a divide amongst the races in the Gay Community. I have been out since I was 17 and I am in my late 30’s now and have never been friends with any White gays and all my friends are friends with only people who are part of the Black Gay Commuity (it is sad but true). However, I am not offended by not seeing any Black faces in this ad, because this is probably the demographic the promoters were trying to reach. It wouldn’t have hurt to have men of color in the ad, but like I said before “Who Cares?”! And, if we really want to complain about the ad where are the unattractive and old gay men? Just kidding.

  • Moo

    I think there’s a time traveler in number 8.

  • Chris

    @Halston: If you want real irony, there actually is a man of color in these images. Andre Boleyn, the young man in the pink shirt in the foreground of the front page photo is part Czech and part Roma (gypsy) and based on his behind the scenes interview at Bel Ami he self-identifies as “a person of color” and a gypsy. To an American looking at him that might sound like a joke but the Czech Roma are severely discriminated against and there’s greater income disparity between Czech Roma/non-Roma than between US Blacks/Whites as well as high crime rates, poverty, incarceration, etc.

    I’m not sure what it all means except that the world is a very strange place.

  • Aiden

    @Chris: He’s still not black.

  • Eric

    I wonder what would happen if a black guy showed up at that ‘african’ party.

    Perhaps this says something about how divided the gay community in Africa must be.

  • Eric


    Also, Manny, you are insanely ignorant. Gay black culture has always been an integral part of the gay community… hell gay blacks practically invented disco and have been at the forefront of the dance scene for years. And that’s just the superficial stuff, not getting into the roles they play in the gay rights movement as well… *especially* in Africa, where it’s basically a nightmare being gay.

    If anything, you might want to consider actually getting an education and learning to spell, before you opt to take on your role as the spokesman for all gays on earth.


  • Isaac C

    @Eric: What substantial role have gay blacks played in the gay rights movement in America? In South Africa?

    Also, the pics are fine. Not every photo collection has to be some display to “diversity.” I’m sorry if you don’t like seeing white men, but that is more than likely your own problem and insecurity.

  • Eric

    @Isaac C:

    What diversity are you talking about? Blacks are not minorities in South Africa.

    How is it diversity to actually show black people in their own country?


  • Isaac C

    @Eric: Are you going to answer the question I asked you?

    I didn’t say anything about blacks being a minority in South Africa, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

  • Eric

    @Isaac C:

    You specifically said it’s a play for diversity to want to see blacks in South Africa. Just throwing around some random nonsense term with no meaning whatsoever outside the US.

    And you’re saying not every photo has to display diversity… as though we’re actually seeing diversity in any photo collections whatsoever? If you can’t even show black gays in Africa, and pretend as though they don’t exist, then they might not even appear anywhere.

    And as to gay rights, read up on David Kato and the struggle he was fighting for prior to being killed not too long ago in Uganda. I’m not here to give a lesson to someone who wishes to remain ignorant while he’s got countless research sources online.

  • Isaac C

    @Eric: Any time, and in any context, when there are white people shown, people holler about seeing too many white people. It doesn’t matter what the population of South Africa is racially, the idea is still the same: less white people, more people of color. So, yes, people want a diversity montage to satisfy whatever feelings of insecurity they have. Why is it so important that a person of color be displayed? What difference does it make?

    You mentioned one person on the entire African continent working for gay rights. That’s not what I was asking you about. I asked “What substantial role have gay blacks played in the gay rights movement in America? In South Africa?” We’re talking about an historical period spanning several decades. You could not tell me anything. That’s all I need to know and proves my point.

  • Eric

    Proved what point? South Africa is the only country in the continent of Africa that has legalized gay marriage. Who exactly do you think signed that into law back in 2006?… While the country was being run by the ANC? Ignorant as you can be, I believe you can take a wild guess.

    Also, did it ever cross your small mind that perhaps people have different tastes as well, and would like to see said tastes represented? Some people might actually be into *both* black and white people and would mind seeing a good mixture of both.

    Most often this isn’t an issue brought up. However, for a country to be majority black and to have photos displaying a pretty segregated party, that is something people will take notice of. Furthermore, there are people like you calling it ‘diversity’ including black people as representations of South Africa.

    Can you get any more absurd?

