It took a desperate search to find some jumper cables in the trunk of my car during subarctic temperatures for me to run across a book that has been riding around with me, unnoticed, since the summer time when it was too damned hot outside.
AN ATTACK ON A GROUP OF 'COLONIZED NEGROES' AND THE 'COLONIZER'S FIELD AGENTS' WHO SYSTEMATICALLY TRICK THEM IS NOT AN ATTACK ON BLACK PEOPLE. IT IS THE COLONIZER WHO IS DOING THE MOST DETRIMENTAL ATTACKS.
From the book: "E. Franklin Frazier And The Black Bourgeoisie"
Introduction By James E. Teele:
Fraizer's early years were marked by articles reflecting his interest in social protest, social change, social work, and cooperative movements, especially as these processes applied to the black community. Later, Fraizer was attracted to the idea that 'knowledge would set you free," an idea strengthened during his study at the University of Chicago. In short, he came to see himself as a scholar, properly detached, as required by the academy. His election to the presidency of the distinguished American Sociological Association justified his dedication to sociology and certainly predicted a continuation of his singled-minded devotion to the field.
Howerer, Frazier's devotion to scholarship seemed to diminish with the appearance of Bourgeisie Noire, published in France in 1955; it appeared in America two years later as Black Bourgeoisie. The book was seen by many as an attack on the black middle class and suggested that Fraizer the scholar had disappeared. Frazier appearently had donned his protest clothes again, but this time his anger was not focused on white who discriminated against and suppressed the black community; this time his scathing prose was focused on his own people and, most importantly, on black leadership. Frazier's presidency had metamorphosed into a bully pulpit, used to scold the new black middle class including, but not limited to, the intellectuals.
Just what was Black Bourgeoisie about? The book described the evolution of the old black middle class from one in which genteel manners, folk traditions, and religious practices were central to one in which traditional values were less important and the outlook more secular. This new class (measured by occupational status and income level), while dependent upon the patronage of lower-class Negroes, lacked a firm place in the American economy, according to Frazier. Yet the black bourgeoisie looked down upon the black masses and scorned their culture. They even disassociated themselves from the majority of Negroes in their rejection of both their African roots and their slave past. In turn the black bourgeoisie were rejected by whites, and so they were culturally rootless and beset by feelings of inferiority and self-hatred.
So while the black masses were experiencing various problems following migration to cities (crime, delinquency, broken families), the new black middle class was experiencing a distortion of values. Its preoccupation with status, in imitation of the WHITE UPPER CLASS, lead Frazier to charge it with being interested in 'status without substance." Indeed, he suggests that while members of the black bourgeoisie wished to be accepted by whites, they feared competing against them, preferring segregated, safe lives, where they could excuse and hide their deficiencies. They retreated into a "world of make-believe," engaging in fantasizing and myth-making about the extent of their successes, especially in business. They supported these illusions by indulging in "conspicuous consumption," which they could not afford. Perhaps surprisingly, Frazier says the Negro colleges and their faculty exhibited a lack of intenllectual interests and joined in the pursuit of an extravagant life. Thus this class, including its intellectuals, was not only marked by thinly veilled self-indulgence ("foolishness" to Frazier), but also failed to provide leadership for the unknowing Negro masses. The black bourgeoisie, he suggested, failed to perform the function of a responsible elite in a minority group and have become "exaggerated" Americans.
A main contributor to this false framework was the Negro press, he says. Frazier noted that while the press had started in the nineteenth century as a medium concerned with the abolition of slavery and protest of civil discrimination against blacks, it has changed after World War II into a vehicle of proclaiming Negro achievements. In an explosive commentary about the role of the Negro media in this mythmaking, Frazier writes:
The Negro press reveals the inferiority complex of the black bourgeoisie and provides a documentation of the attempts of this class to seek compensations for its hurt self-esteem and exclusions from American life. Its exaggerations concerning the economic well-being and cultural achievements of Negroes, its emphasis upon Negro "society" all tend to create a world of make-believe into which the black bourgeoisie can escape from its inferiority and inconsequence in American society"
HOW IS IT THAT A MAN WHO I HAVE NEVER READ BEFORE CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION ABOUT WHAT I NOW CALL THE "BLACK RACIAL SERVICES MACHINE " OLIGARCHY?
What Catch Phrases Does This Blog Make Use Of?
- Mentholated Black Media Pressgang
- The Embedded Confidence Men
- The Fake Exe-Jesus Of Social Justice
- The Fraudulent Africana Studies Professors
- The Colonizer's Field Agents
HOW IT IS that so much of what this man saw more than 70 years ago as the Negro was disenfranchised in America IS STILL SO OBVIOUS TO-DAMNED-DAY?
The answer is clear: TIMES CHANGE. CONFIDENCE SCHEMES DO NOT.