  • Isaac C

    @Eric: Since you clearly cannot provide any evidence of gay black involvement in the gay rights movement, either in America or South Africa, despite several requests, I’ll leave that point alone.

    Just because a country is majority black doesn’t mean anything. The U.S., Canada, and the entire continent of Europe are by far majority white places, but that doesn’t stop race trolls from going on and on about the lack of diversity when pictures from gay events from those places are posted on Queerty. Your logic about racial percentages and photos doesn’t make any sense at all.

    If you have different tastes then have different tastes, but you still have not shown me why that should matter in one random photo collection. And I doubt that you can.

  • Eric

    @Isaac C:

    In case this doesn’t sink through that apparently thick head of yours… A. Black. Legislation. In. South Africa. Voted. To. Legalize. Gay Marriage.

    Again, repeat after me… A. Black. Legislature. *Instituted gay marriage*… in a predominantly black country. The only one to do so on the entire continent.

    How does that not qualify as ‘advancing gay rights in South Africa’ to you? What else exactly are you looking for, ‘Isaac’.

    And now you’re arguing that simply questioning having white-only photo collections representing majority black countries amounts to race-trolling for you? Like basically the fact that blacks are pretty much omitted from every major photo-collection isn’t enough. Even mentioning that a photo collection depicting gay culture in a predominantly black country that somehow manages to omit actual black people entirely… that amounts to ‘race-trolling’ in your eyes?? Really?

    I’m starting to wonder why I’m even bothering with someone this dense.

    Trolling is definitely the appropriate term here. You seem to have made it quite an artform.

  • Isaac C

    @Eric: I took your logic about the photo collections and applied it to majority white places. According to your logic, people should be complaining about seeing people of color in majority white places because the population is mostly white. NOW you are flipping your argument and saying that blacks have been omitted from everything when before you were talking about percentages. What is it going to be? You seem to want to impose diversity for the sake of diversity, because it makes you feel better, like I said from the beginning.

    Politicians voting for gay marriage doesn’t tell me anything about blacks involvement in the gay rights movement. Once again, I asked you specifically about their involvement in gay rights through the decades. You still haven’t told me anything.

  • fedup

    @Isaac C: @Eric: Ladies, take off your wigs, have an appletini, light up a Virginia Slim, and relax!

  • Isaac C

    @fedup: LOL trust me, I’m good! This is hilarious to me.

  • Mykey

    @Manny: au contraire, the guys i’ve dated who are non white (asian, south asian, arab, white) have told me they really dig black guys (maybe some mandingo complex), and many sites i’d come accross have guys craving for blacks, so ur wrong on that one…

  • aj

    @Isaac C: One of the most important figures in the South African gay rights movement was Simon Nkoli ( As you may notice from the photo on that article, he was black.

  • airdick

    who cares
    these guys are all a bunch of dumb queens anyway

  • Isaac C

    @aj: Great, thanks. It is sad that he was a gay black-separatist, but that is nice to know.

  • aj

    @Isaac C: He wasn’t a black-separatist as far as I know. Where do you get that from?

  • Isaac C

    @aj: The article says that he formed a separate gay rights group for blacks.

  • aj

    @Isaac C: That’s true, but it wasn’t because of separatism. In 1980s South Africa it was near impossible to have a multiracial organisation – indeed the ‘separate amenities’ legislation made it difficult for a multiracial organisation to even find a place to legally meet. GLOW (the Gay and Lesbian Organisation of the Witwatersrand) which he founded was multiracial. After the end of apartheid he was also a leader in the National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality which was also nonracial. Not to mention that his partner (at least, his partner at the time of the treason trial) was white.

  • Aiden

    @aj: Issac is a racist. Don’t try reasoning with him or using facts.

  • Esculapio Mitiríades Torquemada de la Cueva

    @Aiden: Oh c’mon. I’m having fun watching this. This dude stakes his whole argument on “Black men have done nothing for gay liberation in South Africa,” and when someone slaps a big old black South African gay rights activist in his face, he manages to invent some sort of “separatism” argument in order to diminish Nkoli’s accomplishments. Let’s let the man talk. I’m looking forward to seeing what other contortions his racist little mind will make in order to keep alive his sad little racist worldview alive.

  • K.C.

    No fair! I don’t see any faces of color.

    WAAAAAAHHH!!!!! WAAAAHHH!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *throws bottle at wall*

  • Isaac C

    @Aiden: Actually, AJ just introduced new and useful information that Eric could not do. That’s why I thanked him.

    @Esculapio Mitiríades Torquemada de la Cueva: Like Aiden, the only thing you’re good at in any discussion is being irrelevant.

    @K.C.: Basically.

  • Esculapio Mitiríades Torquemada de la Cueva

    @Isaac C: “Irrelevant” = “Not a racist asshole.” I know what things mean in your silly language. So don’t even bother.

  • Isaac C

    @Esculapio Mitiríades Torquemada de la Cueva: It wasn’t any bother for me letting you know that you’re irrelevant. Whatever issues you have with race and being an “asshole,” are your own, as well.

  • Esculapio Mitiríades Torquemada de la Cueva

    @Isaac C: You sad little queen. You think *you* are relevant? Is that why you keep spewing your racist rhetoric? To get noticed? Is that how you get attention? Is that how you get validation for your life? By being racist online? Oh God. This is so pathetic. I know I shouldn’t laugh, but I just realized you’re even sadder than I thought. Which I didn’t think was possible.

  • David

    Those 2 guys in pic 7 yummyyummy wish we cud meet mail me?!

  • Dude Srsly?

    @Some Random Guy: Meanwhile, all the white guys were too busy raping the children they brought with them.

    The fact that there is so much racism in this topic is so depressing.

    I don’t even understand why people are questioning why there are no black people in the pictures, because every gay guy who watches porn, knows that those are Bel Ami models and last time I checked Croatian does not equal South African, so this whole private Bel Ami Party doesn’t represent anything of Cape Town.

  • TomD

    @Isaac C: actually black gay and straight people in South Africa played a huge role in the fight for marriage equality and other gay rights. Desmond Tutu, Simon Nkoli, most of the predominantly black leadership of the ruling ANC were all on the forefront of the fight for gay rights in SA. The main force of opposition to gay rights came from white, Protestant Christians. Readers would do well not to lump SA’s attitude to homosexuality along wih other African countries. SA has its problems wih homophobia but then so does Europe and America.

  • Kamo

    Most of these guys are porn stars for Bel Ami. Apparently they were shooting an orgie video!! OMG!:P

  • Some Random Guy

    My previous comment (64) was sarcasm. I think Queerty could have easily prevented much of the annoyance and confusion here by making it more clear that this all-white group of (apparently) porn actors were all outside tourists and are NOT representative of South Africa’s gay demographics. That would have been a pretty easy point to make, right up front. And yes, sadly, I bet there were a lot of blacks working in service jobs at this party. I don’t know about drugs (that was a joke), but even that wasn’t a crack against blacks as I just assume most sleazy white porn actors are into drugs.

  • Kylew

    @Some Random Guy: I couldn’t agree more. Sadly, if you expect good quality journalism at this site, you’re usually going to come away disappointed.

  • Some Random Guy

    @Dude Srsly?: My apologies, it was an artless attempt at sarcasm. Please see #68.

    And maybe that’s part of Queerty’s problem, they just assume that EVERY gay guy is as addicted to porn as everyone at Queerty is! I’d never heard of Bel Ami before this and it seems a lot of the annoyed readers here hadn’t either.

  • Some Random Guy

    I don’t mind if #64 is removed. Sorry.

  • B

    No. 12 · Steve-O wrote, “Yes Apartheid was a horrible thing, but people should understand contemporary issues of South Africa before they judge all white South African as a bunch of racists.”

    During Apartheid, it was not exactly racism as the term is understood in the U.S. On a trip to Europe, during the Apartheid era, I met some English-speaking South Africans. It seems they were the second class citizens, with blacks and other minorities further down the pecking order and with Afrikaners on top. These guys were definitely not racists – one of them told me about some misadventures with a black friend of his, and they had been involved in anti-Apartheid demonstrations as well, which was not a totally safe thing to do at the time. All of them seemed very uncomfortable about Apartheid and made numerous negative statements about the Afrikaner-controlled, repressive government they had.

  • aj

    @B: Oh, the apartheid era totally was racism; if anything it was racism even more severe than that in the US. There was some very minor disadvantage for English-speaking whites as compared to Afrikaners, but it was never institutional, and pales to nothing in comparison to the disadvantages of being non-white. (Minority is not really the right word here, of course, as 80% of the population is black.) You could, perhaps, think of the situation of Anglophones in Quebec to understand the situation of English-speaking whites in apartheid SA.

    That being said, of course white South Africans are not all a bunch of racists, and it’s also true that, very broadly speaking, on average English-speaking whites were/are less racist than Afrikaners. During the apartheid era the electoral power of English-speakers was quite limited because there are twice as many Afrikaners, and also because the electoral system deliberately under-represented the urban areas (where most English-speakers live) and over-represented the rural areas (dominated by Afrikaners).

    Younger South Africans are also, on average, less racist than older ones. Realise that legislative apartheid was mostly repealed in 1990, and completely by 1994, so South Africans in their teens and early twenties have never known legal segregation or been taught racism in schools. Obviously the effects of apartheid are still clearly visible, and some young people have learned to be racist from sources other than the education system.

  • B

    Re No 72: ‘aj’ missed the point, which was that the situation was more complex than the pure racism in the U.S, which has nothing to do with how severe it was for some – remember that in No 71, I pointed out that English speakers were treated as second class citizens with blacks and other minorities further down the pecking order. That’s a statement independent of how bad it was for those at the bottom of the pecking order.

    The examples ‘aj’ gave, however, are consistent with what No 71 said – when English speakers were deliberately underrepresented (as aj mentions), they were being treated as second-class citizens.

    The handful of white, English-speaking South Africans I met were definitely not racist, as evidenced by their opposition to their government’s policies during the Apartheid period. They were students at the time and were involved in a number of anti-apartheid protests, some of which ended in confrontations with the South African / Afrikaner police (who they described as goons).

  • Eugene

    Come and see South Africa for yourselves and see what we have achieved and what we are doing toward moving forward positively without forgetting our past. The Glen Shame Party is an annual event and is open to the public at a fee of R50. The Glen is also sitauted closer to the CBD (atlantic seaboard) than the township and Cape Flats which is situated on the False Bay coast (Indian Ocean). Its got nothing to do with race but more economical separation a product of apartheid and slavery

  • aj

    @B: For clarity, I am myself an English-speaking white South African. I do know a little bit about that whereof I speak.

    Your words in #71 were “During Apartheid, it was not exactly racism as the term is understood in the U.S.” But it was racism, and *exactly* as the word is understood in the US. Facilities and opportunities were denied or made available to people based on their race. In case it is not clear, people were legally classified into four different groups, and their whole lives were segregated on the basis of those classifications – in terms of where they could live, their access to public facilities, what kind of jobs they could have, and so on. There was at no time any segregation between English and Afrikaans whites.

    The very minor disadvantages for English whites does not in any way reduce apartheid from being “exactly racism”, and it is completely incidental to the fact that racism was the fundamental basis of apartheid. You described the situation in the US (by which I presume you mean pre-Civil-Rights-era) as “pure racism”; by the exact argument that you’re using it wasn’t “pure racism” because at the same time there was anti-semitism and anti-Catholicism.

  • B

    No. 75 · aj wrote, “@B: For clarity, I am myself an English-speaking white South African. I do know a little bit about that whereof I speak.” Actually, you don’t – the situation in the U.S. was different than you think. In the U.S., the pecking order had more of a bimodal distribution during the period in which the civil rights movement was being started. Discrimination against Catholics and Jews pretty much ended earlier (JFK, our first Catholic president, was elected before civil rights legislation was passed and anti-Catholicism peaked in the 19th century). There was some anti-immigrant prejudices, but by the 1950s, that mostly showed up in ethnic jokes and were not taken seriously. The jokes were to some extent imports from Europe, where each nationality had jokes about some of the others. Institutional antisemitism had completely disappeared by 1960 in the U.S., The civil rights act wasn’t passed until 1964 (it took some time after that for racism to disappear as official policy – multiple court decisions and additional legislation were needed). Even so, we still have de facto racism, mainly targeting blacks, in the U.S, as evidenced by the high incarceration rate for blacks – people are still arguing as to why the rate is so high, but there is definitely a problem.

    Also, I never used the term “pure-racism”. You need to learn to quote people accurately and not attribute to them statements that were not made and terminology that was not used.

  • arbiter

    New headline: “Bel Ami models go to South Africa hotel and take pictures!” lol Not news as much as excuse to post pictures of GFP porn models. Could be worse.

  • aj

    @B: “Also, I never used the term “pure-racism”.”

    Really? What was this in post #73? “‘aj’ missed the point, which was that the situation was more complex than the pure racism in the U.S, which has nothing to do with how severe it was for some […]”

    Everything you write about in your first paragraph, I was in fact fully aware of. And I think you’re kind of missing my point – the level of anti-Angloism in apartheid South Africa was very much equivalent in degree to the kind of residual anti-semitism in, say, 1960s America. Its existence does not affect the fact that the apartheid system was fundamentally predicated on racism. Discrimination against blacks (and coloureds and Indians) was institutional, systematic, legal, and permeated all facets of life. Discrimination (and that’s really too strong a word) against English-speaking whites was minor and informal.

  • B

    In No. 78 · aj wrote, “Really? What was this in post #73? “ I was replying to your statement about post #71, which didn’t contain the term. That’s the only post you cited
    so that’s where I looked for the phrase. Again, you need to learn to cite things properly.

    Regarding your claim, “Everything you write about in your first paragraph, I was in fact fully aware of. And I think you’re kind of missing my point – the level of anti-Angloism in apartheid South Africa was very much equivalent in degree to the kind of residual anti-semitism in, say, 1960s America.” … your statement is factually not true.

    In No. 72, you wrote, “During the apartheid era the electoral power of English-speakers was quite limited because there are twice as many Afrikaners, and also because the electoral system deliberately under-represented the urban areas (where most English-speakers live) and over-represented the rural areas (dominated by Afrikaners).” Now (going back to No 78) , how do you equate that with antisemitism in the U.S., where the common complaint among our less exemplary citizens was that there was too much Jewish influence in motion pictures, the press, banking, government, etc?

    Also, antisemitism peaked between World Wars I and II and dropped rapidly after World War II, but the only anti-Jewish government policies were with regard to immigration, and that was after a period in which there was substantial Jewish immigration due to persecution in other countries. At no point in the 20th century did we have any laws limiting the rights of Jewish American citizens to vote, nor were they systematically underrepresented. Restrictions preventing Jews from voting had existed in some states, but were gone by 1877 (New Hampshire was for some reason the last holdout, but most states dropped any such restrictions shortly after the U.S. Constitution and the first 10 amendments were ratified – these prohibit any religious test for public office

    Curiously, according to , “Major General Ulysses S. Grant was influenced by these sentiments and issued General Order No. 11 expelling Jews from areas under his control in western Tennessee: ‘The Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled …within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.’ This order was quickly rescinded by President Abraham Lincoln but not until it had been enforced in a number of towns.[3] According to Jerome Chanes, Lincoln’s revocation of Grant’s order was based primarily on “constitutional strictures against …the federal government singling out any group for special treatment.” Chanes characterizes General Order No. 11 as “unique in the history of the United States” because it was the only overtly antisemitic official action of the United States government.[4]”

  • aj

    @B: Ironically, the most common Afrikaner complaint about English-speaking South Africans was that they controlled the press and commerce.

    Curiously, there were two provisions specially entrenced in the first South African constitution in 1910: first, the continued right to vote for non-whites in the Cape Province; and second, the equality of English and Afrikaans. Guess which of those two provisions got repealed by the necessary supermajority, and which didn’t.

    Look, I’m not going get into some finicky argument about the details of US anti-semitism versus apartheid anti-Anglo sentiments. The point is that pointing to the position of English-speaking whites as an attempt to say “apartheid wasn’t really racism because the Anglos had some problems too” doesn’t cover up the fact that apartheid was fundamentally a huge system of institutional racism.

  • B

    Regarding No. 80, “The point is that pointing to the position of English-speaking whites as an attempt to say “apartheid wasn’t really racism because the Anglos had some problems too” doesn’t cover up the fact that apartheid was fundamentally a huge system of institutional racism.”

    Cover up? What are you talking about? The point was simply that there were differences with what went on in the U.S., particularly at the point in time just before civil rights legislation was finally passed.

Comments are closed.